Dore to Door internet edition

Planning and development

Ryecroft Farm development - King Ecgbert School - Planning

Ryecroft Farm development

Dore to Door came in for stick from some readers in respect to our lead article in the last issue -see letters. Others voiced their support. Fortunately tipping is now substantially finished andlandscaping of the site is in progress. However, just to put things straight:We well understand and sympathise with the financial difficulties farmers currently face and cansee the attractions of diversification, including that of providing pasturing for the increasingnumber of privately owned horses. It is sad that the Council, as Landlord, has no apparentstrategy for supporting the viability of its tenants holdings, apart from selling them off, as has justhappened on Long Line, and no doubt will with Ryecroft Farm at some future point.Unfortunately the excessive tipping of spoil to create a riding circle has nothing to do with this- it could have been done (and usually is) by excavating into the slope. See Avenue Farm. Thesheer scale of the operation was totally out of line with the needs for the creation of a simpleriding circle. Why?

Our concern then is with the planning process, the Council and government legislation.Everyone must be aware of the massive building development on the old Totley College site andin Whirlow. This has involved moving thousands of tons of spoil, yet where this was to go, orthe impact of its movement, was not taken into account in granting planning permission. [Interestingly the South Planning Board which makes planning decisions has no councillors fromDore Ward on it!  And you may recall when Abbeydale Hall was being discussed, the then chairwould not even allow one of our local councillors to address the relevant meeting!]As it happens, conveniently, this spoil could be tipped on council land in Dore without travellingtoo far, but then we understand the even more convenient offer of filling an old quarry on TotleyHall Farm was not pursued.

Tipping is an expensive business and covered by Landfill legislation including payment oflandfill tax. But there are tax exemptions, including tipping for  recreational use'! Exemptionsshould be registered, but according to the Environment Agency this scheme has not been. Thecost of doing so is œ12, therefore it is not economic for the Agency to pursue failures to register!Finally landowners usually receive healthy payments per lorry load for allowing tipping. Did theCouncil benefit, and are they investing the income into the farm? We could go on. We do wish John Farnsworth and Ryecroft Farm well, but isn't it time society took a moreholistic view of planning and the impact of developments?

John Baker, Editor

King Ecgbert School

The case for redevelopment

• Outline Planning permission - December 2000
• Public exhibition of bidders proposals - October 2001
• Detailed Planning Consent for two final bidders - November 2001
• Construction commences on site - April 2002
• New school opens - September 2002

The proposals

The proposals, put to the Public Meeting, were that:

1. the new school should be built on the Wessex Site (on the south side of Furniss Avenue),
   
2. half the Mercia Site (now occupied by school buildings) together with a small area of about 4 hectares of land on the Wessex Site, at the end of King Ecgbert Road, would be sold for housing to help fund the scheme,
3. the other half of the Mercia Site would be retained and managed by the consortium, as open space for recreational use.

The Council are proposing three alternatives for the school on the Wessex Site.

A) Provide additional buildings on the land between Totley Brook Road (northern end) and the existing buildings,
B) Provide an additional building on the playing fields to the south of the existing building andadjacent to the Totley Brook Estate boundary, with a new access between the houses on Totley Brook Road.
C) Demolish the Wessex building and rebuild a complete school on the existing building footprint. This would entail use of temporary accommodation on the open space of the Merciasite during building works, at a cost of about £1 million.

Discussion and questions

The following concerns were raised at the meeting;

