New Houses in Longsdon Hello. My Name Is John

From: Sent: 18 August 2015 22:21 To: Forward Plans Subject: New houses in Longsdon

Hello.

My name is John Kent of Dunelm, Denford Road, Longsdon, Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire ST9 9QG.

I have lived in Longsdon for the past 40 years and have seen the village deteriorate from a vibrant village with plenty of public activities with school and shops to an old people/commuter village. Village life that existed 40 years ago has gone. I believe that some new build properties are required in the village aimed at younger people to bring the village back to life. Not the three storey dolls hose type.

However, I do not think the proposed sites are the right ones and before any properties are built a sewerage system needs to be installed. Plot L002 is at present a festering cess pit with outflow from the houses on Sutherland Road and the Wheel Public House contributing the that situation. When I was on the Parish council some years ago I had three visits from the SMDC health department to look at the sewerage situation in that field and all were going to do something to clear it up but none of them did anything and when I tried to contact the persons they had moved on somewhere else.

The main reason for my objection from both L002 and L007 is access from the plots into the main traffic flow. On Sutherland Road there are always cars parked in front of the houses and therefore restricts the road to a single carriage way, hence producing a hazard to traffic exiting the plot. The next problem is getting from Sutherland Road onto the A53 at the Wheel cross roads. It is an accident waiting to happen now and an increase of traffic at that junction would double the hazard. Traffic lights might be the answer. Access from plot L007 is even more dangerous as traffic coming from Leek towards Endon at 40+ mph cannot be seen from the exit of that plot due to the bend in the road. There has already been fatalities in that area. A similar situation exists when making an exit from the Memorial Hall but it is the traffic coming from the Endon direction that cannot be seen. I asked several years ago for a mirror to be put on the opposite side of the A53 to the Memorial Hall entrance but the Highways Department do not fit mirrors on main highways or so I was told.

As stated earlier I think some houses are needed in the village and I suggest a better location for these would be on and around the old New Inn Public House, with access from all properties built, onto Denford Road at the bottom end of the plot. I am aware that a large septic tank has already been installed on that land and planning permission for two dwellings on the footprint of the public house has been granted. This would be a much safer site on which to build. I would also agree with infill building around the village.

In summary, my objection to building on the proposed plots is on the grounds of dangerous access to the existing roads.

Regards,

John Kent

-----Original Message----- From: ELIZABETH KNOBBS Sent: 13 September 2015 20:24 To: Forward Plans Subject: New Housing Development

Dear Sir/Madam I wish to express my concerns regarding the proposal to build 20 houses in Longsdon. All these houses will need some kind of septic tank for sewage, the run off of which will have to drain down the fields. As a resident living lower down the bank I know these fields are already saturated. My greatest concern is the amount of traffic that will be generated in such a small area with very poor access. Sutherland Road is already a difficult junction with poor visibility when pulling out onto the A53. It is also difficult turning into Sutherland road as residents park on the left side of the road reducing it to a single lane, thus if cars are queing to exit those attempting to turn into Sutherland road have to wait with the rear of the car still jutting onto the A53. The notion of making an exit lower down the A53 worries me the most as my good friend died there some years ago in an road traffic accident. There is no safe speed limit to accommodate this. Traffic can be controlled with traffic lights etc but to build 20 houses along the main road and add traffic lights would completely change Longsdon from lovely a village to an urban extension of the town. There may well be several plots scattered around Longsdon that would enable around 10 houses to be built that would maintain the character of our lovely village. My own opinion is that some of these houses should be affordable to enable young people who have grown up here to buy a home in the village. Yours Sincerely Mrs Elizabeth Knobbs

From: Stephen Knobbs Sent: 13 September 2015 19:38 To: Forward Plans Subject: Proposed Dwellings In Logsdon - SMDC

Although everyone agrees that new housing is required within the local area, I personally think that the village of Longsdon is not the correct place for 20 new build homes. The proposed location is a poor choice when you consider that the infrastructure really isn't in place to support such a large amount of dwellings. Please note the following: 1 - All of the properties in Longsdon have to use septic tanks with regards to sewage - These have to be accessible at all times with regards to emptying. 2 - The proposed areas don't have adequate drainage. 3 - The amount of traffic that 20 new homes would create in such a small area would cause extra congestion when attempting to leave either by Sutherland Road or Denford Road.(Several fatalities on the main road during the last several years.) 4 - Longsdon has neither a school or shop, thus encouraging even more road use to and from the area.

Yours Sincerly Stephen Knobbs

Site Options and Development Boundaries Consultation – Response Form

Name: Terence Woolliscroft ………………………………………………………………………………

Address

Agent (if applicable)……………………………………………………………………

Please return this form by 5pm on 14th September 2015 by:

Email to: [email protected] or by post to:

Freepost RRLJ-XCTC-JBZK Forward Plans Staffordshire Moorlands District Council Regeneration Services Moorlands House Stockwell Street Leek ST13 6HQ.

Further information: www.staffsmoorlands.gov.uk/siteallocations

Staffordshire Moorlands Local Plan – July 2015 Site Options and Development Boundaries Consultation – Response Form

1. Site Options

Please submit a separate response for each individual site that you wish to comment on.

SITE REFERENCE (see consultation map) ...LO002...... SETTLEMENT……Longsdon……………………………………………………… …………

Do you support or object to this site? (Please select one answer) Support…………....□ Object……X General Comment…………….□

Reasons for response

Please identify the issue(s) relevant to your response. (Please select all that apply)

 Infrastructure – schools  Infrastructure - traffic/transport  Infrastructure - other  Landscape  Nature conservation  Flood risk  Amenity (e.g. noise, privacy, loss of light)  Scale of development  Listed building / conservation area  Government policy  Other

Do you have any comments? I wish to object to the proposed development on site LO002 for a number of reasons. I believe that - 1. TRAFFIC The inevitable increase in traffic volume will cause an increased hazard at the junction between Sutherland Road and the A53. This junction is already very dangerous. There is a high concentration of junctions, and resulting emerging traffic onto the A53, between Sutherland Road and Denford Road including Sutherland Road, School Lane, The Wheel public house, Longsdon Memorial; Hall, The Church, plus several houses. There are also two bus stops and the zebra crossing. This stretch of road is known to be dangerous and there has been one fatality

