Application DA/2012/0860: Woodford Cum Membris

Author R. JohnsonGroup The Parish Objectors

Date 26 January 2013

Location Land adjoining Upton Close, off Byfield Road,Woodford Halse, Northamptonshire

Development Outline Planning Application For Construction of up to 200Dwellings, Access, Public Open Space And Associated Works

Applicant Gladman Developments Ltd.

Recommendation REJECT contrary to officers recommendation

If your time is limited I would urge to read the conclusion at the end of this report.

The proposed development site adjoins Woodford Halse which is designated as a restricted infill village under saved Policy HS22 of the Daventry District Local Plan which only allows for small scale residential development within the confines of the village where it does not affect open land of significance to the form and character of the village.

The proposed development conflicts with the provisions of this policy in that it is not small scale and lies outside the confines of the village.

As the proposed development conflicts with the provisions of the above policy it is therefore not necessary to have regard to other material considerations which are material to the consideration and determination of this application. The Framework is not therefore on this occasion a significant material consideration and should not be afforded weight in the determination of this application.

Whilst paragraph 14 sets a presumption in favour of sustainable development, this proposal is not sustainable due to a number of ‘adverse impacts’. The size of this development has ‘adverse impacts which significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits’ on the immediate environment, particularly when combined with THREE other proposals of significant size within a two mile radius which cannot and should not be taken out of the context of the area or dealt with singularly.

It is therefore essential that, at the very least, this proposal be given consideration greater than the NINE MINUTES of combined presentation/discussion time for both ‘plan making and decision taking’. At best it should just be rejected.

The Core planning principles of the Framework (paragraph 17) recognise the importance of the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. This includes its continued use for agriculture. There exists suitable ‘brown field sites’ within the district.

Paragraphs 100 and 103 advises on avoiding locating inappropriate development in flood risk areas. Paragraph 103 specifically advises that LPAs should ensure flood risk is not increased elsewhere. All of these requirements are compromised within the context of this development.

The conflict that exists with saved Policy HS22 in that, the site sits outside the confines of the village and that it is not a small scale development, mean that the provisions of the Framework do not weigh in favour of this proposal.

There exists significant evidence of localised flooding adjoining the site and elsewhere in the village (see section on flooding). Part of the site is situated within a flood plain and the applicants have not demonstrated (to the satisfaction of the Parish Council & Village Objectors Group) that the proposal will not give rise to increased flooding elsewhere.

We are not satisfied that due consideration has been given to local amenities; health, leisure and commerce. We are not satisfied that due and sufficient consideration has been given to infrastructure. We are not satisfied that the consideration given to housing needs in general, be that affordable or otherwise, within the village and surrounding area, for the proportion of populace indigenous to the village and surrounding area, is proportionate with the DDC surveys conducted in April 2012.

We are also not satisfied that proper consultations have been taken under the provisions of the Framework as we have not been furnished with, or had made available to us, copy of such consultations and surveys, and are concerned that the results of such surveys are flawed, including the reporting of correspondence figures rejecting this proposal, which has led to significant issues not being given the consideration they are due.

We are greatly concerned that the perceived benefits of this development exist only in the mind of the DDC Planning Department and are driven by the section 106 provision/negotiation, and the Department of Communities New Homes Bonus Calculator, payable by the developer, from which DDC will receive in the order of £1.4 million for this development alone (applicants Planning Statement section 7.5 p28), the proceeds and benefits of which the village and surrounding area is highly unlikely to see.

We therefore challenge the integrity and motives of DDC Planning Control Department regarding this aspect, and are very concerned that democracy will be ignored in favour of these inducements.

We are equally concerned that ‘the spirit’ of the Localism Act is not being adhered to and that the overall benefits to the village do not outweigh the conflict with existing saved policy HS22 in the local plan, and that the proposed development, by virtue of its

magnitude, (particularly when combined with the proposal for an additional 40 dwellings ref; DA/2013/0024) will destroy the rural nature, shape and character of the village.

Overall it is considered that the impacts of the development will be adverse and cannot be suitably addressed under current circumstance and climate to mitigate those impacts.

