Response from Mr Niven Ballantyne (Individual)
1. Mr Niven Ballantyne (Individual) : 17 Oct 2012 11:41:00
Please add your response below: (Limit 3000 words)
LAND ALLOCATION: MATTER 10 HOLME
1 Purpose
1.1This paper seeks to draw attention to the Inspector of the inclusion of established residential gardens in the area R653M-mod (Map16).
1.2 The gardens relate to the properties on Milnthorpe Road known as Laurel Bank and Rosecroft (LA6 1PX). The gardens occupy approximately 1250 sq metres of an area that is proposed for the development of 72 houses by Russell Armer and as such are insignificant to the viability of the development or for reasons of access to the larger site.
1.3 The Inspector’s attention is drawn to the NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK (NPPF) published in March 2012 and in particular to paras 48 and 53 which wholly preclude development in gardens.
1.4 My interest in the matter relates to the ownership of the property known as Greystone, which forms a southern boundary with Rosecroft. My concern is that any housing developments in the two gardens (which sit higher than Greystone) will have a significant detrimental impact on my day-to-day enjoyment of my property and may blight the property in terms of a future disposal.
2 Background
2.1 In 2011 SLDC published for consultation their suggested land allocations. Greystone for some reason (error?) was included in Map 9 of the Village as an allocated site. I attended the public presentation of proposals in July 2011 and the Principal Development Plans Officer agreed that my property should be taken out.
2.2 In 2012 the revised Map 16 was issued which had Greystone removed but no change to the inclusion of Laurel Bank and Rosecroft. In April 2012 I completed and emailed the consultation document pointing out that the Land Allocation still included the two houses despite the newly published NPPF, making the DPD legally non compliant.
2.3 In September 2012 SLDC responded to the Inspector’s document on `Matters and Issues Matter 10`
In Matter 10.2.1 the Council states:
`The Council believes the detailed requirements for each of the allocations in Holme are clear`
In Matter 10.2.6 the Council states:
`It is considered the extent of each allocated site boundary is clear and correctly identified`
2.4 Having regard to the NPPF and the policy on garden developments, then it is submitted that the site boundaries have not been properly identified in the Council’s representations.
3 Dialogue with the Council
3.1 On12 October 2012, I met on site with Alastair McNeill,Principal Development Plans Officer. Mr Bruce Nicholson, owner of the adjacent Silvercroft also attended and he has submitted a separate representation.
3.2 Mr McNeill viewed the two gardens and can confirm that these are well established, maintained and integral to the properties of Laurel Bank and Rosecroft.
3.3 No explanation was given by Mr McNeill as to why the gardens were included in the Land Allocation other than the fact that the owners were written to after his attention to the issue was drawn to by me and the owners did not withdraw their consent. On examination, however of the Holme boundary map attached to the 2006 Local Plan, it is evident that the boundary dissected the gardens and we agreed it is reasonable to assume that the new boundary line was simply copied from this earlier map. There are historic reasons why this line may have been drawn. The houses today have been significantly redeveloped from very modest properties in the sixties whose gardens may have been deemed disproportionate at that time. The new properties now sit well within their gardens.
4 Change that is being sought
4.1 I understand that the Council cannot now make any further changes to the DPD although I note from para 10 of the Guidance Notes for Participants that minor modifications can be made provided they do not affect the substance of the document. The garden issue may not seem material in respect of the overall SLDC recommendations, but from my own perspective it could be extremely damaging. It is not sufficient to wait possibly years for the development briefs and planning applications and I therefore request the following action:
4.1.1 The Council to make the minor modification by excluding the gardens at Laurel Bank and Rosecroft from the proposed land allocation and/or
4.1.2 The Inspector to make this recommendation in his report in order to ensure the DPD is legally compliant.
Attachments:
2006 Local Plan Boundaries
2011 Land Allocations
2012 Land Allocations (Revised)
