Core Objection Points (Customise & Submit)

1. Drainage & Flood Risk (Plan is Unsound: Inconsistent with National Policy & Not Justified)

Unresolved Objections: The previous outline planning application was refused partly because Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) objections regarding runoff, site levels, attenuation, and gravity drainage were never resolved.

Lack of Baseline Evidence: St Helen’s Wood and its springs and ghyll system are hydrologically sensitive, yet the council provides no verified baseline assessment proving development will not cause harm.

Premature Allocation: Critical drainage, groundwater, and contamination questions have been pushed to future planning applications instead of being proved now.

Add your local example:

[e.g. Describe any surface water run-off, saturated ground, or standing water you regularly see on nearby roads or gardens during heavy rain, e.g., "During heavy downpours, I frequently witness significant surface water pooling along..."]

2. Ecology & Wildlife Loss (Plan is Unsound: Inconsistent with National Policy)

Direct Harm: Environmental and ecological impacts contributed to the refusal of the recent application and remain unresolved.

Severed Wildlife Corridor: Development will fragment habitats, cause disturbance, and sever the vital corridor connecting St Helen’s Wood to the wider countryside.

Off-Site Avoidance: The plan relies excessively on off-site biodiversity offsets rather than protecting the environment at source.

Add your local example:

[e.g. List wildlife, birds, or bats you observe using this land, or describe how you use the adjacent nature reserves paths, e.g., "I regularly observe bats/badgers foraging across this boundary...", "We use this greenspace and enjoy ...."]

3. Housing Numbers & Deliverability (Plan is Unsound: Not Effective)

Unrealistic Capacity: The allocation assumes at least 95 homes, yet the developer’s own recent application proposed only 65 due to severe site constraints.

Progressive Reductions: The council has repeatedly cut the target capacity across drafts, demonstrating that the site cannot realistically absorb this volume of housing alongside required mitigation.

Add your local example:

[e.g. Mention local steep topography, utilities capacity or busy access roads that make intensive development look unworkable from street level.]

4. Unviable Affordable Housing (Plan is Unsound: Not Effective)

Broken Targets: The Local Plan targets 40% affordable housing, but the promoter previously offered only 25% due to viability limits.

Abnormal Infrastructure Costs: Steep slopes, complex retaining structures, and engineered drainage will inflate development costs and further squeeze out affordable homes.

5. Accessibility & Car Reliance (Plan is Unsound: Inconsistent with National Policy)

Poor Location: The site is peripheral and poorly connected to everyday public transport and local amenities.

Car Dominance: Steep hills and distance from services will force near-total reliance on private vehicles.

Add your local example:

[Note your experience walking or cycling locally, or the infrequency of the buses/distance of the nearest train station e.g., "Walking up from the nearest train station or shops is steep and impractical for elderly residents or parents with prams..."]

6. Flawed Process & Council Landownership (Plan is Unsound: Not Justified)

Deferred Proof: The council has expanded site requirements and deferred vital engineering/environmental tests to future stages rather than resolving them prior to allocation.

Conflict of Interest: Because both Borough and County Councils own land here, this allocation requires especially rigorous independent scrutiny