Details of Objections

Previous Applications

Contrary to the Planning Statement of the applicant (appendix 1 letter to S. Ellis DDC 15/11/12) that “this site has no relevant planning history” the site under application has previously had outline applications refused on a number of occasions. One of those applications was as follows;

In March 2002 application DA/2002/0075 for a Public House, Family Restaurant, Car Park and landscaping were refused on the grounds that “it would be detrimental to the form and character of this part of the village, and detrimental to the visual amenity of the area”.

We consider that a development of 200 dwellings (and any future development as proposed) will have greater impact on the “form and character” of the village and to the “visual amenity” of the area, than the application that was refused in 2002.

Highway Capacity & Road Safety

The Byfield Road is the primary route in and out of Woodford Halse. It is too narrow in a number of places both within the built up area and beyond. In order that larger vehicles such as PSV’s and HGV’s may pass whilst travelling in opposite directions one of them has to stop at the very least. In several places it is necessary for one of them to mount the pavement as the photographs below graphically demonstrate.

Note the brake lights of the bus on the left. HGV and PSV vehicles are not permitted to mount the kerbs and pavements, however you can see they have no choice. This includes the councils own garbage collection vehicles.

Under the Highways Act it is also illegal to force any part of an HGV or PSV to cross the centre line of the road. Heavy vehicles being forced to cross the centre line of Byfield Road is a daily occurrence in Woodford Halse and at the Five-Ways Junction at Byfield. The frequency of this occurring will only increase if this development is ratified and the risk of RTC significantly increased.

We would remind the DDC of the Duty of Care they have toward all persons utilising the roads within the area.

The damage heavy vehicles mounting the pavements creates is significant as the photograph below demonstrates. There are several examples of this along the length of the Byfield Road.

This is a current and worrying problem which will intensify with the progressive implementation of the planning approvals for industrial & office developments adjacent to the application site (subsequently amended to an application for an additional 40 dwellings; DA/2013/0024) and any further residential development.

It will also become worse as the level of goods vehicle traffic that will be back and forth to the site for many years increases, putting pedestrians and cyclists at significant risk.

Given that the Council demands its own workers adhere rigorously to requirements of all health & safety legislation it appears to us to be more than just a little hypocritical to then subject its residents and citizens to a lesser standard. It would appear that Council has a clear dereliction of a Duty of Care to this situation.

Traffic Volume

The proposed development of 200 homes will obviously increase traffic flow along the main route in and out of the village, the Byfield Road. Whilst the Planning Control Department report goes into some detail regarding entry and exit from the proposed development, including whether the radii of the junction is sufficient for a garbage lorry to enter and exit the development, there is apparently little heed to the increase in flow down Byfield Road itself, other than to mention almost in passing the Byfield ‘Five-ways-Junction, which struggles to cope with the traffic volumes at present. But the impact on Woodford Halse itself appears to be conveniently ignored.

We note the comments regarding the requirements of policy GN2, however due to there being a general unavailability of information as to what GN2 is we are currently unable to comment ourselves.

To that end we have conducted our own traffic surveys, including noise surveys, carried out on January 15th & 17th. The reason for conducting such surveys is that we;

1. Question the results of the noise survey conducted by the applicant given the times the survey was conducted were not peak commuting times (04:00-07:00 & 14:00-17:00)

2. We note that the Planning Control Department appear reluctant to publish the results of the noise surveys they state have been carried out on the site but state that they are ‘satisfied’, &

3. Given that we have already found ‘significant inconsistencies’ in the Planning Control Departments report and the applicants outline, we felt it necessary to verify the statements

The results of the traffic survey are graphically demonstrated below and may not agree with statistics issued by central Government, however they are real and accurate.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

vehicles/hr

05:00/06:00 06:00/07:00 07:00/08:00 08:00/09:00 16:00/17:00 17:00/18:00

Time

Traffic Volume Byfield Road

15-Jan

17-Jan

The survey conducted on the 15th January was taken at the junction of Byfield Road and Membris way. The survey conducted on 17th January was taken at the junction of Byfield Road and Grants Hill Way.

