South Gloucestershire New Local Plan Phase 1 Responses

View Response

Response #925713

Response #925713
From James Carpenter - Falfield Par…
Date Started: 14 Apr 2021 10:10. Last modified: 14 Apr 2021 14:14
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.

Town and Parish Council or Clerk
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:

Although these issues need to be addressed, this document is far too long for the average citizen of South Gloucestershire as well as the time it needs to be given to a voluntary Parish Council especially in lockdown as folk and Councillors cannot meet face to face to discuss this document.

Question 3:

1. Climate Change Mitigation:

Decarbonising local transport does not mention effective integration of Public Transport networks.

2. Climate Change resilience:

No comments put forward.

3. Conserving designated sites and buildings:

No comments put forward.

4. Connecting and enhancing wildlife/Green Infrastructure strategies:

Must not damage EXISTING wildlife corridors (Buckover sits between two deer parks).

5. Green Infrastructure strategies:

Must not damage EXISTING wildlife corridors (Buckover sits between two deer parks).

6. Severn Estuary and population growth:

No comments put forward.

7. Tree loss and provision:

No comments put forward.

8. Landscape assets and features:

No comments put forward.

9. Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty:

No comments put forward.

10. Air Quality:

A38 and M5 are significant sources of air pollution further traffic will make this worse.

11. Flood risk:

Should acknowledge risk of flooding from field run off not just from watercourses and the impact of new tarmac roads. Consider the inland water table in locations, due to the heavy clay soil. Falfield has a high flood plain.

12. Agricultural Land:

There is a considerable level of agriculture in the area, and this should be supported and encouraged with a focus that there should be harmony between agriculture and the need for people to have access to clean air and open space.

13. Opportunities for physical activities:

There is a lack of the fair distribution of facilities for physical activities especially for Senior Citizens.

14. Accessible health services and facilities:

Don’t concentrate building in areas without prompt access to emergency health services. Consider the time it takes to get to A&E, especially during congestion times.

15. Health issues and equalities:

(No comments put forward?)

There are no equalities in the distribution of Health issues.

There is a lack of Health Care facilities in Thornbury and surrounding villages due to the closure of Thornbury Hospital. The local area around Thornbury had the use of respite care at Thornbury Hospital which is now not available. In the past, at Thornbury Hospital, there was a Physiotherapy department which locals could attend. This is not now available. The nearest Minor Injuries Unit is at Yate. Most people in the area surrounding Thornbury need to go to Southmead Hospital for treatment, but this often proves difficult for elderly patients.

16. Takeaways and Schools:

No comments put forward.

17. Impact of development:

Poorly planned developments impact on clean air.

18. Responding to local character and context:

Rural should remain rural not forced to become urban. It must be in line with previous planning decisions e.g. in keeping with the local area! There has been an established history of planning being refused for not being in keeping with the local area and it is unreasonable to allow a new housing estate when existing residents have been refused modest changes over the past 20 years just because it now suits the Council.

Different planning approach for Urban and rural areas.

The Green Belt can be moved!

Brownfield sites MUST be a priority especially as the impact of Covid on town centres and offices is established.

Any greenfield development must come with a higher levy to provide infrastructure and encourage Brownfield development first.

19. Inclusive design:

Lack of consultation with the people already living in the area of proposed development.

20. Sustainable design and construction:

Lack of consultation with the people already living in the area of proposed development.

21. Optimising density and walkable neighbourhoods:

Lack of consultation with the people already living in the area of proposed development.

22. Renewal and increased development in urban areas:

Lack of consultation with the people already living in the area of proposed development.

23. Greenfield land:

This fails to cover the increased cost of providing infrastructure and the failure of existing developments to deliver financially viable projects that meet the affordable housing limits or infrastructure targets. The document also fails to take account of the changing in land use and drop off in office usage expected as a result of COVID-19. The loss of green field space should be minimised, and appropriate charges made for the provision of infrastructure.to make green field development comparable to Brownfield sites.

24. Green Belt:

The Green Belt can be moved and expanded outwards and should provide increased protection to many of the market towns to maintain the character of the area. This would free up a narrow strip on the inside for development.

Green Belt land is not always the best quality land in terms of its soil and appearance so we agree it could be built on but only where absolutely necessary and if it means that developments can be near to all the amenities that are within an acceptable distance to avoid car dependency.

