27 July 2010
Dear Sirs
F.A.O. :- SPATIAL PLANNING TEAM, SOUTH GLOUCESTERSHIRE COUNCIL
RE: South Gloucestershire Core Strategy Pre-Submission Publication Draft
I wish to register my objection to the whole of your Core Strategy document on the grounds
that in June 2010 Central Government scrapped the Regional Plans directing Local
councils to provide set amounts of new housing so therefore your document is now
superfluous and should be re-written to reflect current guidelines and local requirements. I
would also mention that your lack of publicity of the Core Strategy prior to the General
Election was unethical and the subsequent lack of public consultation/meetings has been
woefully inadequate given the far reaching scope of the plans, its potential impact on the
local environment and population and the very short timescales to register objections.
As I reside in North Yate I have specific concerns regarding Policy CS31 - the Core
Strategy for the North Yate New Neighbourhood;
1. On what grounds does South Gloucestershire Council believe we need another 3000
new houses in North Yate? Central Government are no longer demanding you provide
them so what measures have the Council taken to ascertain what new housing is
actually required? Surely common sense would dictate that this has to be the first step
before unnecessarily destroying more green fields and putting more pressure on our
already overstretched local services and amenities.
2. How can you claim to have a policy of ‘providing and maintaining green infrastructure’
when you intend to build on acres of farmland, rip out mature hedgerows, destroy
wildlife habitats and damage the natural environment? Point 14.21 talks of a ‘strategic
Green Infrastructure to protect the landscape and separate identity of Yate Rocks’, yet I
fail to see how building an access road and houses across the fields abutting Yate
Rocks and Gravel Hill Road North can possibly be construed as a Green infrastructure.
This can only be achieved by maintaining a two field boundary between Yate Rocks
and the development at Brimsham Park (as demonstrated in the Core Strategy of
2008). Also point 14.17 implies that Yate Rocks is to the east of the ‘rising slope to a
limestone ridge’ thus giving the impression that it is further away - totally incorrect as
homes in Yate Rocks are actually built on the rising slope and ridge.
3. Point 14.18 talks of dispersing traffic from the proposed development along three roads
as far as possible onto the local highway network. However the local network is already
overused and at peak times nose to tail queues are already experienced. We have
already had a taster of the grid locked chaos when Station Road was resurfaced.
Adding traffic from another 3000 homes will mean gridlocked roads will become a way of
life for Yate inhabitants. Further more I strongly object to the Barratt homes idea of
diverting part of Gravel Hill road North through their proposed development as Gravel
Hill Road North is a quiet winding country lane used by pedestrians, horse riders and
cyclists and is totally unsuitable for the amount of traffic the 250 Barratt homes and 3000
other homes would produce. Equally unacceptable is building another road alongside
Gravel Hill Road North to access Peg Hill as this would potentially become an accident
black spot given the proximity and poor visibility.
4. Point 14.18- I agree there should be ‘no vehicular access onto Tanhouse Lane’.
However I am concerned about the comment ‘measures will be used to slow traffic’. This
lane is currently used by pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders – quite happily and
without need to slow traffic down. The core strategy implies that a lot more traffic will be
seeking to use this quiet narrow country lane and I shudder to think what measures will
be needed to manage the potential additional traffic from 3000 homes - speed humps or
the like! No -keep it just the way it is now please.
5. Point 14.22 talks of managing areas of proven flood risk. How much consideration has
been given to future climatic change and resultant rising sea levels and indeed to the
effect of tarmacing over such a vast expanse of land which is in parts already boggy and
subject to flooding? Is it ethical to allocate land such as this for house building? The ford
in Yate Rocks and parts of Gravel Hill Road North already experience flooding so this
proposal could exacerbate the problems. Furthermore I object to including the land most
likely to flood and therefore least attractive for building as part of the ‘open space and
recreation provision’ as it will have limited recreational value.
6. The Yate sewage system is already at maximum capacity in dealing with the current
levels of effluent produced. Building another 3000 homes is totally unthinkable as the
sewage system simply could not cope. Although the Core Strategy acknowledges the
need for ‘appropriate strategic sewerage infrastructure’ when will this be built and more
importantly who will pay for it? There should be no more house building approved until
the developers have agreed to provide the sewage infrastructure up front.
7. Local emergency services and amenities cannot cope with the needs of the additional
population from 3000 new homes. The Core Strategy acknowledges the requirements
but where will the money come for those services and where will the services go (Yate
Town centre is already full and has no space to expand)? Past experience shows that
developers only fund the direct services for the new homes they build and the greater
infra structure never happens. Therefore the services and amenities need to be built
first.
Overall whilst I acknowledge there is probably a need for some new housing I am totally
opposed to the vast scales of housing proposed in the Core Strategy for the reasons stated
above. If there is to be any development then I urge the council to ascertain how much new
housing is actually required then re-write the Core Strategy accordingly and to maintain a
green corridor of at least two fields deep between Gravel Hill Road North/Yate Rocks and
the existing and proposed developments at Brimsham Park.
Yours faithfully,
Alison Davis-Evans (Mrs)