Friends of Outwoods 2018

Latest update of the FoO 2018 BHG campaign

There was going to be a letter run this evening at 6.00pm this has now been postponed until Saturday 16th June 2018 meeting at 2.00pm in the link road at the Beamhill Rd/ Tutbury Rd traffic island.

This is for a letter and poster run to keep the campaign on track and keep the pressure on to get this development refused at this stage

Although today's run has been postponed in general that doesn't mean that those who wish to carry on should not do so and we would be happy if you can make notes of where people are willing to display our poster which will be placed at a later date although not on the day.

On Saturday afternoon we would like to see as many of you volunteering to collect these signatures from around the area as possible.

Friends of Outwoods will be extremely grateful for your help in this campaign

THANK YOU VERY MUCH

FoO

The application for the Beamhill Grange development has now been registered with ESBC Planning and an objection letter will be composed very soon for each objector not household to send in. It will be more than likely posted here but I would imagine sent to all the residents registered with the FOO database via email.

If you would like to register or maintain your name on the Friends of Outwoods email database please contact and give permission for Friends of Outwoods to retain your data

friendsofoutwoods.burton@gmail.com

Please use the following link to see the planning documents

http://www.eaststaffsbc.gov.uk/MVM/Online/dms/DocumentViewer.aspx?PK=631827&SearchType=Planning%20Application

This statement was taken from Andrew Griffiths Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/agriffithsofficial/

BEAMHILL ROAD AND TUTBURY ROAD RESIDENTS:

Many of you will have received this attached leaflet about a proposal for a "Beamhill Grange" development. I wrote to the Council to object to it, and whilst no formal planning application has gone in yet, they confirmed that the site in question is not allocated for development in the Local Plan or 5 year housing supply and will therefore be looked upon "unfavourably".

However I am disappointed to hear that the developers Gladmans has been giving out inaccurate information that has been misleading residents. I will be formally objecting to the application when it is submitted and opposing this development that does not have the agreement of the local community.

OBJECTION LETTER TEMPLATE AND TEXT

Copy and paste the letter below and post it to the address shown or email it to sachin.parmar@eaststaffsbc.org.uk

The objections are per person not per household so please ask all you family and friends that are willing to object to this development to send in a copy of this letter

Please be aware that the target date for these objection letters to arrive at ESBC Planning is not later than 06/06/2018.

Please feel free to add any relevant "planning" points you feel may help but ensure the document below is retained in its entirety, Thank you FoO

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sachin Parmar (Planning) Name:-

East Staffordshire Borough Council, Address:-

P.O. Box 8045, Town/City

Burton upon Trent, County:-

Staffordshire, Postcode:-

DE14 9JG. Date:-

Your reference: P/2018/00432

Dear Sirs,

I strongly object to this planning application on the following grounds:

This development is outside of the development boundary and is NOT included in the local plan.

It creates unacceptable backfill sites, introduces substantial urban form and has a considerable adverse effect on amenities enjoyed by local residents.

It is therefore in conflict with Local Plan Policies-: SP4 and SP8.

According to NPPF paragraph 12, this application should be refused unless other material considerations indicate otherwise. There are no material considerations to be taken into account; therefore this planning application should be refused.

ESBC have identified a housing land supply in excess of 5 years, which has been approved of by Government Inspectors in relation to the Local Plan and at recent planning appeals. Land North of Beamhill (Beamhill Grange) is NOT included in any calculation. If any shortfall is identified in future it should be addressed by bringing forward sites from later in the Local Plan as directed in the NPPF (Paragraph47). Any additional housing will compromise the viability of current allocations and seriously undermine the Local Plan.

The chosen Preferred Strategic Option for growth was well supported at consultation and does NOT include any development on this site. Additional housing in the Outwoods and Stretton area was ruled out due to unacceptable pressure on existing infrastructure with little or no scope to increase capacity.

The A511 is already badly congested both through Hatton and towards Burton on Trent. This proposal will place unacceptable additional pressure on the A511 air quality management area, increase congestion and compromise highways safety. Proposed alterations to A511 are not considered adequate or safe.

The proposed alterations to the A38 Claymills junction are NOT adequate when all currently consented sites are taken into account.

Local GP’s have no capacity to accept any new patients. There are no plans to increase capacity over and above that for existing housing allocations.

The Proposed community facilities are already included within existing allocations with planning permission. This proposal fails to address shortages in facilities for older children, teenagers and young adults and does not include the required sports pitches. Protected views are also lost and buffer zones, as per drawing, are inadequate.

This puts the proposed development in conflict with Outwoods Neighbourhood Plan Policies LR1, LR2, LR5, RD1,CF3 and Local Plan policy SP22.

Burton schools including de Ferrers Academy and John Taylor High School (Barton under Needwood) and all local Primary/Junior schools are already oversubscribed. The new secondary school at Tatenhill cannot accommodate any pupils other than those generated by existing strategic allocations. This proposal will also eliminate a preferred site set aside for possible school expansion.

Yours faithfully