1.  24.09.04 - CPT/708/04/OUT - RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND LOCAL CENTRE - COMPRISING 310 UNITS AND A LOCAL CENTRE OF 0.33HA - LAND AT KILN ROAD THUNDERSLEY - JETBURY INVESTMENT LIMITED

Summary The proposal represents a major departure from the Development Plan and comprises the construction of 310 dwellings on 10.6 ha of land safeguarded to meet long term housing needs under Policy H5 of the adopted Local Plan. Any decision to approve the proposal will require that it be referred to the GO EAST as a departure.

Policy H5 indicates that the site should be maintained free of development until such time as reviews of the Structure Plan and Local Plan show that the land needs to be released for housing.  No such reviews have taken place.  The proposal may therefore be considered premature.

However, in the light of current Government Guidance and the requirements of emerging Regional Planning Guidance the Authority is likely to have difficulty maintaining a refusal of permission on appeal.  It would be appropriate to negotiate a phased development of the site with the applicants in accordance with the housing requirements of the emerging Regional Spatial Strategy.

No objection to the proposal has been raised on highway grounds, subject to the execution of certain works.

The proposal attracts a requirement to provide 62 affordable housing units following an initial offer of an off-site contribution of 17 units only which was considered unacceptable.  The applicants have now indicated that 25% of the units representing 74 units as a minimum provided on the site will be in the form of affordable accommodation. This is a key issue in respect of the proposal in view of the very significant affordable housing needs within Castle Point which are not being met at present.

The proposal attracts a requirement for the provision of an education contribution of in excess of £663,920.  The applicant’s have indicated a commitment to contribute in accordance with the County Council’s requirements.

However, the applicants have not made any commitment to any contributions in respect of other matters such as leisure or environmental impacts of the proposal.

The proposal results in the significant loss of wildlife habitat.  Concern was raised that this would have a detrimental impact on a number of protected species.  It is not clear that the applicants have fully addressed the issues required in the context of PPS9 relating to biodiversity.

Recommendation The Committee is therefore

 

RECOMMENDED  to (1)     Agree that it is MINDED TO APPROVE the application subject to the following:-

(a)  Negotiations with the applicants in respect of the phasing of the development and the arrangements for the delivery of a minimum of 78 affordable housing units as part of the proposal.

(b) The applicants entering into Section 106 Agreements with the Authority in respect of highways and education contributions referred to in the report.

(c) Negotiations with the applicants in respect of any further contributions relating to leisure provision or environmental impacts as a result of the development.

(d) The applicants fully resolving the outstanding implications of the proposal in the context of PPS9 relating to biodiversity. Without these matters being fully resolved the application would be refused.

(2) That Members consider if they wish to be involved with the negotiations and if so which Members should be involved.  The outcome of such discussions would be reported through the Planning Committee.

(3) That following the outcome of the negotiations the application be referred to GO EAST for the Secretary of State to consider whether he wishes to call the application in for his consideration.

The Committee should appreciate that the outcome of these negotiations are likely to be a significant consideration in any decision by the Secretary of State to call in the proposal.  If these negotiations do not produce an outcome which fully addresses the issues in accordance with government policy the likelihood of a call in is much greater than would otherwise be the case.

MAIN REPORT

1. Introduction

1.1 This is an outline application with all matters reserved except for means of access and layout.  The application represents a departure from the Development Plan, and if Members were minded to approve, the application would need to be referred to the Government Office for the Eastern Region as a Departure.

2.     The Site

2.1The application site is located on the north side of Kiln Road, and occupies an undeveloped area of some 26 acres (10.6ha), bounded by Kiln Road to the south, Wensley Road to the west, Queensmere to the east and The Chase to the north.  The site falls from west to east and north to south and is currently heavily vegetated.  A number of trees, the subject of Tree Preservation Orders are present on the site, together with significant areas of old hedgerow and trees that are not the subject of any orders.  Three Badger setts have been identified in the central area of the site and surface water and foul water sewers cross the site north-south and east-west.  The area has an attractive undeveloped plotland character.

2.2 The site has a frontage to Kiln Road of some 47m, increasing to a maximum site width of approximately 280m, with a maximum site depth of some 530m.

