Leave your comments
Anyone from the Forest who has been stuck in the traffic either on the A40 or the A48 for up to an hour in the morning going up to the roundabout will know this is a stupid idea. You can’t plan journeys or make morning appointments because you have no idea how long the journey will take.
This development should be on a brownfield site. It disrupts far too many environmental habitats, and drastically reduces the wellbeing of the local population. Basically you would be killing the trees, animals and pore tially people if you went through with it. So don’t.
Such a large developement changes the nature of the forest of dean, a place enjoyed for it’s rural nature by locals and tourists alike.
Whilst I accept the need for more housing rural land is very important not only for farming but for the mental health and wellbeing of many. Do not take this away.
We do not need any more green belt land to be developed causing devastation for the wildlife and increasing global warming.
Its a beautiful area and will be changed forever with a development of this scale on green field land.
There is no effective road infrastructure to take this amount of houses!
As someone who rescues wildlife, the last thing we need is an influx of patients due to greed…
This huge development is next to a World recognised site for migrating birds at Walmore Common. If it goes ahead there will be catastrophic harm to migrating birds.
until the road and rail infrastructure is resolved to give better transport links to/from the Forest of Dean Area any further housing development is going to make it impossible to travel in and out of the area. Especially when the roads are frequently flooded – because- as I’m sure the developers know – the majority of the area under discussion is on a flood plain. New properties being built in the area are way beyond the £ reach of local families. The housing market in the Forest is renowned for very low prices, if people find they can’t travel in and out to work they won’t want to live here anyway. Fix the transport issue. There are plenty of cheap houses on the market and empty anyway. Not to mention the damage to the natural environment. If only we were a Biosphere Reserve…….
This have sent the following hope it helps and good luck! Mark
Re: The Forest of Dean Local Plan Preferred Option
I am contacting you to object to Local Plan Preferred Option, for the proposed development plans for Churcham, Huntley and the surrounding areas.
This is the most inappropriate location for a major housing development on the scale proposed and your council should reject it. My reasons are as follows:
1. This is currently green open space, with no significant adjacent settlement – whereas you should be concentrating any new development around the existing settlements in the district where there is existing infrastructure – and which will support the vitality of these towns. A new settlement in the proposed location will result in commuting into Gloucester, further removing trade from our declining towns, such as Lydney, Coleford and Cinderford whose traders desperately need custom going into a post covid world. We have been supportive in general of developments around the existing towns – for example the new housing east of Lydney up to the line of the bypass. This is in the right place, and has been locally supported.
2. The landscape impact of this development will be very substantial and will urbanise this area which up to now has remained largely rural. The unforgettable view of the cathedral rising above the city will now be smothered in endless housing, and the clear distinction between Gloucester’s urban sprawl and the forest lost for ever. In planning terms, you need to create boundaries in the landscape – this development will erode these boundaries, and Gloucester will be seen to be spreading into the forest, with no clear limits. With a development at this location, there will then be further pressure for a new bridge across the Severn connecting directly to Quegeley and yet more development west of the Severn to house Gloucester’s population expansion.
3. The traffic situation on the A40/A48 roundabout has become critical in recent years – before Covid, it could take up to 1.5 hours to get to the roundabout along the A48. This imposes a stranglehold on the forest’s economic development and the proposals offer no solution – indeed a worsening of the situation. If the new settlement is for those commenting to the Bristol area, then it means more traffic through the A48 villages, and unacceptable queues into Chepstow – again delays of up to an hour can be normal here.
4. I am concerned that the archaeological potential of this development area has not even been considered. The discussion on the ecology and wildlife is cursory at the best.
For these reasons, I would urge to reject this plan and reformulate a proposal around the existing settlements of the forest.
Yours sincerely,
Mark horton
Professor Mark Horton MA PhD FSA.
By any measure 4000 new dwellings is disproportionate to the natural growth of the Forest of Dean, which should require around 2300 new dwellings based on population growth of 0.6% and average occupancy of 2.25.
The principle that price is determined by supply and demand and the fact that house prices in the Forest of Dean are at least 20% lower than in surrounding areas is further evidence that this level of new housing is not required.