The peak hour traffic average as you can see currently in excess of 500 vehicles per hour (vph). A 200 dwelling development on the Byfield Road will increase that average by at least 40% to 700 vph, at a rate of 1 vehicle per household. It is fair to assume that 50% of the new properties will have more than one vehicle per household. The larger four bedroom properties with offspring over the age of 17 will probably have three vehicles per household. That being the case it is fair to assume overall across a 200 dwelling development of 2 to 5 bedroom property mix it is not unreasonable to assume an average of 1.75 vehicles per dwelling.

That being the case, it not inconceivable that the average peak hour traffic flow would increase by 350 vph. An increase of 70% to 850 vph.

We can be relatively sure that the traffic flow increase will be in the order of magnitude suggested due to there being limited opportunity for employment with in the village.

This level of increase is not sustainable at the Five-Ways-Junction at Byfield which bisects the A361. This will in turn lead to people finding alternative routes. Alternative routes out of the village are;

ξ

via Membris Way, Ash Way and Farndon Road toward the Aston-le-Walls cross roads if heading for Banbury or the motorway network, or

ξ

via Phipps Road, Hinton Road and Farndon Road again toward the Aston-le-Walls cross roads for Banbury and the motorway network, or

ξ

via Woodford Hill and Charwelton Road for Daventry

These alternative routes are already heavily used. Any further increase in traffic flow will significantly increase the risks to pedestrians, in particular school children and the elderly. The traffic calming measures on Ash Way also appear to have limited effect.

That the route via Hinton Road is heavily parked and an added area of significant concern as the picture below center demonstrates is an additional concern. As the photographs below right and left demonstrate, the attrition to the road is also significant.

The Hinton Road is not the only area being significantly affected by attrition as the photographs of the main Byfield Road below demonstrate. These are not isolated examples and again pose a significant risk to road safety. They also indicate the level of over use the road is already getting. The addition of construction traffic initially will only serve to compound the level of attrition. The attrition will then damage resident’s private vehicles, thus reducing reliability and fitness for purpose, and ultimately may even become responsible for RTC’s.

I have no doubt that DDC is fully aware of its Duty of Care relating to such matters, it would to be derelict in it’s attentiveness to this duty.

Noise

As has been discussed above we have reason to question the acceptability of the noise survey conducted by the applicant. The following are the results of our own survey;

Overall Noise Survey Results - Byfield Road

0

20

40

60

80

100

15-Jan 17-Jan

Date

dB

Low

High

Average

Equipment used to conduct the noise survey was supplied by the Health & Safety Manager for Thames Valley Police. The equipment used was;

Casella CEL -231Serial No: 613030IEC 651, BS5969, ANSI S1.4 Type 2

Calibration Unit;

Casella CEL-282Scanstical Calibration unit toIEC 942 Type 2ANSI S1.40-1984Serial No: 971030

The equipment was calibrated both before and after the survey was conducted. Measurements were taken across 45 minute periods between the hours of 05:00-09:00 and then from 16:00-18:00

As the traffic flow increases so will overall noise levels. At 80dB the noise level is equivalent to a road drill. It is more than possible that the overall noise level will rise to 80dB as an average with a 70% increase in traffic, particularly as the economy recovers and the level of HGV’s to the industrial estate increases.

We note that the applicant states that it may be necessary to ensure dwellings they construct on the Byfield Road may need to have additional noise barrier measures incorporated into the design, including having the living accommodation situated to the aspect of the dwelling away from the Byfield Road.

We note there is no discussion within the outline to ensure the existing 63 dwellings on the Byfield Road and the 14 Dwellings on Upton Close have additional sound proofing measures fitted, to eliminate the effect of what will be a significant rise in noise pollution levels.

The increased risk to pedestrians and cyclists must also be considered. Byfield Road has a history of critical and fatal RTC’s. The increase in heavy traffic having to mount the pavements will undoubtedly increase this risk, and the further deterioration of the road surface will put cyclists in particular at greater risk.

It is stated that there have been no critical or fatal RTC’s within the last 5 years. Sadly this is yet another inconsistency in the reports so far issued, as the last occurred in January 2009. We collectively find this inconsistency particularly offensive and distressing as the family concerned are indigenous to the village.

