Include the above site within the development limits for Saron in the Revised LDP.

In the Revised LDP Site Assessment Table, the candidate site (SR/149/003) that I
submitted was assessed as follows:
Stage 1 - Is it compatible against the location of future growth presented in the
Preferred Strategy? YES
Stage 2a – Initial Detailed Site Assessment ? NO
Stage 2b – Further Detailed Site Assessment? NO

The comments were - The site cannot accommodate 5 or more dwellings. It will not be included within the development limits as it has been identified as being at high risk of flooding within the SFCA.

COMMENT 1 - the character of the stream, and the land each side, has not been assessed.
I understand that CCC has flood regulations to adhere to, but there is no risk of
flooding here. It may be possible – I do not know - that, a long way back upstream, the stream (Nant Arw) runs between shallow banks or that, way downstream, once it has run beneath the road-bridge across Saron Road and continued off towards Tycroes the situation might be different. That does not mean, though,that there is a risk of flooding here.
I believe that the application should be assessed, at least, by someone coming out to actually get an accurate picture.
As Nant Arw comes alongside this site, there is an approx. 20’ wide bay, with 8’-10’ banks.On my side, there is a 10’ wide x 25’ long area beside the stream, covered in very low vegetation. This has never even been covered in water - let alone risen a further 8’-10’ to the top of the bank.
Nant Arw continues in an S-shape through the next section of the site, flanked by 7’-10’ banks and with a 10’-15’ bay area - again covered in very low vegetation. It has never even risen onto the grassy bay - let alone to the top of the 7’-10’ banks.
It continues along around another bend - with 8’-15’ banks and forming a massive 15’-18’ wide bay area.

It then comes along between myself and a neighbour’s back garden (62 Saron Rd – the road bends sharply, therefore his garden backs onto Nant Arw). Again, there is a huge 15’-20’ bay area covered in vegetation and the stream has never even risen onto the lowest level of this - let alone risen a further 8’-10’ to the garden.

Finally, it comes around to run behind 64 Saron Rd and drops away very steeply between the high banks to a very low point, where it runs beneath the road bridge. This steeply-falling character means that it takes away water extremely quickly, so that it never has a chance to rise more than about 2’ along the length of the boundary to the candidate site - quite apart from the fact that it is so easily contained by large bay areas and very high banks.

COMMENT 2 – there is planning and building precedent
There used to be a stone cottage on this piece of land (the candidate site). The cottage no longer exists. My elderly neighbour who lived at 64 Saron Road, before he died, described how there used to even be a rough roadway accessing this site, coming off the main road, by the bridge, past where there is now a garage and down along the rear of 64 into the site at 68. He described how the coal-cart used to deliver down there.
It seems illogical that a site that previously had a dwelling on it has now been deemed not possible to have a dwelling on it.
In addition, it seems wrong that the development boundary now cuts across my little back garden, cutting off the large back garden.

Comment 3 - number of dwellings
I did not, at any point, propose there could be room for 5+ dwellings.

I had been informed that the site could, in theory, add 2-4 dwellings to the housing stock in Saron.
However, I would be looking to provide just one bungalow in what would be a lovely, quiet situation, only enhancing the area – just as there used to be one cottage on the site. (Initially, this would be for myself, as I find it increasingly hard to use the stairs in the house, 68 Saron Rd, due to a stroke and other illnesses. There is a tarmac drive right to the site, providing access. I have lived in no. 68 for 26 years and am greatly attached to the village, with family and friends not too far away, and would be very sorry to have to give up the house and move away.
As there is precedent for a dwelling on the site, it seems logical that there could be one there, again, if the development boundary had not been re-drawn to cut across the middle of my garden, thus excluding the site – for no apparent reason – and without a site inspection.

**************

I would be grateful if CCC would, at least, arrange to view and assess the site in
order to make a sound decision and I believe this is a fair request.