Preston Richard PC15-May-2017
On behalf of Preston Richard Parish Council please find the collective feedback on SLDC’s draft Development Brief for the land North of Sycamore Close. We are concerned by the online form in which the public have been asked to submit their feedback as in our view there are too many steps involved and will put people off making the effort to respond.
To ensure there is no misunderstanding we have provided our feedback listed by individual section/number in the Draft Development Brief. Once you have had time to consider all the points raised by ourselves and members of the public, we would appreciate a meeting with yourselves to discuss the points in more detail.
SLDC Development Brief North of Sycamore Close, Endmoor.
March 2017
Forward
“The draft development brief has been prepared…. to provide guidance for the development of the land north of Sycamore Close”
How much influence will this Development Brief have on developers and what powers and control do SLDC have to ensure that any planning application adheres to this Development Brief?
1.2 Vision
We are happy with the vision
1.4.2 Planning Policy Context
PRPC 1.4.2.1 - The land north of Sycamore Close has been allocated “around 100 dwellings” in the DPD. What controls are in place on this number and what is the maximum number of houses that could be built on this site?
PRPC 1.4.2.2 - We are also deeply concerned by the lack of guidance included in the development brief as to the number/ density of dwellings in each character area. This is of particular concern to us as the site has a steep gradient running west to east across the two fields with the highest elevation by the A65 dropping steeply into the second field. In our opinion there should be much less dense development in character areas 1 & 2 with careful consideration to the roof lines. This would have a substantial benefit in softening the boundary alongside the A65 and the wider landscape and the impact of the new development when entering the village.
2.10.6Pedestrian Access and PRoW
Because of the lack of footpath on Gatebeck Road from the entrance of Millbrook Caravan Park south to the entrance to the school and village hall, we believe that it is essential that the new development does include public access to the public right of way between the A65 and Gatebeck Road. See points:-
PRPC 3.2.4, PRPC 3.2.5,PRPC 3.2.6
2.16 Utilities
PRPC 2.16.1- United Utilities do not expect to start work on upgrading the site until next March 2018 and the expanded WwTW becoming operational in Dec-2018. We do not believe that any work should be allowed to start on the new development until United Utilities has completed the upgrade to the Endmoor WwTW.
PRPC 2.16.2- The village of Endmoor currently suffers from very slow and unreliable broadband service from BT Openreach. Members of the community are currently investigating the installationof Broadband for the Rural North (B4RN) high speed fibre broadband service and would ask that the developer work with the team of volunteers to help bring this to the village and make this world class 1,000 MB broadband service available to the new homes.
2.17.1 Constraints
We are pleased that you acknowledge the constraints on this site due to the Open countryside setting and its Sensitive edges with existing houses in Sycamore Close and the village primary school. And further consideration of the constraints of the sites topography and landscape features and its lack of access between the site and the village and its facilities.
2.17.1 Opportunities
We support the list of opportunities specified in this section but would add High Speed Fibre Broadband to this list as mentioned in PRPC 2.16.2
3.2 Land Use
Fig 10, Page 24, Indicative Proposal Map
•PRPC 3.2.1- We do NOT support any pedestrian/cycle way linking the south/eastern corner of Character Area 1 via the school gardens to the NW corner of the football pitch by the changing rooms.
•PRPC 3.2.2- We do NOT support the proposed relocation of the dry stone wall bisecting the two fields and it should remain in its current location.
•PRPC 3.2.3 - Without the proposed new pedestrian/cycle way linking the site via the school gardens to the to the NW corner of the football pitch and by keeping the dry stone wall in its current position, this would enable the proposed open space / green corridor in the south/eastern side of Area 1 be rotated through 90 degrees and form a part of a more useful green corridor between the southern boundary of Area 1 and existing houses in Sycamore Close.
•PRPC 3.2.4 -DO support the proposed new pedestrian/cycle link between the site and Gatebeck Road via the school driveway
•PRPC 3.2.5 -DO support the creation of an additional section of footpath between the north boundary of the site to link with the existing footpath (Ref 565013) from Low Park to Gatebeck Road.
•PRPC 3.2.6- We DO support the proposed Eastern Link Corridor (E) on the eastern boundary of character Area 3 providing access to the public right of way between the A65 and Gatebeck Road.
3.4 Traffic and Movement
We support the
3.4.2 General principles
3.4.3 The extension of the existing 30 mph speed limit and propose that it should be extended north to the junction with Gatebeck Lane.