Staffordshire Moorlands Local Plan – July 2015 Site Options and Development Boundaries Consultation – Response Form

in recent years. A housing development of the type proposed at the top of Sutherland Road will inevitably make matters worse. 2. SEWAGE No mains sewage disposal facilities are available in the village. We rely on septic tanks. We have been previously informed, by Council officers, that the first strata of the land is already ‘full.’ An increase in the concentration of homes, in high density in this small area, will add to the problem of sewage disposal in the village and could become a health hazard. I am concerned therefore that further untreated sewage might leak into the existing natural water courses. Septic tanks serving properties in Sutherland Road and the A53 already exist in this area. 3. NATURAL LANSCAPE A large concentration of new homes at the top of Sutherland Road will inevitably spoil the natural landscape in this long- established village which is in Green Belt. 4. UNNECESSARY HIGH DENSITY DEVELOPMENT A large concentration of high density housing at the top of Sutherland Road is unnecessary. There is other land available throughout the village for balanced and staged infill building which will not spoil the special landscape. Development by infill is part of the history and traditional growth of this village. 5. THE RIBBON A development of high density housing at the top of Sutherland Road will add to the ribbon development which is being created between Leek, Stoke-on-Trent and on into Newcastle-under-Lyme and beyond. I think that planners need to be very careful not to create what will become in effect one continuous settlement between Leek and Keele. 6. TOURISM One of the attractions which brings tourists to Leek is the variety of its surrounding villages. Inappropriate developments of high density housing will detract from the uniqueness and charm of the area.

Staffordshire Moorlands Local Plan – July 2015 Site Options and Development Boundaries Consultation – Response Form

7. Development/ Infill Boundary

Do you consider that an amendment to a proposed development or infill boundary is required? (Please select one answer)

Yes……………………………………X.□ No……………………………………..□

Settlement…Longsdon………………………………………………………………. .…………

(Please submit a separate response if you are suggesting more than one alteration).

May I suggest that ‘infill’ is a better approach to the expansion of Longsdon village. A measured expansion of the village by building single properties on available plots, taking in all roads and lanes throughout the area, is a better approach than an ‘housing estate style’ high density development.

In this way traffic will be spread throughout the village rather than concentrated in one area at the top of Sutherland Road.

Furthermore the disposal of sewage can be more easily planned, accommodated and monitored if new build is spread across the village as infill.

Please state your reasons. (Please attach a scale plan to the rear of this response form to illustrate your suggested amendment).

Staffordshire Moorlands Local Plan – July 2015 Site Options and Development Boundaries Consultation – Response Form

2. Open Space

Are there any other areas that you consider should be included as open space that are not identified in the plan? (Please select one answer)

Yes…………………………………….□ No……………………………………..□

Settlement…………………………………………………………………..…………

(Please submit a separate response if you are commenting on more than one area of open space).

If your answer is “yes”, please clearly state the location of this area and the reasons for including it. (Please attach a scale plan identifying the site, to the rear of this response form.)

Please specify any other comments regarding open space identified on the plans:

Staffordshire Moorlands Local Plan – July 2015 Site Options and Development Boundaries Consultation – Response Form

3. Town Centre Maps

Do you consider that an amendment is required to any of the proposed town centre boundaries? (Please select one answer)

Yes…………………………………….□ No……………………………………..□

Settlement…………………………………………………………………..…………

(Please submit a separate response for each town centre boundary amendment you are suggesting).

Comments. (Please attach a scale plan to the rear of this response form to illustrate your suggested amendment.)

Do you consider that an amendment is required to any of the proposed primary and/or secondary frontages? (Please select one answer)

Primary frontages………………………………………………………………. .□ Secondary frontages…………………………………………………………..…□ Primary and secondary frontages………………………………………………□ No amendments required…………………………………………………..……□

Town (Leek/Biddulph/Cheadle)………………………………….……......

(Please submit a separate response if you are suggesting more than one frontage amendment).

Comments. (Please attach a scale plan to the rear of this response form to illustrate your suggested amendment.)

Staffordshire Moorlands Local Plan – July 2015 Site Options and Development Boundaries Consultation – Response Form

4. Review of Policy Areas

Are there any Policies/ Policy areas contained in the current adopted 2014 Core Strategy that you consider should be reviewed in the light of new evidence or guidance? (Please select one answer)

Yes…………………………………….□ No……………………………………..□

(Please submit a separate response for each separate Policy/ Policy area you consider should be reviewed).

Policy number / area…...... ………………………………………………………………………………………….

Please provide your reasons:

Staffordshire Moorlands Local Plan – July 2015 Site Options and Development Boundaries Consultation – Response Form

5. Call for Sites

Do you have any suggestions for additional site options (not already identified by the Council)? (Please select one answer)

Yes…………………………………□ No……………………………………..□

Settlement…… ……………………………………………………………..………… Site area……… ……………………………………………………………………….

(Please submit a separate response for each additional site you are suggesting).

Suggested land use(s): (Please select all that apply)

Employment……………………………………………………………………...□ Retail………………………………………………………………………………□ Mixed uses……………………………………………………………………….□ Traveller Sites……………………………………………………………………□

Do you own this site, or do you know who the owner(s) is?

Please explain why you consider this site should be included as an option for the land use(s) selected (eg access, location, site history etc): Please attach a scale plan identifying the site, to the rear of this response form.

Staffordshire Moorlands Local Plan – July 2015 Site Options and Development Boundaries Consultation – Response Form

6. Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA)

Are there any sites in the published SHLAA documents that you consider should be reclassified according to their deliverability? (Please select one answer) Yes…………………………………….□ No……………………………………..□

(Please submit a separate response for each site you are commenting on).

SHLAA Site reference number…………………………………………………..

Please provide your reasons:

Do you consider that there are any amendments needed to any of the details in the published site assessment forms in the SHLAA documents? (Please select one answer)

Yes…………………………………….□ No……………………………………..□

(Please submit a separate response for each site you are commenting on).

SHLAA Site reference number…………………………………………………..

Please provide details of what changes are required, and why:

Staffordshire Moorlands Local Plan – July 2015 Site Options and Development Boundaries Consultation – Response Form

7. Statement of Community Involvement (SCI)

Are there any further changes you consider should be made to Section 5 of the Council’s adopted 2014 SCI? (Please select one answer)

Yes…………………………………….□ No……………………………………..□

(Please submit a separate response for each individual amendment you suggest).

Paragraph number…………………………………………………………………..

Please provide your reasons for the amendments you suggest:

Thank you for your response.

