Cheltenham Plan (Part One): Preferred Options

Preferred Options


List of answers to the specified question
David Wilson Homes (- -) It is essential that in respect of the Leckhampton Area the Council has regard to the very latest position on the ground in respect of the implementation of the Redrow Homes development on the Farm Lane (SD2) site and the relative sensitivity of the landscape in this location, and capacity for sustainable housing development outside of the Green Belt.

In addition it is essential that robust evidence is in place to support the expected level of development in the Plan Period from both Urban Capacity and Windfall sites.
16 Mar 2017 17:06
Galliard and Pye Homes (- -) Please refer to Continuation Sheet 22 Mar 2017 09:48
Alex Smith This is an excellent piece of work and quick progress should be made to establish it so Cheltenham has a viable local plan to avoid unwanted development of any kind. 08 Feb 2017 19:40
Alice Ross I object to the continued inclusion as evidence base of the 'Ryder Report' (Landscape, Character and Sensitivity Assessment of the Cotswolds AONB within the Cheltenham Administrative Area. It is admitted that it is not policy, is based on consultants' opinion only and is only now open for consultation. Together with Save Our AONB campaign group for the last two years I have pointed out the flaws in this report which should render it unacceptabl both as Asevidence and as a reliable 'material consideration' in determining planning applications. Referring to the site I know best as an example – Land South of Glenfall Way – the flawed and feeble reasons given by Ryder for even suggesting that the plot had landscape capacity for development should have been unacceptable to the Strategic Planners, though unacceptable to the Cotswolds Conservation Board and contrary to the 1990 Countryside Commission designation of the land for its natural beauty. The laughable landscape and planning 'reasons' for saying that this site in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty was all right to develop are as follows: poorly-maintained hedges and fences! A small flat field! 'Surrounding' houses - not true – all countryside from The Orchards to Ham. Surrounding trees – not true but in any case not removing AONB status from the site. Adjacent school – separated by treed driveway and in any case not removing AONB status from land. Worse – apparently settling on a site with active applications which could benefit from the Report's conclusions. 16 Mar 2017 14:45
Anne Griffiths We support the Local Green Space allocations.
The Local Plan(LP) should include strong policies to protect the areas unique heritage assets, their setting and landscape.
The LP will need to define strategy for dealing with rural areas and should consider the condition of designated sites in respect of biodiversity and the natural environment.
The LP should seek to reduce air pollution and improve air quality and consider the potential cumulative effects on residents.
It is essential that the LP carries out a full Health Impact Assessment to address well recorded concerns are in respect of unacceptable levels of air or soil pollution, odours both alone or cumulatively, with respect to national and EU limits and to comply with
NPPF Paras 120 and 124.To prevent unacceptable risks from pollution and land instability, planning policies and decisions should ensure that new development is appropriate for its location.The effects (INCLUDING CUMULATIVE EFFECTS) of pollution on health, the natural environment or general amenity, and the potential sensitivity of the area or proposed development to adverse effects FROM pollution, should be taken into account.
We note that in their evidence to the Waste Core Strategy, with reference to both sites, Cheltenham Borough Council 10th February, 2011 (xi) states that:
The proximity to any possible urban extension at North West Cheltenham needs to be considered, and in practice, may prove UNACCEPTABLY CLOSE…….The specific type of facility promoted on the site will need to take into account the potential impact on existing residential properties and those that may come forward in the future

The LP should give priority to preserving and protecting Cheltenham's Green Belt.
The Cheltenham Green Belt was established in 1968, and was set up for :
In addition the definition will confirm a long-term agricultural future by reducing uncertainty and providing security for agricultural investment.
Particular attention will be paid to the retention of economically viable agricultural holdings. It is intended that these protective measures will be supplemented with positive countryside management policies.
(AERC REF : J8901/R2569 March 17 2007)

The area mentioned close to Kingsditch, and Arle Nurseries around Tewekesbury Road is composed of the Best and Most Versatile Agricultural according to the DEFRA AGRICULTURAL LAND CLASSIFICATION MAP, SOUTH WEST REGION, (ALC006) which shows the soils for the area/ Contrary to NPPF Para 17, and the saved Local Policies of the council. This is also contrary to NPPF Para 11 Conserving and Enhancing the natural environment. The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by PROTECTING AND ENHANCING VALUED LANDSCAPES, geological conservation interests, AND SOILS. Local Planning Authorities should take into account the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land. WHERE SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT OF AGRICULTURAL LAND IS DEMONSTRATED TO BE NECESSARY, LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITIES SHOULD SEEK TO USES AREAS OF POORER QUALITY LAND IN PREFERENCE TO THAT OF A HIGHER QUALITY.

Therefore this LP should ensure that the best quality land around Cheltenham which is protected to ensure that it continues to be used in agriculture, for food production and food security, as well as being used as a green buffer to improve air quality, by retaining the Green Belt and establishing Local Green Space, which will encourage access to the countryside.

The LP needs to be provide positive evidence to IMPROVE the access and links of the transport network, around and through the centre of Cheltenham, to reduce congestion and improve air quality.
Improvements need to be to connectivity of the various transport modes, eg cycling,car,bus coach, and train by establishing a central transport hub to connect all modes of transport. This will reduce the impact on the existing road network, and on air quality.
The main problem of traversing the town from North to South, East to West etc. must be addressed immediately. This could be by building a Relief Road to reduce pressure on the centre of Cheltenham, and also improve the access to new developments coming forward in the future.Also there is a need to improve radial pedestrian and cycle routes across the town, to encourage non-car based movement.
20 Mar 2017 14:15
Daniel Papworth This whole process is hard to follow. I am against housing developments that are not to Passivhaus standards; that take quality agricultural land out of agricultural use. I am concerned that the value of wildlife to human health is not being recognised. I am very concerned that local support for making the A40 corridor a Local Green Space appears to be being ignored, despite its clear qualification for designation. 04 Mar 2017 15:10
David Bayne While pleased to see that no sites in the AONB have been allocated for development, I am concerned to see the Ryder report on the AONB included, unqualified, in the Evidence Base. The Ryder report contains views of just a single planning consultant. I have serious concerns about the depth of the investigation carried out – as evidenced by the time taken to perform an investigation of this scope – and hence of some of the conclusions reached. I am particularly concerned at the implications that a few areas of the AONB might support some residential development. I strongly oppose any policies or proposals for new development in the AONB. 20 Mar 2017 14:03
Deleted User There should be no new development on the AONB 06 Feb 2017 10:09
Deleted User I can't many of the documents referred to in this consultation. 07 Feb 2017 17:05
Deleted User I think you should not be aloud to build on the Priors Field in Oakley as there is a chance of flooding as well as the environmental impact on the wild life and the loss of recreational space. You should make it a protected green space.
It has flooded in the past and also flooded further down Whaddon road if you build on it where will the water go.
It will also affect the people who own there homes as it will lower there price if they want to sell.
08 Feb 2017 17:16
Next pageLast page