3.4.9 The provision of active travel routes to Low Park and Summerlands
3.4.11
We DO NOT support
•PRPC 3.2.1 - We do NOT support any pedestrian/cycle way linking the south/eastern corner of Area 1 via the school gardens to the NW corner of the football pitch by the changing rooms.
We DO support
•the creation of new and improved pedestrian/cycle links
•PRPC 3.2.4 - The proposed new pedestrian/cycle link between the site and Gatebeck Road via the school driveway
•PRPC 3.2.5 - We highly recommend the creation of an additional section of footpath between the north boundary of the site to link with the existing footpath (Ref 565013) from Low Park to Gatebeck Road.
•PRPC 3.2.6 - The proposed Eastern Link Corridor (E) on the eastern boundary of character Area 3 providing access to the public right of way between the A65 and Gatebeck Road.
3.4Traffic and Movement
PRPC 3.4.2 To help improve road safety on the busy A65 with average traffic volumes in the order of7,500 vehicles a day werequest that the developers fund the purchase of a Speed indicator device (PTSC 906) with solar power system (PTSC 823) to help calm traffic in the area of the new development.
3.5 Design & Layout Framework
PRPC 3.5.1 -We are concerned at the lack of recommendations or breakdown of the number and type of dwellings for each character area.
PRPC 3.5.2 - We support the Overarching Considerations and the General Principles and the Site Specific Design Guidance especially the reference in 3.5.4 to the “building height, topography and landscape” especially in relation to neighbouring properties and the school
3.5 Housing Character Areas
3.5.6 - Character Area 1 - Southern Housing Area
PRPC 3.5.6.1 We support the proposed Landscaping and Green Infrastructure for this area but would stress that the southern boundary of Area 1 should be treated the same as the southern boundary in Character Area 3 (3.5.8) and include multi-functional green corridor providing a “substantial buffer” to help soften the impact of the new development on the existing houses in Sycamore Close and to protect their residential amenity.
PRPC 3.2.3 Without the proposed new pedestrian/cycle way linking the site via the school gardens to the to the NW corner of the football pitch and by keeping the dry stone wall in its current position, this would enable the proposed open space / green corridor in the south/eastern side of Area 1 to be rotated through 90 degrees and form a part of a more useful green corridor between the southern boundary of Area 1 and existing houses in Sycamore Close
Orientation, Scale, Density & Layout
PRPC 3.5.6.3 - We agree with and stress the importance of the items listed for the Orientation, Scale, Density and Layout and in particular the following
•"Careful attention to layout and orientation or longer gardens / planting on the southern boundary to mitigate close proximity views from existing dwellings and protect residential amenity"
•"Separation distances between existing and new development (along the southern boundary) should take careful account of the close proximity of properties to the existing boundary to ensure amenity of these residents is protected"
PRPC 3.5.6.4 - We also would like to point out the importance of minimising the skylining impact of the development on existing houses along the southern boundary
Character Area 2 - Northern Housing Area
We support the Landscaping and Green Infrastructure for this area and would stress the importance of a "gated emergency access option to the A65"
Character Area 3 - Central/Easter Housing Area
PRPC 3.5.6.5- We support the majority of the Landscaping and Green Infrastructure recommendations for this area except for the proposed multi-functional green corridor on the southern edge which it says will "provide a substantial buffer to the school". We do not believe that the multi-functional green corridor should be any larger here than that on the southern boundary of Character Area 1.
3.6 Landscape, Open Space and Green Infrastructure Framework
PRPC 3.6.1 support the General Principles and in general the Open Space Requirements but with the caveats we have previously listed, especially those in the Housing Character Areas. We fully support the proposal to provide a mix of assets but would like to know who will make the decision as to the type of assets included in the development
3.6.12 School buffer multi-functional east-west corridor
PRPC 3.2.6 We DO support the proposed Eastern Link Corridor (E) on the eastern boundary of character Area 3 providing access to the public right of way between the A65 and Gatebeck Road.
3.6.13
PRPC 3.2.5 - We highly recommend the creation of an additional section of footpath between the north boundary of the site to link with the existing footpath (Ref 565013) from Low Park to Gatebeck Road.
Boundary treatment to northern and western boundaries
3.6.15 - We fully support the proposed strong landscaping and tree planting along the northern and western boundaries to soften the impact of the new development
1 of 4