Skip to main content

Joint Core Strategy - Issues and Options

Joint Core Strategy - Issues and Options

Responses

List of answers to the specified question
ResponseOptionTextDate
#714423

4.1.14 Gladman agree that the most suitable spatial strategy will involve elements from all of the listed options in order to provide a sustainable and deliverable solution to meet housing and employment needs across the plan area.

4.1.15 The Government has identified that new settlements have a key role to play, not only in meeting this country’s housing needs in the short-term, but also in providing a stable pipeline of housing well into the future. We are therefore very supportive of the option to explore the potential for a new garden village. What is crucial though is that any new settlement proposed must be deliverable.

4.1.16 By delivering new standalone communities, the widely understood issues with urban extensions, such as complex highway constraints and piecemeal development in areas free of restrictive national designations can be avoided, the character of existing settlements can be maintained and pressure on existing infrastructure, such as schools and doctors, can also be minimised.

4.1.17 Garden villages are an effective way to build upon the Garden City concept to deliver housing within an appropriate time frame and with a critical mass that will facilitate the delivery of infrastructure such as schools, health centres and transport improvements to the benefit of both new and existing communities.

4.1.18 Gladman support delegation of allocating non-strategic sites to Local Plans and recognise the importance of attributing meaningful growth to sustainable settlements, supporting rural viability and vitality.

 

01 Apr 2019 15:57
#714414

Development should be directed towards the larger settlements in the first instance, having regard to sensitive land constraints such as flood risk areas, heritage sites, the AONB and green belt etc. The subject land does not have any of the above constraints and is located adjacent to the largest settlement in Tewkesbury Borough Council’s administrative area.

 

01 Apr 2019 15:39
#713403

The IOD sets out a very brief summary of the current adopted spatial strategy and presents four broadly-based spatial/locational options for delivering the future development needs of the whole area. The IOD recognises the most fundamental issue facing the three authorities in revising the spatial strategy, which is how the needs of Gloucester and Cheltenham can be met given the constrained nature of their administrative boundaries and the consequential lack of available land within their built-up areas. Unfortunately, this is as far as the discussion goes on how the spatial strategy might change or evolve in order to best address this problem whilst also supporting the delivery of overall growth levels within the framework of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Rather than being sufficiently locally-specific, the options set out appear to be broadly generic and applicable to any other area that might exhibit a similar mix of urban and rural settlements as well as aspects and features found in the countryside.

In our view, it is clear from the current direction, particularly in terms of the aspirations for economic growth and development across the three authorities, that other options should be considered as part of the update and revision to the spatial strategy and in the consideration of more detailed locational/site options. A key consideration is the direction of travel adopted as part of the Gloucestershire Local Enterprise Partnership Strategic Economic Plan4 (GSEP), covering the three JCS authorities and the other authorities of the county. An important element of the GSEP is concept of an ‘M5 Growth Zone’5, which considers the opportunities along the M5 corridor for business and job growth. The GSEP considers a number of ‘growth enabling transport’ projects to assist in upgrading the road and public transport network along this strategic route, with the intention to unlock the potential for development in close proximity to where the improvements are made. Specific projects identified in the GSEP relate to transport improvements between junction 9 and 11a of the M5, as well as proposed upgrades to the local rail network with potential for improved services along the northsouth routes through the county. It is noted that the transport strategy focuses on improvements to road and rail provision around junction 9 at Ashchurch, including junction upgrade, dualling of the A46 to Evesham, and upgrades to Ashchurch railway station.

Whilst these improvements are intended to support mainly commercial and employment development, the GSEP also acknowledges the barrier to growth created by the constraints of housing land supply and the need for greater collaboration and alignment between the three authorities6 in tackling this problem. Consequently, we suggest that an additional option focusing on the ‘M5 corridor’ concept should be considered as part of the range of appropriate strategic spatial options informing revisions to the spatial strategy. This would then provide a more appropriate basis for the consideration of where and how development should be distributed across the JCS area through more detailed locational/site options including those sites in accessible locations along the corridor. This would ensure that the options are more locally-specific, relevant to the emerging JCS, and provide a wider opportunity to deliver sustainable patterns of development.

28 Mar 2019 12:49
#711790

The JCS and the emerging Tewkesbury Borough Plan set a direction for housing development based on urban focus and urban extensions with some Service Village expansion. The option of a new settlement has not featured to date and it is unclear why it should feature now. Tewkesbury Borough already has a "new town" in the form of Bishops Cleeve. It is not clear what is meant by a "smaller village" in para 7.6. The Service Villages in Tewkesbury Borough have already had very significant development.

27 Mar 2019 16:54
#711643

The IOD sets out four ways that development could be distributed within the Plan area. RPS support an approach that ensures that the wider needs of Tewkesbury are met on the edge of Tewkesbury Town as the most logical and effective apportionment of future development, in line with the JCS Inspectors Report (paragraph 36 of that report refers).