Staffordshire Moorlands Local Plan – July 2015

From: Anne Addison Sent: 13 September 2015 12:15 To: Forward Plans Subject: Proposed building in Longsdon

Dear Sir/Madam,

Referring to the proposed building of 20 houses on sites L0002, L0007 and L0021 around "The Wheel", I have lived in Longsdon for the last 53 years and I feel that this development would spoil the nature of the village as a quiet residential area because of the noise, the sewerage situation and air pollution from central heating boilers and fires and also the access onto the main A53 road, where there have already been tragic accidents, or alternatively traffic coming out at the top of Sutherland Road which is already very congested.

However, I would not object to a very small amount of infil around the village if these houses were tastefully designed and in keeping with the existing houses in the area.

Yours faithfully,

B. A. Addison.

09/09/15

To whom it may concern,

I wish to object to the current housing proposal for Longsdon Village reference numbers L0002, L0007 L0021.

The main reason for my objection concerns the increase in the amount of traffic in the area that will be generated as the result of this present scheme, should so many houses be built in the suggested location.

The current situation for traffic exiting Southerland Road onto the A53 is already hazardous and as there is no clear view of traffic coming in either direction, an increase in traffic here would be another accident waiting to happen.

A similar problem exists on Leek Road below the Wheel Public House when people attempt to exit their drives as traffic travels at speed around the bend which gives people little time to exit their property. Imagine a heavy lorry travelling at 40 mph, (speed limit) but often travelling at 50 mph coming around the bend below The Wheel Pub. This is a regular, daily occurrence which could well have devastating consequences if vehicle numbers were to increase substantially in this particular area. I suggest that an inspector should stand at the proposed exit of L0007 in order to experience and witness the volume of heavy traffic and the speed at which it often travels. If plot L0007 and L0021 is developed with the suggested amount of properties this would mean a massive increase in traffic entering and exiting the area directly onto the A53 on the bend of the road which, in my opinion, is ludicrous.

I have no objections to L0007 having one or two houses built as infill, as the increase in traffic then would be negligible compared to 15 plus houses as has been suggested on L0007 and L0021.

Also traffic turning into Southerland Road from the A53 and School Lane is often obstructed by vehicles parked outside the houses in Southerland Road, some of which have no drives or garages. This creates a bottleneck and disrupts the flow of traffic on the A53 and along Southerland Road. This is dangerous when a car is coming along Southerland Road to the A53 and a car is turning into Southerland Road from the A53 but has to stop to allow the car to drive through.

Extra housing in the proposed area L0002 will increase the number of vehicles using Southerland Road and requiring access to the A53 and School Lane therefore increasing the amount of traffic substantially which will cause even more congestion and potential hazards. Lorries and heavy machinery during the building process will find it extremely difficult to access and egress Southerland Road and would cause havoc with everyday traffic on the A53.

Most of the houses in Longsdon were built years ago when few people had cars. Now most households have at least 2 cars which is a fact that needs to be taken into consideration when deciding on a suitable area for building new housing. Since SMDC has said that this is just a list of alternative sites for the purpose of public consultation I suggest, to avoid the problems already discussed, carefully considered infill sites should be considered so that a ‘housing estate’ is not created and an increase in traffic would be spread out around the village and not located in one area. This would also help to preserve the aesthetic nature of the village. Another huge problem is the number of septic tanks and soakaways that already exist in all of the proposed sites as there is no main sewer in this area. This would mean addressing that issue before any building could begin plus new houses would need a sewage system installing which again would cause huge problems and disruption. (see above concerning large vehicles during building) I would really like to know how these problems would be overcome.

Another question that concerns me is the number of houses that have been allocated to Longsdon. It appears that other small villages have an allocation of 1 house to approximately 53 electors yet Longsdon has 1 house to approximately 24 electors. Why is this?

I hope the SMDC will take into account all the points I have raised and re-consider alternative suggestions made by the residents of Longsdon.

Mr. Philip Bratt.

09/09/15

To whom it may concern,

I wish to object to the current housing proposal for Longsdon Village reference numbers L0002, L0007 L0021.

I have no objections to L0007 having one or two houses built as infill, as the increase in traffic then would be negligible compared to 15 plus houses as has been suggested on L0007 and L0021.

I hope the SMDC will take into account all the points I have raised and re-consider alternative suggestions made by the residents of Longsdon.

Mrs Lynn Bratt.

Staffordshire Moorlands District Council Site Allocations Consultation

Longsdon Sites LO007 and LO021

This representation makes the case that both of these sites should be retained within the SHLAA and should be recommended by the Council to be used for the provision of housing for Longsdon during the next 15 years. The Council calculates that an allocation of about 20 houses should be sufficient.

The settlement of Longsdon is “washed over” by the North Staffordshire Green Belt. It has a very active Community Centre. Shopping, employment, medical and other services are provided in the town of Leek, the edge of which is about 1.5k to the north west of the proposed sites. It is located on a principal highway that links Leek with the Stoke on Trent conurbation that carries regular bus services between Leek and the Potteries. Leek is a highly sustainable settlement which can be reached easily from the proposed sites.

Site LO007 This site is a “frontage” site having an area of 0.38ha. It measures approximately 27m wide by 70m deep and would be capable of accommodating up to two dwellings of a similar size and character as its surroundings. In this respect, such a proposal would meet the policy requirements of an “infill” plot in the Green Belt (see paragraph 89 of the Planning Policy Framework).

The Council’s proposals place part of the site within a new village boundary. On this basis, some of the land will be within the settlement boundary and the Council’s estimate of the capacity of the site is set at about 5.

The size and configuration of the site could also accommodate a single dwelling and an access to Site LO021 at the rear.

I can confirm to the Council that Sammons Architectural Limited has been instructed to submit an outline planning application for housing on this site before the end of September.

Site LO021 This site has an area of 0.56ha. It is at the rear of buildings that front the A53 and that front onto Sutherland Road. It has an irregular shape and measures about 40m wide and 73m long. The Council estimates that the site could accommodate about 13 dwellings. Part of the site of proposed to be in the village boundary.