3.     The Proposal

3.1 This is an outline application and details of the type and form of development is limited.  However the application indicates that it is proposed to develop the site with 310 residential units comprising mainly two storey, two, three and four bedroomed houses, (some three storey elements would be incorporated to take advantage of views and create a varied roofline) three storey, two bedroomed flats and a possible small area of bungalows on the Wensley/Swale Road frontage.  A 3 storey sheltered housing scheme is also proposed providing 45 units.

3.2 In addition a local centre would be provided comprising a small convenience store, possible doctor’s surgery and ten 2 bedroomed flats.

3.3 It should be noted that the layout submitted is for illustrative purposes only and is not intended to provide a definitive picture of the eventual development of the site, but merely a benchmark to guide future Reserved Matter applications.

3.4 The proposal achieve a gross density of some 29 dwellings per ha and a net density of some 34.5 dwellings per ha (excluding buffer zones, main distributors, open space and the proposed local centre. The proposal would therefore be in accordance with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Residential Density) Direction 2005.

4.     Relevant History

4.1     CPT/801/89/OUT Outline application for residential development on land north and south of the Chase:  Refused 16.1.90 on the basis that the land was allocated for Green Belt purposes, the proposal would intensify the use for two accesses on classified highways, leading to further conflict and interference with traffic flow/highway safety and would lead to the loss of an area of significant local amenity/ecological value.

4.2 During the Local Plan preparation process in the early 1990’s consideration was given to the identification and safeguarding of land to contribute towards meeting identified long-term housing needs.

4.3 In considering the alternatives available, the Inspector appointed to consider objections to the Local Plan recommended that the land south of The Chase and east of Wensley Road, an area consistent with the location of the current application site, be allocated as land safeguarded for long-term housing needs for development beyond the plan period (i.e. beyond 2001), on the understanding that ‘the land be kept free of development which would prejudice later comprehensive treatment, until such time as it may be released for housing purposes, after reviews of both the Structure and Local Plans’ (Policy H5)”.

4.4 This lead to the formulation of Policy H5 of the Local Plan which states:-

“Policy H5 – Safeguarding of land for long-term housing needs

Land to the south of The Chase and east of Wensley Road, Thundersley is shown on the proposals map as safeguarded for the long-term provision of housing.  This is an area of special reserve to take account of possible development needs beyond the current plan period.  Until such time as reviews of the Structure Plan and Local Plan show that the land needs to be released for housing, the land will be kept free of development which would prejudice later comprehensive treatment.  Valuable landscape and wildlife features will be protected.”

4.5 Changes in the method of plan preparation, which has resulted in the replacement of the Local Plan with a Local Development Framework, means that the reviews of the Structure Plan and Local Plan referred to by the Inspector, will not take place.  However certain Local Plan Policies including Policy H5 have been saved beyond September 2007 by virtue of the Local Development Scheme. As part of the preparation of the Local Development Framework, the Planning Authority is required to examine housing land availability within the Borough and identify sufficient land to meet identified housing needs.  This process will cover all land in the Borough.

5.     Local Plan Policies

5.1 The site is located within an area allocated as land safeguarded for long-term housing needs in the adopted Local Plan.

5.2 Although the application is in outline form only, access and layout are not reserved.  Consideration must therefore be given to the development control policies and Supplementary Planning Guidance relevant to the proposal.  In this case the relevant policies are:-

EC2 H5 T4 SPG3 SPG25 EC3 H7 RE4 SPG4 SPG26 EC5 H9 CF1 SPG5 SPG27 EC6 H10 CF2 SPG8 SPG29 EC7 H11 CF7 SPG9  EC13 H13 CF9 SPG10  EC14 H14 CF13 SPG11  EC16 H17 CF14 SPG12  EC21 H18 CF15 SPG14  EC22 S1 SPG1 SPG17  EC23 T2 SPG2 SPG20

And the Essex Carparking Standards.

6.     Consultations

6.1 Following the initial consultation procedure a number of supplementary documents were provided.  In order to ensure full opportunity for consideration of these documents a further round of public consultation was undertaken in September 2005.

6.2 The appropriate statutory consultees were also reconsulted at this time.

6.3 At the time of preparation of this report not all responses to this reconsultation exercise had been received.

6.4 The following is a summary of responses received to the first round of consultation.

6.4.1     Former Director of Technical Services – Highway Comment

No objection.  45m x 120m sight splay to be provided.  Estate road alignment/design to conform with Council/Essex Design Guide specification and adopted under S.38 Agreement.  Details of proposed road closure to be agreed.  Proposed bus route to be agreed.  Transport Assessment/works to existing highways to be agreed by ECC.