This is social engineering, not a genuine requirement. Forest of Dean District Councillors should challenge this with central government, through a judicial review of it’s decision-making if necessary.
Of course, throughout it’s recent history the FoDDC has always acceded to excess housebuilding, evidenced by persistently low house prices. One cannot help but wonder why.
Copy of an e-mail sent to Fof D Planning Dept.27th January 2021
Dear Sirs
I would like to register my objection to this proposed plan to decimate local farmland in this rural community for the following reasons:-
Farming.
Having referred to farming I’ll deal with that issue first. Leaving the EU we now need and should encourage our farmers to increase the growth of produce that we need rather than be reliant on foreign imports which we may or may not get from our now very disgruntled former partners. The majority of this land is good agricultural land and with modern farming methods is capable of producing excellent quality grains and vegetables. Given that the savvy shopping trend is to purchase, wherever practical, local produce we are in danger of just throwing that away.
Drainage.
Water run off with vast areas of hard surfacing will drastically increase the flood risk which already occurs with serious consequences to many householders locally. Such vast development will only serve to exacerbate the problem. Only too soon we are likely to have a frequent reoccurrence of 2007 when the A40 was totally flooded and impassable added to the Maisemore closure in these low lying areas. As for sewage, there is little or no capacity for such a large volume of sewage which will be generated and no infrastructure to deal with it.
Social Aspect
Having lived in this area for 70+ years there was a period when I knew pretty much 60% of the inhabitants in the parishes through local schooling, friends and a local builder father. Clearly that has changed considerably during the last 40 yrs or so but tolerably with the type of development that has taken place. Another Kingsway would be the “kiss of death” to our rural communities who are always there to help one another when required. Living amongst hundreds of boxes all looking much the same with occupants that spend most of their time commuting will be the end of village life. I am aware of a number of people who have moved into the area over the last few years, who are ‘commuters’ and have no desire to partake in any aspect of village life. This would be multiplied out hundreds of times over in such mass development as is proposed.
Roadways.
There is little to be gained from going into deep discussion about the highways in this area. I doubt there isn’t a single person who hasn’t had to sit in queues in the morning rush hour and frankly that has changed little even after the road ‘improvements’ that took place. This has often been made worse by flooding of the A417 at Maisemore or a road accident/closure. Much of this could be alleviated by a further bridge over the river of course, but the cost would obviously be prohibitive otherwise it would have already been put into action.
So, clearly, a further huge toll on the main roads and lanes would be unthinkable because they just won’t take anymore traffic.
I would be grateful if the above views could be taken into consideration before any such plan that has been proposed is considered for approval. It’s not a question of not wanting it dumped on my doorstep but more that it is flawed in so many ways and appears to have been given little or no thought if I may say so.
There is a lot of land with planning approval (brown field) at Lydbrook ,Station ST. Cinderford , Valley Rd and steam.mills ,These site are helping each area to maintain a reputation of being an eyesore. Rothdean Ltd. own most ,and pressure through the planning system must be made to improve or lose permission. Engelhards is a death trap waiting for a serious accident to happen. I think before any development between A40/48 can happen ,A permanent link to the A38 be designed to remain open 24/7 flood free and not like the current temporary seasonal route we have from Over to Highnam and this would give Foresters access to south west area for employment opportunities.
Well said Trevor. As usual, words of wisdom from one who knows. Well done, you always make such sense.
Dear FOD District Council
I write in response to your request for feedback on the consultation relating to the development of the Beachley Army Camp, Newent , Huntley and Churcham sites.
In very simple terms, I am horrified that this has been endorsed by the Cabinet and Council.
At a time when we are experiencing air pollution as a certified cause of death in our major cities (I refer you to the very sad case of Ella Adoo-Kissi-Debrah) and at a time when air quality in the UK is proven to be a primary indicator in UK health, the application to build an additional 4,000 homes on greenfield areas in Gloucestershire is ridiculous. What takes this endorsement beyond ridiculous and into the realms of ‘utterly appalling’ is that this decision by the Council is taken without ANY opportunity for current residents to have their say.
