Comment

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 6588

Received: 13/03/2019

Respondent: Peter Renwick

Representation Summary:

Amber site A5 (413) should be omitted to:
1. Reduce urban sprawl
2. Maintain open, green belt spaces that support our pressured natural world
3. Maintain opportunities for locals to enjoy nature and the mental wellbeing which that affords
4. Retain agricultural land vital for food production
5. Reduce flooding which would be adversely affected by further increases in the built environment
Density of housing proposed out of keeping with existing character and development and would add to already strained local amenities and highway infrastructure. Overall, would make the area involved less desirable and attractive in every respect.

Full text:

Amber site 413 should be omitted in order to:
1. mitigate against already increasing urban sprawl
2. preserve Green Belt land to maintain open, green spaces that support and sustain our dwindling and pressured natural world - both its flora and fauna (and at the same time, help to reduce greenhouse gases and global warming - major modern-day issues for present and future generations). I believe that the proposed use of Green Belt land would be contrary to the purposes & objectives of Green Belts as set out in national planning policy.
3. give opportunities for local residents and visitors to benefit from the character of the landscape and the visual amenity it offers, as well as to enjoy nature and the mental wellbeing which that affords
4. retain agricultural land which is vital for food production
5. help to reduce flooding and erosion by maintaining land drainage, which would be adversely affected by further expansion of the built environment - this is already an issue on Blue Lake Road and Norton Green Lane

In addition, the proposed density of housing in Amber Site 413 is significantly out of keeping with existing adjacent developments (almost three times the housing density). The effect of this would be as follows:
1. It would put a massive strain on already stretched local amenities and infrastructure, especially given the proposals for other major increases in housing numbers and population in the surrounding areas. The pressure on local roads is already significant, there is no means by which they can be altered to accommodate a significant increase in traffic, and there is no likelihood of the provision of (currently totally absent) public transport on these surrounding roads.
2. It would be at odds with, and would adversely affect, the rural character of the local area,(some of which are Conservation Areas) in respective of its existing open spaces, the currently generous spaces between houses, the sizes of gardens (and the amenity they provide not only for residents but also for plant and animal life), and the general rural character of the area.

In summary, development of Amber Site 413 would have a detrimental effect on the local and surrounding area in terms of congestion and pressure on infrastructure, loss of Green Belt land, loss of amenity for humans and wildlife and loss of character of the local environment.