Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 8970
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Mrs Kealie Ahmad
Re-assess site 48, Earlsmere House (in isolation or together with others sites in the same location) taking account of current committed developments in the area and now Amber proposed. All are huge and have a massive impact on the openness of the greenbelt. Accessibility assessment is incorrect -Site is closer to the GP surgery, food store, transport, than most on Cheswick Green and Blythe Valley. Landscape sensitivity assessment is inconsistent. Extensive traveler sites, resulting in land taken out of greenbelt not even mentioned in landscape assessment. The site falls within spatial strategy plans. Councils assessment is dishonest.
Site 48, together with the proposed sites surrounding it should be considered, or at least assessed correctly and inconsistently. They should be reassessed as a whole or a number of parcels. No consideration in relation to the greenbelt and openness has been given to the fact that land directly behind site 48 was taken out of the greenbelt for a traveler site, with the council using opposing arguments about the openness of the greenbelt. The volume of committed development around this area and new proposed is not taken into account, in particular the extension of Cheswick Green and Blythe Valley Park. The openness of greenbelt in this area has been completely eroded and is a myth, and the council are actively allowing this area to be sqeezed to appease others, meaning residents have all of the hazards of being a corridor between massive new development and none of the benefits of the so called protected countryside and green space. Accessibility and spatial strategies assessments are wrong.