45.6

Object

Representation ID: 2279

Received: 23/01/2023

Respondent: Mr Michael Savage

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? Yes

Duty to co-operate? Yes

i disagree with para 45.6. A development in this location would be detrimental to the visual impact when you enter the village. All buildings until you reach the school are on the RHS with large views accross open countryside to the left. A development of 30 dwellings here would block this view which would be a significant loss for the village. Furthermore, how can it be said that flooding is noted but is not of a concern. A development of this size would also significantly increase traffic due to the lack of shops and school places within the village.

Object

Representation ID: 2629

Received: 03/03/2023

Respondent: Mr Chris Baines

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

This is a greenfield site which would lead to a loss of high grade agricultural land at a time when we need to produce as much of our own food as possible in this country.

Object

Representation ID: 2663

Received: 03/03/2023

Respondent: Ms Sue Knights

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

The above statement recognises the prominent location on approach to the village and also the landscape and visual impacts associated with development of this site.
This development will not maintain the essentially unsettled character with rural dispersed farms.
It will not respect the site and setting of landmark features such as the churches in views.
It will be very visible at the edge of the village and within the landscape
It will extend the built form of the village boundary.
Soft landscaping and layout and design will not replace the open rural views that are at threat of being lost.

Object

Representation ID: 2968

Received: 08/03/2023

Respondent: Mr Alan Highet

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Landscaping, while welcome, isn't the issue. Infrastructure, sustainability, ambience and heritage are more important than some new trees and hedges. Hackford Rd already threatened by increasingly dangerous/busy traffic including heavy lorries, supermarket/other deliveries. Otherwise only single-track for miles around. Double bends near the site are unsighted. Site comprises arable fields we need now more than ever.
Facilities/infrastructure inadequate; nearest shop/post-office/doctor/dentist c4 miles. School lacks capacity and “temporary” accommodation would be unsightly. Plans exceed existing structure plan boundaries. Numbers now appear modest but more already intimated – thin edge of the wedge. Long-term damage to traditional village ambience.