South Gloucestershire New Local Plan Phase 1 Responses

View Response

Response #914768

Response #914768
From Sean and Jacqueline Rinaldi
Date Started: 26 Mar 2021 10:33. Last modified: 20 Apr 2021 16:01
Status Complete
Download as a PDF

Show/hide text and images

Information on the Local Plan

 

To view the Phase 1 Issues and Approaches document including the sections referred to in this questionnaire, please visit www.southglos.gov.uk/LocalPlan2020.

1: Understanding who is responding

Please help us understand the type of groups and people that are responding and engaging with the preparation of our new Local Plan, by choosing which one of the following stakeholder groups you best represent.

You must choose one option to be able to submit your response.

You must provide an answer to this question.

Member of the public
If other, please state:
«No response»

2: Issues

We have set out 55 issues which our Local Plan will need to consider.

The 55 issues are set out in this section of our document.  

Do you agree that these are the right issues for our plan to consider?

  • Yes
  • No
  • Don't know

3: Issues

Would you like to comment on any of the issues or add new issues? Please note the name of the issue in your comments, or tell us what additional issues you think our plan should consider.

Question 2:

Yes, but see additional comments on Question 3.

Question 3:

• We very much support the initiative under Theme/Priority 2 (Our environment) in relation to Tree Loss Provision with the ambition to double the tree canopy provision by 2030. We would like to see areas earmarked for this initiative within this Plan: simply randomly planting trees is one thing, but we can have a far bigger impact by planning for connectivity of woodland cover to encourage wildlife.

• Issue 11 (Flood risk – page 31). There is a need to recognise and limit any development in the Northern end of the Severn valley, as it adds to the requirement for Severn drainage capacity and in turn, impacts the flood risk.

• Issue 40 (page 46) – access to employment and the need to commute. The housing built in Thornbury is too expensive for the salaries available from employment in the town, so that the overwhelming majority of those of working age living in Thornbury commute to Bristol or elsewhere, whilst those working in the town largely live outside. The result is congestion on the A38 in both directions during commuter times. Any suggestion that this could be relieved by increased home working following COVID-19 may be short lived and, in any case, is more than offset by the change in shopping habits requiring a plethora of delivery vans servicing the switch to online shopping.

• Travel and Transport Issue’ 44a’. South Glos has a somewhat unique position in being the ‘spaghetti junction’ of the South West. As such, it deals with a seasonal flow of major additional traffic through Bank Holiday weekends, ‘all School holidays,’ particularly Friday - Monday inclusive. Whilst the M5 may be the primary route, the A38 is the designated relief road and frequently becomes overloaded during busy times on the M5, or when there are lane blockages.

• In the review of areas outside of the Green Belt (page 155) it states that “development in these locations [including Thornbury and Charfield could reduce dependency on car journeys.” As Thornbury is nowhere near self-sufficient, car journeys will increase.

4: Priorities

Do you agree with the potential priorities?

  • Yes
  • No
  • Don't know

5: Priorities

Do you have any comments on the potential priorities?

The 9 priorities listed are mostly valid, but not of equal weight. If these priorities are to be used as criteria for selecting candidate locations for development, they must be given weighted scores, not used as a simple tick list.

6: Strategy- Where will development go

Do you agree with the five building blocks (Urban Areas, Urban Extensions, Market Towns, Rural Villages, New Settlements)?

  • Yes
  • No
  • Don't Know

7: Strategy- Where will development go

Do you have any comments on the five building blocks (Urban Areas, Urban Extensions, Market Towns, Rural Villages, New Settlements)?

Strategy should always be brown fill first and anything affecting the Green Belt or surrounding recreation areas as a last resort.

8: Strategy- Where will development go

Do you agree with the initial guiding principles?

  • Yes
  • No
  • Don't Know

9: Strategy- Where will development go

Do you think we have missed any key, initial guiding principles?

• Any new settlements must be based around non car-based transport infrastructure only where it is either currently in place or where funding is irrevocably committed.

• Plan for locations that are a genuine best fit with the priorities, not for planning convenience because a large tract of land has been offered during the Call for Sites.

10: Urban Lifestyles

Do you agree with our Urban Lifestyles approach to investigate further change and growth in our urban areas?

  • Yes
  • No
  • Don't know

11: Urban Lifestyles

Do you have any comments on the Urban Lifestyle approach to investigate further growth and change in our urban areas?

«No response»

12: Urban Lifestyles

Do you agree with the areas where the Urban Lifestyles approach should be investigated?

  • Yes
  • No
  • Don't know

13: Urban Lifestyles

Do you have any comments on individual locations we have set out, or other locations which should be investigated for an urban lifestyles approach for further growth and change in our urban areas?

Thornbury needs to be considered under a separate category as a historic ‘market town,’ not bracketed with the fringe of Bristol (and arguably Yate) as subject to considerations for growth appropriate to an ‘Urban Lifestyle.’ However, given that your consultation document has no such category we give our comments on Brownfield development in Thornbury in this section of the questionnaire.

We support the principle of Brownfield development where it meets a local need in terms of type and quantum of housing (including questions of genuine affordability), provided it is accompanied by an appropriate investment in infrastructure, including health care. We would also express the caveat that any large additional quantity of housing should avoid contributing to significant additional commuter miles by means of private transport. The attributes of the type of housing to meet genuine local need may relate to this point, as well as provision of appropriate Public Transport sufficient to attract a high modal share.

