We’ve spotted another interesting objection to the proposed Taylor Wimpey development on the H66 site to the west of Market Street in Edenfield. This objection has been produced by Penny Bennett Landscape Architects who you may recall prepared a “New Lives New Landscape Report” for RBC in the early days of the Local Plan. That report said that the TW land should not be developed and this latest review is still very critical of the proposals.
The objection to the planning application is that the proposed housing development fails to respect the natural east-west fall of the land, and the predominant settlement pattern of “Settled Valley” landscape type which follows the contours of the hills, rather than crosses them. The orientation of the main streets east-west across the site means that substantial retaining works are required between many properties, which are costly and unsightly when on such an extensive scale. Opportunities to create new vistas towards nearby landmarks such as Peel Tower have been missed. The objection also highlights that the proposed boundary treatment plan doesn’t make it clear that the existing stone wall along the southern boundary adjacent to the existing playing field, itself a significant landscape feature, is to be retained.
The proposed use of brick retaining walls, some of which are proposed to be at least 3 meters high, would be visually extremely inappropriate, and these structures should be faced in stone or reconstituted stone as a minimum. The objection also highlights that a very “bland and budget selection” of hard paving materials has been chosen, which do not relate to the local area.
The objection also states that the scale of the proposed development is such that the mitigation to the periphery of the site is insufficient to counteract the impact of the proposed housing and mitigation must include a commitment to creating a framework of trees within the development.
Finally, the objection raises concerns about the cumulative effects of the development, the height of the proposed development, and the failure to recognize the need for well-considered hard landscaping design.
The detailed objection can be read below: