Site Allocations Plan March 2016

Document Section Site Allocations Plan March 2016 PUT FORWARD A SITE OR MAKE GENERAL COMMENTS General comments for Wrington [View all comments on this section]
Comment ID 14836193//1
Respondent Deleted User [View all comments by this respondent]
Response Date 03 May 2016
Comment

I strongly support North Somerset Council’s decision not to include site HE14179 at the southern perimeter of Wrington within the Site Allocations Plan March 2016 (draft for consultation).

It is very important to the local area that this site is not developed. I am sure you can already see why this site is unviable, as reflected by your decision to not include the site in the draft plan, but I back this up with the following reasons why the site is unsuitable in the event that you come under pressure to find additional sites beyond the close of this consultation, and suggest some revisions to your assessment criteria from my knowledge of the site and local area:

  • It is a pristine greenfield site, high quality agricultural land, which should be considered BMV class (Please consider sub-objective 4.5 should be red or amber, not green).
  • The village primary school is at capacity and constrained with no ability to expand. No secondary school in the village. (Please consider sub-objective 2.2 should be red or amber, not green).
  • There is no local employment (or advantaged access to employment within a wider vicinity) that would accommodate even a fraction of the potential 172 dwellings (Please consider sub-objective 2.3 should be amber, not green).
  • The development site has a Site of Nature Conservation Interest within its boundary which would be irreparably affected. (Please consider sub-objective 4.2 should be red, not amber).
  • Part of the site is elevated land sitting in the middle of an area that floods regularly during periods of heavy rain. The fields as they are, therefore, provide a vital service in minimising the frequency and severity of flooding. The additional run-off that would occur if the land was developed would worsen the flooding, causing damage to transport, property and the sensitive natural environment. Furthermore, parts of the site itself flood regularly already. (Please consider sub-objective 4.6 and 4.7 should be red, not amber).
  • It has poor access to the village – large distance to the village centre, narrow unsafe roads with no pavement (or indeed space for pavements). The local transport network is not set up for a large new housing development. The village is off the main transport links and not well served by public transport. Services in the village are also not sufficient for such a development – notably a full and constrained school, the surgery recently closed (or rather moved to Langford), bank recently closed to name but a few. (Please consider sub-objective 2.1 should be red or amber, not green).
  • It is a huge site in proportion to the exiting village, which would intrude into the countryside and affect the rural setting of the village.

I thank you for maintaining your decision to decline this site within your site allocation planning, and any planning applications that may be made.

 

Attachments