Website Contact

Objections - Errors and Misleading Statements in the Applicant's Documents:

• I have identified errors and misleading statements in the applicant's documents, in particular where they claim that they are approved when I believe they are not.  My background is Civil Engineering and not planning, so it is possible that I am mistaken in some of these.  I have no doubt that the NHDC planners fully understand the situation and would not misinterpret it, but my point is that where the applicant makes false claims it is likely that lay-people and members of the public will be misled and not properly comment where otherwise they might, and this prejudices the fair and full consultation of this application.
• Where the documents contain errors or falsehoods they should be corrected so that the public has the opportunity to comment from a basis of fact.

Objection - Relating to the Planning Statement:

• There are several errors, omissions and misleading statements in the Planning Statement which I believe make the application flawed.  In some cases, such as 'access' the document is misleading in respect of whether 'Access' is being consulted on or not.  This prejudices the fair and full consultation of this application and these should be corrected before the application is considered so that people are not misled.

Objections - Relating to Ignoring the Neighbourhood Plan:

• The applicant has ignored this document and therefore failed the requirements of the NPPF to work with the community in developing their design and layout.

Objections - Relating to the Design and Access Statement (DAS):

• This document asserts, several times, that there is an earlier 'approved' DAS.  I am unaware that this is the case as no such 'approved' document is recorded against that application on the NHDC website.  This is likely to mislead and jeopardises the likelihood of people commenting, believing that the matters covered are not under consideration.  This prejudices a fair and full consultation.

Objections - Relating to the Highways Assessment:

• I believe this document incorrectly claims that the access point has been approved and believe that this is misleading and prejudices the fair and open consultation of this application.

Objections - Relating to the Missing Documents and Information:

• I consider that some of the missing information is essential for the proper consideration of the application by me, by planning officers and by members of the public.  To fail to submit items such as heights of house types, details of the 'Apartment' and 'Terrace' types, e.g. elevations, plans, heights is unprofessional and misleading.  The application should not be considered without this information.

Objections to the Principle:

• Despite claims to the contrary, for these reasons given in this document, and the objections raised, the application does not demonstrate that quantum of development can be successfully accommodated on this site.

Objections - Relating to the Proposed Dwelling Mix:

The proposed mix of houses:

• Does not meet the community's wishes or needs and therefore does not meet the criteria of sustainable development for Pirton.
• Does not plan for the demographic trend identified by the Office of National Statistics.
• Does not to meet the requirements of those in Pirton wishing to downsize.
• Offers too little opportunity for conventional first time buyers.
• Does not attempt to meet the mix of houses required in Pirton to re-balance the private housing stock.
• Has a detrimental impact, pushing the private housing stock further towards the over-emphasis on large 4 and 5 bedroom houses.
• The introduction of one-bed accommodation, in a block as proposed, is not evidenced by need.

Objections - Relating to the Proposed Ownership Mix:

• The proposed ownership mix offers too little opportunity for conventional first time buyers.

Objections - Layout and Design:

Density:

• I object to the proposed density because, for the following reasons, I consider it excessive:
• It does not relate to the neighbouring built area which is approximately 12dph
• An important part of Pirton's character is that density reduces as it approaches the settlement boundary and adjacent countryside.  This design does not reflect this.
• The density should not exceed that of the areas in the immediate vicinity (12dph) and should reduce from that figure as it approachs the proposed village development boundary  and open countryside.

Height:

• The proposed house types are estimated to be between 8 and 9.6m - many are higher than even the highest property in the vicinity and approach the height expected of three-story buildings.  This is contrary to the character of Pirton, especially at this location where it is necessary to reduce the visual impact as the village meets the countryside.  The maximum height should be restricted to 8.8m (existing maximum) with the majority being less and more consistent with those that pre-exist the three houses mentioned.
• I am unable to assess the impact of the 'Apartment' and 'Terrace' types as no details have been provide, which is unacceptable.
• The absence of factual height information in the application is unacceptable and scaling from elevations marked "No dimensions are to be scaled from this drawing" is simply not acceptable and is prejudicial to proper consideration of the designs.

The 'North - South' Footpath:

• The propose location in not practical, it is in the wrong place and therefore will not be used and is therefore pointless.  This should be moved to the western edge of the development and preferably also connect to Royal Oak Lane.