Parking

Car parking within the village has also already become a significant issue. Many of the dwellings in areas of the older parts of the village such as Hinton Road, Percy Road, Sydney Road and Cherwell Terrace do not have off street parking. Many of these

dwellings are accredited with owning more than one vehicle. This obviously means there is then an overspill into other areas of the village. Station Road being one of the main overspill areas as the pictures below demonstrate.

This has a particularly detrimental affect on the Station Road businesses and is at least partially responsible for a decline in business. The introduction of an additional 350 vehicles at least trying to use the same amount of space will only serve to impact this decline yet further.The areas surrounding the school are of equal if not higher concern regarding parking. Here there really does exist a very high potential risk for accidents.

Even properties with off street parking are affected as again a large proportion have more than one vehicle which often leads to on street parking of the second vehicle.

Above left and centre Station Road parking. Above right parking outside school.

The overall parking issues are such that the Daventry Police have received so many complaints that they have issued a formal notice regarding the issue.

It is not inconceivable that an increase in vehicles in the order of magnitude projected could also lead to public order offences.

The Woodford Halse and Byfield Parish Councils concur with all of the concerns outlined above

The overall significant increase in traffic flow that the proposed development will bring, the risks it poses to quality of life and general safety will have an adverse impact and be a significant material disadvantage for the village in general, and in particular, the existing residents of Byfield Road, Upton Close, Membris Way, Ash Way, Phipps Road, Hinton Road and Farndon Road, which further conflicts with the requirements of the Framework.

Flooding

The DDC Planning Control Department report states that the EA claim that the development ‘will not give rise to unacceptable flood risk’, and that the site ‘does not fall within a flood zone’.

We would beg to differ with this view and demonstrate the following evidence to support our view that the risk of flooding is considerably higher than the commentary from both the applicant and the agencies invited to give their views;

The above flood map highlights 3 areas where the flood risk is considered significant on the outer edges of the site. The source of this map is a very recent property conveyancing search for a new resident to the village.

You will note that the area surrounding the River Cherwell is also highlighted as an area of significant flood risk.

To the right of the proposed site currently exists an attenuation pond which the right hand side of the proposed site drains into. This in turn feeds into the River Cherwell.

Removal of the top ‘sponge’ layer from the proposed site will provoke increased run off into the attenuation pond. The picture below (27/01/13) demonstrates the incapability of the attenuation pond from the level of rain after just one night. Note how close the water level is to the top of the land drain construction (top right) and that the grating is completely submerged.

As Mr McDowells report states, local plans are always supported by the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA). The technical guidance from the EA recommends that ‘SFRA’s should take account of other sources of flooding and the impacts of climate change in addition to the flood map’.

As previously mentioned this attenuation pond runs into the River Cherwell and thus adds to the flooding risk which is in direct contravention of the above EA advice. The impact this has further down stream is to put at risk the dwellings on Sidney Road, lower end of Castle Road and the area at the bottom of Scrivens Hill. It is not inconceivable that Foxglove Avenue could also be affected.

To support this evidence yet further the following warning was issued by the EA on 27th

January 2013;

The photographs below demonstrate why the attenuation pond is full. Both are of the proposed site. Below left is adjacent to the Byfield Road at the western end. The properties in the distance are those of Upton Close. Below right is adjacent to Grants Hill Way again at the western end of the proposed site.

The other end of the proposed site, adjacent to Upton Close has already experienced severe flooding. The first floods occurring as the dwellings were being built, as the photographs below demonstrate.

The above should have been dealt with by the building inspectors at the time of construction.

The Planning Control Department and the District Council were advised at the time the outline planning application was submitted, by residents and other agencies that this area flooded routinely. This advice was ignored and the following photographs demonstrate the consequences.

The above pictured incident of flooding took place in November of 2012 and again demonstrates that the EA’s advise regarding the SRFA was not given proper consideration. I think we can all agree that significant mistakes were made in allowing the construction of these properties.

Interestingly the picture of the open field on the right is part of the proposed site for DA/2012/0860, the application in question which backs onto the dwellings of Upton Close.

