Cheltenham Plan (Part One): Preferred Options

Preferred Options

Responses

List of answers to the specified question
NameOptionTextDate
Newland Homes (Newland Homes) See attached 22 Mar 2017 13:29
Brockhampton Land Consortium (- -) See attached 22 Mar 2017 13:23
Deleted User See attached 21 Mar 2017 13:44
Reddings Resident Association… PR2 - b) Coronation Square - A and B class employment only. Other sites are too remote from The Reddings for me to comment. I have grave concerns at thin entering wedge issues with the proposed alterations to the PUA around The Reddings. The allocations stated in the plan will only amount to approximately 50% of the 10,000 + homes that are stated to be required. Extension of the PUA, particularly inclusion of The Hayloft into (PUA Ref: 21) and Chestnut Farm (PUA Ref 22) will remove greenbelt designation and effectively make sites SO45 - SO58 deliverable in time for the next review in 2019/2020. The appendices and plan state that the 5000 shortfall will come from West Cheltenham (sites SO45 - SO58) and Northwest Cheltenham (the joint development with Tewkesbury adjacent to Junction 10 of the M5). The latter is identified as being difficult to deliver in the consultant appraisal reports which makes development of sites SO45 - SO58 inclusive, all the more likely. Again, The Reddings has already been overdeveloped and without joined-up thinking on infrastructure and real attention to the Vision Themes A to C, then this is not a viable plan at all. 21 Mar 2017 12:56
Deleted User PR2 - b) Coronation Square - A and B class employment only. Other sites are too remote from The Reddings for me to comment.
I have grave concerns at thin entering wedge issues with the proposed alterations to the PUA around The Reddings. The allocations stated in the plan will only amount to approximately 50% of the 10,000 + homes that are stated to be required. Extension of the PUA, particularly inclusion of The Hayloft into (PUA Ref: 21) and Chestnut Farm (PUA Ref 22) will remove greenbelt designation and effectively make sites SO45 - SO58 deliverable in time for the next review in 2019/2020. The appendices and plan state that the 5000 shortfall will come from West Cheltenham (sites SO45 - SO58) and Northwest Cheltenham (the joint development with Tewkesbury adjacent to Junction 10 of the M5). The latter is identified as being difficult to deliver in the consultant appraisal reports which makes development of sites SO45 - SO58 inclusive, all the more likely. Again, The Reddings has already been overdeveloped and without joined-up thinking on infrastructure and real attention to the Vision Themes A to C, then this is not a viable plan at all.
21 Mar 2017 12:27
Gary Fulford PR2 - b) Coronation Square - A and B class employment only. Other sites are too remote from The Reddings for me to comment.
I have grave concerns at thin entering wedge issues with the proposed alterations to the PUA around The Reddings. The allocations stated in the plan will only amount to approximately 50% of the 10,000 + homes that are stated to be required. Extension of the PUA, particularly inclusion of The Hayloft into (PUA Ref: 21) and Chestnut Farm (PUA Ref 22) will remove greenbelt designation and effectively make sites SO45 - SO58 deliverable in time for the next review in 2019/2020. The appendices and plan state that the 5000 shortfall will come from West Cheltenham (sites SO45 - SO58) and Northwest Cheltenham (the joint development with Tewkesbury adjacent to Junction 10 of the M5). The latter is identified as being difficult to deliver in the consultant appraisal reports which makes development of sites SO45 - SO58 inclusive, all the more likely. Again, The Reddings has already been overdeveloped and without joined-up thinking on infrastructure and real attention to the Vision Themes A to C, then this is not a viable plan at all.
21 Mar 2017 12:02
LEGLAG (Cllr Ian Bickerton and… Need to look at this again. 21 Mar 2017 11:55
Mary Nelson I object to the Royal Well green space (with two fine plane trees) being shaded in brown indicating that this land could be utilised for ‘mixed use’ development. Why was this important town centre green space not shaded in green thereby providing total reassurance to all that this land, the only
remaining greenspace of the historic Royal Well Walk, would always remain an open green space, so vital for this location?

I also object to the inclusion of all land to the rear of the Municipal Offices being included for mixed development BEFORE any consultation, strategy or decision has been taken regarding the future of Cheltenham’s bus station. This bus station is a key public transport hub for the town, is in a very suitable place (at the rear of the Municipal Office building) and provides good access to the town centre, especially for older, and less able people. The North Place and Portland Street sites are too far out of the centre to accommodate a replacement bus station, and could discourage bus travel into town, and could also deter people from utilising the Promenade and
Montpellier shops and cafes etc..

Without any other site or location being identified, there remains a danger that all, or some of the buses using the bus station, would be transferred to the middle section of the Promenade. This middle section of the nationally famous Promenade is the most important ‘public realm’ space in the town, and is already an unsightly taxi rank on one side, and usually, at least in the day time, a line of buses on the other.
21 Mar 2017 10:56
Mary Nelson No 21 Mar 2017 10:56
Leckhampton with Warden Hll PC… The Council has no comments on these questions. 21 Mar 2017 10:27
Next pageLast page