1. Impact on Heritage Significance (Overlooking a Grade II
Listed Building)
Objection:
The new-build would harm the setting and significance of the
adjacent Grade II listed building, contrary to Section 66 of the
Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, which
requires special regard to the preservation of listed buildings and
their settings.
Supporting Policies/References:
• National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) §
206–208: Great weight must be given to the conservation of
heritage assets.
• Historic England Guidance: Development within the setting of
a heritage asset must not detract from its significance or
context.
• Case law: Barnwell Manor Wind Energy Ltd v East Northants DC
[2014] – “considerable importance and weight”
must be given to the desirability of preserving setting.
________________________________________
? 2. Access and Egress Safety
Objection:
Proposed access and egress arrangements may be unsafe, inadequate,
or inappropriate given local conditions, potentially worsening road
safety or emergency access.
Supporting Policies/References:
• NPPF § 110(b): Development should provide safe and
suitable access for all users.
• Manual for Streets (DfT): Access points must be safe and
efficient.
• Local Highway Authority Guidance: Objections often arise
where access points are close to junctions, bends, or involve poor
visibility splays.
________________________________________
? 3. Traffic Influx and Highway Safety
Objection:
The development could result in an unacceptable increase in
traffic, causing congestion or compounding existing highway safety
issues in the area.
Supporting Policies/References:
• NPPF § 111: Development should be refused if the
residual cumulative impact on the road network is severe.
• Local Transport Plans (LTPs): May provide thresholds or
guidance on acceptable traffic levels.
• Highways Authority Comments: Often key in determining
whether a development will adversely affect local traffic.
________________________________________
? 4. Infrastructure Insufficiency (Utilities, Schools,
Healthcare)
Objection:
Existing local infrastructure—such as drainage, sewerage,
schools, healthcare, or public transport—may be insufficient
to support the new development.
Supporting Policies/References:
• NPPF § 8–12 & 20: Local planning should
ensure infrastructure capacity is sufficient for sustainable
development.
• Local Plan Policies: Many councils have specific tests to
assess infrastructure pressure.
• Statutory Consultees (e.g. NHS, water companies): Often
raise capacity concerns for new builds in constrained areas.
________________________________________
? 5. Design, Scale, and Overbearing Impact on Listed Building
Objection:
The scale or proximity of the new build may cause visual intrusion,
loss of privacy, or dominate the listed building, negatively
altering its historic setting.
Supporting Policies/References:
• NPPF § 134: Poor design that fails to reflect local
character and heritage should be refused.
• Historic England "Setting of Heritage Assets" guidance:
Emphasizes visual relationships, scale, massing, and architectural
contrast.
________________________________________
Additional Considerations:
• Loss of Amenity to neighbouring properties (loss of light,
overlooking, noise).
• Cumulative Impact when multiple developments are occurring
in the same area.
This ePetition ran from 08/08/2025 to 19/09/2025 and has now finished.
Nobody signed this ePetition.