Response to Planning Application BDB77341 Razors Farm Site

User Rating:  / 0

Parent Category: Planning and Development

Category: Planning Minutes and Reports

Last Updated on Saturday, 20 April 2013 13:49

Published on Monday, 21 January 2013 12:25

Written by Parish Clerk

Hits: 4447

Planning Application BDB 77341

Razors Farm site 

Formal response from Bramley Parish Council, 8th January 2013

BDB 77341 Assessment Criteria

•    Loss of light or overshadowing.  No objection. However we would ask that maintaining low levels of light pollution is considered in final designs.

•    Overlooking/loss of privacy. No objection.

•    Loss of Visual amenity (but not loss of private view). Footpath 702 along the northern boundary currently has views through a thin shrub/tree line. Proposals to thicken this line will result in these views being lost. The “thicker” line is designed to hide development and not improve the visual amenity.  Objection.  

•    Adequacy of parking/loading and turning. Not known but in principle No objection.

•    Noise and disturbance resulting from use. No objection.

•    Hazardous materials. No objection.

•    Smells. No objection.

•    Effect on listed buildings and conservation area. No objection. 

•    Landscaping. No objection.

•    Government circulars, orders and statutory instruments. Not known.

•    Disabled person’s access. Not known.

•    Compensation awards of costs against Council at public enquiries. Not known.

•    Loss of trees. No objection.

•    Archaeology. No objection.

•    Nature conservation. No objection based upon studies supplied within the documentation.

•    Solar panels. Not known at this time. Post development installation by owners could be an issue.

•    Layout and density of building. Plans provided suggest that the required mixing of social. affordable and others is not consistent across the development. A consideration not an objection. 

•    Design, appearance and materials. Not stated at this time. Issues could arise if appearance etc. emulated the latter stages of the German Road development.

•    Local, strategic, regional and national planning policies. Version 7 SHLAA states the site is outside of the settlement boundary and thus contravenes current planning policy.  Objection.

•    Previous planning decisions. We cite page 129 version 7 of the SHLAA, appendix 4. Landscape capacity study 2010 states the site has a low to medium capacity for development  thus recommends limited development. Objection. 

•    Highway safety. Traffic generation north onto Hanmore Road/Cufaude Lane will impact safety along the length of Cufaude Lane for cyclists, pedestrians and drivers alike.  The Eastern access road will put traffic onto Cufaude Lane. Cufaude Lane is a designated national cycle route (23), forms a link for walkers using  footpath 702 also those using FP702, restricted byway 23 and full byway 11 to make a circular walk. More traffic will increase the existing dangers of access from properties alongside Cufaude Lane. Cufaude lane is already busy, used as a detour from troubles on the A33 and when not congested it is a fast short cut for traffic avoiding the A33. Assertions that residents will mainly use the western access and or other forms of transports are made by the developers for the sole purpose of supporting their proposals and thus have scant regard for reality.    OBJECTION                                                                                                                                                                          

•    A serious and indeed the main concern for Bramley is increased traffic moving from this site North to the C32, a busy and congested junction with poor visibility, will exacerbate  existing traffic problems throughout Bramley and in particular around the railway station regards parking, pick ups and drop offs. Assumptions by the developers, within the Travel framework documents, that other modes of transport will be used are just that, assumptions, made solely to support  their case. The assertion/implication that the siting of this development will actually improve the health of its residents is not founded upon fact and is a wild claim to be dismissed.  • Bus usage will involve round trips of between 1 and two miles minimum. These distances will discourage many and at best increase the pickup/drop off traffic.             

•    RAIL Site of Bramley Station 3.4.7 states that the station is served by trains every half hour and also states that there is  cycle (proposing that residents cycle to the station along the cycle route) and car parking at Bramley station. There is car parking for 23 cars that is full by 0800 and then cars park in all the streets of Bramley close to the station, even now parking in the area recently developed for dropping off children to the Bramley School. On Road parking causes misery and havoc to residents of Bramley

•    Travel Characteristics. States that 84% of people travel to work by car, and the targets as set out in Section 4 are admirable in reducing the cars by car sharing, cycling and walking between the hours of 0800-0945 and 1700- 1800. Again an assumption made on the  preferences of an unknown population.

•    Walking and Cycling, 5.4, supposes that people will walk 2Km or cycle 5Km with the close proximity of the Gym ( on the Industrial Estate), the Public House and the Medical Practice in Chineham etc. as spelt out in 5.4.3. Again 5.5.5 emphasises Bramley Station as being accessible and the train being a realistic mode of Transport, access being by Public Transport (bus) or car via the A33. Why will people travel via the A33 when they can turn left out of the Estate and go down Cufaude Lane to Bramley, causing havoc on that road and misery parking their cars in Bramley.

•    Car Club will be formed and there will be a Travel Plan Co-ordinator. Pipe Dream that people will participate. They want their independence. All of this publicised in a Community Involvement Paper.

•    Schooling, again the study assumes  that children/parents will walk the distance s of between 1000 and 3000 metres  to and from school. How realistic is it that this will apply to the majority?

•    In summary this development will create traffic in all directions and most certainly towards  Bramley centre.  It is felt that the traffic/transport study is flawed and unrealistic and seeks to justify itself by stating a series subjective assumptions of travel methods on a population that will decide for itself how it will move through the various local wards. OBJECTION 

•    Road access. The eastern access road will create increased traffic heading to and from Bramley centre using Cufaude Lane and the C32. Summary for suggestions to solve this issue. Objection.

•    Proposals within the development plan. There are assumptions made within the supporting documents/studies, in particular with regards to transportation, people movements and habits which are clearly made to support the application rather than reflect reality.  Objection.

BDB 77341 Summary and suggestions

•    In summary Bramley Parish Council have a number of objections, however the most significant is on the traffic generation heading to and from Bramley centre and the C32 in particular.  Whilst the proposed eastern access is good for residents, deliveries and visitors it is a significant issue for Bramley Parish residents. If this access were removed or reserved for emergency and public service vehicles thus unable to generate “commuting” traffic towards the C32 and Bramley Centre then there would be more support for this development. Of course there would be further support should the link road from the A33 to Cufaude Lane have no left turn at the Cufaude Lane end. 

BDB 77341 Points to consider

•    The site was formerly “reserved” to accommodate industrial/commercial development thus creating employment. If this function were fulfilled and more employment opportunities created this would, perhaps, bring more appropriate justification to the development of other sites for housing.

•    We ask that this application be considered as “premature” and aiming to capitalise upon a gap between the judicially quashed core-strategy and the formulation of its replacement.