Rural villages request that there should be no building on the greenfield areas around towns and villages, or on flood plains, as our climate is changing, with more areas prone to flooding.

Greenfields are important to the well-being and mental health of the population.

There is a need to keep an eye on speculative building, in doing so the voice of the community needs to be heard. It is suggested that new building within the smallest villages should be up to 5 houses with careful consideration of any plans for larger development.

25. New locations for largescale growth:

Given the observations in issues 32 and 33 that built out rates are less on large scale sites and that where infrastructure is required these projects take longer to deliver. SGC admits that it should avoid reliance on a few large sites and an over reliance on very large sites in one area. In light of this urban extensions would offer more productive results as they likely have some existing infrastructure e.g. employment already in place. The suggestion of creating whole new settlements in areas with little to no infrastructure is likely financially unviable within the Local Plan period.

Fails to mention healthcare as a key service and facility.

Inspirational ideas must be deliverable, realistic and must provide ALL key infrastructure without reliance on existing services. The Plan must make provision for local people impacted by any new settlement as well as new residents so that they can retain their way of life and be provided with equality of service. Developers must be held to account on promises and not allowed to adjust delivery of affordable homes or infrastructure simply because the project is not as profitable as they thought it would be.

26. Growth in rural village settlements:

20% of the population of South Gloucestershire live in rural villages, so the voice of the village is just as important as the 80% who live in and around the larger developments.

The Plan must make provision for local people impacted by any new settlement as well as new residents so that they can retain their way of life and be provided with equality of service. Developers must be held to account on promises and not allowed to adjust delivery of affordable homes or infrastructure simply because the project is not as profitable as they thought it would be. Planners must bear in mind people chose to live in a rural location and not to have a large scale development of a new settlement dumped on them.

The DAP studies need to be more investigative. Study the existing house types provided in a village i.e. flat, bungalow,1 bed, 4 bed etc this will better identify where there are gaps in provision in a village community. Rural villages often find that their once modest ‘cottage’ style housing stock is extended and enlarged resulting in an oversupply of very large family homes with 4 to 6 bedrooms and less at the smaller scale.

Existing development has fallen short on targets of affordable housing and infrastructure due to poor enforcement and planning policy. DAP needs more consideration especially on where work is located and transport needs of rural settlements.

Falfield Village has already been increased disproportionately by circa 80% with the new Heneage Farm development and all this is just housing with no amenities added such as Schools, Doctors, Dentists etc.

For example, in Falfield there are:

Very limited Bus Services.

No cycle lanes.

No rail link.

No School, Doctors, Dentists etc.

No employment.

No retail apart from one convenience store and one Post Office.

Retail (i.e., shops) are not within walking or cycling availability.

Has high car dependency.

With ongoing developments, in Falfield, Thornbury, Charfield & Gloucestershire County this has increased traffic volume through Falfield and around Junction 14 and no thought has been given to the effects on the roads in Falfield.

Development may take place further afield in a neighbouring Parish but Falfield is still affected. It worsens the amenity of existing residents in Falfield Parish who now suffer from increased air pollution in the area, increased road noise, increased congestion, poorer condition of road surface and more litter thrown out of car windows. It is increasingly unsafe to cross our local roads and walk along them.

27. Identify the amount of homes needed:

As indicated the wording of this issue is likely to be superseded by the Government's consultation outcome paper to local housing need proposals dated 16th December 2020. We understand that a greater concentration of new dwellings will need to be delivered within the Bristol urban area itself and not outsourced to outlying areas. It also says the Duty to Co-operate is being removed.

Providing homes for other areas is contrary to the climate emergency as this will simply increase Carbon footprint for the need to travel for work. Housing numbers MUST be reallocated to align to where the jobs and housing demand exists.

28.Homes to meet the needs of older people:

This does not have to be new homes but may be repurposing of existing homes and other existing premises especially in the light of COVID-19 and the reduction in the use of offices in town centres where services and infrastructure exists. This should be planned appropriately with transport and was a key issue in negative views of the closure of Thornbury High Street.

29. Housing affordability:

Many developments still fail to meet the initial affordable housing targets set there must be much more scrutiny of plans and outcomes especially on the viability of green field developments. Developers must be held to account in the planning process.

30. Planning for different groups:

No comments put forward.

31. Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople communities:

No comments put forward.

