Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 9232

Received: 14/03/2019

Respondent: Phil & Theresa Thurston

Representation Summary:

The site boundary area is wholly negative in terms of a sustainability analysis
Dickens Heath has grown massively, but road network has not been improved to accommodate increase in homes. Site has no direct physical connection to Dickens Heath. Due to parking problems the rural narrow roads and historic hedgerows will be difficult to make sufficient road improvements.
Site is a high performing green belt site. There are more surrounding LWS than any other allocations
Land is liable to flooding (deep boulder clay)
Site is not within walking distance of village centre, there would be a loss of character and identity.
Site is in an area of landscape sensitive to development. There would be a loss of playing fields with no alternative provision. No other proposed site in the Draft Local Plan has such adverse effects if developed and therefore Site 4 should be removed from the proposed allocation for development.

Full text:

I would like to bring on formal record my challenge to the proposed Local Development Plan, for Site 4 (Dickens Heath, Whitlock End, Tidbury Green).

The site boundary area is wholly negative in terms of a sustainability analysis, in terms of sound planning practise and recognised local and national planning policies.

The Dickens Heath development has grown significantly since its original design of 850 dwellings to approximately 1,800 units today. However, the roads and infrastructure HAVE NOT BEEN IMPROVED to accommodate this increase, and the addition of a vast number of other dwellings given planning permission in the general area in the last few years. The Site lies outside Dickens Heath village and has no direct physical connection to it. Given the parking problems in the centre, the rural narrow roads and historic hedgerows, it will be difficult to make sufficient road improvements to take much more traffic.
I am particularly concerned that Site 4 is a high performing Green Belt site; here there are the most Local Wildlife Sites surrounding than any other of the proposed allocations, with many protected species inhabiting the Site; there are ancient hedgerow; the land is liable to flooding as the sub-soil is deep boulder clay (which we have had real evidence of with horrendous events last year in the vicinity) that does not allow adequate percolation; the site is not within walking distance from the facilities in the Village Centre; there would be a loss of character and identity as Site 4 is outside the confined boundaries; the Site is in an area of landscape sensitive to development; there would be a loss playing fields with no alternative proposals submitted.
No other proposed site in the Draft Local Plan has such adverse effects if developed and therefore Site 4 should be removed from the proposed allocation for development.


We trust our concerns will be heard accordingly.