Comments and objections to
Planning Application 16/01302/FL
26 Dwellings, comprising 1 and 2 bedroom bungalows and
3 and 4 bedroom houses, 100% affordable homes.
Land off Fanny Avenue, Killamarsh – Applicant Ms. Marie Wilson.
Dear Sirs,
I wish to object to the above planning application for the following reasons:
• This land is within a Green Belt area surrounding Killamarsh and the development is detrimental to the character and appearance of the area and would be harmful to the open, rural and undeveloped character of the Green Belt,
• Although the application is for ‘affordable homes’ – an application that can be judged to be ‘appropriate development’ in Green Belt areas, I suggest that it should not be so judged because it does not fulfil the criteria for such a judgement.
• This is not ‘limited infilling in villages’ or ‘limited affordable homes for local community needs’. The application itself shows that this is ‘major development’,
• The Design, Access Planning and Heritage Statement (DAPHS), which accompanies the application, suggests that this development would ’infill the Manor Road, Fanny Avenue/Dumbleton Road development to its south, following the pattern of development that has been historically established’. This development is not ‘infilling’. It is within the Green Belt and outside the Killamarsh Settlement Limits. There is no ‘historical pattern of development’ here at all. This would be a complete intrusion into the countryside,
• The application talks about the construction of 1 and 2 bedroom bungalows and 3 and 4 bedroom houses. The site plan shows only 1 and 2 bedroom houses with 2 and 3 bedroom houses. Where are the four bedroom houses to go? Will the application for these houses go in afterwards, if this application is granted?
• The Maps displayed on the Phase I and Phase II Geotechnical Study indicate that a much larger area than that which is the subject of this planning application has been examined. This leads very reasonably to the belief that this application is the ‘sweetener’ to a subsequent, much larger, proposal. Previous research has shown that in the last available SHLAA applications KIL 1702 and KIL 1703 appear to cover the area shown in the perhaps incorrectly included maps showing a much larger examination area. That would lead to 152 additional homes, if subsequent applications were accepted,
• The application site plan shows parking for 52 vehicles and bedrooms for 108 people. This significantly exceeds the number of people living on Fanny Avenue and would provide traffic congestion on this small estate road.
• On- road parking that currently exists will exacerbate access and egress to the proposed site and will increase potential danger from traffic and an increase in CO2 and particulates, thereby exacerbating the higher levels of these due to the site’s proximity to the M1 motorway,
• Fanny Avenue exits onto Manor Road, which itself leads to Úpperthorpe Road. The current exit from Manor Road is on a partial bend with views limited by hedgerows. The exit is close to the start/end of a 50 mph limit carriageway with many bends and adverse cambers. This will provide danger to more vehicles exiting Manor Road,
• The Geotechnical Study shows the reality of the site which drops sharply from the top of the proposed site to its boundary with Upperthorpe Road. This gets steeper the more one travels along Upperthorpe Road towards Hut Lane. In this area the road surface is frequently flooded during heavy rainfall, making the road all but impassable near to the junction of Upperthorpe Road and Spinkhill Road. To site what is described as an ‘attenuation pond’, designed to take care of groundwater from the site, near to this well-used road is, in my view, the height of folly. In heavy rain there is a clear danger of the attenuation pond being either breached or overtopped, leading to additional flooding on the road with a very clear risk of homes below the pond being flooded. The land continues to descend quite sharply for a few hundred yards,
• The Geotechnical Study refers to the last subsidence claim occurring in 1998. There is evidence from houses on Manor Road and Fanny Avenue to show that ground movement is still taking place here, leading to damaged tiles and cracks in house walls. Rykneld Homes should have evidence of remedial work carried out in response to this,
• The proposed development site is bordered on two sides by ‘Development High Risk’ areas which, presumably, have been so designated for valid reasons.
For the stated reasons I ask that this application be denied.
Paul Johnson,
Rose Cottage,
1 Spinkhill Road,
Killamarsh,
Sheffield,
S21 1EH
Addendum.
There is an important issue for those living next to, or very close to, the proposed development. This concerns the loss of amenity to the area.
Whilst you cannot complain about the loss of a view, or a reduction in the value of your house (don’t mention either of these!) an objection can be raised if the size, depth, width, height and massing would have an unacceptably adve3rse impact on the amenities of the properties immediately adjacent to the site and the surrounding area by reason of overlooking, loss of privacy and visually overbearing impact.
The current occupants of Fanny Avenue and Manor Road have a reasonable expectation of a level of amenity from living beside open fields. The proposed development will result in noise, disturbance and nuisance to the detriment of neighbour’s residential amenity. In addition the development would harm the habitats of many species of wildlife currently living in the area of the proposed development (then give examples of the birds, animals etc. that are seen to live and visit the site – as produced at last nights meeting).
Remember, your comment/objection needs to be about what you feel, not what someone else has put. It needs to be your personal views.