Sewage

There exists considerable doubt that the existing network can cope with an additional 200 properties. This of course is highlighted in Mr McDowell’s report, however what is not included is that, during the floods of Upton Close in November 2012, the Fire & Rescue Service tried to discharge the flood water through the system and had considerable difficulty in doing so.

In addition the small sewage works between Farndon and Byfield is significantly affected when the River Cherwell floods and contaminates the river. Local farmers then have to take their live stock away from the fields in question.

Having to pump flood water out of dwellings built in areas already acknowledged as being in an area of significant flood risk exasipates the problems further down stream.

The addition of the 200 dwellings will increase the problems experienced here due to the additional run off into the River Cherwell. It is again not inconceivable that the domino effect of this being the sewage system backing up. Residents of some of the properties along the Byfield Road already experience blocked sewers on occasions.

Water

Parts of Woodford Halse already experience low water pressure. We have to question what the overall effect on supply pressure will be with the addition of 200 dwellings (and any future residential development as proposed).

Consultations

We have consulted widely. These consultations include the ward MP, Woodford Parish Council, Byfield Parish Council, village business’s, amenity and service providers, as well as individual residents, the views of whom are as follows;

Ward MP – Mr Chris Heaton-Harris

Following his own discussions with members of the Parish and his receipt of a large volume of correspondence rejecting this proposal, including objections from Woodford Parish Council and several District Council members, Mr Heaton-Harris has confirmed his own objection to the proposed development which we understand broadly mirrors the objection published by the Parish Council.

Woodford Parish Council

Following the village meeting of 10th January Woodford Parish Council have submitted an official objection to the proposed development. The well supported meeting at which a large number of individual members of the Parish voiced their opinion, and at which three District Councilors were in attendance, voted unanimously to reject the proposal, and the Parish Council were instructed to uphold the democratic will of the people in informing the District Council of the peoples’ decision to reject the proposal on grounds as listed in E. McDowell’s planning report.

The official objection centers around highway capacity & road safety, flooding from both surface water and drainage (grey water & sewage), open countryside, sustainability and the change in the character of the village from rural to urban.

Byfield Parish Council

Byfield Parish Council have discussed at length the impact this and the other three proposed developments between the two villages will have on their village and have sent

comment and objection specifically to this proposal to E. McDowell, the content of which is contained with Mr McDowell’s report.

Station Road Shops

Station Road business have generally seen a decline in local footfall due mainly to the lack of parking facilities within the centre of the village. It is generally perceived that 75% of the village population now do 90% of their shopping outside of the village. They do not see any proposal contained within this proposed development to improve that situation and, despite the completely unrealistic statistics from central government stating people walk 2km to do their shopping, see no benefit from the development. In fact the majority of business owners we have spoken to see the development as the ‘beginning of the end’ for the ‘High Street’ in its current form selling local produce to local people for a number of reasons;

ξ

The major parking issues will discourage any new trade and may even further damage existing trade.

ξ

The significant increase in population with this development on its own will be sufficient to provoke planning applications from major national retailers with ‘Express’ stores and national fast food chains. When combined with the potential increase in populace from the other three proposed developments in the area the reality of this becomes even greater.

ξ

There is significant concern that property security will be compromised due to the lack of village facilities for the increased teenage population which will undoubtedly come as a result of this development, facilities for which there appears to be no provision.

Amenity Providers

The only two significant amenity providers within the village are the Social Club and Football Club who both see this as positive with the potential to increase their membership.

In the case of the Social Club this is highly unlikely because of the perception of ‘Working Men’s Clubs’ in the 21st century to the modern day individual. That is not to say the club would not see some benefit.

In the case of the Football Club, provision for young people is seen as being limited by the lack of indoor provision; the greater proportion of the club house is subject to the Licensing Act, and by the lack of any floodlight grass training pitches. There exists a small junior section within the cricket club during the summer months. Outside of this there is no other facility for the young within the village boundaries; the other community halls within the village are both too small and not equipped for sport and recreation.

Access to further facilities is by road to Daventry or Banbury which would be made more difficult and require the use of private cars thus further increasing the traffic volumes

(traffic will be dealt will separately later in this document) as public transportation ceases after 19:00 hrs.

