Our response to SDDC’s Local Plan Part 2 consultation:

Local Plan Part 2 Consultation Feb 2016

Most recent large planning application responses will be posted here:

Station Road (2) Alexander Bruce (03/2015) can be found here

Jawbone Lane (2) Linden Homes (02/2015) can be found here.

Jawbone Lane (1) Fisher German Housing Application (01/2015) can be found here.

Blackwell Lane Housing application (12/2014) can be found here.

Persimmon Woodlands Planning Application (10/2014)

UPDATE: 24/09/2014

The Society has previously commented in detail on this application, and the amended plans do not overcome any of the previous objections. The amendments are minor and relate to the numbers and types of houses: the fundamental issues concern the principle of a greenfield development outside the village framework and its conflict with both previous saved policies and the new draft Local Plan which has now been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate.

The application must be recommended for refusal for all the reasons given previously, and the Society’s previous comments should be reported to your Committee in full. The Society supports your Council’s draft Local Plan and will appear at the public local inquiry to say so.

As you will be aware, there is very strong local opinion opposed to this application, and this should be a material factor in the determination. A favourable decision would undermine all previous planning policies affecting Melbourne and King’s Newton and would undermine your Council’s justification for the strategic housing land allocations in the draft Local Plan. Permission must be refused.

Ian Turner, Chairman of the planning sub-committee.

Our response to the Woodlands application (May 2014) is below; feel free to use the arguments but in your own words and style.

This proposal is completely unacceptable in policy terms and in its detail. Melbourne Civic Society OBJECTS strongly to this development application for the following reasons:

1. New housing development on this scale would be contrary to both the existing preserved Local Plan and the Draft Local Plan for the period up to 2028 which has been the subject of extensive consultations prior to submission to the Secretary Of State. The Draft Plan does not identify Melbourne as a site for any major housing development, and this is a major development on any definition.

2. ┬áThis development would constitute a major extension to the village’s development framework, contrary to planning policy, and specifically contrary to the long established local policy of keeping Kings Newton physically separate from Melbourne to preserve the character of both settlements.

3. The application is clearly premature and, together with other applications either already submitted or planned by landowners, developers and house-builders, is clearly an attempt to pre-empt the proper consideration of such applications in the local planning context. The Society fully supports the draft Local Plan’s strategic housing allocations which this and the other applications are designed to subvert.

4. Any small scale new housing developments in Melbourne can only be consideration after adoption of the new Local Plan. There are two issues here: firstly, this is not the sort of small scale development that might be considered AFTER adoption of the new Local Plan, and secondly there are other sites in Melbourne that would be considered more acceptable without prejudicing the separate identities of the two settlements.

5. There is inadequate primary and secondary educational provision in Melbourne for extra housing development on this scale and this constitutes a valid additional reason for refusal for this speculative development proposal.

6. This is a detailed application and the Society objects to the details submitted. The inclusion of drainage swales in new housing schemes is most undesirable because they create both maintenance and safety difficulties for new residents and, unless adopted and regularly maintained, they are detrimental to residents’ amenities. All surface water run-off should be accommodated within a balancing reservoir which should be designed as an amenity and adopted by the local authority.

Furthermore, the house types are not well-designed: they are plain and lack variety and vitality and will not enhance the appearance of the village nor the character of the local neighbourhood. The Society considers that this application should be REFUSED on both policy and detailed grounds, as outlined above.

Please draw this objection to your Committee’s attention when the application is up for determination. If the applicants appeal this refusal of permission the Society will give evidence in support of your Council’s decision.

Ian Turner, Chairman of the Planning Sub-Committee

Here are two very useful websites to help you write your objections:

How to Object

How to Object to a Planning Application