Planning Response

–Homelands Development

Bishops Cleeve Parish Council wishes to register its opposition to this development.  At its July 2007 meeting the Parish Council confirmed its opposition to the latest application to put  housing on the Homelands Farm site at Bishops Cleeve.  This site has long been the subject of proposed development of large scale housing and the Council strongly  believes this would have a detrimental effect on the village and its surroundings, impacting on the amenities and quality of life for the majority of residents.  We do this, acknowledging the need for additional housing (including affordable housing) but believe that Bishops Cleeve’s infrastructure  has  reached saturation point.  

The villages of Gotherington and Bishops Cleeve, between which the plot of land lies, have distinctive characteristics.  The desirability of maintaining the green space at Homelands has been acknowledged within the South West Spatial Strategy document, which goes as far as to suggest an extension of the Green Belt which would incorporate this area.  This housing proposal is not included in Tewksbury Borough Council’s Local Plan - a decision which was subsequently upheld by the Inspector at the Examination in Public.    From an aesthetic point of view the scene from the surrounding hills would be radically altered with the addition of more housing.  From the view point of adjoining houses to this land, which tend to be 1 to 1.5 storey housing, the vista would be altered detrimentally. 

Given the developments proximity to Bishops Cleeve we were somewhat surprised to see the concept of a “village high street” which would reflect that found in Gotherington, for the Gotherington  Lane area.  Does this point to the ultimate aim of the developer to join the two villagers together?  (2.2.4)  Whilst we appreciate the developers are keen for the site to create its identity, it will nevertheless, be part of the village in Bishops Cleeve and has to be identified as such. We do not wish to encourage “old” and “new” housing communities.   Its physical proximity to the village and lack of any shopping or social activities suggests that the majority of residents will use the infrastructure of Cleeve in their everyday life.

We were somewhat perplexed with the statement that for profile for  journey to and from work the developer has compared the new site to that of St Michaels Ward.  We acknowledge its closeness to this area but would point out that the profile of this Ward, would, we believe, be unlike that of the inhabitants of Homelands.  St Michaels Ward, which is predominantly older housing,  has a higher than average number of homes without the use of a car at 22.2% (Glos CC 18.7%, TBC 14.9%) (Maiden stats source)  More likely that it will have more in common with newer housing areas such as West  and Grange Wards where lack of cars falls to 9.1% and 13.8% respectively. These figures do not identify those homes which have the use of more than 1 car per household.  Local knowledge suggests a high proportion of such households.   This therefore has implications for the work/travel traffic (identified as an average 12 kms) (13.3.5) on the local road network. We do not see a comparison with St Michaels in the age profile of the new development if  you consider that this ward has an over 65s population of 26.4%, in comparison with the County average of 17.3% . The age profile of the other two wards places the greatest number of people in the working age population and so has implications for work travel. 

Whilst we appreciate the possibility of expansion of Drs Surgeries etc, the report does not acknowledge the lack of suitable expansion space in the village centre for such activities. 

The proposals mention the proximity of some bus routes to the development but the routes outlined are those which run less frequently than  the main bus route within the village.  It is agreed that there is currently a route which runs every 10 minutes to and from Cheltenham but it must be said that already, due to expansion of village housing there are properties which are not adequately served by this route.  To access this route on foot the junction of Gotherington Lane and Station Road (already identified as a problem) will have to be negotiated by bus passengers.  Whilst we applaud any  arrangement with the local bus companies which might improve matters, it is hard to envisage how these routes can be modified without negatively affecting other parts of the village.   There are concerns that a more frequent expanded, bus route might detrimentally impact on the adjacent Conservation Area. 

Residents wishing to access the centre of the village for shopping and schools, etc will be faced by the current problem junction at the bottom of Gotherington Lane.  Safe routes for cyclists and pedestrians going to school are mentioned.  We would welcome the identification of these routes and feel that the implementation of infrastructure by way of signposting and provision of crossings would be one way to assist such safe routes.  This however, has cost implications which the community would find difficult to find. Gotherington Lane/Station Road once more provides a safety obstacle.  We believe it is naive to assume the use of cars to access facilities in the village centre will be minimal and this will therefore have implications for future traffic and roads safety measures. The Parish supports the concept of Safe Routes to School. 

