Local plan scoping consultation
Search representations
Results for Sally Blackwell search
New search
New search
Local plan scoping consultation
Identifying and assessing sites
Respondent: Sally Blackwell
Representation Summary:
I object to further Green Belt development in Chelford and request clear evidence that roads, junctions, public transport, utilities, schools and healthcare can support future growth. Chelford railway station is not a well-connected station and should not be used to justify development, while rail capacity constraints, limited bus services and likely increases in car dependency would worsen congestion. Previous Green Belt releases for safeguarded land have already placed pressure on local services and altered the village’s character. Future planning policies should prioritise brownfield sites, require infrastructure improvements before housing is delivered, strengthen biodiversity protections, and safeguard productive farmland, drainage systems, water supplies and wastewater capacity from further strain.
Full text:
Please can the Council demonstrate that essential infrastructure can support future growth:
Roads, junctions and congestion.
Chelford station cannot be considered a 'well connected railway station' as it does not meet the definition criteria relating to the frequency of trains serving the station. Chelford must not, therefore, be included within any proposals for development around railway stations.
Bus services and public transport are very poor.
Lines ar already full and constrained More trains will cause pathing conflicts
Higher frequency needs major upgrades
Longer trains require platform extensions
Extra stops will slow regional and national services
There are very few school places as the village stands and the GP surgery is full.
During the development of the last Local Plan a significant area of land was removed from the Green Belt to form 'safeguarded land' for longer term development. Both parcels of safeguarded land have already been brought forward for development. Chelford must not be subject to further erosion of the Green Belt in order to protect the character of the village.
Supplementary planning documents relating to ecology and biodiversity net gain must set out clear requirements for delivery and processes to challenge poor delivery or non-delivery
Supplementary planning documents relating to developer contributions must seek to deliver infrastructure improvements prior to delivery of housing. Existing residents of communities, such as Chelford, must not suffer a deterioration in access to services (basic utilities, schools, medical services) as a consequence of poorly planned infrastructure delivery and/or inappropriate development.
I strongly object to green field sites within the Green Belt in Chelford being allocated as grey belt land. The erosion of Green Belt within the Parish, through the previous allocation of safeguarded land, has already had a significant impact upon the Parish, including local services and amenities.
I strongly object to green field sites within the Green Belt in Chelford being used for development. Chelford railway station is not a 'well connected station', therefore, does not meet the criteria for development under this policy. Land within Chelford is also not considered to be grey belt land, therefore, should also not be released for development on this basis.
I support the proposal to maximise the use of brownfield sites and to consider sites outside of the Green Belt first. Development should only take place to need a genuine housing need and not to meet speculative aspirations of landowners or arbitrary housing targets.
Will the development increase car dependency and congestion
Can the drainage, water supply and wastewater systems cope in Chelford? The current residents complain of low water pressure and flooding.
Protect Farms & Productive Farmland
Farmland is not "empty land". It is:
A finite resource for food production
Essential to farming businesses and
A key part of landscape, hedgerows
Local plan scoping consultation
Transport and infrastructure
Respondent: Sally Blackwell
Representation Summary:
Chelford should not be considered suitable for development linked to a “well connected” railway station, as the station does not meet the required train frequency criteria. Public transport provision is limited, with poor bus services and rail lines already operating at capacity. Increasing train services would require major infrastructure upgrades, while longer trains would need platform extensions and additional stops could negatively affect regional and national journey times. Local infrastructure is also under pressure, with limited school places and a GP surgery that is already full. Further development would place additional strain on services and transport networks that currently lack the capacity to support significant growth. Can the drainage, water supply and wastewater systems cope in Chelford? The current residents complain of low water pressure and flooding.
Full text:
Please can the Council demonstrate that essential infrastructure can support future growth:
Roads, junctions and congestion.
Chelford station cannot be considered a 'well connected railway station' as it does not meet the definition criteria relating to the frequency of trains serving the station. Chelford must not, therefore, be included within any proposals for development around railway stations.
Bus services and public transport are very poor.
Lines ar already full and constrained More trains will cause pathing conflicts
Higher frequency needs major upgrades
Longer trains require platform extensions
Extra stops will slow regional and national services
There are very few school places as the village stands and the GP surgery is full.
