Hermitage Lane/NetherLea appeal response

In light of the forthcoming appeal for Hermitage Lane, we at LoveGoostrey suggest you respond by 28th Aug using the online facility to comment/make representation [link to appeal webpage] and state:

“We are concerned regarding the implementation of Policy SE14 in Cheshire East’s Emerging Local Plan, as it requires Jodrell Bank to demonstrate how this development proposal would reduce the efficiency of the Lovell telescope which, from recent planning applications and appeals, appears to be difficult for them to do (refer to planning application 10/2647C  Twemlow Lane and 14/0081C Hermitage lane). The planning statement on Hermitage Lane confirms that although the application was recommended for Refusal, Jodrell Bank’s objection to this development couldn’t be sustained in the opinion of the planning officer as it was assessed that the effect on the telescope would be similar to the Twemlow Lane development, refer to  http://moderngov.cheshireeast.gov.uk/ecminutes/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=285&MId=4854&Ver=4 . However, we understand that Jodrell Bank is concerned about the incremental increase in housing around the observatory and the aggregate effect of interference that this would cause.  Prof. Simon Garrington is on record as stating it is the ‘largest and nearest’ developments to the Observatory that cause the most harm, with significant radio interference caused by nearby villages such as Goostrey.

We believe, it is the precedent set by any one development that makes it increasingly difficult for Jodrell Bank to have any objection to development around the observatory sustained and hence it is this fact that is likely to reduce the efficiency of the Lovell Telescope.  We also have concerns in regard to planning officers having to arbitrate on the technical issues of such complex science.

We therefore request that in terms of assessing the potential harm to Jodrell Bank Observatory, in accordance with policy SE14 in Cheshire East’s Emerging Local Plan, that an assessment of the cumulative impact of ALL the currently proposed developments in the Village is undertaken as part of this appeal (whether a planning application has been submitted or whether a planning application is yet to be submitted but the developer has held an initial consultation meeting).  The cumulative impact assessment should include:-

1) Planning ref 14/1964  26 Dwellings off Hermitage Lane , Goostrey,

2) Planning ref 14/5579C   – 119 proposed houses Land north of Main Road, Goostrey

3) Planning Ref 14/1147C  – 25 Houses Land to South of, Main Road, Goostrey, Cheshire (refused but appeal/resubmission expected)

4) Planning submission awaited – 60 houses, The Grange Livery, Station Road, Goostrey (https://lovegoostrey.wordpress.com/planning-applications/the-grange/)

5) Planning submission awaited – 55 houses, Mill Lane, Goostrey (https://lovegoostrey.wordpress.com/planning-applications/mill-lane/)

 

2 thoughts on “Hermitage Lane/NetherLea appeal response

  1. The Hermitage Lane and Nether Lea Action Group has concerns about some of the above content.

    As we understand it the Planning Inspector will only consider evidence directly related to the Hermitage Lane Appeal. This is the only “live” Planning Application or Appeal at present.

    Planning ref 14/5579C – 119 proposed houses Land north of Main Road, Goostrey – presently “dead” unless the applicant submits an Appeal or another Planning Application

    Planning Ref 14/1147C – 25 Houses Land to South of, Main Road, Goostrey, Cheshire – again “dead”. We are now around two months past the date by which the Applicant can lodge an Appeal.

    60 houses, The Grange Livery, Station Road, Goostrey – no planning application has been lodged.

    55 houses, Mill Lane, Goostrey – no planning application has been lodged although one is expected.

    Consequently, at present there is nothing other than the Hermitage Lane Appeal around which to do a cumulative assessment.

    We can understand the motives which have driven the suggestion, but there is very little likelihood of it being entertained by the Planning Inspector.

    • For environmental receptors it is common practice to consider the cumulative impact of similar developments on such receptors. Jodrell bank is an unusual receptor, but the principle of cumulative impact still stands. I would say the other developments are waiting to see the outcome of this appeal rather than being ‘dead’. The inspector may consider it, it is worth arguing as it appears to be the main concern of Jodrell Bank. With out it there is no defence other than arguing that it is not a sustainable development in accordance with NPPF. Which maybe a weak argument considering the relatively small size of this development. Remember the planning officer stated it was ‘ sustainable’ for a rural location in his report. Unfortunately, there is no adopted Local Plan, no five year housing supply, and no Neighbourhood plan and CE are looking to distribute an additional 1000 houses around the Local Service Centres. Even if we did have a Neighbourhood plan, this promotes development rather than blocking it and doesn’t carry sufficient weight anyway (even if we had one finished in time). …….. Good luck….!!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s