As far as cyclists access to the nearest town, Cheltenham, is concerned, at present there appears to be no real safe route.  The road from the village past the racecourse has no cycle path, is steep, busy and narrow. and has a speed limit of 60mph.  Attempts to provide safe passage for cycle users has failed in the past and remains problematic. 

We are also concerned about the implications of the development for the traffic in and around the village.  As already mentioned above, we are doubtful about the inclination of householders to access the centre of the village on foot and the consequences this will have.  The impact on the bypass traffic is,  we believe, unacceptable. As witnessed in the recent flood, the village is reliant on very few access points and is easily cut off.  With no more significant new employment in the area, motorists will need to access surrounding motorway and road networks, probably leading to frustration as traffic builds up on already crowded village roads.  

In our past and current submissions concerning developments on the Stoke Orchard Road area the traffic levels on the by-pass have already concerned us. The village appears to be subjected to developments without an overall view on the enormous impact this has on traffic flow in, out and round the village. As noted in the report 10.4.14-16 all three existing roundabouts on the by-pass will be overloaded at morning and evening rush hours.  The traffic load suggest changes to the road system.  Possibly the installation of a new roundabout?

The junction between the A435 and Evesham Road is a restricted one.  Approaching from the new development it does not allow for turning North out from Bishops Cleeve.  The speed limit is also high at this point - 50 mph.  There is also no mention of traffic back up from the overloaded roundabouts which residents already experience on a regular basis. 

As for the development itself.  It has already been mentioned that the size and scope of the proposal will intrude on the green area which separates the villages and maintains their individual characteristics and identities.   We are somewhat amused regarding the provision of a “community orchard” and wonder if the full implications of such a concept has been considered.  Who will maintain such a space and what is its purpose?  Whilst historically, it is agreed that orchards were present in the village, questions are being asked as to its current suitability or even benefit. 

Playing fields and play areas are part of the plan.  However, both areas indicated are close to existing provision.  The general feeling is that current play facilities should be made more accessible to the new development with its implications for integration to the village facilities, rather than provision of separate areas.  We note the proposal for football pitches and pavilion but are mindful that the upkeep and management of such facilities would cause problems as they are far from our current extensive sports field and facilities.  The proposed Homelands facilities also have inadequate vehicular access and parking.

If the development goes ahead, we would encourage the developers to work closely to investigate the provision of recreational  areas bearing in mind current facilities and whether there is scope for improving and integrating the established play areas..  This could be done by improvement/expansion of current play areas with access being provided between the current housing and the “new” development.  We are also wary of planting of trees around play areas which would prevent clear visibility and have implications for safety and security.

Overall, we believe that any development of this size and nature in the Bishops Cleeve area will have far reaching consequences for the quality of village life.  There is still a perception, despite its expansion in recent years, that the area retains its village/community feeling.  The building of any additional housing if it has to come, must realistically bear in mind the implications for the infrastructure of the village given the pressure of new housing that has occurred over the past twenty years.  There is a general feeling that this development has not taken enough account of the movement of people from the Homelands site both into and around the village.  Unfortunately, the area does not provide the jobs necessary to sustain the homeowners, which by implication means car journeys.  Despite best efforts we still experience problems with car numbers at school start and finish times and Homelands residents will presumably follow the trend. 

Whilst, we all understand the need to live in an area with its own identity, we do not wish to see this development as “stuck on” to the edge of the village and feel that if it has to be built, physical links such as pathways, footpaths and cycle ways should be provided to encourage this.  This would also of course, hopefully encourage less car journeys.  We remain concerned about the possibility of coelscence with Gotherington and echo villagers anxiety that this is the first step on that route.

In relation to drainage, Homelands Farm provides natural soak away from an area that has flooded several times in the last six months.  Removal of this much needed natural defence will have implications for the residents of nearby Milham Road, Oldacre Drive and the Sandown Estate. We also remain far from convinced that adequate provision has been made for the impact on the roads of development and ongoing traffic on what is already a network of local roads reaching saturation point. 

As has been acknowledged elsewhere Bishops Cleeve has received its fair share of new housing development over the past twenty years and should be given time to become comfortable with its profile and the demands made on its resources.

Belinda Holder

Clerk to the Council

On behalf of Cllr A Lightfoot,

Chair of Planning Committee

Bishops Cleeve Parish Council