Cheltenham Plan Pre-Submission consultation

List Comments

Search for Comments

Order By
in order

31 comments.

List of comments
RespondentResponse DateDetails
St James Action Group (Anne Br… 09 Apr 2018

Pre-Submission Cheltenham Plan Transport Network (no name)

  • Comment ID: 1133
Without a specific transport policy there is nothing to inform a proper assessment of the impact of access and egress for development sites. Relying on developers proposals and the late and fanciful mitigation promises of the transport submission to the JCS is unsatisfactory. The significant changes to the town with the implementation of the Cheltenham Transport Plan will impact for a long period, particularly when considered together with planned developments. It should be included in the Loc
Save The Countryside (Helen Wells) 08 Apr 2018

Pre-Submission Cheltenham Plan Transport Network (no name)

  • Comment ID: 342
Save the Countryside find the plan unsound as we continue to have grave concerns regarding transport infrastructure resulting from the proposed North West Cheltenham and West Cheltenham urban developments. These have already been outlined in previous submissions on the Cheltenham plan and the JCS. We do not see that this plan has effectively accounted for these and as we still await the latest transport update from the JCS we cannot support the Urban extensions proposed especially at North Wes
Alister Marshall 08 Apr 2018

Pre-Submission Cheltenham Plan Transport Network (no name)

  • Comment ID: 335
There is a proposal to build a new school on the fields in Leckhampton, adjacent to the A46. I do not see any coherent consideration of how the considerable morning traffic to and from the school will be accommodated - of course, good cycle paths will help but it is naive to believe that all children will cycle. The A46 is already very congested and Church Road is narrow. I think that the plan is unsound in this respect because, in 2016, a plan for 650 houses in this area was rejected by the Se
Lee Roach 08 Apr 2018

Pre-Submission Cheltenham Plan Transport Network (no name)

  • Comment ID: 1312
It should be compulsory for developers to enforce their own travel plans, and for the council to take action against those organisations who do not stick to the plans they put in place in order to receive planning permission. Policy TN2: Long-stay car parking: I do not support the Local Plan strategy to make parking more expensive for shorter periods. A better approach would be to make bus travel cheaper to encourage people to take the public transport. In addition, the situation with the Arle
Jessica Cornes 07 Apr 2018

Pre-Submission Cheltenham Plan Transport Network (no name)

  • Comment ID: 1317
* I agree with the planners' view that we need to move away from using cars as much as possible. However, this is unrealistic unless serious funding is put into establishing cycleways and maintaining them properly. I regularly cycle from my home to the railway station (approx. 2 miles each way) and there are dangerous potholes along the route (e.g., around the Park, until recently on Moorend Park Road) and the cycle lane on Lansdown Road does not keep pedestrians at a safe distance from cyclists
Sarah Halsall 06 Apr 2018

Pre-Submission Cheltenham Plan Transport Network (no name)

  • Comment ID: 994
Arle Court roundabout is a dangerous bottleneck at peak times, and with cars jumping lanes into the roundabout can be dangerous at all times. It can't cope now, let alone when increased traffic is experienced. Recent town centre road layout changes are a complete disaster, come on guys, get something right. (For example, if travelling by car, how do you get from two key city features - Pittville Pump Rooms & Montpellier? There isn't one when you shut Boot Corner. Unbelievable.)
Gloucestershire County Council… 05 Apr 2018

Pre-Submission Cheltenham Plan Transport Network (no name)

  • Comment ID: 911
Section 15. Transport Network As with the background paper this refers to Cheltenham Borough; the emerging issues are going to relate to how new development outside of the boundaries of Cheltenham Borough integrates with the town, and how its transport impacts are understood and ameliorated. The two policies in themselves are supported. However, in the context of the significant effects transport will have on Cheltenham during the Plan delivery period, combined with the fundamental requirement t
rosemary.bubb 05 Apr 2018

Pre-Submission Cheltenham Plan Transport Network (no name)

  • Comment ID: 1170
I consider the Cheltenham Plan to be unsound because of town centre parking and Park & Ride issues. I am very concerned at the prospect of no longer-stay parking in the town centre. We need to promote the economy of the town centre and allow people to park so they can shop and have meals in restaurants. It does not help that the Plan does not specify what short-stay and long-stay are. For example, disabled parking permits only allow 3 hours and this is not very long to do shopping and have a me
Gloucestershire County Council… 05 Apr 2018

Pre-Submission Cheltenham Plan Transport Network (no name)

  • Comment ID: 907
Strategic Transport Comments Although there is a section entitled 'Transport Assessment', there is not a Topic Paper on 'Transport'. It may be that, owing to the overwhelming impact of transport associated with proposed development within both Cheltenham Borough and the Joint Core Strategy (JCS) Plan Area, there is merit in transport having a dedicated section. This section should at the very least reference the JCS Transport Strategy including its six point plan designed to strengthen local and
Michael Brockington 04 Apr 2018

Pre-Submission Cheltenham Plan Transport Network (no name)

  • Comment ID: 404
I fully support the above policies, however, I am extremely concerned that a number of major incursions have already been allowed on the former Honeybourne Line track bed, including St. George's Road, Waitrose Bowbridge, and near Tommy Taylors Lane, the latter including the removal of a bridge for a new road and development. I rather thought that, at the time, the developer had made a commitment that, if the railway was reinstated, they would reinstate the bridge, at their expense, but I cannot