During the development of the last Local Plan a significant area of land was removed from the Green Belt to form 'safeguarded land' for longer term development. Both parcels of safeguarded land have already been brought forward for development. Chelford must not be subject to further erosion of the Green Belt in order to protect the character of the village.
Supplementary planning documents relating to ecology and biodiversity net gain must set out clear requirements for delivery and processes to challenge poor delivery or non-delivery
Supplementary planning documents relating to developer contributions must seek to deliver infrastructure improvements prior to delivery of housing. Existing residents of communities, such as Chelford, must not suffer a deterioration in access to services (basic utilities, schools, medical services) as a consequence of poorly planned infrastructure delivery and/or inappropriate development.
I strongly object to green field sites within the Green Belt in Chelford being allocated as grey belt land. The erosion of Green Belt within the Parish, through the previous allocation of safeguarded land, has already had a significant impact upon the Parish, including local services and amenities.
I strongly object to green field sites within the Green Belt in Chelford being used for development. Chelford railway station is not a 'well connected station', therefore, does not meet the criteria for development under this policy. Land within Chelford is also not considered to be grey belt land, therefore, should also not be released for development on this basis.
I support the proposal to maximise the use of brownfield sites and to consider sites outside of the Green Belt first. Development should only take place to need a genuine housing need and not to meet speculative aspirations of landowners or arbitrary housing targets.
Will the development increase car dependency and congestion
Can the drainage, water supply and wastewater systems cope in Chelford? The current residents complain of low water pressure and flooding.
Protect Farms & Productive Farmland
Farmland is not "empty land". It is:
A finite resource for food production
Essential to farming businesses and
A key part of landscape, hedgerows
Local plan scoping consultation
Supplementary planning documents
Respondent: Sally Blackwell
Representation Summary:
Supplementary planning documents relating to ecology and biodiversity net gain must set out clear requirements for delivery and processes to challenge poor delivery or non-delivery
Supplementary planning documents relating to developer contributions must seek to deliver infrastructure improvements prior to delivery of housing. Existing residents of communities, such as Chelford, must not suffer a deterioration in access to services (basic utilities, schools, medical services) as a consequence of poorly planned infrastructure delivery and/or inappropriate development.
Full text:
Please can the Council demonstrate that essential infrastructure can support future growth:
Roads, junctions and congestion.
Chelford station cannot be considered a 'well connected railway station' as it does not meet the definition criteria relating to the frequency of trains serving the station. Chelford must not, therefore, be included within any proposals for development around railway stations.
Bus services and public transport are very poor.
Lines ar already full and constrained More trains will cause pathing conflicts
Higher frequency needs major upgrades
Longer trains require platform extensions
Extra stops will slow regional and national services
There are very few school places as the village stands and the GP surgery is full.
During the development of the last Local Plan a significant area of land was removed from the Green Belt to form 'safeguarded land' for longer term development. Both parcels of safeguarded land have already been brought forward for development. Chelford must not be subject to further erosion of the Green Belt in order to protect the character of the village.
Supplementary planning documents relating to ecology and biodiversity net gain must set out clear requirements for delivery and processes to challenge poor delivery or non-delivery
Supplementary planning documents relating to developer contributions must seek to deliver infrastructure improvements prior to delivery of housing. Existing residents of communities, such as Chelford, must not suffer a deterioration in access to services (basic utilities, schools, medical services) as a consequence of poorly planned infrastructure delivery and/or inappropriate development.
I strongly object to green field sites within the Green Belt in Chelford being allocated as grey belt land. The erosion of Green Belt within the Parish, through the previous allocation of safeguarded land, has already had a significant impact upon the Parish, including local services and amenities.
I strongly object to green field sites within the Green Belt in Chelford being used for development. Chelford railway station is not a 'well connected station', therefore, does not meet the criteria for development under this policy. Land within Chelford is also not considered to be grey belt land, therefore, should also not be released for development on this basis.
I support the proposal to maximise the use of brownfield sites and to consider sites outside of the Green Belt first. Development should only take place to need a genuine housing need and not to meet speculative aspirations of landowners or arbitrary housing targets.
Will the development increase car dependency and congestion
Can the drainage, water supply and wastewater systems cope in Chelford? The current residents complain of low water pressure and flooding.
Protect Farms & Productive Farmland
Farmland is not "empty land". It is:
A finite resource for food production
Essential to farming businesses and
A key part of landscape, hedgerows
For instructions on how to use the system and make comments, please see our
help guide.