I draw your attention to the following points:
Based on the information available, I cannot support the proposed developments. Doing so would be equate to signing a longer-term death warrant for the health and well-being of our local communities, without any indication of any rise in local social , environmental or economic benefit. I urge the FOD Council to HALT all of these development plans in order to undertake a more holistic assessment of :
As it stands, I object most strenuously to these proposals and I request that FOD Council retract their endorsement and that all such plans be rejected outright as they currently stand.
Yours
Andrew Bird
Thank you for setting up the petition, I have shared via my LinkedIn account.
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/alan-bullock-8022a616_sign-the-petition-activity-6754644185543970816-bR6_
I hope it helps
The proposal to site 4000 plus homes on greenbelt land in the Forest of Dean District for me shows a complete disregard for the population and the landscape of the area by our District Council. The fact that so far around 6% of the total population, the majority of whom are ignorant of the proposal because of its lack of promotion by the District Council, have taken the time to sign an on-line petition speaks volumes about the depth of feeling. I am sure in years to come should this proposal be accepted these feelings will be voiced via the ballot box.
My concerns are as laid out below with many unanswered questions which I am confident have probably not even been considered or else this proposal would not have got to the stage it has already.
Vision. There needs to be a vision for the Forest of Dean, not just for this generation but for generations to come. What sort of Forest of Dean do we want? A mission statement of the direction the area is heading and how to achieve it so all the Parish Councils and population can buy into. Consultation need to take place with all the Parish Councils and all the population of the area. The present environment is not the time to bury bad news and bring this plan to fruition under the radar. Due diligence needs to be undertaken.
Congestion. 4000+ houses would equate to around 6000 more cars. With each car making on average 4 journeys a day = 24000 journeys a day – how will the present road structure cope including the A40 and A48 main trunk roads? Add to that increased traffic A4136 to Mitcheldean/Cinderford, B4215 to Newent, B4216 Newent to Mitcheldean/Cinderford, A4151 to Littledean/Cinderford. One-word GRIDLOCK. If you travel every day between 07.00 and 09.00 you will understand. In particular, how would you resolve the issue of B4216 should houses be sited North of Huntley where in many stretches it is single track and used as a rat run between Newent and the wider Forest of Dean?
Pollution. This whole proposal is at odds with Eco Thinking. With 24000 car journeys pollution will significantly rise and air quality decrease. Add to this the light pollution from the new Town, however much you to try to dress it up as a garden village, it is actually a town, viewing the stars in the Forest of Dean will be a distant memory.
Flooding. Global warming + increase in housing = Flooding. This will increase frequency of flooding. Churcham is one of the lowest points of the Forest of Dean and has experienced flooding in the past. With global warming, concrete fields and 4000 homes you are storing up trouble for the future. Remember the floods of 2007 and look at the chaos caused only a few days ago when the Forest of Dean was isolated from its main employment spots of Gloucester and Cheltenham.
Drainage. Sewage is already an issue in this area and will require major investment and infrastructure costs to be able to accommodate a development of the size in these locations. Has this even been considered?
Legacy. Less open space = less green belt. What will future generations think of this Forest of Dean Council who allowed developers to build on greenbelt for short term gain because it was cheaper and more profitable for them instead of developing brownfield sites. Destroying countryside is hardly in line with the now established modern thinking of protecting and cherishing the environment. This Forest of Dean Council should be custodians of the area not destroyers.
Social Impact. Communities destroyed and negative effect on health. This is a rural area where villages are not just places to live but are real communities where people mix regardless of background and culture and genuine friendships are formed. Clubs, societys and local good causes are well supported for the benefit of all and where the elderly and disadvantaged are assured of support too. This extends between neighbouring Parishes forming many small networks. This will be destroyed with this plan and your neighbour will become a faceless person with barely a nod of the head due to its size. The social impact will be that these communities will no longer exist. The impact on the health and wellbeing of people should not be underestimated where character houses that have stood for generations and often families have lived in for generations are swallowed up by modern housing and remote cottages lost in a tangle of drives and cul de sacs. The effect of the stress and mental health of current residents should not be underestimated.