The site is currently “land-locked” but is in the same ownership as LO007. Consequently the site can be accessed off the A53. It is relatively flat and is capable of being developed without imposing on the privacy and outlook of neighbours. Staffordshire Moorlands District Council Site Allocations Consultation

Land opposite New Inn, Denford Road, Longsdon

Introduction The following representation proposes that the above mentioned land should be considered in the current stage of the SHLAA process. The site was one of the options put forward in the initial stage, but has now been removed. No explanation has been given for this. The Planning Case Longsdon village is washed over by Green Belt but is proposed to be given a settlement boundary through the Local Plan process. The site is in the junction of Denford Road and the A53 and is opposite the New Inn. The Council has accepted that The New Inn is redundant as a public house and has granted planning permission for its conversion to two dwellings and for the erection of two further dwellings on the former car park. The site therefore has gained a “built” character beyond its original level. The proposal is merely to take advantage of this by the development of a cluster of dwellings around the junction of Denford Road and the A53. The current phase of the SLAA has removed this site. Given that the Council has not explained the thinking behind this it is considered that the inclusion of this site in the SHLAA should be reviewed in this stage. The proposal will deliver quality homes within a cluster centred on the site of the New Inn and is in a sustainable location with easy access to bus services to Leek and the city. For this reason it is requested that this site is retained in the SHLAA process.

From: Philip Brookes [Sent: 13 September 2015 21:35 To: Forward Plans Subject: Planning Proposal in Longsdon

Dear Sir/Madam

I am writing with reference to the SMDC's recent proposal for building houses on land in Longsdon, site references LO002,LO007,LO021. In October 2014 we moved from Endon to our current address in Longsdon so that we could live in a more rural setting. Since moving, we have been absolutely amazed at how many vehicles use the A53 and the speed with which they travel through the village. Every time we exit our property it is like dicing with death. The thought now that you are proposing to build 30 new houses in such a small area is unbelievable. This could lead to upto 60 to 90 more vehicles which need to get out onto the A53. There is no shop or post office in Longsdon as there was in Endon so everything you need requires a car journey.My property backs onto LO021 and I have a right of way into the field in order to maintain my boundary. Does this mean that I am going to be able to walk into somebody else's garden with a tub of fence paint? The fields also have waste tanks for the surrounding properties and the fields are very wet even during summer. Another concern is the type of houses that would be built. Will they be large houses which are similar in value to the surrounding homes or 2 -3 bedroom estate houses? I have a very strong objection to this site being developed as I feel it would destroy the rural nature of the village and also increase the risk of a serious accident which has happened in the past.

Best Regards Mr P Brookes

-----Original Message----- From: Liz [ Sent: 07 September 2015 12:40 To: Forward Plans Subject: Planning proposal in Longsdon

Dear Sir/Madam I am writing in relation to the forward planning proposals in Longsdon. I have a number of objections. It appears that that the number of houses allocated per capita on the electoral role is twice the amount usually allocated per small villages. This seems very unfair. More housing in the area suggested would lead to an increase in traffic needing to exit onto the main road. The exit onto the A53 from Sutherland road is already precarious as visibility is poor. There is no room because of buildings to improve this situation. Exiting from site L0007 would be dangerous as there is a blind bend and lives have already been lost on this stretch of road. There is no main drainage and several properties have their septic tanks draining onto the sites L0002 and L0021. This area is also marshy. An estate would not be in keeping with the character and housing distribution of the village. There are several areas where individual houses could be built as infill. The village now lacks facilities such as a school, Post Office, shop, newspaper deliveries so would be an inappropriate place for housing of young families or the elderly with limited mobility. I should be grateful if you would take these objections into consideration with future planning Yours Sincerely Elizabeth Carpenter ( Longsdon resident )

Sent from my iPad

From: Gordon Carpenter Sent: 28 August 2015 18:51 To: Forward Plans Subject: Proposed Longsdon Development

Re Future Planning for Longsdon I would like to comment on the proposals to build a “mini-estate” in Longsdon in the vicinity of the Wheel public house

I feel this plan is flawed for several reasons

1. There is no evidence that Longsdon ‘needs’ 20 new dwellings by 2030 - has this figure just been plucked from the air for political expediency? Development in Longsdon has always been measured and considered, bearing in mind the character of the village of a variety of residences spread out down the lanes. A high density estate as proposed would destroy the character for ever.

2.The sites suggested are all Green Belt and so areas of rurality. We are already in Britain destroying too many wild areas and covering them with concrete. What is the point of declaring land Green Belt? - it seems to have no meaning

3. There are many septic tanks from present dwellings draining in to the highlighted area. There is no mains sewage in the area. Modern houses with washing machines/ dishwashers etc necessary for young families have a high sewage need so 20 extra houses using septic tanks in such a small area would be catastrophic.

4. 20 extra houses would create considerable extra traffic needing to exit onto the already very busy A53. An exit through site LO007 is virtually straight onto a blind bend and so would be extremely dangerous. An exit onto Sutherland Road would create a considerable hazard at its junction with the A53 - a junction it would be impossible to improve with either traffic lights or a roundabout because of the traffic queues which would be created but, more importantly, because of the close proximity of the present dwellings and The Wheel pub to the junction.

5. High density housing is aimed at young families - but nowhere in the proposals is there any mention as to how the infrastructure would be improved for them ( school, playground, shop etc) Even taking young children or child buggies for a walk along Sutherland Road or A53 is hazardous because of the lack of decent pavements - so these families would be completely isolated

Would it not be better to - 1. Develop the eyesore of the derelict New Inn into 2-3 dwellings 2. Spread development throughout the whole village as ‘in-fill’ when required and with less detrimental impact on the village, its roads and sewage system 3. Investigate ‘Brown Field’ sites in Leek or surrounding areas and villages with better access to the necessary facilities / shops etc rather than despoil the countryside 4. I’m sure a development on the Barnfields site with housing, canal extension, marina, etc would be good! (with access to shops (Morrisons) and Birchall playing fields, and footpaths along the old railway line)

Regards

Gordon Carpenter

-----Original Message----- From: A Clowes [ Sent: 09 September 2015 10:58 To: Forward Plans Subject: Planned housing development in Longsdon

Dear Sirs

I would like to register my objections to the SMDC forward plans for the development of 20 new houses in Longsdon by 2030.

1. To build 20 houses in plots L0007, L0021 and L0002 would create high density housing in just one area of Longsdon and is not in keeping with the village.

2. It would cause serious problems with traffic trying to turn on to the very busy A53.

I have lived in Longsdon for the last 38 years. The houses here are of varying sizes and built of varying materials. Over the years more houses have been built as quiet infill and all blend in together. Surely it is better to continue to build in this way and to consider small, individual developments scattered throughout the whole of the parish of Longsdon so as to preserve the very nature of "Longsdon".

