Page 1 of 1 Arnold, Katie From: [email protected] Sent: 21 April 2015 00:08 To: [email protected]; Planning Subject: For the attention of Mr Nick Moys. Your ref. 3PL/2015/0384/F Attachments: Rocklands+objection+letter+-+April+2015.doc For the attention of Mr Nick Moys: Case Officer Your ref. 3PL/2015/0384/F Dear Sir, Land to the rear of 'Fredena', Chapel Street, NR17 1UJ Rocklands Erection of 17 dwellings, drainage infrastructure, public open space and associated access I have attended my objection letter. Yours faithfully, Richard A. Golke Click here to report this email as spam. 22/04/2015 Chapel Cottage Chapel Street Rocklands Attleborough Norfolk NR17 1UJ 20 April 2015 For the attention of Mr Nick Moys: Case Officer Your ref. 3PL/2015/0384/F Dear Sir, Land to the rear of 'Fredena', Chapel Street, NR17 1UJ Rocklands Erection of 17 dwellings, drainage infrastructure, public open space and associated access I am writing in response to your recent letter dated 07 April 2015 relating to the above- referenced planning application, to register my very strong objection to the proposed housing development on Chapel Street. My objection is made on the basis of a number of apparent conflictions with existing planning policy recommendations – both local and national - and I will also highlight various anomalies, omissions, contradictions and misrepresentations relating to technical data that is presented in support of the planning application itself. At the same time, I will bring to your attention specific matters of local concern relating to the proposed development that are either ignored or not given appropriate emphasis in the supporting submissions. In presenting my objection, I will reference the following documents: 1) Breckland Council 'Application for Planning Permission' (Planning application ref. 3PL/2015/0384/F) in the name of Mr N. Paske / Bowbridge Land Limited – dated 30/03/2015 2) 'Planning Statement submitted on behalf of Bowbridge Land Limited' prepared by EJW Planning Ltd., Scoulton, Norfolk – dated March 2015 3) 'Design and Access Statement, Chapel Street, Rocklands' prepared by RDC Development Consultants, Creaton, Northants. – dated March 2014 4) 'Phase I Habitat and Protected Species Survey for Proposed Residential Development on Arable Land off Chapel Street, Rocklands, Norfolk, NR17 1UJ' prepared by Eco-Check Consultancy Ltd., Oulton, Norfolk – dated March 2015 5) 'Land at Chapel Street, Rocklands: Foul and Surface Water Drainage Strategy' prepared by Create Consulting Engineers Ltd., Norwich, Norfolk – dated March 2015 6) 'Land at Chapel Street, Rocklands: Transport Statement' prepared by Create Consulting Engineers Ltd., Norwich, Norfolk – dated March 2015 7) 'Archaeological Desk-based Assessment: Land at Chapel Street, Rockland St. Peter, Norfolk' prepared by CgMs Consulting, Newark, Notts. – dated April 2014 Also, where they are quoted in the context of the above-listed reports, the 'National Planning Policy Framework' (March 2012) and the Breckland 'Core Strategy and Development Control Policies' (adopted December 2009). Other technical publications will be referenced in the text as appropriate to the specific issue under discussion; please note that all added emphasis is my own. Firstly, I would like to deal with the data presented in the actual planning application itself. A cursory Internet search reveals that ‘Mr. Paske’ and ‘Bowbridge Land’ are synonymous with ‘Mintridge Consulting Ltd.’ – a Northamptonshire-based firm of Chartered Surveyors. ‘Mr. Norman Charles Paske’ is listed as a Director (Source: ‘Companycheck.co.uk’ - 14/04 2015): He is also listed (as from 25/03/2013) as a Director of Bowbridge Land Ltd. and is additionally described in the ‘Director Overview’ as holding ‘…48 appointments at 46 active companies, has resigned from 14 companies and held 23 appointments at 19 dissolved companies’. On its company website, Mintridge Consulting describes itself as '…a firm of chartered surveyors offering specialist advice and services to developers, landowners and investors, specifically strategic development opportunities and ground rent transactions. We represent several of the UK's largest housebuilders and our investment clients have an active ground rent acquisition fund. If you are a landowner needing advice on development, a housebuilder wanting land, or an investor seeking opportunities in the planning and development sector, then we shall be pleased to speak to you'. The reason I mention this is to underscore one of the primary concerns in the minds of the Rocklands village community (both in St. Peter and in All Saints) and one of the primary reasons why this application should be rejected: Despite all of the usual flowery allusions made in the supplementary documentation describing the supposed care and attention that has been expended in developing this scheme (‘…a high quality development in a sustainable location which will enhance the appearance and setting of the village’; ‘…a low-density development of traditional character and style with external materials reflecting the vernacular of Norfolk’; ‘…a