Gwrthwynebu
1 Ymgynghoriad ar Cynllun Datblygu Lleol Newydd
ID sylw: 5232
Derbyniwyd: 01/03/2026
Respondent ID: 3181
Ymatebydd: Carole Sian Robertson
Cadarn? Heb nodi
Both our objections relate to 7. Key Site Supporting Information, Green Infrastructure Strategy, October 2024, Version 2 prepared by tir collective, landscape architects, on behalf of Persimmon Homes.
OBJECTION 1
The document refers to two area of woodland adjacent to but outside the boundary of the proposed development:
1. Restored ancient woodland to the NW of the site, this woodland is owned by us in its entirety.
2. Ancient Semi Natural Woodland to the SW of the site. We own the western part, being the original woodland, representing about 40% of the total area, the balance being the more recently planted part forming part of Seel Park.
The document refers to enhancing the planting and carrying out alterations to enable access to the woodlands by residents of the development and others as an amenity use.
We object to land outside the boundary of the development and not in the ownership or control of the developer being put forward for amenity use. There have been no discussions with us about this and we would have made our views quite clear. There can be no amenity use for these woods and there cannot be any public access. Both woodlands are worked by us for selective timber extraction. Both have been affected by ash die-back and there is a risk of falling branches and/or trees. Woodland 1 is open to the fields on both sides and our cattle use it for shade and cooling during hot weather. Cattle in woods and public, possibly with dogs, do not mix.
The proposals affecting land in our ownership have been put forward without our approval or knowledge and we cannot agree to them.
OBJECTION 2
The Green Infrastructure document shows in the Framework Masterplan in the field that it calls 'Central Valley' a yellow-coloured footpath, possibly incorporating a cycle path also, running the length of the field and terminating on the western boundary with an arrow pointing into our farmyard. The implication of the arrow being that access will be made into our farmyard at this point.
We cannot allow access into our farmyard. It is private property, there is no right of way. It is a working farmyard with penned and free-roaming livestock and heavy machinery and tractors being used. There would be massive safety and security issues with this and it is unfortunate that this was not discussed with us beforehand.
Once our tenancy is terminated it will be our intention to close that access point, close off the gateway, erect new fencing and plant new hedging plants so that there can be no access from the field termed 'Central Valley' into our farmyard.
Both our objections relate to 7. Key Site Supporting Information, Green Infrastructure Strategy, October 2024, Version 2 prepared by tir collective, landscape architects, on behalf of Persimmon Homes.
OBJECTION 1
The document refers to two area of woodland adjacent to but outside the boundary of the proposed development:
1. Restored ancient woodland to the NW of the site, this woodland is owned by us in its entirety.
2. Ancient Semi Natural Woodland to the SW of the site. We own the western part, being the original woodland, representing about 40% of the total area, the balance being the more recently planted part forming part of Seel Park.
The document refers to enhancing the planting and carrying out alterations to enable access to the woodlands by residents of the development and others as an amenity use.
We object to land outside the boundary of the development and not in the ownership or control of the developer being put forward for amenity use. There have been no discussions with us about this and we would have made our views quite clear. There can be no amenity use for these woods and there cannot be any public access. Both woodlands are worked by us for selective timber extraction. Both have been affected by ash die-back and there is a risk of falling branches and/or trees. Woodland 1 is open to the fields on both sides and our cattle use it for shade and cooling during hot weather. Cattle in woods and public, possibly with dogs, do not mix.
The proposals affecting land in our ownership have been put forward without our approval or knowledge and we cannot agree to them.
OBJECTION 2
The Green Infrastructure document shows in the Framework Masterplan in the field that it calls 'Central Valley' a yellow-coloured footpath, possibly incorporating a cycle path also, running the length of the field and terminating on the western boundary with an arrow pointing into our farmyard. The implication of the arrow being that access will be made into our farmyard at this point.
We cannot allow access into our farmyard. It is private property, there is no right of way. It is a working farmyard with penned and free-roaming livestock and heavy machinery and tractors being used. There would be massive safety and security issues with this and it is unfortunate that this was not discussed with us beforehand.
Once our tenancy is terminated it will be our intention to close that access point, close off the gateway, erect new fencing and plant new hedging plants so that there can be no access from the field termed 'Central Valley' into our farmyard