Yours faithfully

Angela Clowes

Sent from my iPad

REPRESENTATIONS TO SITE ALLOCATIONS CONSULTATION

LONGSDON

SEPTEMBER 2015

Representation to Site Allocations Consultation Land east of Sutherland Road, Longsdon

Site Address: Land east of Sutherland Road, Longsdon, Staffordshire

SMDC Site Allocations Reference: Not Applicable

Site Allocations Representation: Date Issued: 14th September 2015 Job Reference: RDP/2015/110

Report Prepared By: Rob Duncan BSc(Hons) MA MRTPI Rob Duncan Planning Consultancy Ltd.

Contact Details: Rob Duncan Planning Consultancy Ltd. 70 Ferndale Road, Lichfield, Staffordshire, WS13 7DL Email: [email protected] Tel. 07779 783521

______

Representation to Site Allocations Consultation Land east of Sutherland Road, Longsdon

1 Introduction

1.1 Rob Duncan Planning Consultancy Ltd. has been instructed by Mr. L. Leigh to submit representations in response to Staffordshire Moorlands District Council’s Site Options and Development Boundaries Consultation. The submission relates to the proposed residential infill boundary identified for the village of Longsdon, and also provides comments in respect of the proposed housing allocation sites for the village (Site Allocation References: LO002, LO007, and LO021).

1.2 My client owns a property and adjacent parcel of land at High View, Sutherland Road which I consider should be incorporated into the proposed infill boundary for the village. The extent of this land is identified on the accompanying Site Location Plan (Appendix A).

2 Site & Surroundings

2.1 The site is located within the North Staffordshire Green Belt, and comprises a parcel of land extending to approximately 0.28 hectares that currently encompasses a detached bungalow, detached outbuilding and associated garden land. The site is bordered to the north by a parcel of grazing land, beyond which there is a substantial bank of mature trees. The western boundary of the site comprises Sutherland Road itself, beyond which lie existing residential properties arranged in a linear pattern along the road. The southern and eastern boundaries comprise further substantial banks of mature trees which rise up steeply behind the site giving a strong sense of enclosure. My client’s existing property benefits from a vehicular access off Sutherland Road, and there is a further vehicular access immediately adjacent serving the parcel of land to the immediate north of his existing outbuilding. An aerial photograph of the site is shown in Figure 1. ______

Representation to Site Allocations Consultation Land east of Sutherland Road, Longsdon

Figure 1 – Aerial Photograph

Source: Google Maps

3 Planning Policy Background

3.1 Staffordshire Moorlands District Council adopted its current Core Strategy in 2014 and this sets out the long-term vision, objectives and policies for the growth of the District up to 2026. The Core Strategy seeks to make provision for the overall land-use requirements for the District and identifies a number of key core policy requirements that will be met.

______

Representation to Site Allocations Consultation Land east of Sutherland Road, Longsdon

 There will be a presumption in favour of sustainable development (policy SS1 refers);

 Some 6000 new dwellings will be delivered between 2006 – 2026 (policy SS2 refers);

 New housing will be distributed principally amongst the main market towns (72%) with the remaining 28% distributed within the rural areas (policy SS3 refers);

 The rural areas (within which Longsdon is located) is identified as accommodating some 28% of new housing growth, equivalent to 1,680 new dwellings (policy SS3 refers);

 The smaller villages (of which Longsdon is defined as one) will provide only for development which enhances community vitality or meets a local social or economic need of the settlement and its hinterland. This will be achieved by enabling new housing development which meets a local need (policy SS6b refers)

3.2 The Core Strategy confirms that the smaller villages have a more limited role as service centres, but are vital to the rural areas particularly in terms of providing for local housing and rural employment needs. A major issue for smaller villages is the loss of local population through lack of housing opportunities and the Core Strategy therefore seeks to allow an appropriate level of sensitive development which enhances community vitality or meets a local social or economic need of the settlement and its hinterland. The Site Allocations consultation document identifies an estimated housing need for Longsdon of 20 dwellings.

______

Representation to Site Allocations Consultation Land east of Sutherland Road, Longsdon

3.3 The Staffordshire Moorlands Strategic Housing Market Assessment 2014 (SHMA) prepared by Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners on behalf of the Council, confirms that a dwelling requirement of between 260 and 440 dwellings per annum represents a sensible range for Staffordshire Moorlands, providing a realistic level of housing delivery which will aid economic growth aspirations, whilst recognising the demographic and environmental challenges that are present. It goes on to caution that if the Local Authority were to pursue a figure significantly lower than 440 dwellings per annum whilst also planning for annual job growth (as per the aims of the Core Strategy), the Council would need to justify how it would mitigate the adverse housing, economic and other outcomes that a lower-growth approach would give rise to.

4 Planning Assessment

4.1 In order to meet the identified housing need for Longsdon the Local Authority is consulting on the potential allocation of three sites (references LO002, LO007 and LO0021). The consultation document identifies that collectively these sites would be capable of delivering in the region of 28 dwellings. The consultation document also identifies a proposed infill boundary, within which the erection of new dwellings can potentially be considered acceptable in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 89 of the National Planning Policy Framework. My client’s site is not included within the draft infill boundary and for the reasons set out below I submit that it should be.

4.2 My client’s parcel of land is well enclosed by a very mature bank of trees which gives it a high degree of screening from views to the north, south and east. On approach to the site along Sutherland Road the existing trees dominate views until almost alongside the site (See Figure 2). The site is

______

Representation to Site Allocations Consultation Land east of Sutherland Road, Longsdon

similarly well screened on approach from the south along Sutherland Road, as evidenced in Figure 3.

Figure 2 – View towards site from north along Sutherland Road

Figure 3 – View towards site from south along Sutherland Road

______

Representation to Site Allocations Consultation Land east of Sutherland Road, Longsdon

4.3 The elevated land to the rear of the site also provides a strong wooded backdrop to the land as evidenced in Figures 4 and 5.

Figure 4 – View of eastern boundary (1)

Figure 5 – View of eastern boundary (2)

______

Representation to Site Allocations Consultation Land east of Sutherland Road, Longsdon

4.4 By resultant effect any development on this site will not have any wider impact on the character and openness of the North Staffordshire Green Belt. It would furthermore relate well to the existing settlement morphology. This part of Longsdon village is characterised by a linear pattern of residential development that extends along both sides of Sutherland Road. The western side of Sutherland Road is the more built up of the two, but there are still large sections of built development on the eastern side of the road, particularly to the immediate south of this site. The nearby cul-de-sac (The Limes) serves to further consolidate development in the immediate locality, and I submit that the incorporation of my client’s site within the infill boundary would assist in strengthening the existing pattern development that prevails in the locality.

