Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Comment

Representation ID: 8116

Received: 14/03/2019

Respondent: Tidbury Green Parish Council

SMBC should press Government on use of latest projections to reduce unnecessary loss of highly performing green belt. Local need plus HMA contribution is above highest level achieved in Borough and double average, and above cap that would apply if solely local need. Inconceivable that this rate can be delivered, or that industry could build even if permissions granted. Using 2016 projection would produce more realistic figure and can be justified as exceptional circumstances.

Object

Representation ID: 8118

Received: 14/03/2019

Respondent: Tidbury Green Parish Council

Do not agree. Significant inconsistencies in application which undermine integrity. Sustainability analysis does not meet NPPF requirement, and SA should be reviewed/updated in line with Government scorecard. This would result in red rating for sustainability for Site 4. Sites proposed that are inconsistent with Option G of Spatial Strategy. Not possible to understand how some sites became green when clearly have high impact. SA excludes a number of smaller and Strategy focuses on large green belt releases inconsistent with advice on mix of sites. Smaller sites should be re-assessed as less impact and more deliverable.

Object

Representation ID: 8119

Received: 14/03/2019

Respondent: Tidbury Green Parish Council

Do not agree. Significant new development will not retain distinctive character of individual settlements. Disagree with public transport comments as high level of car ownership, bus services seldom used and rail over capacity at peak times. Agree with cycling/walking links to station, but requires access using Birchy Close, opposed by Residents Association. Agree highway improvements required, but cannot be provided as road speed restricted/densely developed and will impact on ancient woodland. No traffic studies published. Parking improvements referenced are vague and impossible to achieve. No firm alternative pitches proposed. Support country park on old Site 13 as green belt enhancement.

Object

Representation ID: 8121

Received: 14/03/2019

Respondent: Tidbury Green Parish Council

Should delete Site as outside village (>800m from centre), no connections, poor road access/public transport/rail access to local employment, significant environmental/recreation constraints. Does not accord with Challenges/Objectives/Guiding Principles/Vision/Spatial Strategy/Sequential Approach or criteria in accessibility/design policies. SA inaccurate, takes no account of sustainability issues/Government scorecard, unsustainable as will generate traffic on unsuitable roads/improvements damaging to character. No suitable alternative playing pitches contrary to NPPF/SHELAA/Policy P18.
Fails to take account of landscape character/heritage assets/design concept/character of village. Conflicts with biodiversity/landscape character objectives/policy.
Field between Akamba/Tythebarn Lane/canal should be retained for sustainable extension of village of up to 100 dwellings.

Support

Representation ID: 8122

Received: 14/03/2019

Respondent: Tidbury Green Parish Council

Yes, loss of green belt must be offset by accessibility and habitat creation enhancements to area south of Woodloes Road.

Comment

Representation ID: 8123

Received: 14/03/2019

Respondent: Tidbury Green Parish Council

Tidbury Green
Should be retained as "washed over" Green Belt as there has been more than an excess of recent development which has adversely affected the character of the settlement.
Cheswick Green, Whitlock's End, Widney Manor Road
Should be removed from the "washed over" allocation to allow for some smaller developments that would not affect the openness of the Green Belt and add to the housing land supply.

Comment

Representation ID: 8124

Received: 14/03/2019

Respondent: Tidbury Green Parish Council

South of Shirley
A country park should be created as open and accessible space south of Woodloes Road as part of the Green Belt compensation enhancements with access improvements and habitat creation.

Comment

Representation ID: 8125

Received: 14/03/2019

Respondent: Tidbury Green Parish Council

It will be necessary to use most of the amber sites as most are easier to develop in the short term, being smaller sites that require less infrastructure, are more sustainable and of a lower green belt rating. However, the Blue Lake Road site (Ref. A5)and Site 59 at Kixley Road (Ref A4) should not be developed.
All the other amber sites should be proposed for development which will more than compensate for the loss of the 250 dwellings of part of Site 4 west of Dickens Heath.

Comment

Representation ID: 8126

Received: 14/03/2019

Respondent: Tidbury Green Parish Council

Habitable floorspace would be more appropriate.