6.4.2     Former Director of Technical Services – Drainage Comments

33” diameter surface water sewer through site and ditch along eastern boundary.

6.4.3     Essex County Council – Highway Comments

No objection subject to the applicant being willing to enter into an obligation to include the following, all of which must be carried out prior to beneficial occupation of the development (unless otherwise stated) and at no cost to the Highway Authority:-

1) The provision of a right turn lane junction on Kiln Road to serve the site together with traffic separation islands/pedestrian refuges as applicable, designed to the appropriate standards accommodating the existing junctions, to be approved by the Highway Authority in accordance with Policy T9 of the Essex Replacement Structure Plan.

2) The provision of a suitable spine road though the development linking Kiln Road with The Chase.  This road should be constructed to a minimum width of 6 metres to ensure it can be used by public service vehicles.  The spine road should also include a restriction along its length that will facilitate bus penetration whilst restricting other vehicles from using the site as a through route. Further discussion is required between the applicant and the Highway Authority to determine the exact timing for the provision of this facility.  This should be provided in accordance with Policy T1 and T3 of the Essex Replacement Structure Plan.

3) The provision of a bus service to use the facility detailed above. The service should be procured by the developer as a diversion or created and funded in its entirety for a period of 3 years from a start date to be agreed by the Highway Authority.  This is required to ensure appropriate modal shift away from the private car in accordance with Policy T1 and T3 of the Essex Replacement Structure Plan.

4) The installation of raised height kerbs, passenger shelters and real time information in line with current guidelines in the Essex Road Passenger Transport Policy at the most appropriate bus stops in the vicinity of the site on both Kiln Road and Rayleigh Road to improve the attractiveness of passenger transport use as a realistic alternative to the private car in accordance with policy T6 of the Essex Replacement Structure Plan.

5) The installation of raised height kerbs, passenger shelters and real time information in line with current guidelines in the Essex Road Passenger Transport Policy at suitable locations within the proposed development to improve the attractiveness of passenger transport use as a realistic alternative to the private car in accordance with Policy T6 of the Essex Replacement Structure Plan.

6) The provision of public transport information packs and bus season tickets valid for a period of six months from occupation for all new residents of the development in accordance with Policy T3 of the Essex Replacement Structure Plan.

7) The provision of a £150,000 contribution to facilitate improvements to capacity at junction of Kiln Road and Rayleigh Road as required in the developers supporting transport assessment to ensure that the development impact is appropriately mitigated in accordance with Policy T2 and T8 of the Essex Replacement Structure Plan.

8) The provision of a signalised Toucan crossing of Kiln Road to ensure the safety of pedestrian movements generated by the site in accordance with Policy T8 of the Essex Replacement Structure Plan.

9) The provision of a suitable scheme to ensure that the existing area of The Chase that is at present unmade does not become more attractive for use by motorists.  This scheme should also promote the interests of vulnerable road users and include a continuous footway between the site and the existing provision in The Chase. All works should be done to an adoptable standard and agreed with the Highway Authority.  This is required in accordance with Policy T6 and T7 of the Essex Replacement Structure Plan.

B.     Compliance with the following planning conditions:-

1) Provision of car parking spaces in accordance with Essex Planning Officer Association Parking Standards.

2) The provision at the neighbourhood centre of a suitable number of appropriate covered cycle parking facilities in a safe, secure and visible location in accordance with the Essex County Council Cycling Strategy and Policy T11 of the Essex Replacement Structure Plan.

3) The entire land holding should be served for vehicular access by just the proposed accesses onto The Chase and Kiln Road and by no other means to protect the primary use of the surrounding highway network and reduce the number of conflict points.  This should also involve the closing of any existing accesses to the landholding in accordance with Policy T11 of the Essex Replacement Structure Plan.

4) The provision of a suitable access to the site for construction vehicles.  Measures should also be taken by the applicant to ensure than no mud or debris is deposited on the public highway by any vehicle associated with the development.  Details of the exact measures required to meet this condition are to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority.

NOTES

A.    No development can be carried out on site before detailed engineering drawings are submitted to the Highway Authority for approval and safety audit.

B.     The above works shall be carried out at no cost to the Highway Authority.

6.4.4     Castle Point Borough Council Director of Health & Housing

Potential for land to be contaminated as a result of the proximity of the White Heather Service Station to the site.  Also potential for noise nuisance emanating from White Heather PFS on new occupiers.  Recommends amendment to layout at southern boundary to ameliorate.

