Local plan scoping consultation
Search representations
Results for Joanna Fielding search
New search
New search
Local plan scoping consultation
Transport and infrastructure
Respondent: Joanna Fielding
Representation Summary:
The respondent raises concerns about the ability of Chelford’s infrastructure to accommodate further development. They argue that Chelford railway station should not be considered a “well-connected station” due to limited train frequency and object to development being justified on that basis. Concerns are raised regarding limited school and GP capacity, poor public transport, traffic congestion, drainage, flooding, water supply and wastewater infrastructure.
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 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 future 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 rural livelihoods
A key part of landscape, hedgerows and field boundaries
Integral to the character of Chelford
Local plan scoping consultation
Respondent: Joanna Fielding
Representation Summary:
The respondent opposes the release of Green Belt and greenfield land, noting that previous safeguarded land allocations have already affected local services and village character.
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 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 future 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 rural livelihoods
A key part of landscape, hedgerows and field boundaries
Integral to the character of Chelford
Local plan scoping consultation
Development in the countryside
Respondent: Joanna Fielding
Representation Summary:
They support a brownfield-first approach and emphasise the importance of protecting productive farmland, rural livelihoods, landscapes and biodiversity.
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 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 future 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 rural livelihoods
A key part of landscape, hedgerows and field boundaries
Integral to the character of Chelford
Local plan scoping consultation
Respondent: Joanna Fielding
Representation Summary:
They support a brownfield-first approach and emphasise the importance of protecting productive farmland, rural livelihoods, landscapes and biodiversity.
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 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 future 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 rural livelihoods
A key part of landscape, hedgerows and field boundaries
Integral to the character of Chelford
For instructions on how to use the system and make comments, please see our
help guide.
