No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 3620
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Christopher Taylor
Object to scale of growth proposed for South Shirley on top of recent supermarket and retail park developments which is unfair, involves loss of so much green belt land in one area when other areas unaffected, will exacerbate traffic congestion on A34 and local roads, there is inadequate public transport to carry increased population or parking provision at local stations and inadequate provision for school places and is clearly not in best interests of local residents, and to loss of recreational/amenity area for Site 13 and the consequent impact on quality of life.
Allocation 13
We have already seen the Shirley community abused by large scale supermarket and retail park developments - it is only fair that these housing developments should be more evenly distributed across the borough. Building 41% of the total requirement in such a small concentration is clearly not in the best interests of local residents. This is before considering the social and environmental impacts.
I am most closely impacted by Allocation 13 however; taking allocations 4, 12, 11 and 13 together, it is disappointing that the future house building plans for the Borough intend to devour so much Green Belt land in close proximity to each other. Whilst understanding the national need to build houses it cannot be equitable that so much Green Belt land is lost at the same time, in the same place when other areas in the borough are totally unaffected. I regularly use the footpaths in these areas for recreational walking the loss this amenity will affect the whole community and impact on the quality of daily life.
I am concerned that building 2500+ houses in such close proximity to each other, will significantly increase the number of cars on small local roads which will be unable to cope, further impacting on the life of the community. The Stratford is already a very congested and this will exacerbate the issue. Public transport is already stretched to the limit. There is inadequate parking provision at local train stations. The train services themselves are inadequate to carry the potential increase in users. It is well known that there is a national diesel train shortage so it is highly unlikely that the services could be increased to cope with demand even if there was a willingness to do this. There is inadequate provision in respect of school places - a fact acknowledged in your own report.
I believe the present plans do not represent the best way forward. Unless the Council is prepared to improve school provision and transport links there will be major problems. If the developments continue this needs to be on staged basis, so that the impacts of developing each allocation can be measured and understoos and plans amended as the development proceeds.