Response to Site Proposals within GNLP 2018 GNP 0069 and others - OBJECTION
Dear Sirs,
I wish to register my objections to the Site Proposals referenced above. The following paragraphs identify the key areas of my objection.
1. A Point of Order
It would appear that the district council failed to adequately notify the Parish Council about the proposed change of status of Hainford from "Other Village" to "Service Village". This very important aspect was "buried" in small print in an appendix to the GNLP document. The implications of such a major change are highly significant and the district Councillor's recorded, dismissive remark that such a change was 'not of sufficient importance', indicates, in my view, that the Councillors' judgement, impartiality and competence is questionable.
My comment is particularly relevant because the Councillor seemed to indicate that he is not aware, does not understand - or perhaps is happy to disregard? - that Hainford does not meet the criteria for Service village status as defined in the GNLP document. Hainford only meets one of the 4 key criteria for Category 1 service village status as defined in the GNLP document, and only 4 of the 12 in Category 2.
How have these important criteria been overlooked?
2. Hainford Current Status
Hainford's current status within the Planning Policy hierarchy is that of 'Other Village' due to it having only a range of basic services and suitable only for infill.
This would mean only small scale developments should apply and not the large scale developments being considered.
I understand that the "Other Village" status of Hainford is current although the primary school is not 'accessible' within the specified criteria in the GNLP 2018 document.
The current "Other Village" status is also consistent with the Parish Plan, set up following consultation with Hainford residents, which concluded that a high proportion of residents were opposed to any further development in the village and the overwhelming view of parishioners was that the local environment should be protected and preserved.
This conclusion was based upon the desire of the residents to retain the rural aspect. It is already well known and recognised that the limited infrastructure, limited power supplies, drainage problems, poor internet coverage, narrow roads (speeding traffic) etc. continues to be a problem.
In particular and highly significant is the fact that Hainford also opted to retain the existing development boundary.
I would draw your attention to the fact that there are four areas in the GNLP document which falsely claim to meet the requirement to change the status to Service Village.
They are:
i) that public transport meets the requirements of a service village - it does not;
ii) that the primary school facilities meet the requirement of a service village - they do not.
iii) that pre-school facilities meet the requirements of a service village - they do not
iv) that Community group facilities meet the requirements of a service village - they do not.
3. Site GNP0069 - 404 Dwellings
Given the validity of the criteria and comments in sections 1 and 2 above, such an enormous development in Hainford completely disregards and conflicts with GNLP's own policies and the wishes of the Hanford's residents. It is then difficult to understand how this site could ever feature or be considered as a potential development for 404 dwellings which would more than double the total village current size!
Of particular significance is the fact that this location is arable land and outside the development boundary. It is also, not surprisingly, remote from the existing village and completely out of scale and character with the rural environment.
The only two access road options to such a development would require to be on a scale which is unsupportable within the existing country road network and cause serious safety concerns. The Highways Authority are already expressing concern about the standard and sustainability of the road network when considering even applications for single developments.
This particular area already suffers from poor services support and it would, as it presently stands, be completely unable to support such a development.
The question of drainage also seems to have been ignored. A basic and simple assessment would have identified that flooding and sewerage overload is a regular and ongoing problem in the immediate area due to the high water table in Stratton Road.
There is also the fact that with the new woodland burial ground being located adjacent to the proposed new access road, this would make two access points on the B1354 in close proximity. At this point the B1354 carries fast (up to 60mph) traffic including large gravel trucks, freight lorries and large, 'wide vehicle' agricultural machinery.
There is a traditional burial ground also nearby with yet another access.
Access to the proposed site via Stratton Road would not be tenable; this is a narrow, one car-wide only un-categorised road. This road and other rural lanes in Hainford are not capable of carrying the potential increased volume in traffic, and in many places it is not possible for two vehicles to pass without mounting the verges. The access from B1354 on to A140 is already congested even at non-peak times and a potential of an additional 400+ cars from this development is unthinkable. The scarce public transport service means that nearly all currrent residents in Hainford rely on at least one, if not two, private cars per household. Any future residents would do the same.
A major consideration relating to this site is the longstanding problem of surface water flooding, which is in fact a feature of the whole village due to the high water table.
Hainford is an 'other village' and this development is in conflict with that status. Also in conflict with the Parish plan.
Loss of rural amenity-the site has landscape value.
4. Site GNLP0393 - 45 Dwellings
Serious risk of flooding
Development would infringe on the school car park
Already speeding problems on Newton Road
Loss of mature trees along Newton Road to make way for development
Flooding by surface water is a serious problem on this road
Site outside the development boundary
Site is disproportionate to the size of the village
Hainford is an 'other village' and this development is in conflict with that status.
Also in conflict with the Parish plan.
Narrow winding rural lanes throughout Hainford are inadequate for increased volume of traffic. In many locations there is insufficient room for two vehicles to pass safely. There would be increased congestion at the junction between A140 and B1354(Waterloo Rd).Also potential congestion at the junction with Newton Rd and the B1354.
The Primary school is small and would not be able to accommodate increased volume of pupils generated if wider development were allowed on this scale
Loss of rural amenity-the site has landscape value.