32. Issues with housing delivery on large scale sites:

Given the observations in issues 32 and 33 that built out rates are less on large scale sites and that where infrastructure is required these projects take longer to deliver. We agree with SGC admission that it should avoid reliance on a few large sites and an over reliance on very large sites in one area. Many sites in the JSP were not strategically sound or proven and that is part of the reason the Plan was rejected. The JSP further increased speculative development by stating infrastructure would be delivered when it was clearly not possible. There must be much more focus on provision of mass transport to support large scale development. A MetroBus is not mass transport and will not meet the future Public Transport needs. Focus for new sites must be around existing major rail networks and provide access to that infrastructure with sufficient parking and road access a new site would give opportunity to do this but that will not be possible by simply existing market towns with no access to passenger train services.

33. Five year housing land supply:

Given the observations in issues 32 and 33 that built out rates are less on large scale sites and that where infrastructure is required these projects take longer to deliver. We agree with SGC admission that it should avoid reliance on a few large sites and an over reliance on very large sites in one area.

34. Small site requirement:

No comments put forward.

35. Change and challenge for town centres and High Streets:

We need to accept COVID-19 has changed our town centres forever and the High Street of 2025 will be very different to today.

36. The amount of employment land left for development:

No comments put forward.

37. Planning for clean growth and key sectors:

Oldbury Power Station. This is currently mothballed with works unlikely within Plan period. A decision has not yet been made on the recent bid for a fusion reactor at Berkeley or Oldbury. There is now unlikely to be the influx of constructions workers for the nuclear site during the Plan period and these should be discounted from the Plan.

38.Safeguard employment land left for development:

COVID-19 is likely to increase the amount of Brownfield land available for housing not decrease it.

39. Employment land lost to non-employment uses:

COVID-19 is likely to increase the amount of Brownfield land available for housing not decrease it.

40. Access to employment opportunities and need to commute:

The numbers look incorrect and do not appear to take into account the impacts of local cities and travel to other parts of the country for work. It is very simplistic to suggest there is 1 job per person as there is no skills matching.

The need to commute is not just work. No A&E facilities or large Hospital facilities exist in South Gloucestershire. Whilst Cribbs Causeway is a large shopping centre most people travel to Bath or Cabot Circus for a different shopping experience and better restaurants and entertainment.

As new housing has been built over the past few years commuting to Bristol has increased significantly as has commuting to London. The map takes no account of commuting locally over busy junctions to major employers such as Renishaw which places significant strain on the local transport networks. The concept of no fixed workplace suggest that large numbers of people travel to a variety of locations every day and this significantly increases the impact on transport needs and cannot be supported by a simple bus service.

It is now extremely difficult to commute to Bristol and with further plans to reduce the access to the city it will continue to become more and more difficult resulting in more strain on the road network until appropriate mass transport systems are provided especially rail transport.

The identified jobs within region, does not account for workers who may change their destinations on a customer-by-customer basis, those who service properties in rural areas. Or those who travel out of the region, e.g. to Bath, Wales, London etc. The map does show how few workers travel from Thornbury/Falfield down the A38 towards Bristol (13%). It implies 87% will not benefit from the Thornbury MetroBus for daily commute.

We query the accuracy of the figure that resident workers is the same figure as number of jobs in Thornbury (5,700) i.e., double that of the industrial area of Severnside.

41 Decarbonising transport:

Transport networks are not interconnected there is no way to get from Thornbury to London for example by Public Transport in a reasonable time frame. The road networks to link to major transport hubs are not viable for the given level of traffic. The use of the car all be it electric will be here for a long time to come and therefore the road networks and hubs must be made more appropriate to reduce the Carbon produced and encourage the use of electric and hybrid vehicles.

42. Walkable Neighbourhoods - access to key services & facilities in our urban areas:

No comments put forward.

43. Walkable neighbourhoods – access to key services & facilities in our rural areas:

This issue lists out places with poor access to services and facilities e.g., by Public Transport. Rather than discount these places for expansion instead add an aim to improve their Public Transport provision, perhaps by creating more demand for a bus service by allowing a modest amount of development. Buses and minibuses are mobile and can travel down most roads.

Public Transport corridor between North Fringe and Thornbury – assumes that you need to go to the North Fringe. How do you get to Bristol City Centre, or London or even the Hospital?

Public bus transport has little relevance see 42 urban communities where access to a train station this is the best way to provide Public Transport for the market towns.

