Letter of objection

OUR SECRETARY’S PERSONAL LETTER OF OBJECTION
David has sent in his objection which, as you will see, he has based on Section B on page 4 of the leaflet we sent you. He is happy that you base your own Letter of Objection on his if you wish.
Your address:
Complete as appropriate
Address of the local authority department dealing with the application, as stated on the site notice/neighbour notification/newspaper advertisement for the planning application, and the date:
Mr Richard Elliott
Development Control
First Floor
Room 119-121
The Business Centre
Futures Park
Bacup
OL13 0BB
24 August 2013
Name of planning officer dealing with case:
For the attention of Mr Richard Elliott, case officer
Dear Mr Elliott,
Reference:
Planning Application Number 2013/0256
One-line summary including what the application proposes, where it is (the site) and who is proposing it (the applicant):
Proposed erection of 15 new houses and community allotment on land at Burnley Road, Loveclough, BB4 8QY by Mr K Howieson.
Interest and general line of person making representation:
I write in connection with the above planning application. I have examined the plans and I know the site well. I wish to object strongly to the development of these houses in this location.
Reference to Government policy and site-specific local development plan policy which, though not yet adopted, is the most recent and has already been consulted on:
Rossendale Borough Council’s Core Strategy document entitled From East to West: Making Rossendale the Best, (FEWMRB) adopted on 8 November 2011, after extensive consultation with residents which was initiated by the Limey Valley Residents Association (LVRA), makes explicit an undertaking given by RBC and its Planning Officers that there will be no new development to the west of the Burnley Road. LVRA has examined one by one site allocations shown in RBC’s updated Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment – or SHLAA produced in 2010 – supporting the council’s proposals in all but a handful of cases, thereby enabling RBC to achieve its targets for house-building. Those proposals were, of course, produced in response the then-extant Regional Spatial Strategy which, as FEWMRB anticipated (FEWMRB, p. 66, para. 19; p.68, para. 180) has now been abandoned.
Where applicable, reference to the Neighbourhood Plan for the area:
Goodshaw and Loveclough are rural, dispersed, linear settlements lying principally to the east of the Burnley Road north of Rawtenstall and Crawshawbooth where development proposals need to be considered very carefully. What is proposed is building on an area clearly designated as countryside in Rossendale Borough Council’s local plan. Moreover, if implemented, the proposed development would create a salient into open countryside, thereby creating the potential for further infill to the north and south which would destroy the character of the settlement.
In support of my objections, I wish to cite Rossendale Borough Council’s own Core Strategy document entitled From East to West: Making Rossendale the Best, adopted on 8 November 2011.
In the Core Strategy document, I would refer specifically to Chapter 4, pages 48-49, citing some illustrative references from the Area Vision.
Under AVP 4 – Housing and Employment Land, the documents states: “Housing will be focused on the Rawtenstall area with no new major greenfield development in Crawshawbooth, Goodshaw and Loveclough. Open land to the west of Burnley Road north of Crawshawbooth will be protected from
development.” What is proposed conflicts with this policy.
Under the Area Vision, paragraph 135 of the document states: “Housing will be focussed on Rawtenstall with no major development in Crawshawbooth, Goodshaw and Loveclough. The integrity of existing open spaces will be maintained.” What is proposed conflicts with this policy.
In paragraph 137, the document states: “Crawshawbooth, Goodshaw and Loveclough are distinct
settlements north of Rawtenstall that have seen considerable recent housing growth. This has put pressure on schools and the highway network as well as the attractive local countryside and
wildlife.” What is proposed will impose further pressure.
Amongst the Issues outlined on page 49, the document identifies “Local landscape and
wildlife issues in Goodshaw and Loveclough”. What is proposed conflicts with any notion of protecting the local landscape and maintaining wildlife.
Whilst what now follows might appear paradoxical, I would also wish to cite Policy 16: Preserving and Enhancing Rossendale’s Built Environment on page 99 of the Core Strategy, of which paragraph 5 reads: “5. Ensuring that all development is: (a) Located in a way that respects the distinctive quality of the historic landscape and setting and retains or enhances the character and context. (b) Of a high standard of design, reinforcing the local distinctiveness of Rossendale.” What is proposed manifestly does not respect the historic landscape; nor does the design reinforce the local distinctiveness of Goodshaw and Loveclough, being of a generic style to be found almost anywhere in the north-west of England. Simply put, inappropriately-designed housing that fails to take opportunities to improve the character of an area should not be accepted.
Reference to Government policy and to ‘planning history’ – the local authority’s previous planning decisions in the area:
The site under consideration in this application falls outside RBC’s plans, developed in 2012/2013, to amend the boundaries of both the Green Belt and the urban form, plans on which the public has been consulted via RBC’s Lives and Landscapes programme. Simply put, the proposal goes wholly against the development plan for Goodshaw and Loveclough, as agreed between residents, their association (LVRA) and Rossendale Borough Council.
Reference to other issues which affect the community as a whole, rather than individual interests. You could also mention the parish plan or village design statement, if these exist for your area:
The proposed siting of the development is particularly ill-conceived: it is on an area designated as countryside, used by villagers for recreation and walking dogs. Building here would diminish the striking view across the valley of the Limey River towards the Hameldon Hills. Moreover, the modern design of the proposed housing is out of keeping with the village’s historic character, in particular the prevalence of Victorian stone-built housing in the vicinity. While design issues might be solved by conditions or revised proposals, these could not remedy the siting problem. Moreover, the applicant’s proposals are underpinned by a revised panorama looking west; no consideration is given to the blighting effect his proposals would have on the aspect looking east from the Hameldon Hills.
Reference to development plan generic development control policy which, though not yet adopted, is the most recent and has already been consulted on; as well as to further issues of concern to the wider community:
Furthermore, there is no need for this kind of open market housing in the village. Rossendale Borough Council has more than five years’ supply of housing land to meet the requirements of its Core Strategy, based thought that is in part on the now abandoned Regional Spatial Strategy. As a member of the Limey Valley Residents Association, I have supported the association’s review of site allocations as shown in RBC’s revised SHLAA proposals of 2010 and support LVRA’s response to those borough-wide proposals which would allow RBC to achieve its targets for housing, established in response to national – and now abandoned regional – policies.
Reference to other bodies in the local community who support your position:
I understand that local ward councillors, the residents’ association and a substantial number of residents share these concerns.
I enclose as an Annexes 1, 2 and 3 my detailed responses to the applicant’s Planning Statement.
Formal request to speak at the local planning authority committee meeting at which the application may be decided, some local planning authorities require respondents to planning applications to give notice, in their response, of their wish to speak at committee meetings:
If this application is to be decided by councillors, please take this as notice that I would like to speak at the meeting of the committee at which this application is expected to be decided. Please let me know as soon as possible the time and date of the meeting.
Signature:
Yours sincerely, ETC

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.