4.5 A further consideration in favour of the inclusion of this site is the planning history of the site. Planning consent was granted under application SM1612 to erect a dwelling on this site, and whilst this has long since lapsed, it shows that the Local Authority had previously considered the site suitable for a dwelling. Planning permission has also been granted, and subsequently implemented for the creation of a separate access to serve the site, thereby meaning it benefits from two existing vehicular accesses. This is shown in Figure 6 overleaf. As a consequence any development on the site will not necessitate the creation of any additional vehicular access points onto the highway, and as such there will be no consequential adverse impacts to highway safety nor to the established character of the area. Infill development on my client’s site would furthermore avoid any adverse impact on neighbouring residential amenity. The site also benefits from connections to existing services and thus would represent a deliverable opportunity for new development.

4.6 ______

Representation to Site Allocations Consultation Land east of Sutherland Road, Longsdon

Figure 6 – Existing Vehicular Access Points

4.7 It is furthermore submitted that the identified housing need for Longsdon is potentially capable of being met by infill developments alone, without the need for a large site to be allocated. Within the draft infill boundary (inclusive of my client’s site and the land immediately to its north and south, as well as parts of sites LO002 and LO007) there would be potential for approximately 17-20 dwellings to be provided, thus meeting the identified requirements for the village.

4.8 By adopting an infill only development strategy the general linear pattern of development that so characterises the village would be preserved and reinforced. By contrast if a large housing site were to be allocated it would be somewhat at odds with the prevailing character of the area and would have a far more strident visual impact comparative to that which would be associated with infill development.

______

Representation to Site Allocations Consultation Land east of Sutherland Road, Longsdon

4.9 In terms of other considerations, the site is not within a designated flood zone, as evidenced by the extract of the Environment Agency’s flood maps, as shown in Figure 7, and is furthermore not subject to any known surface water flood issues. As a consequence any infill development undertaken on the site will not give rise to flood risk concerns.

Figure 7 – Extract of Environment Agency Flood Map

Source: Environment Agency

5 Conclusion

5.1 For the reasons outlined above I would request that this site be incorporated within the Local Authority’s prospective infill boundary for Longsdon in accordance with the plan shown in Figure 8 overleaf. The areas doted red

______

Representation to Site Allocations Consultation Land east of Sutherland Road, Longsdon

are not owned by my client but represent potential further areas that could be considered for inclusion within the infill boundary.

Figure 8 – Extract of Proposed Infill Boundary (Amended)

Source: SMDC

5.2 My client’s site is nevertheless considered to be appropriate for inclusion within the infill boundary irrespective of whether these other sites are also included, and I would request that the Local Authority give due consideration to revising the settlement boundary when preparing the next stage of the Site Allocations DPD.

______

11th September 2015

Dear Councillor

Re: Objection to proposed groups of new dwelling houses in Longsdon LO002; LO007; LO021

In response to the proposal to urbanise the rural village of Longsdon I would like Staffordshire Moorlands District Council (SMDC) to consider the following detrimental impacts if these plans were implemented:

1. Reduction of the value of Longsdon to the current villagers and the broader community of North Staffordshire through urbanisation and reduction in the quality of life of the population 2. Reduction of the habitat and wildlife corridor that these tracts of lands offer native and non- native species of wildlife 3. Impact of urbanisation through substantial relative increase in the population of the village

1. Reduction of the value of Longsdon to the current villagers and the broader community of North Staffordshire through urbanisation and reduction in the quality of life of the population

The proposals to develop groups of new dwelling houses in Longsdon with the additional accommodation and the profit that this urbanisation would raise is, in my opinion, inferior to the benefits to the broader population of North Staffordshire and beyond in maintaining the existing rural environment.

Longsdon is easily within reach of North Staffordshire via public transport and forms the gateway to Deep Hayes Country Park; Wallgrange and Horsebridge; the Churnet Valley (SSSI); Cheddleton Railway; Cauldon Canal and Rudyard Lake. Leaving the town of Endon - passing the Endon sign - until reaching the sign for Leek at City Lane, Longsdon, there is a two mile stretch of rural habitat that can be appreciated by those arriving to walk a circuit around Longsdon from Leek Road (adjacent to designated sites) or by those commuting through Longsdon (passing designated sites). This rural view would be lost if the proposed developments were implemented. According to the European Centre for the Environment and Human Health, such rural views can improve well-being and quality of life.

New studies show that access to rural environments and nature fights disease, improves mental health and cuts crime (Bird, 2015). In addition, different forms of physical activity such as walking in rural settings are effective ways of maintaining good physical and mental health. This important natural resource in Longsdon already sustains improved health outcomes in both visitors and residents alike. In 2011 an assessment of the UK's natural assets quantified the benefits: ‘The health benefits [of our rural space] are worth up to £300 per person per year, in part by providing areas for people to exercise but also because simply looking at nature lifts people's spirits’.

Implementing these proposals would reduce the value of Longsdon to the current villagers and the broader community of North Staffordshire through urbanisation.

2. Reduction of the habitat and wildlife corridor that these tracts of lands offer native and non- native species of wildlife The State of Nature report (2013) shows that 60% of all species studied are in decline. Since 1970 we have lost 44 million birds from our countryside (The State of the UK’s Birds, 2012). Twenty years ago the Barn Owl for example was a common sight in Longsdon but this has declined. A Barn Owl hunting over the land from the New Inn to land designated for these groups of new dwelling houses in Longsdon is a now rare but uplifting sight. The presence of water voles in the labyrinth of brooks and tributaries running down the bank may be one of the attractions. Even non-native species such as the Little Owl (65% of the species has declined since 1987) enjoy fence posts and walls, and for a time even an Eagle Owl (an escapee from a private collection) hunted in adjacent fields to the proposed development.

The hedgerows at these sites have provided navigation signposts for bats and migrating swallows for hundreds of years. Their wildlife meadows sustain Longsdon’s population of grass-snakes, slow worms, house sparrows, starlings, willow tits and song thrushes – all priority species listed for conservation by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (2014). Bees are sustained by the flora in these fields.

Implementing this proposal would disrupt the habitat and wildlife corridor that these tracts of lands offer priority species of native and non-native wildlife.

3. Impact of urbanisation through substantial relative increase in the population of the village

In practical terms, a development of groups of new dwellings in Longsdon with the additional accommodation for houses would have a noticeable detrimental impact on the rural environment with increase in traffic, increase in noise and light pollution.