Applying this logic to Thornbury, the first point that needs to be made is that since the last Census in 2011 Approvals have been given for 1,703 new houses, representing a 34% increase in the size of the town almost overnight. This is on top of considerable development in surrounding villages such as Falfield and Tytherington that rely on Thornbury for much of its services. This growth has been met with almost no investment in infrastructure, with Applications getting away with a presumption that the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) will suffice, when in reality the Levy has gone into the Council coffers with next to nothing coming back.

As a result, residents are becoming increasingly concerned about the pressure on services, most notably on healthcare, Schools, car parking and congestion on the A38. Moreover, this is with only 55% of those Applications having already been built out by March 2020 according to the 2020 AMR.

The resultant deficit in infrastructure support needs to be addressed first, before we even consider what may be required to support further Brownfield development.

14: Creating Sustainable Rural Villages and Settlements

Do you agree with our proposed approach to the national policy issues highlighted,  like flood risk, the Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Green Belt, and other planning considerations and issues?

  • Yes
  • No
  • Don't know

15: Creating Sustainable Rural Villages and Settlements

Do you have any comments on our proposed approach to investigate an appropriate level of growth in our rural villages and settlements?

We don’t see any opportunity for large scale development in the rural villages and settlements but have no objection in principle to small scale development that is appropriate to the needs of the village or settlement itself.

16: Creating Sustainable Rural Villages and Settlements

Are there any other planning issues you think we should consider?

Rural villages and settlements – should see only modest growth appropriate to the needs of the individual communities. For the most part this will come through “windfall developments” of less than 9 houses, and it is therefore unlikely to be necessary to include in the Local Plan.

17: Policies

Do you agree with the range and scope of policies we are proposing to include in our new Local Plan?

  • Yes
  • No
  • Don't Know

18: Policies

Do you have any comments on the range and scope of policies we are proposing?

No.

19: Appendix 2: Draft policies: Climate Change and Mitigation

Do you agree with our proposed policy approach?

  • Yes
  • No
  • Don't Know

20: Appendix 2: Draft policies: Climate Change and Mitigation

Do you think there are any other issues we should consider in this policy?

Insufficient priority is given in the policy of avoiding locations where the private car will be the primary means of commuting and other journeys.

21: Appendix 2: Draft policies: Energy Management in New Development

Do you agree with our proposed policy approach?

  • Yes
  • No
  • Don't Know

22: Appendix 2: Draft policies: Energy Management in New Development

Do you think there are any other issues we should consider in this policy?

No Comment.

23: Appendix 2: Draft policies: Renewable and Low Carbon Energy System

Do you agree with our proposed policy approach?

  • Yes
  • No
  • Don't Know

24: Appendix 2: Draft policies: Renewable and Low Carbon Energy System

Do you think there are any other issues we should consider in this policy?

No.

25: Appendix 2: Draft policies: Creating well-designed places

Do you agree with our proposed policy approach?

  • Yes
  • No
  • Don't Know

26: Appendix 2: Draft policies: Creating well-designed places

Do you think there are any other issues we should consider in this policy?

No.

27: Appendix 2: Draft policies: Parking Requirements

Do you agree with our proposed policy approach?

  • Yes
  • No
  • Don't Know

28: Appendix 2: Draft policies: Parking Requirements

Do you think there are any other issues we should consider in this policy?

Sufficient thought needs to be given to town parking, as the huge increase in traffic in the area will need an end destination.

29: Appendix 2: Draft policies: NSIPs and Related Development

Do you agree with our proposed policy approach?

  • Yes
  • No
  • Don't Know

30: Appendix 2: Draft policies: NSIPs and Related Development

Do you think there are any other issues we should consider in this policy?

No Comment.

31: Appendix 2: Draft policies: Nuclear New Build

Do you agree with our proposed policy approach?

  • Yes
  • No
  • Don't Know

32: Appendix 2: Draft policies: Nuclear New Build

Do you think there are any other issues we should consider in this policy?

The chances of Oldbury NNB coming to fruition are small and would certainly not evolve within the timescale of this Plan.

Therefore, this Plan should make express presumption that there will be no NNB within the lifetime of this Plan, caveated with a statement that preparatory actions would need to be considered in the unlikely event that such a project at Oldbury is to be resurrected.

33: Appendix 2: Draft policies: Oldbury A Station - Decommissioning

Do you agree with our proposed policy approach?

  • Yes
  • No
  • Don't Know

34: Appendix 2: Draft policies: Oldbury A Station - Decommissioning

Do you think there are any other issues we should consider in this policy?

No comment.

35: Appendix 2: Draft policies: Radioactive Waste

Do you agree with our proposed policy approach?

  • Yes
  • No
  • Don't Know

36: Appendix 2: Draft policies: Radioactive Waste

Do you think there are any other issues we should consider in this policy?

No comment.

Q37

Phase 1 General or Other Comments

«No response»

Q38

Consultation ‘Other’ comments (Call for Sites, WECA and SDS, Evidence base, other strategies, planning applications)

SG426 - Land at Park Mill Farm and Quarry Farm near Thornbury.

Q39

Upload an attachment

You can upload up to 10 files.