Proposed Modifications January 2016

Object

Representation ID: 69044

Received: 21/04/2016

Respondent: Friends of the Earth

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Realise that national policies require local authorities to plan for growth and development. However the housing numbers proposed are not justified. Support Bishops Tachbrook PC in their analysis of the figures.
In the last round of consultation we supported methods used landscape qualities.
Allocations of land with high landscape value, and the 'best and most versatile' agricultural land were generally avoided. Concerned that additional allocations in the modifications have not been selected in the same way.
Particularly relevant to Kings Hill site which was considered in the Local Plan review process and rejected when 'considered against strict Green Belt criteria'.
Many of the sites allocated are in unsustainable locations, away from town centre facilities and without the infrastructure. Also concerned that proposals to allow residents to travel by any other means than the private car are very weak. Could potentially create more vehicle journeys with consequent serious effects on air pollution. Emphasis should be given to high quality sustainable transport links to all development sites, including facilities for public transport, walking and cycling.

Object

Representation ID: 69366

Received: 21/04/2016

Respondent: Friends of the Earth

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Housing numbers not justified. Support Bishops Tachbrook PC in figures analysis.
Land with high landscape value, and 'best and most versatile' agricultural land was avoided. Modification sites not selected in same way.
Particularly relevant to Kings Hill - considered previously, rejected on green belt grounds.
Many allocated sites in unsustainable locations, away from town centre facilities, without infrastructure. Proposals allowing residents to travel by non- car means very weak. Creates more vehicle journeys with adverse impact on air pollution. Emphasis should be on high quality sustainable transport links to all development sites, including public transport, walking, cycling.

Object

Representation ID: 70036

Received: 21/04/2016

Respondent: Friends of the Earth

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Housing numbers not justified. Support Bishops Tachbrook PC in figures analysis.
Land with high landscape value, and 'best and most versatile' agricultural land was avoided. Modification sites not selected in same way.
Particularly relevant to Kings Hill - considered previously, rejected on green belt grounds.
Many allocated sites in unsustainable locations, away from town centre facilities, without infrastructure. Proposals allowing residents to travel by non- car means very weak. Creates more vehicle journeys with adverse impact on air pollution. Emphasis should be on high quality sustainable transport links to all development sites, including public transport, walking, cycling.