Service Providers:

Medical Services

The commentary contained within the original Gladman proposal suggests that the local health care providers have ‘no concerns’. Mr McDowells report also suggests similar although he then qualifies this by quoting that the increase in listed patients would be 6%, which he claims was given to him by the Byfield Medical Centre Manager, Mr Martin Crawford. Some members of our group have a close working relationship with Mr Crawford and can categorically tell you that Mr Crawford sees the increase from this development alone to be somewhat more than that. He has also stated to me that the existing building only provides 45% of the space the practice requires. A ridiculous and potentially unsafe situation if ever there was one. I am also aware that Mr Crawford wrote to DDC CEO Mr Ian Vincent outlining his concerns in October 2012.

We are also led to believe that the PCT have also filed a report through Mr Michael Daly regarding this matter and concur with Mr Crawford’s view.

We note the section of the original Gladman proposal which states they will contribute to local services should there be a need for additional capacity by way of the S106. We also note the section of Mr McDowell’s report which states this provision must be made. It has been brought to my attention by the Parish Council Planning Officer and the health centre managers and professionals that it is ‘highly unlikely’ that the area will benefit from any of the S106 contribution to improve the services they are able to provide.

Given the above we directly question the integrity and motives of the DDC Planning Control Department with regards to the above comments in this aspect of the planning report dated 30th January 2013.

Fire & Rescue Services

We note the current addition of full time members of the NFRS to ensure that Woodford has a minimum crew available to respond 24 hours per day within the required response time of 7/8 minutes. The comments contained within Mr McDowell’s report are noted, as are the vagaries of those comments.

The proposed development will increase the number of dwellings of the village by 13%. Thus the increased domestic fire risk is also increased by 13%. This increase in risk could potentially rise by 16% when taking into account other proposed developments.

As has already been discussed the increase in traffic will also have a major impact. Mr McDowell’s report states that NFRS respond to 475 RTC’s per year on average. Whilst we have been unable to obtain figures for the RTC response for the Woodford unit,

following the traffic surveys undertaken by ourselves on 15 th January & 17th January we anticipate a potential 50% increase in traffic flow at peak periods which, if taken as a linear calculation, gives 50% increase in risk of RTC within the area that would be dealt with by the local NFRS unit, thus leaving the village and surrounding area exposed to greater risk of longer response times from units based further away, in the event of an incident whilst the local unit were responding to another incident.

Residents

We note Mr McDowell’s complete lack of discussion within his report of the concerns of the residents; his almost dismissive approach in the lack of detail when all other headings receive considerable attention, and his statement that he has only received ‘7 letters to date’. I would go so far as to suggest that the 7 letters were received some time ago and not, as the date on his report would suggest, up to and including 30th January.

I have personally canvassed circa 200 dwellings and have had either assurances of letters/emails of objection are to be sent, or confirmation that letters/emails of objection have already been sent. My calculation of propensity against the proposed development was circa 87%

I also know that a number of other residents in the village have also canvassed dwellings and received a highly positive and supportive response rate very similar to that experienced by myself.

As residents have taken the trouble to write to the ward MP in sufficient numbers to gain his support and involvement to the point where he sends in his own letter of objection, I think it highly likely that Mr McDowell has received a greater number of letters of objection than 7, and challenge Mr McDowells integrity and motives for what appears to be deliberately misleading information.

You can be assured that, for all of the valid reasons quoted above, the majority of Woodford Halse residents are against this proposal.

Conclusion

In conclusion I would like to highlight the following main points of our objection;

ξ

Woodford Halse is designated as a restricted infill village under saved Policy HS22 of the Daventry District Local Plan which only allows for small scale development

ξ

The proposed development conflicts with the provisions of this policy in that it is not small scale and lies outside the confines of the village.

ξ

The size of this development has ‘adverse impacts which significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits’ on the immediate environment

ξ

Paragraphs 100 and 103 of the Core Planning Framework advise on avoiding locating inappropriate development in flood risk areas. There exists significant

evidence of localised flooding adjoining the proposed site, on the proposed site and elsewhere in the village (see section on flooding).

