Scenario 5 Rural dispersal

this scenario would be at to the detriment of the rural settings and create complex transport requirments with limited ability to support climate goals. I am in favour of limited, controlled support for these communities not this wholesale approach, especailly as it will not solve our overallvhousing needs.

I do understand the reticence of some to Rural Dispersal, almost a kind of not around her you don't, but I still live in a rural settlement where I was born 76 years ago. I have acted as Flood warden for many years, offically since 2007, I have been on the Parish Council for 40 years, my father 35 years before me, both of us acting as Chairman for a considerable length of time. Our village is heralded as a linear village - yippee - however, 10,000 cars drive through every day and here are no pavement for most of that, so finally very few talk face to face over the garden gate. Events for the Church and the Gardening club etc, are populated by visitors in cars from elsewhere. DO NOT get me wrong, I love my village BUT, with a by pass, yes there would have to be development around the periphery of the village, we could return to sanity. the two roads which are used to escape J9 misery in the morning and the evening would have junctions on the by-pass. We could make the much heralded "Linear Village " a Conservation area with all that entails, one or two would not be happy as that might reduce their "Commercial activity from home" but the extra houses would allow us a new sewer pumping system, possible a return to a village shop so no jumping in the 4 litre 4x4 to get a bottle of milk. (We know what it entails, we - the Parish Council, opened the only Community Run store in the Tewkesbury Borough Council area back in 2014 - godsend in Covid times. ) We coul have a nbew bridge - promised by GCC Highways in 2008 - still waiting, New Storm Water system. blocked in 2007 and took 12 years for Severn Trent to repair. We have a Village School which is 75% capacity. We have two Churches in our 2000acre Parish both unique and ready for an influx of parishioners. SO I say hands up for rural dispersal. Properly designed this has so much to commend it. We ahve to consider Global warming, smaller development areas are easier to mitigate. Bishops Cleeve with its 400 + extra houses provides a storm level which is out of control. One Environment Agency officer recently remarked - " we weren't aware of the amount of run off from Bishops Cleeve. Two weeks ago the E.A Flood alert stated "we consider that our gauge has risen at a rate which suggests a fault with our equipment." please disregard. WRONG and yet the Planners have already agreed another 4000 house upstream and the drainage infrastructure is not agreed yet!! No to major urbanisation which we in the rural areas pay for. Rural dispersal every time.

The Rural Dispersal would enlarge existing communities where capacity for existing infrastructure and resources, like the schools, Doctors etc is already at over capacity, as in Highnam. They also lack a good transport network, so would not be cost effective. In Highnam, being a service village, development has already occurred and continues to receive development. It is already at the point of the infrastructure not coping with demand. The roads are already too busy, the school is over capacity and local children have to travel fair distances to a school by car. This goes against developing a good carbon footprint. The B4215 which is a B road in name only, but much more like an A road; cannot cope as it is - large lorries use it as a 'cut through' to Gloucester from the M50 as a short cut, and have to compete with the many commuters travelling over the Severn at the only point they can (The Over roundabout) whilst also competing with farm tractors and machinery, as this is a rural area with many farms. The road network serving and passing through Highnam village is already beyond saturation point. This also creates road safety concerns, adversely affected also by excessive speeding along this section of road. The narrow Two Mile Lane is increasingly being used as a main access thorough fare between the B4215 and the A40, taking far more traffic than it was ever designed to do. The Highnam community can only expand so much before features which residents cherish and identify with are either compromised or are at risk of being destroyed. Life in Highnam has already been severely compromised following the construction of the 88 house development and the proposed additional 95 house development will exacerbate this further. Major new development “upstream “at Newent exacerbates this. The village should not expand further. The current network of services to the existing community (gas, electricity, domestic water, surface and foul water drainage, telephonies, broadband etc.) are already at full capacity. Service outages, leaks and general breakdowns are a regular occurrence. This creates serious constraints on additional development, the provision of which would take this beyond breaking point. Surface water flowing off the new housing development at Lassington Reach is already creating downstream flooding problems through Highnam Court and beyond through Minsterworth to the River Severn. Significant additional development would seriously compound this. Highnam has important heritage assets (Church of the Holy Innocents, Highnam Court etc.), a traditional landscape patchwork of field hedgerows and boundaries, woodlands, together with plentiful wildlife. This would be lost if the village was further developed with biodiversity severely compromised. The majority of people in Highnam of working age travel elsewhere for their employment. This is not sustainable in the long term if we are to reduce our carbon emissions by cutting down on car journeys. More development is only going to put more cars on an already overstretched road network. Therefore an upgrade and provision of additional buses would help provide more sustainable modes of travelling. I am concerned at the potential loss of good quality, productive farmland surrounding Highnam which greatly contributes to our need for food security and helps maintain local bio diversity. HIG010: Land to west of Highnam (remainder of the field) and Rodway Golf Club are both totally unsuitable areas for development for each and every reason stated above. HIG011: This open farmland has no discrete means of access for development, lies in established open farmland, and has no intrinsic merit for alternative use development. HIG006, 007 and 013: These sites straddle Lassington Wood, an important wildlife, leisure and amenity facility much enjoyed by residents. These sites are all totally unsuitable for any form of development, indeed HIG006 lies on the crest of a prominent hill and landscape feature, and HIG013 largely comprises steeply sloping, unstable land.

Gloucestershire Young Planners support the Rural Dispersal concept, particularly in existing rural settlements. There is potential for these areas to increase housing provision. and employment related development, helping to manage affordability and job prosperity. The Young Planners recognise that rural communities must thrive as without opportunities for increasing growth in these locations, deprivation will increase. However, the growth must be proportionate to existing rural settlements to retain and enhance sustainability. This can be underpinned by proposing settlement boundaries which sensitively respond to the limits of the settlement itself but do not restrict further growth throughout the plan period [and policy that supports contextually responsive design approaches in these locations]. The approach will ensure that development is sustainable, contextually appropriate and aligned with strategic planning objectives, whilst also respecting the character of rural settlements.