CAMPAIGNERS in Oldland Common are dismayed that plans for nearly 300 homes in the village have been approved by councillors.
South Gloucestershire Council strategic sites delivery committee voted 5-4 to approve a proposed development at Barry Road in spite of receiving 649 objections from residents.
A week earlier, scores of local people turned out for a visit by councillors to the green belt site, which the authority has allocated for housing in its new local plan,.
The plan, which has gone through examination in public by independent inspectors but is yet to be formally confirmed. outlines where the district’s housing needs for the next 15 years should be met. It suggests removing some sites, including the Barry Road one, from the green belt to meet demand for homes.
Planning officers recommended approval for the 297-home development.
Residents spoke up at the at the committee meeting on September 17 about the loss of farmland, the lack of public transport in the area, the pressures on education and health services and the risk of flooding.
Dave Thatcher, who has lived in the area for 22 years, questioned the assessment of the quality of the land at the development site, which he believed was suitable for growing crops.
Andrew Smith said that since the planning application had been put forward bus services in the area had got even worse with the loss of the 532 and reduction in frequency of the 19. The inadequacy would mean residents of the new houses would use their cars, putting more pressure on already crowded roads, he said.
Eileen Tilley, of the pressure group Save Our Green Spaces, told councillors there was no justification for removal of the site from the green belt and said it was undemocratic to determine the application before the local plan had been finalised.
Ward Cllr Erica Williams (Con, Bitton & Oldland Common) told the meeting: “This application came forward 12 years ago and was refused due to a lack of infrastructure.
“Nothing in 12 years has changed in this aspect. There are no local jobs available, the roads are congested, there is a distinct lack of GP and NHS services – they are already overwhelmed.
“It is clearly not a sustainable site as people will have to use their cars because of the poor public transport.
“But the most important factor is that this is green belt. We have tried for so many years to protect the green belt. This small village would lose its village feel with this development. For that to disappear would be extremely saddening.”
Committee member and ward Cllr Paul Hughes (Con, Bitton & Oldland Common) said: “We have an opportunity today to kick back on this and put a message across that we will not tolerate agricultural land being replaceable.”
Cllr June Bamford (Conservative, Hanham) said the developers had not provided enough parking and that the outline proposal included buildings up to three storeys which were ‘completely out of character with the locality’.
But Simon Steele-Perkins, director of applicants Waddeton Park, a land promoter seeking planning consent before selling the site to a housebuilder, told the committee the scheme was of the ‘highest quality’, there were no technical objections from consultees and £4.5million would be invested in local infrastructure.
Planning consultant John Baker said: “We can all be confident that the new local plan will be adopted in the near future, with this site secured as an allocation [for housing].
“It is quite normal for schemes such as this to be brought forward in parallel with the final stages of the local plan preparation.
“To delay or refuse the application would send a rather strange message to the independent inspectors that the council doesn’t believe in its own local plan. That would be perverse indeed.”
Principal council planning officer Emma Hardy said the land was deemed to be ‘grey belt’ – the government’s new classification for areas in the greenbelt judged to be less
important that could be developed.
She said: “The proposed development would not fundamentally undermine the purposes of the remaining greenbelt in South Gloucestershire, there is a demonstrable unmet need for the proposed development, and the site is considered to be in a sustainable location.
“It is concluded that the benefits of granting planning permission would not be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects.”
Half of the new homes would be classed as ‘affordable’ and the development includes allotments and new woodland.
Outline permission was granted, with full details to be submitted and decided later.
Includes reporting by Adam Postans, LDRS