ξ

The houses built on Upton Close flooded both whilst being built and again since being occupied. The residents are still not back into their houses. These dwellings are adjacent to the proposed site

ξ

At the time of the flooding in November 2012 NFRS were pumping the water into the sewers as well as surface water drains neither of which could cope.

ξ

The run off from the Upton Close development then flooded the Cherwell tributary further down the village compromising roads, fields & the sewage works at Byfield

ξ

The EA state that “SFRA’s should take account of other sources of flooding and the impacts of climate change. This advice is being ignored for this proposal & was ignored for the development of Upton Close

ξ

DDC Planning Department are driven by the section 106 provision/negotiation, and the Department of Communities New Homes Bonus Calculator, payable by the developer, from which DDC will receive in the order of £1.4 million for this development alone (applicants Planning Statement section 7.5 p28).

ξ

Section 106 is about to change from its current format and will enable monies to be more easily diverted away from the area/project it was originally intended for

ξ

We are concerned that democracy will be ignored in favour of these inducements.

ξ

We are concerned that the ‘Localism Act’ is not being upheld

ξ

Contrary to the Planning Statement of the applicant (appendix 1 letter to S. Ellis DDC 15/11/12) that “this site has no relevant planning history” the site under application has previously had outline applications refused on a number of occasions the being in March 2002 (DA/2002/0075) on the grounds it would be “detrimental to the form and character of the village” and the “visual amenity” of the area.

ξ

Medical provision within the village is currently limited to 1 hour per day

ξ

The medical centre at Byfield is currently at maximum capacity with the building being 45% of the size needed. The management team have stated that they cannot cope with any increase in patient list numbers which is confirmed by the PCT

ξ

Traffic volume on the Byfield Road is currently in excess of 500 vph at peak periods. The proposed development will increase that by 70% to 850 vph at peak.

ξ

Use of alternative routes through the residential areas of the village will increase putting greater pressure and further damaging the existing housing estate road structure.

ξ

Road safety will be compromised for all users in particular pedestrians & cyclists

ξ

HGV’s & PSV’s are forced to mount the pavement along Byfield Road at a number of points as it is not wide enough. This illegal under the Highways Act and further damages the road network.

ξ

This will lead to a linear increase in RTC risk, which will increase still further once construction commences.

ξ

Public transport to and from the village ceases at 19:00 hrs

ξ

Statements by both the Planning Department & the Applicant that there have no fatal RTC’s within the last 5 years are incorrect. The last was January 2009.

ξ

The above points regarding Road Safety constitute a dereliction of Duty of Care by DDC.

ξ

The noise survey conducted by the applicant is flawed due to it not being conducted at peak times

ξ

Our own noise survey indicates current noise levels exceed 80dB which is equivalent to a road drill. This will only increase with this development.

ξ

There is no provision within the applicants Planning Statement to mitigate any increase in noise levels from existing properties on Byfield Road or Upton Close

ξ

Car parking within the village is already at crisis point, particularly along shopping are of Station Road. The Daventry Police have recently issued a letter regarding the subject. The addition of 350 vehicles will only make the situation worse.

ξ

Lack of parking is already damaging trade for local shops. Trade will be damaged still further if people cannot park as no one walks any where.

ξ

The existing sewage system is incapable of coping with an increase of 200 dwellings

ξ

A number of dwellings on the Byfield Road already experience intermittent sewage related issues.

ξ

Water pressure in the village is already very low. There appears to no provision to increase the capacity of the existing system to encompass 200 additional dwellings

ξ

Amenities all age groups within the village, particularly the young are extremely limited

ξ

Primary and pre-school places are already at a premium and would be “very tight” with in influx of new students which the LEA states is the norm for new developments

ξ

Contrary to statements by DDC Planning Department the number of formal objections from residents is considerable greater than 7

ξ

Formal objections have also been lodged by the ward MP, Woodford Parish Council & Byfield Parish Council

Given all of the above we would urge you to support us in rejecting this proposal.

Many thanks for time.

Kind regards.

Rob JohnsonFor & on behalf of Woodford Halse objectors