44. Transport Infrastructure:

MetroBus has proved to be a failure and cannot deliver the transport needs of a market town such as Thornbury. Smart Motorways are not as safe as first thought and will be over capacity before the end of this Local Plan period. Your map shows how few workers travel from Thornbury/Falfield down the A38 towards Bristol (13%). Implies 87% will not benefit from the Thornbury MetroBus for their daily commute.

45. Infrastructure and new development:

MetroBus will not deliver the needs of South Gloucestershire and has already proved to be an expensive failure. The existing road network is over capacity and the developers are not contributing enough funds towards infrastructure delivery. There MUST be more provision for the area to support more housing; reliance on walking and cycling will not wholly support the community. There must be more investment in local infrastructure including Hospitals and other Emergency Services as well as the transport network. Perhaps the focus should be on building next to railways rather than roads as this could facilitate the use of the rail network.

46. Broadband and digital connections:

No comments put forward.

47. Drainage and sewage infrastructure:

Services Infrastructure considerations should include all utilities, drainage, electricity pylons and gas mains.

Add improvements to sewage provision opportunities for existing residents. We have a case in Falfield where a road of residents have regular problems with their drainage tank, a new major development in the village on adjoining land has laid a new mains sewer which crosses the existing residents sewage pipe, but the developer/Wessex has refused provision for existing residents to connect. This is short sighted as in future years the new residents will likely complain about the existing tank needing to be emptied so regularly and the issues of access by tankers and odours near their houses. Consider developer funding of replacing existing residents' sewage treatment plants and septic tanks with connections to mains sewers where new builds are located by existing housing, or at least have a strategy on how they might connect to a sewer spur in the future.

Impact on disruption to existing land drainage methods for fields and ditches should also be examined in the costs of any greenfield site.

Add electricity infrastructure. Will pylons and cabling be removed? There are restrictions on building near or under them for both safety and maintenance reasons e.g. when cables are laid down for replacement. Where is the map showing the routes of major pylon networks?

48. School capacity and access:

No comments put forward.

49. Community centres and community infrastructure:

No comments put forward.

Please see the attached document for additional comments relating to this particular question.

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?

These are very generalised obvious priorities that do not have equal weight, and their vagueness is still open to a variety of interpretations. The WECA SDS is unavailable so cannot agree.

Priorities 3 & 4 also need to consider topography, encouraging walking and cycling is good but locating development where there are hills on key routes will discourage this. Some adults and most children find cycling up long inclines hard. Also cycling alongside busy roads e.g. A roads is unpleasant and dangerous, should not be relied on as mitigation.

Priority 5. Not ‘if ‘Green Belt reviewed, replace with ‘the Green Belt must be reviewed.’

Priority 6. As indicated the wording of this issue is likely to be superseded by the Government's consultation outcome paper to local housing need proposals dated 16th December 2020. We understand that a greater concentration of new dwellings will need to be delivered within the Bristol urban area itself and not outsourced to outlying areas. It also says the Duty to Co-operate is being removed. Providing homes for other areas is contrary to the climate emergency as this will simply increase Carbon footprint for the need to travel for work. Housing numbers MUST be reallocated to align to where the jobs and housing demand exists. Housing allocations should change significantly given dropping the need for co-operation and the need to meet the climate emergency.

Priority 9. Timely infrastructure that can be delivered within the Plan period. Add a range of Public Transport types is preferable to one, e.g. bus and train.

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)?

Question 6:

There seems to be a history of poorly designed developments where Farmers have wanted to sell off land for development, again as mentioned before these poorly designed development (for example Falfield Grange to the North of Falfield village) has no extra facilities, no shops, Doctors, Dentist, also all have to commute to the nearest town for these facilities.

Also, the trend for new housing developments have very small gardens for young families and their children to play safely. Or even grow some vegetables.

There is a mention that there should be building more multi-storey apartments for Senior Citizens, but why should Senior Citizens be deprived of a garden of their own?

There is a mention of building flats above shops, so that the area has a multiuse, shopping or offices in the day and then in the evening folk would use the same footfall in the evening which would count as multiuse. But what kind of activities would there be available for evening use if the area has shops and offices in the day….. are the people to be regarded as the ‘twilight zone’ people who only come out after 6pm? But what about the Winter when it gets dark at 4pm?

