ECNF objection to Northstone planning application

The letter below is a detailed objection by the Edenfield Community Neighbourhood Forum (ECNF) to the proposed development by Northstone in the north of Edenfield village. ECNF does not believe that the application is compliant with various local and national policies. The key points of objection include:

  1. Lack of a Comprehensive Masterplan: The absence of a masterplan for the entire site, as required by Strategic Policy SD2 and SSP (the site-specific policy for H66), leads to a lack of clarity on key aspects like highway network, drainage, landscaping, and developer contributions, particularly affecting the area north of Church Lane.
  2. Inadequate Implementation and Phasing: The lack of an agreed program for implementation and phasing contradicts SSP, potentially leading to chaos in Edenfield.
  3. Non-compliance with Design Code: The development lacks an agreed design code, which is mandatory according to SSP and Strategic Policy ENV1. The ECNF suggests that the Design Code in the emerging Neighbourhood Plan should be the basis for design and layout.
  4. Absence of Comprehensive Transport Assessment: The applicant has not provided a Transport Assessment demonstrating safe and suitable access for all users, including disabled people, nor addressed the impact of additional traffic on Market Street.
  5. Issues with Design, Layout, and Density: The proposed development’s design, layout, height, and density fail to soften the overall impact, contradicting NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework) and Local Plan Strategic Policies.
  6. Green Belt Concerns: The development doesn’t propose sufficient compensatory improvements in the remaining Green Belt, is considered inappropriate development in the Green Belt, and fails to protect or enhance the openness of the Green Belt.
  7. Other Key Concerns: These include inadequate provisions for self-build and custom-built housing, uneven distribution of affordable housing, destruction of woodland, unaddressed land stability issues, lack of a Travel Plan, and insufficient ecological surveys.
  8. Legal and Policy Non-compliance: The application is argued to be in violation of several local plan policies and lacks necessary information and compliance in areas like landscaping, boundary treatments, biodiversity net gain, and transportation impact.
  9. Prematurity and Process Concerns: The ECNF criticises the application’s prematurity in the absence of an agreed masterplan and design code, and the insufficient community consultation process.
  10. Conclusion and Recommendation for Refusal: The ECNF concludes that the application should be refused due to its various shortcomings and non-compliance with essential policies and requirements.

The letter includes 4 appendices which in turn deal with mistakes made in the transport assessment, information related to land supply for housing, mistakes in the design and access statement as well as mistakes in the planning statement.

The detailed response can be read at this link or in the embedded document below:

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.