Representation by Lloyd Bellett
- Date submitted
- 14 June 2024
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
Dear Planning Committee, As a long-standing resident of Little Bromley for the past 26 years, I am compelled to express my strongest opposition to the proposed development plans that threaten to irreparably damage the very essence of our beloved village and its surrounding countryside. For over two decades, I have called this tranquil hamlet my home, drawn to its unspoiled natural beauty, quiet country lanes, and pristine agricultural lands. However, the proposed widening of Bentley Road, the construction of substations, and the establishment of compounds pose a grave threat to the rural character and environmental integrity that we have cherished for generations. The influx of heavy machinery and construction traffic would not only disrupt the peace and tranquillity of our village but also contribute to air and noise pollution, directly impacting the quality of life for residents. Moreover, the potential damage to listed buildings and properties without proper foundations is a significant concern that cannot be overlooked. Legal precedents, such as the landmark case of Newbury District Council v. Secretary of State for the Environment (1981), have established that the preservation of the character and appearance of an area is a material consideration in planning decisions. The proposed development would undoubtedly undermine the very essence of our village, which is cherished for its rural charm and tranquillity. The irreversible destruction of our mature trees, hedgerows, and agricultural land, which serve as vital habitats for wildlife and contribute to food production, is another critical issue that must be addressed. The Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights enshrine the right to respect for private and family life, as well as the peaceful enjoyment of one's home and possessions. The proposed development threatens to violate these fundamental rights by disrupting our way of life and devaluing our properties. In the landmark case of Garlick v. Cheltenham Borough Council (2001), the court ruled that the impact on the landscape and the loss of agricultural land are material considerations in planning decisions. The proposed development would undoubtedly have a detrimental impact on both fronts, making it a compelling case for rejection on legal grounds. Furthermore, legal precedents such as the case of Bushell v. Secretary of State for the Environment (1981) have established that the preservation of residential amenity and the protection of the natural environment are material considerations in planning decisions. The proposed development would undoubtedly have a detrimental impact on both fronts, further strengthening the case for rejection. I implore you to consider the far-reaching consequences of this proposed development and the precedent it would set for encroaching on the rights and well-being of residents in rural communities. Our village has been a cherished haven for generations, and its preservation is not only a matter of preserving our way of life but also a matter of safeguarding our legal rights and the integrity of our natural environment. I urge you to explore alternative solutions that prioritize the welfare of local residents and the protection of our cherished rural heritage. Together, we can work towards a sustainable future that strikes a balance between development and the preservation of our irreplaceable natural and cultural assets. Thank you for your time and consideration. Regards Lloyd Bellett Sent from my iPhone