ECNF response to Taylor Wimpey’s MDC

Thank you to all those residents who joined us to express their concerns about the proposed MasterPlan / Design Code produced by Taylor Wimpey published on the Edenfield Masterplan page on the council’s website.

We believe that there are numerous flaws in this plan and are working hard to ensure that development is more in keeping with Edenfield’s nature and character. We don’t want to see overdevelopment blighting the village.

We have posted a copy of our representation to the council on our website and you can read it in full if you wish. –

The objection runs to 55 pages and is summarised below:

  1. Questionable Applicability: The MDC may not apply to the entire site H66 and not all site owners were involved in its preparation, the document lacks clarity on who supports it.
  2. Lack of Implementation Program: The MDC is not supported by an agreed implementation and phasing program or an infrastructure delivery schedule, failing to comply with the SSP.
  3. Errors in Design Code: The MDC’s design code contains numerous errors and is inadequately detailed.
  4. Ignoring Neighbourhood Plan Design Code: The MDC does not sufficiently consider the Design Code in the emerging Neighbourhood Plan.
  5. Incomplete Comprehensive Development: The MDC lacks a comprehensive approach, missing elements like a planned highway network, drainage arrangements, landscaping, and developer contributions.
  6. Requirement for Comprehensive Masterplan: A comprehensive masterplan and design code for the whole site are necessary, as per Local Plan policy. This document falls short of being a comprehensive plan.
  7. Misrepresentation of Footpaths for Cycling: The MDC incorrectly assumes the availability of footpaths FP126 and FP127 for cycling.
  8. Non-compliance with National Planning Policies: The MDC does not align with national planning policy or planning practice guidance.
  9. Inadequate MDC Content: Various aspects of the MDC, including its vision, visual context assessment, ecological assessment, and road standards, are inadequate or incorrect.
  10. Failure to Protect Drystone Walls: The MDC does not ensure the protection of drystone walls along key boundaries.
  11. Disregard for SSP Landscaping Specifications: The MDC fails to specify comprehensive landscaping for the entire site.
  12. Unacceptable Off-Site Car Park and LAP: Proposals for a car park and LAP are problematic due to issues like loss of street parking, Green Belt encroachment, and safety concerns.
  13. Uncertainty of SUDS Accommodation: It is unclear if Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) can be safely incorporated into the site.
  14. Misunderstanding Green Belt Improvements: The MDC misinterprets the requirements for compensatory improvements within the Green Belt.
  15. Excessive Housing Density: The proposed housing density in the MDC is considered too high.
  16. Confused Boundary Treatment: The MDC shows confusion regarding boundary treatment at the development-Green Belt interface.
  17. Simplistic Heritage Appreciation Approach: The approach to heritage assets is considered overly simplistic.
  18. Conflicting Plans and Nomenclature: Discrepancies in plans and confusing nomenclature in the MDC make it unfit for purpose.
  19. Deficiencies in Area Type Codes: Issues with building materials, heritage asset protection, and preserving views.
  20. Inadequate Transport Assessments: The developers’ transport assessment and related plans are insufficient.
  21. Security Concerns with Concealed Car Park: A concealed car park may attract criminal activity, conflicting with national and local policy.
  22. Impact of Lost Street Parking: Loss of street parking on Market Street would negatively impact local residents and businesses.
  23. Obstruction of Footway: The proposed rain garden obstructs a busy footway.

About the author

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.