1. Traffic calming measures were considered vital on Furniss Avenue, and around the school.The proposals were seen as a vital opportunity to resolve the parking and traffic problems in the locality.
2. School vehicles should be parked in the school grounds. Mr.Evans gave some assurance that was the intention.
3. Serious concern was expressed as to the problems of land drainage in the area. Residents were worried that poor drainage would be made even worse by the proposals, unless serious thought was given to the treatment of the two sites at an early stage.
4. Concern was raised about the proposed housing development on both the Mercia and Wessex sites. The officers of the Council pointed out that the sites were allocated for housing on the Unitary Development Plan, approved by the Government some time ago. Further, the new school could not go ahead without the revenue from the housing land sales.
5. There were requests that if housing was to be built, it should be limited to bungalows.
6. The officers could not say how the housing land would be developed. That would be a decision of the consortium, subject to planning consent.
7. There were concerns about the proposed use, for access into the Wessex site, of the strip of land in Totley Brook Road because of the poor sight lines.
8. The meeting was told that it was not financially feasible to retain the Mercia building for community use.
9. The officers confirmed that the open space land was so designated on the U.D.P. and could not be developed for other uses by the Council or the consortium.
10. The meeting was told that there was not a preferred scheme of development of the school, although the suggested rebuilding of the school on the Wessex building footprint was unlikely because of the cost of the temporary arrangements.
11. The purpose of making three outline planning applications was to give the consortium bidders an idea of what might be approved as a scheme for development.
12. The meeting was assured that the residents of Dore would be kept fully informed and consulted as the proposals progressed, and that any concerns raised would be considered for inclusion in the specification prepared for the bidders.

David Heslop

Planning

Rear of 120 & 122 Causeway Head Road. The application to build a dwelling house at the end of the gardens of two houses (fronting onto Parkers Lane), has been a matter of concern for many residents for some time. Whereas previous applications had been refused, as had an appeal, the latest application being a modification of previous attempts, was granted planning permission on 18th August.

The main concerns were overdevelopment of the site, and a proposed two storey dwelling facing Green Belt. In respect of the first issue the new planning consent has restricted any future extension of the dwelling, but even so this consent could be the forerunner of other applications of this type in sensitive areas of the village.

Barberfields Farm. Long Line. Outline planning consent has been granted for the conversion of the outbuildings (which includes the original farmhouse) into a dwelling house. The property is in the Green Belt and any development should be tightly controlled and will have to be carefully monitored. The buildings, together with just over 20 acres of land, are being sold by the City Council at the present time. The remainder of this farm is also being sold in lots without prospect of development.

Old Dore Nursery. Newfield Lane. This bungalow, which is also in Green Belt, is the subject of a planning application to enlarge. Because of the size of the proposed extensions and thesensitivity of the situation, it is likely that the application will be refused unless plans are modified. The property is for sale at the present time.

Land to the rear of 65-69 Newfield Lane. Planning consent was granted in September 1999 for two substantial houses on the back gardens of 67 and 69 Lane. The plans at that time tentatively showed three dwellings on the same plot.

Two separate applications were made in respect of two of these plots on 25 August. For Plot 2 a large house is shown (application No.9A/6067P). On Plot 4 a three storey block of flats is proposed (application No.9A/6066P).

This block of flats faces the Recreation Ground and is within 10 metres (33 ft) of the fence,presenting a massive uninspiring elevation to the Recreation Ground, in a situation whereproperties can otherwise hardly be seen. It is considered this is a severe intrusion into the rural informality of the Recreation Ground, and strong objections have been made to the siting and overdevelopment of this land. The application is due to be considered by the Planning Committee at the end of November.

The planning legislation in respect of such towers holds that if they are less than 15 metres (excluding the 2 metres of antennae), unless the Planning Authority refuse the application within 42 days on the grounds of siting or design, the proposals are deemed to be permitted development and the equipment can be erected without any further control.

The proposal for the tower at Limb Lane states that it will be masked by the surrounding trees at 13 metres height. The trees are far less than that and the tower will rise far above the treetops. We have asked that a more appropriate siting is sought, particularly as some of the trees would have to be felled if the tower is erected as shown on the plans.

The Knowle Green Wall. The case of the massive wall at the side of 73 Newfield Lane, which was erected without planning permission, has moved on. Having applied for consent to regularise the situation, and had a refusal, the owner has appealed to the Secretary of State against the refusal. Anyone wishing to submit any comments concerning the matter, should forward them to The Planning Inspectorate, Room 1006, Tollgate House, Houlton Street, Bristol, BS2 9DJ, and quote the reference APP/J4423/A/0011050780. The representations should be received as soon as possible. The appeal is being decided on the basis of written submissions and a site visit by the Inspector.

Blue Ridge Ashfurlong Lane. This site has been sold at a reputably high figure suggesting considerable development will be necessary to justify the price. A brief note has been circulated to local residents by the society. As we go to press a planning application has not yet been received.

David Heslop