Local Plan

Niobe

Please note: You only need to register / login if you wish to make representations.

Representation 127 on Preferred Options Local Plan by clive needle

Support / Object: OBJECT
Document Link: Preferred Options Local Plan - Sustainable Settlements, Rowhedge, SS14: Land to the south of Battleswick Farm Rowhedge Road
Representation: 1. Post "Brexit", agricultural land should be retained for necessary national food production.
2. Road junctions nearby would be dangerous and unsuitable for extra traffic.
3. The brook is a valuable habitat.
4. Rowhedge is accepting large rapid growth, the impacts of which should be assessed before any further development is considered.
Therefore I strongly object.

Original submission

Thank you for the helpful opportunity to discuss this with officials at Rowhedge Village Hall 2 August. I do not agree that further housing development should take place in Rowhedge which could risk undermining its special village identity and integrity. Firstly, it is not appropriate to use agricultural land. Given so-called "Brexit" impacts, an important omission not yet included in the Local Plan provisions generally, all land for food production should be protected as imports may be more costly and we should aim for self sufficiency in crucial produce. Therefore Battleswick Farm land should not be developed for housing, but wholly retained for agriculture. Secondly, the three road junctions which would be impacted most by anticipated extra traffic - expect 100+ vehicle movements daily - are unsuitable and would need costly work or pedestrians, cyclists and road users will be at greater danger. Thirdly, the brook to the western edge of the proposed development is an important habitat which should be protected. Rowhedge is already integrating a large number of new houses in the two former Wharfe developments. The impacts and needs of several hundred new residents and their vehicles should first be assessed before any further houses are built, or severe damage could be done to the village, its infrastructures and its environments which are rightly mentioned in the Plan. I believe alternative options elsewhere exist, closer to available employment, to meet (arguable) national targets. I strongly urge that, taking all the above into account plus the strength of local feeling about this proposal, the proposal should be reconsidered and withdrawn.


Having trouble using the system? Visit our help page or contact us directly.

Powered by OpusConsult

Related Articles