Page 51 - Archive in reverse date order

harm caused by the proposed development's impact upon Openness. Particularly relevant to
the above application is his recognition in his para 14 that the proposed houses at Orchard
view Farm would result in a more suburban character and appearance of the site – detracting
from the character and appearance of the surrounding area and conflict with the National
Planning Policy Framework as well as Policies CS01, CS06 and CS17 of the Core Strategy
and Policies ENV4, ENV22 and ENV 39 of the UDP.

All this is very relevant to this application from the adjoining Manor Freehold Farm –
especially as (unlike the Orchard View Farm application, see the inspector's para 8) the
application is for the creation of houses that would be seen from Chalk Wood.

3. Non-precedent at 65 Parsonage Lane We do not see Planning's decision in this case as a
precedent for what is being proposed at 67 Parsonage Lane. There was some evidence at the
time to support the claim that the farm building known as 65 Parsonage Lane (the Snail Farm)
had been in residential use, but the application for a Lawful Development Certificate was
withdrawn before determination by Planning (10/01917/LDCE). Another was made in 2011
(11/00541/LDCE); but was rejected, insufficient evidence. This was followed by an
application to demolish part of the Snail Farm building and convert it to a dwelling.
Planning's recommendation to the planning committee that “removal of part of the existing
building may be expected to increase openness” was accepted by the committee
(11/01106/FUL). Work to this end was begun, but in 2014 Planning accepted the applicant's
request to amend the work to one of a new-build dwelling, but with “the general principle of
the scheme...as previously approved” (14/01143/FUL). So what happened during the planning
process in the case of 65 Parsonage Lane (partial demolition of an existing building) is quite
different to what is being sought at 67 Parsonage Lane (no demolition, and conversion of a
building to form two houses).

4. Impact as regards vehicular traffic and other factors

a) we, and several of our members writing separately, have repeatedly pointed out that
Parsonage Lane (narrow with little or no passing places, and with no pavements for
pedestrians) already faces daily difficulties from vehicles of all kinds and sizes. Currently, the
application document reveals that the application site employs four workers, presumably
working Mon-Fri. How much worse would the situation be with two houses, their cars
coming and going seven days a week? And there would also be service vehicles such as
Refuse lorries, oil deliveries (a gas supply does not exist in this area) and cess-pit collectors
(we see from the application document that this is how raw sewage would be dealt with). All
this on top of what we currently have to put up with from horse boxes etc. etc. Things are
already hard enough for those living in upper Parsonage Lane, which leads to Manor Freehold
Farm, on a bridle path used by walkers and riders heading for Chalk Wood and Joydens
Wood.

b) lower down Parsonage lane there are also many problems for residents resulting from
repeated water leaks, causing flooding and road closures. All this is because the road just
cannot take any more traffic as the mains (positioned just a few inches below the road surface
and protected by no more than clay) are just not up to it. Apparently Thames Water have
designated this as a High Risk area.

c) as another member has pointed out in a separate letter opposing the above application, any
further development in this area would place an additional demand on already stretched