I would like SMDC to consider these objections when reviewing the case for Longsdon.

Yours sincerely

Professor Krysia Dziedzic 12th September 2015

Dear Councillor

I would like to take this opportunity to express my opposition to the proposal by Staffordshire Moorlands District Council to build 28 new houses in Longsdon; Site References LO002 (10 houses), LO007 (5 houses), LO0021 (13 houses).

Construction and siting of such an estate will surely have a detrimental effect on such a unique village.

The existing semi-rural status of Longsdon is a fine balance to maintain. I fully understand the necessity to build new and affordable housing but construction must be appropriate. A new build of 28 houses in a village/hamlet the size of Longsdon is inappropriate.

At a time when we are all asked to be more environmentally aware it will be wrong to blight such valuable greenbelt and green field sites. The proposed construction area is neither wasteland, brownfield nor derelict site, it serves as an important refuge for wildlife to survive as a corridor between the urban conurbation of Stoke-on-Trent and busy market town of Leek.

I have lived in Longsdon for 23 years and have been privileged to witness a fabulous array of wildlife from pipistrelle bats and barn owls to common toads and grass snakes. To burden wildlife by reducing habitat will be a long-remembered action.

Staffordshire Moorlands District Council quite rightly hail Leek as ‘Queen of the Moorlands’. I suggest that satellite villages such as Longsdon should be treasured as jewels in her crown.

Yours sincerely

Mark Elsmore

From: Sue Gibbons Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2015 8:20 PM To: Forward Plans Subject: Longsdon Housing Plans

This email is to convey my objections to the SMDC plans for housing development in Longsdon. Current predictions show that fewer houses will be needed than at first thought and brownfield sites are the obvious first choice. Our countryside is precious and modern housing will not fit in with the current village feel in Longsdon. The site chosen will mean a large increase in traffic entering the A53; this is a road that has seen several accidents including fatalities and is almost impossible to access from Sutherland Road at present. Another factor affecting the site is the question of dealing with increased need for the use of septic tanks as there is no mains drainage in the village. Local facilities are few,there being no school or shop in the village and schools in Endon and Leek would need to be able to offer more places. I do not live in a house that is directly affected by the plans but feel that there must be other solutions to housing in the future and urge the SMDC to think again. Susan Gibbons

From: Gwen Heath [ Sent: 14 September 2015 13:28 To: Forward Plans Subject: Longsdon - LO002, LO007 & LO021

Dear Sir/Madam

I would like to object to the proposed plans that 20 new dwellings are required in Longsdon village.

The reasons for my objections are:

This is a large influx of housing in such a small village and is higher than the average new housing development in other local villages.

The proposed area for the dwellings would endanger lives by putting more traffic coming out onto the main A53 road, which already is not the safest but would increase the danger with more traffic.

The area of the proposed dwellings would pose an environmental problem with destroying the greenery in Longsdon and having an impact on the nature that currently lives there, as more septic tanks would have to be added alongside the new houses.

If some houses are to be built in Longsdon (not 20!) surely it would make more sense for these to be allowed using infill spaces on ALL current roads in Longsdon, not just A53 and Sutherland Road and stay away from our fields?

Yours sincerely Mrs G Heath

From: richard lovell Sent: 03 September 2015 01:02 To: Forward Plans Subject: Re Planning Proposals for Longsdon

The proposals for the village of Longsdon, specifically sites Ref LO002 ,Ref LO007 and Ref LO021 are absolutely inappropriate for the village for a number of reasons :-

1. If these plans took place they would be totally out of character with the rest of the village, namely that of individual residences of varying sizes and

designs.A high density ,estate type development, would look totally wrong in the village, destroying its current haphazard type of housing stock.

2. Any development on these sites would cause major access problems onto the main Leek Road, the A53, with very poor visibility of traffic and is

almost exactly at the site of a double fatality a few years ago .The access from Sutherland Road onto the A53 is at present very dangerous and

further traffic would only worsen the problem.

3 As there is no mains drainage in the village, a high density development would require multiple septic tanks draining onto nearby fields.

Also it would appear that the allocation of 20 houses in Longsdon, over twice the density average of other small villages is wrong..Longsdon has very

few public services eg no school,no shop ,no doctors surgery etc, an allocation of 10 houses would be appropriate and could easily be assimilated in

the village by suitable infill.

The infill boundaries need to extended to include the whole village,eg Micklea Lane, Denford Road, School Lane, Leek Old Road etc. and not the

arbitrary boundary,ie Leek Road and Sutherland Road that is currently shown on the plans.

In conclusion the current proposals are woefully wrong and should be replaced by the above proposals which would provide the appropriate number

of dwellings without ruining the village

Richard and Anne Lovell, -----

Forward Plan Policy Team

Staffordshire Moorlands District Council Moorlands House Stockwell Street Leek Staffordshire ST13 6HQ

10 September 2015

Dear Sir/Madam

Staffordshire Moorlands ‘Site Options Consultation Booklet’ Consultation

I am writing to respond to the ‘Site Options Consultation Booklet’, which is published for consultation until 14th September 2015. I have previously responded to the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) consultation regarding Site LO002 in Longsdon. This Site has been taken forward into the Site Options Consultation Booklet and I welcome the opportunity to respond to the latest consultation.

General Comments

I support the general approach outlined in the Site Options Consultation Booklet (SOCB). This is consistent with the adopted Core Strategy and the principles of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

Policy SS6: Rural Areas of the Core Strategy states that 1680 dwellings should be provided in rural areas between 2006 and 2026 (28% of total provision). This level of housing is required to meet the urgent and significant housing need in rural areas, which is a result of the failure to deliver sufficient housing in the past 10-15 years.

Policy SS6 also states that the Site Allocations DPD will allocate sufficient development sites to delivery this housing target. This is consistent with paragraph 47 of the NPPF, which states that local planning authorities should identify specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years’ worth of housing against their housing requirements with an additional buffer of 5%. Where there has been persistent under delivery of housing, the NPPF suggests this buffer should be raised to 20%.

The SOCB identifies a large number of potential development sites across the county. I understand that the SOCB consultation is seeking comments on the suitability of the proposed sites, which will then inform which sites are taken forward to the final Site Allocations DPD. I support this approach in principle, but strongly consider that the number of sites taken forward should not be significantly reduced in order to ensure the delivery of sufficient housing. The removal of a large amount of development sites would not be in accordance with paragraph 47 of the NPPF.