The'Green' Footpaths:

These are not appropriate to the location because they do not offer adequate protection to pedestrians, are unlikely to be used by children or those using push chairs, mobility scooters or those wary of uneven, muddy or soft surfaces, such as the elderly or disabled. In addition:

• They will cause an ongoing maintenance and are therefore unlikely to be adequately maintained.
• It cannot be guaranteed that they will remain free of obstruction or from the trespass of gardens.
• These should be replaced by convention footpath construction, preferable on both sides of the road, but certainly on at least one side.

Car Parking:

• The proposed car parking is not adequate for this development and it should be increased to avoid the need for on road parking and to meet the policies in the emerging Neighbourhood Plan.

Play Area / SUDs:

• The SUDs and play areas need to be separated to the alleviate the risk to children who may interact with the former when flooded or frozen over.

Objections - Relating to Access:

• I consider a roundabout to be totally out of keeping with this village location and the rural character of Pirton.
• The applicant has failed to acknowledge, comment or deal with the visual impact as required by the Government's good practice guide.
• Cala Homes acknowledge that the roundabout provides excess capacity.  This is not required, nor likely to be so within the life of the Local and Neighbourhood Plans.  This suggests that another means of access may be suitable, yet no details are provided or any explanation as to why alternatives are considered unsuitable.

Objections - Relating to Highway Safety (Pedestrian and Cyclist):

• In Holwell Road there is no safe pedestrian route to pass the terraced properties known as the twelve Apostles and the 152m of road with no footway.  The bus top is a further 250m away.  For the reasons detailed, this development would produce an increase in people and cyclists using this route.  I object because this has not been adequately considered and no solution has been provided.
• The application fails to consider the cumulative impact of the existing vehicle movements with the new and appears to be based on theoretical figures rather than appropriate traffic counts - this should not be accepted at this location where there is genuine safety concern because of the lack of a footway and the interaction of vehicles with pedestrians and other road users.

Objections - Relating to Internal Roads:

• I believe that the increase risk due increased traffic movements is unacceptable in respect of pedestrians and cyclists, without assessment and some off-site mitigation, i.e. better footways, maintained and improved sight-lines.  I accept that many of these are outside of the control of the applicant, but must be properly considered and reported on by those who are responsible before permission is granted and I can see no evidence in connection with the application to confirm that this has happened.

Objections - Relating to External Roads:

• I am aware that the traffic impact on external roads cannot be mitigated by the applicant because it is outside their control, but for sustainable development these matters must be properly considered before permission is granted and, where serious enough to warrant action, the application should not be approved until such mitigation is place.  I object to the application because the Highway Assessment and reports have not identified the impact nor identified any mitigations required.

Objections - Relating to Ecology and Biodiversity:

• There is not sufficient evidence that the design meets the needs of wildlife such as the movement of hedgehogs and small mammals or seeks to enhance the ecology and biodiversity in Pirton.

Objections - Relating to Drainage:

• The performance of the Pirton pumping station is not acceptable, additional flows are likely to increase the number of failures and make the consequential flooding and pollution worse.  This proposed development should not be permitted until the performance of the pumping station is reliable and of an acceptable capacity.

Objections - Relating to the NPPF:

• The applicant fails to address several NPPF expectations and requirements.  Most noticeable, and important, is the requirement to work with the community and to evolve the design.  By ignoring the issues raised in the applicants' consultation, the design brief produced by the Pirton Parish Council and most importantly the emerging Neighbourhood Plan the applicant shows a blatant disregard for this, which is not acceptable to me or the community and should not be acceptable to NHDC as professional planners working with due regard to the NPPF.

Objections - Public Consultation:

• See National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

Potential Objections

Below are details of some suggestions for potential objections, they are just one persons view and they be wrong and there may be mistakes.  

As always you should make up your own minds about the validity or otherwise of what appears in these pages. You should decide what you agree with and what you do not and submit your comments, for or against this application accordingly.

If you wish to read the thoughts and arguments that are behind these, then see the comments and objections, but please note that it is draft, requires proof reading, some further thought.  Once you have made up your own mind see ‘How to Object’ and submit your views for or against by 17/11/2016.

Back to Top