27 Mar 2019 16:27
#711497

Support the proposed spatial strategy which provides first use of brownfield sites within an urban focus.

27 Mar 2019 15:36
#711448

Firstly, we consider that, if the JCS is already showing a shortfall against trajectory in

Cheltenham and Gloucester, it could well be its spatial strategy of focussing on urban

extensions is flawed. It is all very well saying that the infrastructure is already there (as

was stated during EiP). However if the infrastructure is already at full, or over,

capacity, then it will not be able to cope with the additional volume arising from the urban extensions.

This appears likely to be the case at NW Cheltenham where development has apparently stalled on the basis of inadequate transport infrastructure.

A solution to this problem may well be easier and cheaper at an appropriately sited new settlement. In addition this should not require any more Green Belt land to be sacrificed.

Secondly, what is described as "our future development needs" have as their basic and primary premise the assumption that future net population growth will continue at the same rate as it has historically. Obviously this assumption cannot continue indefinitely - the amount of space is finite and there are competing demands on that which is left. It may have to be recognised sooner rather than later that the basic premise as to population growth is simply impossible to satisfy.

27 Mar 2019 14:55
#711396

JCS-2 identifies four options:
Brownfield/Urban, Urban Extension, New Town, Rural Dispersal.

Other options are:
'Restraint' (not being able to accommodate the full calculated 'requirement' into an environmentally sensitive county), and
'Diverting' housing demand to other less exceptional Districts (beginning with those South and North along the M5).

(2) Urban Extensions
No more greenfield incursions are environmentally tolerable at the edge of Cheltenham (other than some of small sites which the JCS Inspector made available from Green Belt along the Northern edge of the PUA), but certainly no further destruction of the town's 'valued landscapes' and Green Belt setting at Leckhampton or Chargrove.

However, Gloucester may consider a further UE into non-GreenBelt land across the river around Highnam, which would fund an improved river crossing.

Tewkesbury is already planning its major UE, at Ashchurch and M5-J9.
TBC did not demur from JCS-1's readiness to accommodate the high 30,000+ Housing target (into this environmentally sensitive county), thinking that TBC's share could be deposited largely on Cheltenham's boundary. However the JCS Examination ruled that the correct 'Apportionment' between these Districts assigns all of Cheltenham NorthWest and West UEs entirely to Cheltenham's (most constrained) need.

(Also in JCS-1, approval for Gloucester's final Northward UE, called 'South Churchdown', means that TBC's Churchdown is now merged into Gloucester City.)

(3) New Town (NT)
There are no acceptable NT locations inside the development-oppressed Severn Vale of the JCS territory: not Coombe Hill or Apperley or Boddington or Bentham or Toddington.
See my recent TBC Local Plan submission (attached) concerning incipient 'ribbon development' unwisely joining Cheltenham to Tewkesbury along the A4019 and A38.

Stop trying the grow the population of this environmentally top-rank county with its sensitive rural-urban balance up.

Let JCS-1's huge expansions bed in, and see if they can materialise, before fixing any JCS-2 decisions for further sprawl.

27 Mar 2019 14:26
#711289

Paragraph 7.2 and 7.7 of the IOP suggests that in order to achieve the most suitable strategy, a combination of the key options set out between paragraphs 7.3 - 7.6 (urban focus, urban extensions new settlement and rural dispersal) will be required.

VSM and DIO agrees that no single option should underpin the growth strategy and that a combination is required to ensure the delivery of growth across the three authority areas. However, that is not to say each of the options are required in equal measure. Strong support is given to the ‘Urban Focus’ and ‘Urban Extensions’ where robust evidence exists to support this as this often represents the most sustainable and deliverable option for strategic scale growth. MOD Ashchurch represents a rare strategic, brownfield opportunity that has the ability to deliver sustainable growth.

In this context it is noted that paragraph 7.1 states that the 'spatial strategy for the JCS is to focus development at Gloucester an Cheltenham to support their economic roles'. It goes on to say that Tewkesbury’s own needs are to be provided at the Town, in combination with the rural service centres and villages. There is no acknowledgement of the significant level of growth that can be accommodated at Ashchurch which is acknowledged at Section 12 of the IOP and within the Ashchurch Masterplan.

 

27 Mar 2019 13:06
#711264

None of the options presented will meet the housing needs in full. As recognised at Paragraph 7.7 of the Issues and Options document, the spatial strategy should combine a mix of the options presented, providing for development in both urban and rural areas.

Taking Tewkesbury specifically, it is important that the spatial strategy recognises the important role that the Rural Service Centres and Service Villages should play in meeting the housing requirement. Particular emphasis should be placed on the Rural Service Centres.

27 Mar 2019 12:28
Next pageLast page

Powered by INOVEM Consult™ - Online Consultation Software