6.4.5     Castle Point Borough Council – Legal Section

Council owned properties on Kingsmere and Queensmere   abut the site.  Two Tree Preservation Orders are present on the site.

6.4.6     Essex County Council Historic Environment Branch:

Site lies within an area of archaeological potential.  Full archaeological condition recommended.

6.4.7     Anglian Water

No objections.  Conditions recommended re. Drainage and isolation from any pumping station provided on site.  Advises that surface water capacity in the area is limited and an alternative means of disposal should be considered.  Connection to existing public surface water sewer would require attenuation measures beyond those identified by the applicants.

6.48     Essex Badger Protection Group

Badgers present on the site.

Concerned about inconsistencies between submitted reports.  Loss of foraging ground likely to bring badgers into conflict with residents. Would like to inspect setts in future.

6.4.9     English Nature

Advise that the submitted reports satisfy legislative requirements.  Any works which will have a detrimental impact on the setts will require a licence.  Will comment on further reports as they become available.

Further information on any protected species found on the sites should be submitted prior to determination.

6.4.10     Essex Wildlife Trust

1. Objects to the proposal as it would destroy part of a protected wildlife site.  Insufficient mitigation works are identified. Majority of habitats important for biodiversity will be lost. Application is premature as there has been no review of the Structure Plan or Local Plan.  Proposal will have significant adverse impact on wildlife value of site.

2. Consider the Phase 1 Habitat Survey to have been carried out at a sub optimal time of year.  Further surveys are recommended. Disagrees that loss of 42% of a designated wildlife site is “not significant”.  Loss will result in severance of an important wildlife corridor. Do not consider adequate information provided in respect of the enhancement of other areas to compensate for loss. Proposal has not adopted a sustainable approach to biodiversity.

3. Proposal fails to provide adequate mitigation or compensation for the loss of trees.

4. Up to one third of badger foraging ground will be lost.  Do not accept such loss would be insignificant in absence of realistic enhancement and mitigation measures.

5. No data to support statement that loss of habitat within the site is unlikely to have significant effect on local population of species present.  Suggest that a precautionary approach should be taken.

6. All ecological information should be provided prior to determination.

7. Some hedgerows likely to be important under the Hedgerows Regulations.

8. Badger survey carried out at sub optimal time.  No detail of mitigation for loss of habitat provided.

6.4.11     Sustrans

No objection provided footpaths to Kingsmere and Wensley Road are designated as shared cycle track/footpaths.

6.4.12     Essex County Council Schools Service

Education contribution will be required of £663,920 (index linked).

6.4.13     Environment Agency

No objection but pollution prevention measures recommended (details provided). Foul sewerage to be discharged to main sewers.  Sustainable drainage options should be considered.

6.4.14     Anglian Water

Foul sewer has sufficient capacity to accommodate  development.

6.4.15     British Horse Society

Loss of The Chase will diminish areas suitable for riding.  It is an important link to other riding areas e.g. Westwood and Runnymede Paddocks. Area cannot absorb the additional traffic.  Development will be harmful to character of the area and wildlife.

6.4.16     Essex County Council Strategic Planning

No comment.

6.4.17     Essex and Suffolk Water

No objection.  No problems foreseen in supplying the site.

7.     Public Consultation Response

7.1 The proposal was initially advertised in the press.  Site notices were displayed at the site and individual letters were delivered to the following addresses:

THE CHASE:  OAKLEA LODGE, VALDABRE,CHASE NURSERIES, 303,305,307,309,311,313,315,317,319,321,323,325,327,329,331,333,335,337,339,341345,350,

348,346,340,338,336,334,332,330,328,326,324,322,320,318,316,314,312, 310

CORASWAY:  1

HACKAMORE:  2,4,6,8,10,12,14,16,18,20,22,24,26,28,30,32,34,38,40

SWALE ROAD:  HAWKSTONE, HOLLY LODGE, CHATSWORTH, WOODVIEW, SWANLEY, ROSEMARY, THE LAURELS

KINGSMERE:  66,68,70,72,74,76,78,80,82,84,86,88,90,53,51

QUEENSMERE: 44,46,48,50,52,54,56,58,60,62,64,66,68,70,72,74,76,78,80,82,84 PARKFIELDS:  67

WENSLEY ROAD: PENTEWAN, JASMINE, WENSLEY, FERNLEIGH, BYWOOD, WEALONE, VANDI, ST. FRANCIS, 2,1

KILN ROAD:  161,163,165,169,171,173,179,187,189,191,195, Nursery, 199, 201,205,211, 213, 215, 219,221,224a,224,220,218,212,210,208,206,202, Fairview  200,196,194, 190,188,184, 180, 178

