GNLP0528
Object
Site Proposals document
Representation ID: 13080
Received: 18/02/2018
Respondent: Mr Tim Cave
Planning applications for this site have been rejected as it forms an important gap in the development of the village and due to impact on heritage assets. The view that development impact could be mitigated has been rejected.
Planning applications for this site have been rejected as it forms an important gap in the development of the village and due to impact on heritage assets. The view that development impact could be mitigated has been rejected.
Object
Site Proposals document
Representation ID: 13268
Received: 16/03/2018
Respondent: Mrs Wendy Whitwham
The original documentation states that the current use was residential/equine, this is not correct, the land has never been granted residential planning permission, this site has had three planning applications refused and two appeals dismissed. Both Planning Inspectors considered this site to be an important gap, any development would have a detrimental impact on the Grade 11 Listed War Memorial and on the character and appearance of the area. The Inspector did not consider that existing/future landscaping would mitigate this harm, any additional landscaping would also take a substantial amount of time to establish and wouldn't necessarily be successful.
The original documentation states that the current use was residential/equine, this is not correct, the land has never been granted residential planning permission, this site has had three planning applications refused and two appeals dismissed. Both Planning Inspectors considered this site to be an important gap, any development would have a detrimental impact on the Grade 11 Listed War Memorial and on the character and appearance of the area. The Inspector did not consider that existing/future landscaping would mitigate this harm, any additional landscaping would also take a substantial amount of time to establish and wouldn't necessarily be successful.
Object
Site Proposals document
Representation ID: 14051
Received: 15/03/2018
Respondent: Mr Anthony Griffiths
Over the past three years this site has been the subject of three planning applications, all of which have been rejected and two planning appeals both of which have been rejected.
Over the past three years this site has been the subject of three planning applications, all of which have been rejected and two planning appeals both of which have been rejected.
Object
Site Proposals document
Representation ID: 14090
Received: 15/03/2018
Respondent: Mr Alexander Rowell
If you review the recent planning applications and appeals, save for the weighting given to the lack of 5 year land supply the "important gap in the village@ and Grade II War Memorial mean that this site is wholly unsuitable for a planning application for development to be approved. The development boundaries currently set in Ketteringham should be retained in particular to limit back land development and the protection of the village War Memorial
Further to the following recent planning application on this site:
2015/0075
2016/2134
2017/0413
as well as three planning appeals:
APP/L2630/W/15/3130520
APP/L2630/W/17/3170036 (withdrawn)
APP/L2630/W/17/3181672
Both of the appeals that were heard had the two main points leaving both appeals dismissed.
First:
The main issues in these appeals are the effect of the development on the character and appearance of High Street, Ketteringham and the effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties with particular regard to loss of privacy and to noise and disturbance.
Second:
The main issues are the effect of the proposal on the setting of Ketteringham War Memorial, a Grade II Listed Building and the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.
Therefore, the site is wholly unsuitable for development and if there were not a lack of 5 year land supply further policies would support the above appeal decisions.
Object
Site Proposals document
Representation ID: 14238
Received: 17/03/2018
Respondent: Mr James Whitwham
This site is not suitable for development as recognised by SNDC and 2 Planning Inspectors. All planning applications have been refused due to the material harm on the area and the Grade II listed monument. Therefore this site should remain outside of the Development Boundary as it currently is.
This site is not suitable for development as recognised by SNDC and 2 Planning Inspectors. All planning applications have been refused due to the material harm on the area and the Grade II listed monument. Therefore this site should remain outside of the Development Boundary as it currently is.
Object
Site Proposals document
Representation ID: 14359
Received: 18/03/2018
Respondent: Mr Robert Sharpe
Planning has previously be rejected for development due to the impact on the War Memorial. As the village plans its activities to mark the centenary of 1918 I find it surprising that the rejection at both DMC and appeal are not being taken into account.
Planning has previously be rejected for development due to the impact on the War Memorial. As the village plans its activities to mark the centenary of 1918 I find it surprising that the rejection at both DMC and appeal are not being taken into account.