Ensure we protect sense of place.

Previous Call for Sites and JSP strategic sites completely failed to respect existing residents and the character of rural locations with large scale house dumping described as a Strategic Development Location. A rural location must be respected as rural and not the target of large-scale urbanisation under the disguise of a Plan. New settlements MUST be stand alone and well away from existing settlements. The rights of existing residents especially in small hamlets MUST be considered in any New large-scale development to prevent the Urbanisation of very rural areas. Large scale new settlements are very risky and will need massive investment in new infrastructure. Sufficient provision must be made to hold both developers and the Council accountable for the delivery of ALL infrastructure and promises for affordable housing/Schools/health services/transport network. It is not acceptable to dump houses without supporting existing residents in those locations and providing equivalency in the services offered such as drainage, sewage, access to utilities etc.

Question 7:

Strategy to conform with WECA SDS, but this is not available yet, so this consultation is premature, and we cannot agree.

Ensure we protect sense of place. Previous Call for Sites and JSP strategic sites completely failed to respect existing residents and the character of rural locations with large scale house dumping described as a Strategic Development Location. A rural location must be respected as rural and not the target of large-scale urbanisation under the disguise of a Plan.

Learn from previous mistakes. JSP locations were not considered strategic. Reconsider all previous site selections.

New places to have a balance of homes and jobs. Individuals jobs and skills vary so much, and family members rarely work in the same trade. Even City Centres cannot cater for all job types, resulting in commuting between settlements, so it is wishful thinking that a small village might be able to provide suitable jobs for the majority of its residents.

We query the prominence of the railway line from Yate to Tytherington on the diagrams. Public trains do not operate on this route, it is a line to the quarry. Including it is misleading, it implies a Public Transport route which is not there.

Agree with Building blocks 1 to 4. But do not agree with building block 5 as a strong enough case for it has not been tabled. New standalone settlements may not be required. The existing settlements, whether in or out of Green Belt, should be studied first before the ‘New settlement’ building block 5 is tabled as an option for consideration. New settlements mean that the majority of investment is solely directed to new residents and not to improving connectivity and infrastructure for existing communities. There are already 59 settlements in South Gloucestershire according to the diagrams, why add more when the existing ones can be ‘revitalised?’

If new settlements will be considered they must be stand alone and well away from existing settlements and groupings of houses. The rights of existing residents especially in small hamlets must be considered in any new large-scale development to prevent the urbanisation of previously very rural areas.

Large scale new settlements are very risky and will need massive investment in new infrastructure. Sufficient provision must be made to hold both developers and the Council accountable for the delivery of all infrastructure and promises for affordable housing/Schools/health services/transport network. It is not acceptable to dump houses without studying in depth the impact on existing residents and businesses in those areas, supporting existing residents in those locations and providing equivalency in the services offered such as drainage, sewage, access to utilities etc.

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?

Question 8:

However, all Plans are only as good as the people who devise them and if there is contention in the ranks, there will be squabbles and infighting. A question to consider is ,,,,,, ’When the makeup of the political parties in South Gloucestershire Council change through local elections, will this exercise have to start all over again, especially as this Consultation is to last through several phases?’

Question 9:

Yes.

The Council must learn from the mistakes of the JSP and reconsider the location of the strategic sites.

1. Transport times on any Public Transport to key facilities should also be a factor in considering location. It should be measured during the rush hour when demand would be at its peak. Transport must be interconnected across borders especially for trains to London etc.

3.The inland SSSI sites are missing off the diagram, this is misleading. It is good that you have a principle that food and Biodiversity are at the heart of all you do.

4. Agree with this principle. However, we note that the maps in the appendix of the WE Joint Green Infrastructure Strategy are appalling quality. They are difficult to zoom into to interpret and identify precise locations. This needs to be improved if it is to be used as a tool.

Add new guiding principle or as part of 3. A further diagram is required here which highlights the best and good agricultural land in the County. This needs to be protected so that the region and the country can provide and protect its own food supply. The good agricultural land is the most efficient and productive at doing this per square metre. It is an important asset both for our generation and future generations that once lost cannot be replaced.

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 comment.

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?

Yes.

The market town of Chipping Sodbury should be also identified as an urban area alongside Yate and Thornbury.

Thornbury is listed in both the Urban Lifestyles and Rural villages and Settlements lists – this is contradictory, it cannot be considered as being both.

