Objection 5

Objections to Planning Application 07/09360/FUL

This is yet another attempt to put a house where it clearly does not belong.

The application is buried under 47 pages of verbiage, making it difficult to read and hard to determine the salient facts.

Whatever actual words were used by the Parish Council, the Borough Council Development Committee or the Government Inspectors in their seven previous rejections of this project; the fact remains that all of then made it clear that this was an inappropriate site for house building.

This application is simply another attempt to exploit planning rules, which sadly seems to have been ignored by the same planning officer on every occasion, resulting in an unacceptable waste of public and private time and money.

Whilst we accept that some of the minor issues have been accommodated it this application, (to the detriment of the proposed house), other serious causes of concern have been ignored. Some of these are detailed below.

Culvert and Flooding Concerns

Paragraph 1.4 states that there is a culvert along the boundary of the site, but fails to show this major cause on concern on any plans.

Recent information has come to light which indicates that this culvert is actually across the centre of the site. See Appendix 1 “Pipework near to 6 Smithy Croft.”

We have spoken to the Environment Agency about clearance between such a watercourse and any building. They do not have statutory specifications, but say:
"they would normally expect between 2 and 3 metres to be available in case the culvert needs to be repaired or re-laid."

They consider it to be the responsibility of the Borough Council to ensure that such a space exists when processing any planning application.

This culvert, which normally carries water from a 2m wide by 2m deep brook, is often unable to carry the amount required in heavy rain conditions. There are resulting floods, not only upstream of the site, but on the site itself. [See photographs 1 and 2, which show flooding from the front and the back of the site].

Photographs 3 & 4 show the amount of water in the area and indicate the line of the brook which carries the water passing through the culvert. Both brook and culvert can carry overflow water from the Shropshire Union Canal in the opposite direction under some circumstances. Raw sewage has appeared in this watercourse when the system is overloaded and the proposed development could exacerbate this.

Houses along this brook have been flooded and others have narrowly escaped. Both the building and the potential problems with the culvert having no access, give us great cause for concern.

House design

The basic design of the property is simply to evade planning regulations and hardly constitutes a habitable dwelling. It now has no back door, (to comply with earlier rejections), obscured glass, (and presumably non opening windows), in a bedroom.

The garden is barely adequate and, counter to earlier assertions, does not look out on to open fields, but into a neighbour’s garden. A specific codicil on the original land sale gives no right of light in this direction.

The design includes various soakaways, which guidance from the environment agency indicates must only be used in free draining soil. This site is far from free draining, which means the water will be ducted into an already overloaded watercourse.

The design neither enhances nor improves the conservation area. Indeed, it will spoil and devalue the surrounding area. The obscured glass window of the side facing the road will create a bad impression of the ambience of the Close.

Overshadowing and overlooking

The current plan makes much of the calculations of shadows on one particular day of the year, but the fact remains that the outlook from several houses will be blighted by this hideous erection. The shadows concerned are not just the one apex point, but the full roof line, which is not shown.

It is difficult to see, if the one bedroom requires obscured glass, why the second bedroom with a very similar outlook over other properties, does not.

One “Principal Window”, (kitchen), is nowhere near the 21 metres recommended in the council’s “Space about Buildings” document from the front window of 6 Smithy Croft.

Rules already breached

A clear attempt has been made on this site to reduce a beautiful garden to dereliction in order to enhance the possibility of it becoming a building site. Trees and shrubs have been removed. A driveway was created on the lawn of No.6, against local regulations for residents of Smithy Croft. Various features, such as drives and fences, shown as “existing” on drawings, did not exist when planning permission was sought. The hard standing on the garden of No.6 is counter to bylaws and may have to be removed leaving two houses without parking or garages..

Number 6 Smithy Croft has been significantly damaged with a 2m high fence built in front of the patio doors and the garden reduced to a minimum. The fact that it remained unsold, after being on the market for so long, is testament to this.

Summary

We object to this development on the grounds that it is inappropriate for the site proposed, does not give sufficient attention to the existing culvert and is damaging to the local infrastructure, the amenities of adjoining properties and the village in general.