Algorithm Calculation. The Government has recently backed down on its intention to use an algorithm to calculate housing numbers for local areas. What does this mean for the proposal and its impact on the greenbelt?
Demand. With Brexit, declining birth rate and 2% of working population (foreign nationals) having returned home is it really required? Where is the evidence there is 4000 people in the Forest of Dean homeless or looking for housing? In truth this will become in time another suburb of Gloucester where people move out of the city seeking the ideal of a country lifestyle which disappeared as soon as the first brick was laid. Where private landlords seize the opportunity to buy into the market and expand portfolios. The notion it is giving the Forest of Dean families homes in the area is a nonsense. They do not want to be all lumped in one area being the Forest of Dean equivalent of Gloucester Kingsway they want to be near their local communities and families. It is widely known there is already a large land bank available for development in the area that is not being utilised and enough brownfield sites to accommodate the numbers in this proposal – how thoroughly has this been investigated and what will then happen to these sites in years to come if they are overlooked now?
Investment. Development concentrated in one area will result in increased depravation for the whole for Forest of Dean. This proposal will draw away investment from the less attractive areas of the Forest to the new town. The Forest towns are in urgent need of regeneration and this investment needs to be made in these areas that need it most not the areas that are attractive to developers profit margins. Look at any regeneration project it has a snowball effect. Once people can see an area is on the up the more people are then ready to invest but it needs leadership with someone making the first move which is surely the District Councils job. We need dynamic forward thinking not the easy option.
Employment. By one large development concentrated in one area the rest of the Forest of Dean is being denied employment opportunities. These are the same areas that require investment to regenerate. With the area having an unemployment figure of over 1200 this would be an opportunity missed not to invest in existing towns.
Farming. With the UK about to leave the EU and just over 50% of our food UK produced surely this is a time when the Country should be investing in food production and not allowing local landowners a quick route to quick profit with no thought to future generations especially when the land required already exists on brownfield sites.
Tourism. The Forest of Dean is relatively undeveloped as a tourist location when compared to other areas. By taking this opportunity to develop brownfield sites not only enhances the area and its attraction to tourists but brings more money into the area and more employment opportunities.
I agree we need more housing but 5000-8000 houses or even more is planned is just a ridiculous amount of housing and where are the people currently living to estimate we need this many?. For starters their isn’t the infrastructure to cope with the traffic for this many housing to reduce the traffic there needs to be 2 bridges one maybe going to Hempsted and the other to Quedgeley as these are the main areas that people travel to work too. The current roads from Minsterworth, Churcham, Highnam and Over bridge wouldn’t be able to cope with the traffic as at 8am-9am (rough times) in the current situation you are stuck in traffic for half an hour and this doesn’t even have to be just in the morning people going to work, dropping kids off to school etc this could even include when the M5 is shut due to being an accident on this motorway as it’s usually shut for a couple of hours or even practically all day as police have to investigate the accident and this can takes time so then all the traffic gets diverted and then of course like the roads just mentioned above in this situation at any time this may happen you can get stuck in traffic for the same amount of time half an hour or possibly even longer depending how many cars have had to divert.
Not just the traffic we have to consider we also have to think about the wildlife where would a lot of our wildlife go if the land gets all built on and our greenary will also be lost forever.
If this planning does goes ahead there needs to be strict conditions.
I agree!
It is great to see so much support for this campaign – we all need to work together to deliver a successful, robust challenge!
I believe everyone in the Forest of Dean district should be able to rely on their Council to make decisions that will benefit and generate investment in their futures, economies and communities.
What we can see in the Council’s Preferred Strategy is a disregard of the potential for growth and prosperity across the FoD District for the foreseeable future.
Building a new town on greenfield land is environmentally and economically unsustainable for the District – we should not sit by while our Council plumps for the easy/quick option to meet Westminster’s inflated housing quota.
A new town on the edge of the District will simply pump investment into Gloucester’s economy, and leave our Forest towns to decay.