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?

Yes.

Thornbury is listed in both the Urban Lifestyles and Rural villages and Settlements lists – this is contradictory, it cannot be considered as being both.

Appendix 1 Option 2 is preferred where all villages and settlements should be considered for sharing the housing load, including those inside and outside Green Belt and AONB. Some, who usually suffer from planning restrictions, may welcome and benefit from small scale development to repopulate their village Schools etc.

Agree to smaller scale rural village developments, but these developments need sustainable transport to shops, health care facilities, play areas, Libraries, all the things town folk take for granted. These should be mixed age group developments and not too far from existing families in nearby villages of developments.

Falfield has already been allocated more than its fair share of housing with our village currently being disproportionately doubled in size. Every rural community should be considered, so it is concerning that some Parishes have been left out of your place name lists entirely e.g. Tortworth Parish.

The flood risk map diagram is incorrectly labelled. Rockhampton is labelled as Aust etc.

Don’t discount places with an active train line but a closed train station within walking distance. This is a potential asset for development and Public Transport in the future.

Selection of developable villages based on existing bus service should be given a low not high weighting. It is a factor based on current circumstance but not a main decision driver as it is a variable. Buses have wheels, they can be rerouted to outlying villages if there is demand or a requirement to do so. It is not a permanent status like say topography/heritage. Developers/management committees could make contributions to bus costs to help them be viable.

16: Creating Sustainable Rural Villages and Settlements

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

Yes.

The Impact on Green infrastructure as identified on page 71 is a consideration to be added here.

Impact on the best and good agricultural land is a consideration. This needs to be protected so that the region and the country can provide and protect its own food supply. The good agricultural land is the most efficient at doing this per square metre, it cannot be replaced.

It has been noted that there is a dramatic change in the population in the Market Town of Thornbury, but some of the surrounding villages have also expanded. i.e. Falfield village is in the process of doubling in size by gaining 85 new homes, Tytherington also is expanding and there is a very large development ongoing in Wickwar. All the ones just mentioned have no amenities added to the area, such as good walking areas, sports sites, village green, shops. There is also a lack of good bus services in all of these areas. so personal cars are needed to get to any of the health facilities or good shopping areas with people travelling to places like Yate, Cribbs Causeway or Bradley Stoke. However, these large shopping areas should not be regarded as the centre of the universe, folk rarely want to travel long distances by car or bus every time they need access to a decent cost effective shop.

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?

Yes.

A planning policy needs to be added to give weighting to protection of our best and good agricultural land. Impact on the best and good agricultural land is a consideration. This needs to be protected so that the region and the country can provide and protect its own food supply. The good agricultural land is the most efficient at doing this per square metre, it cannot be replaced.

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?

Yes – consideration of protecting our best and good agricultural land. It is better environmentally to grow our own crops locally than transport them long distances. Best and good land is more efficient at this.

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?

Question 21:

For the future, to help reduce the future Carbon foot print we feel that all building companies that build new houses should be made to supply solar panels on every new house they build, this will not only help the house owners, but it will also help the energy companies & the environment.

Question 22:

No.

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?

No.

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.

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?

Yes.

Emergency planning.

The DEPZ inner zone (Detailed Emergency Planning zone) and outer zone needs to be defined and illustrated in the Local Plan strategy. This is the zone where should there be a radiation emergency, with radiological consequences to members of the public, off site emergency planning is required. This may affect where development is located, can people evacuate safely, or will they be queued up for a MetroBus?

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?

Don’t know.

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?

Don’t Know.

Q37

Phase 1 General or Other Comments

The Parish Council would like to thank the Strategic Planning Policy and Specialist Advice Team for allowing extra time for the Parish Council to submit their responses to these consultations documents.

Councillors realise that it is important that these issues need to be addressed however the consultation document is far too long for the average resident of South Gloucestershire to read and understand. As Parish Councillors who give their time on a voluntary basis to serve their community we feel that a summary document should form part of any consultation and that a least one hardcopy is supplied free of charge.

Councillors also felt that the four online briefings arranged between 30th November and 4th of December 2020 following the publishing of the consultation on 27th November gave little time for the consultation document to be studied. It would have been more beneficial to have held these later in December 2020 with additional briefings taking place during January & February 2021.

Q38

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

«No response»

Q39

Upload an attachment

You can upload up to 10 files.