No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 3642
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: John & Christine Thorp
Object to housing Site 13 as will result in loss of green footpaths in a semi rural area which are used daily by many local residents to help keep fit and maintain well-being when there are no other similar amenities, loss of green belt gap between Shirley and Dickens Heath, loss of wildlife, increased use of cars, traffic, air pollution and litter, increased pressure on schools and medical services already at capacity and on roads with poor surfaces, and any affordable housing element will not meet needs of local young people or encourage them to remain in area.
Re: Objection to the draft local development plan for Shirley (in particular the allocation 13 and west of Dickens Heath).
We are both residents in Neville Road Shirley. I have lived here all my life (age 66) and my wife (age 57) for over 30 years.
I have used the footpaths from Whitlock's End farm all the way through to where Dickens Heath is now. This footpath is now only a right of way between houses.
What is left in this area is a small amount of footpaths in a semi rural setting which if developed upon will be lost forever and only become again a right of way between houses.
We do not understand why there is a need to build up against the remaining reduced footpaths. My wife and I use the footpaths daily for keeping fit (we are not dog owners)
and we meet plenty of other people, who like us, are keen to maintain their well being as they get older on the last remaining green footpaths.
We see many younger people and families who also are out taking exercise.
We are against the proposed development as there is nothing else in this part of the area to encourage simple activities such as walking for health purposes.
Shirley Park is small and hardly healthy near to the Stratford Road traffic. Increased housing in this area will bring with it increased air pollution levels, litter
and only bridge the gap between Shirley and Dickens Heath therefore reducing the area for enjoyment of the environment. Wildlife will be affected ie. we have seen deer and mink
to name a couple which will be lost forever.
The proposal does not explain how it will manage the increased numbers of people living there and their needs.
Currently my perception is that the Doctor surgeries and Schools are at capacity levels. Care in the community? Has this been considered for the increased number of residents.
Driving, traffic, traffic fumes and road surfaces in the area are poor.
We appreciate the need for houses and in particular the need for houses for 1st time buyers ( we are parents of Adult children struggling to get on the housing ladder).
Our experience of recent new builds in the area appears to be that a small percentage of the houses built are for young people which is actually not meeting the needs of young local people
or encouraging them to remain in the area.
Long term the health and wellbeing of local people, old and young, will be jeopardised.