2 responses from Sir John Kerr (Individual)
1. Sir John Kerr (Individual) : 6 Sep 2011 13:51:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Barbon
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN279#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
There are several reasons why I oppose this site. First, the SLDC Core Strategy policy for small villages such as Barbon is that development might be acceptable if it is small scale in-filling or rounding-off. There are also some specific exceptions listed when development might be allowed. The proposed site RN279# satisfies none of these criteria: it is not small scale (indeed it is large scale by Barbon standards), it is not in-filling or rounding-off, and it does not fall within the exceptions listed.
Second, this big site would breach the important green gap between the core of central Barbon and the settlement of Town End. At an appeal in 1986 the Inspector referred to the land south of Barnrigg in these terms: 'this is a matter of considerable importance,in my opinion, as any further extension would be a very obvious expansion into open countryside.' This remains the situation today: the whole character of the area would change with the appearance of ribbon development - not only for the houses in the immediate vicinity but from several viewpoints elsewhere in the village such as the approach road past Kiln Cottages and the Village Hall. This plot is part of an area which provides one of the defining characteristics of Barbon with, close behind it, the fells.
Third, housing need. The most recent Housing Needs Survey (2010) identified the need for 2 affordable houses in Barbon during the next 5 years. These can easily be satisfied from other sites, including RN4 which has already been endorsed by the Parish Council. Barbon has seen significant development over recent years, and there are several permissions outstanding, and proposals, which would satisfy more closely the Core Strategy critera. There is simply no housing need to justify a developoment site the size of RN279#.
Fourth, agricultural use. This plot is designated by SLDC for agriculture and until relatively recently it was used for grazing; the fact that it is overgrown today reflects the choice of its owner. The old railway track which formed a strip through it was lifted many years ago, and a glance north or south of Barbon will show the ease with which the track can be incorporated into normal agricultural use.
Fifth, biodiversity. Developing the proposed site for houses would have a seriously detrimental effect on the biodiversity and natural environment. This area must be one of the largest wild areas in the parish and as such it should be protected.
Sixth. Access. Vehicular access is only possible by a narrow strip of land owned by the applicant at the foot of Barnrigg. It is specifically designed to enable maintenance vehicles to reach the old railway bridge over Watery Lane.It has not been used during the past three and a half years, and hardly at all before that. It passes very close indeed between two houses at the foot of Barnrigg, where there is a busy turning area for the whole road with three houses opening directly on to it. The strip towards the site has a particularly awkward approach at this point with a blind corner and tight turn; and the sightlines are such that it is impossible to see along it, or vehicles entering or leaving the adjoining houses until the last minute. This strip is not suitable beyond its original purpose, and any development would lead to significant safety concerns as well as substantially reducing the amenity for those who use or live in Barnrigg.
In summary, I wish to stress that I am in favour of appropiate development in Barbon, including new houses, to enable it to thrive. I recognise the need to identify building sites. But in my view this proposal for site RN279# is most definitely not the right one for the future: it is too large, out of proportion, and would have too negative an impact on the character and amenities of the village and its surroundings.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
The planning system is going through a period of great flux and undertainty, and it is by means certain that the government's proposals concerning localism and the presumption in favour of sustainable development will be enacted as currently envisaged. Although this might point to a shorter term for land allocations, on balance I favour trying to bring more stability into the system so that people and organisations know where they stand; I would stick with the longer term. Presumably the situation might become clearer over the next few months and so in the very short term the Council might find it esier to determine which way to proceed.
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
This is to do with scale. I consider that it would be better to use the relevant core strategy policies, tuned to the specific needs of a particular community. This would be much more sensitive to local wishes (and manageable) than using the Land Allocation document which suits bigger development in more urban areas, and in the higher settlement tiers set out in the Core Strategy.
2. Sir John Kerr (Individual) : 6 Oct 2011 10:31:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Barbon
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN279#