GLENMERE PARK AVENUE:  2,1A

PARKSTONE AVENUE:  1

7.2     310 letters were received from the following addresses:

Alderleys: 23 Badgers Way: 4 Boyton Close: 10 Broadlands: 29 (x2) Brookfield: 24 Broomfield: 22 Caversham Avenue: 34 Cherrymeade: 3 Chase Close: 11, 20 Collingwood: 5(x2) Colworth Close: 19 Conifers: 12 Corasway: 1, 3 (x2), 7(x2), 9, 17, 23, 25, 29(x2) Dorothy Gardens: 24,46 Drake Close: 1 Fairmead Avenue: 17, 18 Hackamore: 2(x5), 6, 12, 14(x2), 15, 16(x2), 18(x2), 19, 17, 18, 19, 20(x2), 23, 24, 26(x4), 27, 29(x2), 30, 32(x2), 33, 34(x2), 35, 38, 39, 40(x2), 41(x2), 42, 43(x3), 44, 45, 46, 48, 50(x2), 52(x2) Hermitage Avenue: 30 High Road: 79 Hydeway: 9 Kenneth Road: 110 Kiln Road: 126, 169, 171, 187, 191, 204A, 204D, 213, 215, 219, 221, 242, 270 Kingsmere: 41(x2), 51, 53, 82(x2), 90 Konnybrook: 4(x2) Lodge Close: 2, 11, 12, 14, 27 Lynton Road: 28(x2) Martingale: 2, 3(x2), 5, 6, 7, 9 (x2), 10, 11(x2), 12, 14, 15, 16, 17 (x2), 18 (x2), 19, 20, 21, 22, 27(x2) Malyon Court Close: 15 Mountnessing: 12 Netherfield: 20 Nicholson Road: 84 Oakfield Road: 104 Overton Road: 84 Parkfields: 30 Prittle Close: 12(x2), 27, 34 Queensmere: 44, 58, 72, 78(x2), 82, 84 Raymonds Drive: 55 Runnymede Chase: 2(x2), 6(x2) Sandown Road: 86 Springfield Court: 6 Sunnymede Close: 16 (x2) Swale Road: Hawkstone, Holly Lodge, Rosemary, Swanley, The Laurels (x2), Woodview The Avenue: 57 The Canters: 1(x2), 2, 4, 5(x2), 6, 8, 10(x2), 12, 16, 18 The Chase: Chase Lodge: 7, 17, 32, 37, 50, 61, 73, 77, 89(x4), 91, 95(x2), 99(x2), 101, 125, 303(x3), 305, 307, 309(x5), 310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 318(x3), 320 (x2), 321, 322, 323, 324, 324, 325(x3), 326(x3), 327, 328(x2), 329(x2), 330(x2), 332, 333, 335(x2), 336(x3), 337, 338(x2), 339(x2), 340(x2), 345, 346, 348, 350 The Chimes: 9 The Dale: 37, 46 The Gill: 2 The Malyons: 30, 43, 60 The Parkway: 90 Thundersley Grove: 28 Tudor Close: 19 Villiers Way: 10 Warren Chase: 9, 11, 38, 43, 42 Wensley Road: Bywool, Fernleigh, Helena, Jasmine, Pentewan, St Leonards, Wealone, Wensley, Willtowin (x2), 1, 2 Westwood Gardens: 8, 86(x2) Windsor Gardens: 22

Anonymous Letter x10

71 copies of a standard letter were part of the total figure of responses, received from the following addresses:

Corasway: 3, 9, 17, 23, 25, 29 Hackamore: 2, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 23, 26, 29, 33, 34, 38, 41, 43(x2), 44, 50 Kingsmere: 41, 53, 82 Martingale: 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 27 The Canters: 1, 4, 5, 8, 10, 12, 16 The Chase: 303, 309, 310, 311, 315, 318, 320, 321, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329, 335, 336, 338, 340, 345, 350

A Petition has also been received containing 65 names and signatures.

