QUESTION 79: Do you think

Support

Representation ID: 390

Received: 13/07/2021

Respondent: Mrs Chloe Troughton

SN4054
I support the rejection of this site for the reasons identified . Development on this land would be at the detriment of the surrounding houses and the character and wildlife using the surrounding land and trees. There are more appropriate sites as identified that would offer a sustainable and reasonable development without the destruction of the surrounding wildlife and trees and without impacting the surrounding neighbourhood.

Comment

Representation ID: 661

Received: 23/07/2021

Respondent: Diana Wadley

Sites SN0304 and 0303SL would be preferable specially if houses continued the present building line. Although the same highway issues apply. But traffic would not have to negotiate the narrow Florence Way, where children play.

Comment

Representation ID: 878

Received: 29/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Charles Jurak

In summary, I strongly object to “SN4002 SL” being put forward as a development site. I cannot understand from an ecological viewpoint how a veteran woodland covered by a TPO could be allowed to be destroyed. There are various species of trees not to mention the wildlife dependant on them. From a modern standpoint, the woodland offers a buffer for noise pollution and also between the bungalows and Ellingham house.

Comment

Representation ID: 949

Received: 30/07/2021

Respondent: Kirby Cane Parish Council

SN0303SL & SN0304
Either could take traffic away from busy main village, provided appropriate traffic improvements for Mill Lane/Mill Road junction/corner - councillors couldn't understand why these sites rejected when Florence Way site preferred.

SN0306 would support in principle, on existing building line, could make sensible extension to existing nearby development.

Any successful site must have provision for affordable local housing

SN0019SL (Cllr M Skipper declared interest, took no part in discussion) could see no reason why this site rejected as already has a large garage in regular use so proposed single dwelling would not add traffic to the village.

Comment

Representation ID: 1410

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Trustees of Major JS Crisp

Agent: Savills

Please refer to covering letter.

Comment

Representation ID: 1505

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Trustees of the 1997 Martin Smith Settlement

Agent: Ingleton Wood LLP

Whilst SN0303SL, SN0304 & SN0306 have been rejected, we note the Parish Council's support for development on these sites. Our client confirms that these sites remain available and deliverable within the Plan period, in addition to those already identified as preferred.

Our client has previously made submissions that demonstrated the sites were suitable and achievable. We continue to support these previous submissions. In particular, we wish to re-provide the transport related evidence that demonstrates safe access is achievable from Mill Lane to sites SN0303SL & SN0304.

Accordingly, our client considers these sites could be considered for some further development.

Comment

Representation ID: 1635

Received: 29/07/2021

Respondent: John Putman Ltd Architectural Services

Site SN4002SL
• Siite gets green markups, although it has failed so far due to blanket TPO on site with its landscape value.
• The promoter acknowledges the blanket TPO although many of the trees are in poor condition so will not live for full lifespan.
• Therefore suggested that northern section of site retained and south portion cleared to allow erection of c.four dwellings with density of 19 per/ha.
• Loss of trees will be counteracted by planting of trees elsewhere in district at rate to be established, thus mitigating loss. Promoter has a land holding nearby.

Urge Council to reconsider site for development of four dwellings, with mitigating planting elsewhere.

Comment

Representation ID: 1665

Received: 30/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Michael Skipper

I would like to appeal against the decision to REJECT the land at Post Office Lane Kirby Cane site SNOO19SL.

I must emphasis the site was only promoted for a single dwelling in the form of a 2/3 bedroom single storey dwelling and on this basis the entrance and highway access highlighted is adequate and no worse than the current situation as there is already a double garage adjacent to the site which provides additional and surplus garaging for no.27 Yarmouth Road and said garage would be used for garaging at the proposed site and property and removed from the usage by no.27 Yarmouth Road and no additional traffic would generating by a new property. No.27 Yarmouth Road already has outside parking provided with the property.

The position of the bungalow would prevent any overlooking of the neighbouring properties.

The location is central to the village , fully sustainable and within walking distance to the village shop and post office, village hall and restaurant, school and bus stop.

There appears to be no neighbour objection to the proposal.

I feel it would be preferable to develop a site situated close to other housing rather than on the edge of the village.