Longsdon I am the landowner of Site LO002, which is located in Longsdon on Sutherland Road. There has not been any development in Longsdon for many years, which has resulted in the under delivery of new housing. This has prevented people from moving into the village including young families. This when coupled with the national trend of

smaller household sizes has resulted in a declining population in the rural village.

Longsdon has therefore started to lose its critical mass of people to sustain the level of public services required for a sustainable rural village. In the recent past, a public house (the New Inn), the Post Office and a grocery store have closed, which has had an adverse impact on the village character.

I note that Longsdon is classified as a ‘smaller village’ in the SOCB. I strongly consider that additional housing is required in Longsdon to help meet the local need and secure the long term viability of the village. This will also help meet the regional and national housing crisis.

It is the role of planning policy to ensure the sufficient delivery of housing and I strongly support the approach outlined in the SOCB, which will provide some degree of certainty to the creation of new housing in Longsdon.

I note Section 5.18 of the SOCB, which states that Longsdon has a housing need of 20 new dwellings between 2011- 2031. I support this quantum of development, which is an appropriate level given the size, location and context of the village. This level of housing can be delivered in a sustainable approach on suitable sites to ensure the character of the village is not undermined. I strongly consider the provision of housing on Site LO002 is fully aligned with this ambition and the principles of the Core Strategy and NPPF. Please see my comments below.

Site LO002

I support the delivery of 20 new homes in Longsdon between 2011- 2031. I note that 3 sites have currently been identified, which could deliver 28 new homes (which slightly exceeds this target). I previously submitted Site LO002 on Sutherland Road to the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) ‘call for sites’ consultation.

I strongly support Site LO002 being brought forward and identified as a possible site allocation in the SOCB. I consider this site is ideally suited for housing development and will deliver the objectives outlined in the Core Strategy for smaller villages.

Whilst I understand that all three sites in Longsdon could be brought forward for development, I consider Site LO002 is clearly the most suited for development and relates best to the existing layout and character of the village. The site’s location and topography would allow the site to accommodate 10 homes without significantly impacting on local views or the perceived openness of the village. The Site sits adjacent to the main road of the village called Sutherland Road and is fronted by development on three sides. It is therefore a natural infill development site. Sutherland Road is currently fronted by housing on both sides and acts as the main artery of the village with some local services located in close proximity. Housing development on Site LO002 would therefore continue the general layout and townscape of the village and would be wholly infitting with the character and feel of the village.

I consider Site LO 002 is best placed to deliver new housing and will delivery substantial benefits to the community. The site specific points identified below should be fully considered as part of this consultation process and support Site LO002 being taken forward to the preferred Site Allocations DPD. .  The Site is located at the centre of the village, within easy walking distance of the remaining local facilities and the main road (A53) to the North.  Residential development surrounds the Site to the east, north and south. Residential development at the Site should therefore be considered as infill development rather than new build development that sprawls into the countryside.  The Site is easily accessible from Sutherland Road. Access to any new housing development directly from A53 would be very dangerous and should be avoided. Site LO002 has existing access from Sutherland Road, which would provide a safe and sustainable solution.

 The site is perfectly sized to accommodate a medium level of development (up to 10 homes), which would help meet local housing needs without being too large to undermine the character, size and openness of the village.  The Site is located adjacent to the Longsdon community centre at the heart of the village. Vehicular access to the community centre is currently from the A53, which as stated above is difficult and dangerous when turning in or out of the facility. Subject to further investigation, there could be an opportunity to provide an enhanced consolidated access solution to the community centre through developing Site LO002. This would also ensure that the new homes become engrained in the village with close links to the community centre.  The site is relatively flat and can be easily developed. The topography of the land will ensure the housing has a minimal visual impact.

Given the reasons outlined above, I consider the delivery of housing on Site LO002 is fully in accordance with the driving principles of sustainable development in rural areas, as outlined in paragraph 55 of the NPPF. This states that “housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain vitality of rural communities”. Site LO002 will deliver this aim of national policy.

Infill Boundary I note and support the proposed infill boundary for Longsdon. Site LO 002 is fully located within the draft boundary as expected.

I support the general approach to infill development, but consider it essential that the Local Planning Authority guides development and identifies the most suitable sites for the delivery of medium- large housing development. Only through this approach will there be sufficient certainty that housing will be delivered in accordance with the target housing targets. This is also required to satisfy paragraph 47 of the NPPF.

Summary In summary, I support the general direction and approach of the SOCB and the identification of development sites to ensure the delivery of sufficient housing. I strongly support the identification of Site LO002, which is the most suitable site in Longsdon for medium scale housing development. The Site can deliver many benefits to the village and can easily fit into Longsdon’s character. The delivery of housing on this site is in accordance with the principles of the NPPF and specifically paragraph 55, which seeks Local Planning Authorities to support sustainable development in rural areas where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities.

I wish to be kept informed of the SOCB consultation process and the preparation of the Site Allocation preferred options document. If you have any further queries or points of clarification regarding Site LO 002 then please contact me. Yours sincerely,

George Messenger

From: Hannah Rowley Sent: 25 August 2015 17:13 To: Forward Plans Subject: Longsdon Housing Plans

To whom it may concern,

I am writing to you to express my concerns regarding the housing development plans for the village of Longsdon. Although I understand more housing is needed in general, I strongly believe there are more suitable and appropriate sites with the infrastructure to deal with it. For example, the vacant army barracks in Blackshaw Moor or the old cotton mills in the centre of Leek. The Blackshaw Moor site is much more suitable for building there no other houses around it and so building would be less disruptive. In relation to the old mills in Leek, they have been empty for a number of years and it seems a waste to leave them in the state they are. Although renovating them may cause initial disruption i.e. road works, the end result would be fantastic for the town as they would be suitable for a large number of people as it gives easy access to the town centre e.g. young families, couples and people in their retirement.

The majority of houses in Longsdon are period properties, particularly those which surround the site and so having new builds near would ruin the aesthetics of our village. Furthermore, there a number of road issues which are of concern. The road as it stands is quite narrow and it cannot be widened due to the wheel pub which may affect access to the site. Further issues include an increase of traffic along Sutherland Road.

I strongly believe there are more suitable sites (as I have suggested) to build new housing and I fail to understand why the village of Longsdon has been chosen particularly as we have no shop, school, doctors, post office etc.

I hope you take note of my letter of objection. I look forward to your response.

Yours faithfully,

Hannah Rowley.