7.3     The following comments and objections were made:

·A13 and A127 should be upgraded

·New traffic lights to cause congestion

·Residents would use more than just the access roads

·Fire service would be stretched and have difficulty using the roads due to increase in traffic

·Unidentified traffic problems

·Poor public transport within the area

·No attempt to address wider causes of congestion

·Traffic travels too fast

·CPBC’s own traffic survey states this area along Kiln Road is already a traffic “Hot spot”

·Road study too old to be relevant

·Congestion as traffic leaves the Chase

·Congestion along Kiln Road

·Increase in cars within the area

·Swale Road not wide enough to accommodate traffic

·Existing unmade roads would become impassable

·The Chase to be used as a “Rat Run”

·Additional traffic caused by the retail store

·Risk to pedestrian life

·Footpaths would be used as escape routes for “criminal minded persons”

·Public footpaths shown on private land

·Infrastructure at breaking point

·Schools in area already over subscribed

·Doctors, Dentists and Hospitals already stretched

·Would not be able to get a Doctor for the surgery

·Provision of a new hospital

·Emergency services would not be able to cope

·Lack of activates for youths, including Skate parks, tennis courts, sports halls, concert venues and youth clubs

·No provision to develop more vibrant economy, sustainable communities or improved infrastructure.

·No water to wash with

·Sewage and drainage problems within the area

·Water table to be changed

·Surface water run off

·Sewage in Westwood

·Potable water supply already stretched

·Loss of trees to produce oxygen

·Loss of trees, hedgerows and woods

·Loss of wildlife, including birds, squirrels, foxes, badgers and bats

·Essex Wildlife has classed the area as a “Wildlife Site”

·Important wildlife habitat

·Large areas of healthy woodland to be destroyed

·Value landscape features will be destroyed

·Semi-rural nature to be lost

·Land is “Ancient Common Land”

·Land is Green Belt

·Area is Green Lung

·Land is a visual break between Hadleigh and Thundersley

·Further undesirable coalescence between the Benfleet and Thundersley residential areas.

·Land at the Lakes Estate would be a better location

·Loss of privacy, overlooking and dominance

·Swale Road – Private Road, loss of residential amenity,

·Not within character of the area

·Adversely affect the quality of life

·Traffic, air and noise pollution

·Disruption during construction

·Noise and inconvenience of the development could take years

·More youths on street corner

·Problems with Antisocial behaviour upon the estate

·Development would adversely affect the reputation of the area

·Loss of security

·No houses there

·“Brainchild” of The Deputy Prime Minister – Has he ever visited the area

·Would undermine the new Local Development Framework

·Application premature, given wording of Policy H5 of Local Plan

·Review of Structure & Local Plans before release land for housing

·Not in line with Thames Gateway Policy

·Government requirements already met

·Contrary to CPBC Policy

·Should wait for the new local plan

·Argue that DPM’s vision for more homes in South East did not include Thundersley

·Studies not detailed or thorough enough

·Brownfield sites should be used first

·Against the philosophy  - “our overall vision is to make the Borough a great place to live, work and play”

·Existing planning application already provide required housing needs

·What is affordable housing and how to maintain it is affordable

·Affordable housing to be built along side existing “executive housing”

·Long Term Housing not required

·Already sufficient housing land identified

·Loss of area for children to play in

·Opportunities for healthy lifestyle lost

·Part Residential part public park

·Land use for recreational activities including walking, cycling and horse riding. These opportunities will be lost.

·Location of employment for the proposed residents

·Another retail venue would harm existing retail units

·Plan should be available outside of office hours

·Plan should be put through people’s doors as a handout

·Application has been kept quiet/low key

·Someone should be at the Council available to go through the plans

·Not enough details upon application

·Would like a public meeting regarding the development

·Plans and information submitted inaccurate

·Application full of flawed assumptions

·Devaluation of property

·Loss of view from properties

·Increased insurance premiums

·Tax payers and voters do not want the development

·Residents against the development in 1989 and still are

·Setting a precedent

·Invasion of Right to light

·Effect of Heave upon neighbouring house when    trees removed

·Further burden residents with increased taxes to fund it

·Company is unknown and not necessarily appropriate to be undertaking such a scheme

·Land included is not for sale

A subsequent consultation exercise undertaken in September 2005, involved all persons previously consulted together with all persons who had written in respect of the proposal, having been alerted to the application by other means.

<