development that is sympathetic to its location and the rural character of the area’) the bottom line, I would suggest, is that Mr. Paske and/or Bowbridge Land care little for the hopes, fears and aspirations of Rocklands, Breckland and – very probably – Norfolk people, except in the context of potential financial enrichment for themselves and their clients. This planning application is being orchestrated by a very experienced, professional property developer and seeks to capitalise on the current, unspoiled charm of the Rocklands village community. At the same time, I would suggest, it is being advanced as a means to determine Breckland Council’s resolve (or otherwise) to uphold local and national planning policy guidelines. Village residents are very much aware that Rocklands is surrounded by open agricultural land, some areas of which have already been the object of previous planning speculation. If this application is approved, it sets a dangerous precedent that will likely open the floodgates for similar development schemes being launched in the future, potentially putting Breckland Council into the unenviable position where such applications are increasingly more difficult to reject (in this respect, I would draw your attention to the proposed road layout within the submitted development area: To me, this clearly suggests a future intent to additionally expand the development to the west and south in the general direction of the B1077 and St. Peter's church). Under such circumstances, the local Parish Council becomes little more than an instrument of toothless compliance with no real say or effective power in the matter of planning issues affecting the local people it represents. As will be discussed later, this outlook directly contravenes core Ministerial statements made in the Foreword to the National Planning Policy Framework. Beyond this initial – and, I would suggest, extremely important consideration – I would draw your attention to Section 9 of the submitted planning application: ‘Foul sewage’. In summary, the application indicates that foul sewage will be disposed of by means of a ‘package treatment plant’ that does not connect either to a ‘mains sewer’ or to ‘the existing drainage system’. This conflicts directly with statements made in the previously referenced Drainage Strategy Report that make no mention whatsoever of onsite treatment; neither does the report provide any details in terms of an outline specification for an appropriate treatment plant. Under the heading 'Proposed Foul Water Drainage Strategy' the report confirms the need only for a pumping station (para. 4.4) 'Based on an assessment of the anticipated site drainage levels and the invert level of Manhole 2001 it is envisaged that a pumped connection will be required' – and this feature is detailed on the associated plan drawing included as part of the attachments to the report. Subsequently, para. 4.6 of the report states that 'Foul flows will then be pumped via the Site access road, along Chapel Street to the east and south and then further south along The Street to the connection point'. As well – and in spite of assurances given by Anglian Water that '...there is capacity in the local network for foul flows from the development' - local residents in All Saints will attest to the fact that the present foul water system cannot reliably deal 24/7 with the output from existing properties that are already connected. A few years ago, this issue formed the basis of several objections to a previous planning application submitted relative to a proposed housing development adjacent to The Street. To quote from an email from one of the residents who lodged an objection: 'I have personally seen the foul water system fail on a number of occasions, causing sewerage to flow into residents' gardens and houses'. From memory, this reflects the situation back in 2007; as far as I am aware, the foul water system has not been modified or upgraded in any way during the interim period. Consequently – and quite rightly - there are obvious concerns on the part of All Saints residents at the prospect of a significant increase in the volume flow that an additional 17 properties will generate. In Section 12 of the submitted planning application - 'Assessment of flood risk' – confirmation is provided (by means of checked boxes) that surface water will be disposed of by means of soakaways and that the proposal will not increase the flood risk elsewhere. I would suggest that, at the very least, this is a problematical assumption given the recorded sub-soil conditions across the proposed development site; the overall topography of the land (falling generally in the direction of All Saints to the south and with the site access falling towards Chapel Street to the north) and the documented history of flooding and of groundwater-related problems experienced by the village in general. The Drainage Strategy Report includes the results of a series of infiltration tests performed in four test pits excavated to a stated depth of 2.0 mbgl representing the full extent of the proposed development area.