Cllr. John Hewitt

BH2024/01720 – Land And Part Of Foot Golf Course And Benfield Barn At Benfield Valley

21^st September 2024:

Stance: Object

Reason for comment:

- Adverse affect on listed building

- Adversely affects the Conservation Area

- Because of the Additional Traffic

- Inappropriate Height of Development

- Overdevelopment

- Traffic or Highways

I wish to strongly object to application BH2024/01720. As a ward councillor and resident in Hangleton & Knoll, I know how much Benfield Valley means to residents and the physical and mental wellbeing benefits this amenity provides.

This will be compromised should this planning application receives approval.

My objections are based on- and in no particular order-:

101 dwellings are proposed for this site (referred to as site 11 in City Plan Part 2). Site 11 has been designated as having a maximum of 60 dwellings in City Plan Part 2. This will be an over-development of the site. Whilst neighbouring site 12 has the designation of 40 dwellings, it is not within the gift of a property developer to move allocations around to suit their business plan. This would set a dangerous precedent in the City Plan.

The proposal is for some building to be four storeys high. This is in contradiction with City Plan Part 2, which states ‘It is considered that development of up to three storeys might be accommodated without harm to key views and the settings of nearby listed buildings.’

There are concerns surrounding the road access, traffic and associated air quality caused by this development. The A293 link road and surrounding residential roads (Hangleton Lane, Hangleton Valley Drive, Fox Way) are already busy roads- certainly at peak times- and this development would cause significant pressures. It is also important to note that there isn’t a bus service serving this development, which would result in more of a reliance on residents using their own vehicles.

The site is chalk grassland, which accommodates wildlife and vegetation; this proposal would jeopardise the biodiversity in this area. This proposal fails Biodiversity net gain targets, as even if off-set at another site, there will be a negative impact here.

As widely known, there is a covenant on this site, which prohibits the land being used for domestic, residential use. This could be a consideration and respected when assessing the planning application.

The pre-planning consultation evenings in November 2023 were flawed; attendees were presented with a survey which had two options relating to the sites- development on both the north and south sites, or just on the north site. A high number of respondents indicated that that they would not want any developments at all, but these responses were not counted.