Response from Cheslyn Hay Parish Council to the Site Allocations
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Response from Cheslyn Hay Parish Council to the Site Allocations Preferred Options and Gypsy and Traveller Pitches Closing date noon Monday 27th February 2017 Agenda item 8 at Cheslyn Hay Parish Council meeting – Wednesday 15th February 2017 Site 119 – Saredon Road – Cheslyn Hay 1. Introduction 1.1 Housing in the village is a contentious issue. Most residents do not believe that the village can accommodate or sustain a large development, this is evidenced by the turn out at the public meeting protesting against the Landywood Lane proposals in 2012/13 and the attendance at the planning meeting in Codsall. There are already several campaigns against the current proposals for both the recent Landywood Lane proposals (now Site 136) and the Site 119 release for Saredon Road. 1.2 Cheslyn Hay is one of the 8 major villages in South Staffordshire and is adjacent to Great Wyrley. In many places, there is no visible boundary or gap between the two villages. The Landywood Lane application to build in the green belt, for example, would close one of the gaps between the two. In many cases, residents of Great Wyrley use Cheslyn Hay infrastructures because it is closer and more accessible than the centre of Great Wyrley. For example, the residents of the recent Great Wyrley development at the rear of what was the Robin Hood Public House, Walsall Road, could drive through Cheslyn Hay to travel to the railway station, the health centre or the Quinton shopping precinct. (Houses which although closer to Cheslyn Hay centre have reduced the housing allocation for Great Wyrley whilst mostly affecting the residents of Cheslyn Hay). 1.3 Cheslyn Hay has recently ‘suffered’ a housing development of 39 homes in the Morris Homes New Horse Road development. While the development reduced the arbitrary housing allocation number for the village by one third, the event has created massive problems in the village (traffic flow) and for the residents living nearby. Permission for this was granted by South Staffordshire Council after appeal and essentially involved building on the site of 3 mining shafts. Although the development was finished over 2 years ago toilet waste is still being removed by tanker and is now subject to legal action by the council. The infrastructure of the village has struggled to cope with this development both with the access to the site and the removal of sewage. 2. Reasons for site 119 being identified as a Preferred Option Site Allocation 2.1 ‘Provide all of the Core Strategy Housing Allocation for Cheslyn Hay’ The housing number of 107 dwellings for the village is arbitrary. There have been various developments which are not reflected by a reduction of the number. Glenthorne House was converted into 11 flats but these did not count against the arbitrary number. There have also been several homes built in gardens which also do not qualify as they are ‘infill’. The whole exercise is discredited and has been manipulated against the residents of this and other villages. It bears little reflection of the actual geography of the village. The village boundaries do not reflect drainage, traffic flows and accessibility. The two villages are integrated with each other and the demarcation lines do not reflect the actualities of life. The village has had a number of developments in recent years apart from New Horse Road – Highfields (postal address Cheslyn Hay, physically in Cheslyn Hay but identified as Great Wyrley for counting purposes) Pinfold Lane and Moon’s Lane all of which have significantly increased the population of the village and created pressure on the infrastructure. 2.2 ‘Good Access off Saredon Road, both vehicular and pedestrian’ Cheslyn Hay has 3 schools and 2 of these are on Saredon Road opposite Site 119, the school site also hosts the busy leisure centre. Comments claiming good access need to be qualified by the phrase ‘not in term time’. Saredon Road is grid locked for a considerable period of the day. The proposal includes provision of 50 extra parking places. In our survey, there were 60 cars parked on Saredon Road 30 minutes before the schools closed as parents anxious to get a parking space wait for their children. It has been noted that some parents arrive over an hour before their ‘pick-up’ times or even leave their cars during the morning ‘drop-off’ so they do not lose their parking space. In all probability, the spaces would be used by Leisure Centre users or residents of the existing houses on Saredon Road. Most residents have to avoid the area in the morning and late afternoon but, of late, parking is an issue throughout the day as users of the gym facilities and football pitches at the Leisure Centre are struggling to park on the allocated spaces and have to resort to on-road parking. Sixty or so extra houses would add to this, residents trying to come out onto Saredon Road at the critical times would increase traffic and cause additional hazards. Saredon Road itself does not have a good record on road safety because of the pressures at key times and there has been a fatality on this stretch of road. Sardon Road is now used as a relief road for the Lodge Lane relief road which is gridlocked at rush hour as drivers cut through the village to get to the A5. 2.3 ‘Made a lesser contribution to Green belt compared to other sites’ Wikipedia defines the green belt as:- ‘A green belt or greenbelt is a policy and land use designation used in land use planning to retain areas of largely undeveloped, wild, or agricultural land surrounding or neighbouring urban areas. In essence, a green belt is an invisible line designating a border around a certain area, preventing development of the area and allowing wildlife to return and be established.” It is patronising in the extreme to claim that it has a lesser contribution, the condition of this farming land is the result of a deliberate policy by the owner to leave it fallow and so make a ‘lesser contribution’ to encourage an easier route to planning permission. In our opinion, all of the green belt is important. The open aspect and view across the valley towards Cannock would be destroyed. Part of the site proposed is safeguarded land and part of the site is not suitable due to its proximity to an employment site i.e. the brick works. 2.4 ‘No flooding (including surface water) issues’ Site 119 will not flood at the village end as it has a considerable slope to it, properties at the lower end may not be quite so lucky. When the Cheslyn Hay Secondary School created the coach park directly opposite the site, rain could not soak away and ran off down to the bottom of the hill where it flooded the road which is therefore, from time to time, impassable. The County Council have recently done some work to clear the ditches and other run offs but the essential problem remains. Covering Site 119 with houses would mean that the amount of water unable to soak away would double creating more run off problems and flooding more frequently. 2.5 ‘Links to, and additional, community benefit opportunities’ The schools opposite are already full and oversubscribed. The coach park opposite was created as children are brought in from Essington and Featherstone and other smaller villages. The schools also take some pupils from Great Wyrley. Expansion of the village would create additional pressure and deprive some communities who currently attend of their places. The sewage system is already unable to cope with the existing usage as demonstrated by the Morris Homes New Horse Road development. The main roads of the village were built at a time when people used carts and walked, the traffic has continued to increase and there are frequently accidents in surrounding streets and Station Street, the main road through the village, caused essentially by the volume of traffic. Site 136 Land off Upper Landywood Lane – Great Wyrley Note:- (The plan labels the area as “South of Upper Ladywood Lane (north) on the paper copy of the Site Assessment and Discounted Sites Paper, as there is no ‘Ladywood Lane’ the Parish Council assumes it refers to Landywood Lane) Although this is physically in Great Wyrley, it is adjacent to the Parish border. The impact of this development would be felt mainly by Cheslyn Hay residents. The objections and campaign against the last planning application for this land were led by Cheslyn Hay Parish Council. This is probably the most contentious site although only two objections were received as part of the SAD exercise. When the developer made a planning application in 2012/13 there were 2 public meetings, both to packed halls. A petition was started by a local resident which obtained over 3000 signatures and caused traffic jams as people queued along Landywood Lane to sign-up. There were 3620 letters of objection to the application which indicates the strength of opinion. The MP also fought the 2015 General Election on a platform of opposing green belt release generally and this site specifically. It is probable that any proposals for development on this site would be similarly resisted. There have been 4 planning applications in the past relating to this land and there is currently a fifth already in place. Previous applications have gone to appeal and have all been rejected. The SAD document identifies some of the issues, it identifies:- Loss of facilities - loss of agricultural/grassland - this land was clearly identified as Green Belt in the last appeal hearing.