|Home | Bookmark | Tell||Active petitions in over 75 countries||Follow GoPetition|
Petition Tag - planning
This petition forms part of a campaign aimed at changing the law so that elected local representatives, at Parish, Borough or County level, and local residents are properly empowered to control development in their area, and for all applicants to be treated equally under planning rules.
We want to put fairness at the heart of the planning system where at present it does not exist. All over the country the views of local people are being overruled by the Planning Inspectorate. We believe this to be unfair. Why should some people be given permission to build in the Green Belt when others are not, for example?
Locally, we have seen the recent planning application for the proposed change of use of land adjacent to Newtonside Orchard mobile home park, off Burfield Road, Old Windsor, from an outdoor recreation and leisure site, to a gypsy and traveller caravan site for up to five pitches. Even though local residents are opposed to this application, and even if the Borough Councillors vote against this application, our research shows that if the applicant appeals, it is likely that the Planning Inspectorate will overturn any decision made locally.
We feel, strongly, that it should be up to local people and their elected representatives to decide on what development does or not does not take place in their communities, particularly when this concerns the preservation of the Green Belt.
Please support our campaign, by signing this petition, to put fairness back into the planning system.
The land at Springfield Meadow in the village of Westcott, Surrey was originally designated as a reserve housing site in the early 1980's as part of the Dorking Area Local Plan.
A map of the area in question can be viewed here (http://westcottmeadow.ning.com/page/greenbelt-petition) highlighted in blue.
The Executive Board of Oxford City Council proposes to abolish or downgrade Area Committees and/or remove their local planning powers.
We want to keep our area committees because:
-they are held in our communities and are easy to get to;
-they allow us to raise local issues and get problems fixed;
-they give us the chance to tell our local councillors what's important to us, and debate big local issues;
-we can use the backing of area committees to help us with campaigns for better services;
-the councillors who make planning decisions about where we live and how developments will affect us must be people who know the area and understand our needs.
Islamia Primary School is hoping to build a new two-storey school on part of its existing site, to provide 21st century education and learning opportunities for its pupils. The current school was built over one hundred years ago and the buildings no longer meet pupil or teacher needs. Islamia Primary is also an extremely popular and over-subscribed school, on average receiving ten applications for every place available, and it urgently needs to expand to cater for the current pupils on roll and to meet the growing demand for places across the borough.
Islamia Primary School’s site has always been used for educational purposes. The school itself was founded in 1983 by Dr Yusuf Islam (formerly Cat Stevens). In 1989, it moved to its present site at 129 Salusbury Road. Nine years later, it became the first Muslim school in England to be awarded grant maintained status, which meant that the vast majority of the school's funding came from central government. The following year it opted to become a voluntary aided school, in 2007 the school took on an additional 138 pupils, following the closure of The Avenue School in Brondesbury Park. The main site at Salusbury Road is also shared with an independent Muslim girl's secondary school, which occupies the entire first and second floor of the buildings, and parts of the ground floor. This school is not part of the re-development proposal. The rebuild is needed as the existing buildings are leaky, not energy efficient, not compliant with the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) and are spread out on many different levels, with stepped access and no lift. The proposed new building will provide easy access for all pupils and adults, including those with visual and hearing impairments and those with special educational needs (SEN), including speech, language and communication difficulties, and severe learning disabilities. The proposed new school will provide these pupils with a dedicated room and space for educational psychologists, speech and language therapists and school nurses to come in and offer support. In general all the facilities at the site are inadequate for a modern school.
The new school plan is to build a new, modern and inspirational school, which will meet the needs of current and future generations of pupils. The building will reflect the school's faith and its ethos and will allow improved links with the local community, by opening its facilities at set times out of school hours. For example, by providing space for adult education, health and fitness and a canteen, which can be used by parents.
There will also be:
Fourteen new classrooms, a dedicated children's library, a specialist teaching room for SEN, an enlarged roof-top play area, a dedicated prayer area, landscaped areas and additional outdoor learning spaces for all children , a children's gym.
From September 2011 new pupils attending Islamia Primary School will have to live within the catchment area of the school, which will mean significantly less pupils travelling in from outside the borough. Currently 40 per cent of pupils come in from neighbouring boroughs.
The school is urgently fundraising for this development.
Contact for questions and queries
For all questions on the proposed scheme please email email@example.com
The Westway Development Trust are seeking planning permission to turn the area the skatepark is situated, under the A40, into a garden centre and office space. Their reasoning behind this "The Skatepark does not serve needs of the local youths".
We are setting up this petition to encourage Kensington and Chelsea Council not to allow planning permission and save Baysixty6 Skatepark.
Brent Council intends to grant planning permission that would lead to an 800 place complex of schools on the site of Islamia Schools, Salusbury Road NW6. However the plans are in direct contravention of policies in transport, sustainability and local amenity.
Key statutory and local bodies have not been consulted. The project is falsely presented as the building of a single 400 place primary but it in fact opens the door to an 800 place school. Transport for London guidelines on assessing traffic have been ignored, so the plans evade the impact of up to 1200 car journeys daily in an area where 1700 pupils are already at schools within a 300 m radius.
The admissions policies on which the plans will depend have not been published. It disregards the Grade II listed site beside it and has not consulted English Heritage, as is required in such cases. It grossly overdevelops a school site originally devised for around 200 pupils, and provides wholly inadquate play space for the 800 children who would be accommodated there. It has removed sport and ball-playing space for building, and not replaced it.
A planning application has been submitted to Oxford City Council for the redevelopment of St Clements Car Park to provide 4 blocks of student accommodation (141 bedrooms) upto 6 Stories in height.
The development will reduce the number of public car parking spaces from 113 to 63 and there no arrangements in place for the provision of a temporary car park during the estimated 12 - 15 month construction period. Businesses and other services in St Clements and Cowley Road, Iffley Road and the lower end of the High Street are totally dependent on the car park given that the only alternative is strictly controlled on-street permit only residential parking. The inability of customers to park within reasonable proximity will seriously undermine the ability of local businesses to survive, which will lead to the potential decline of what is a well established and vibrant area.
The proposals amount to a vast over development of the site. The amenity of adjacent properties would be adversely affected and the outlook towards the River Cherwell and Angel and Greyhound meadow beyond would be diminished. The design and scale of the buildings would have a harmful impact on the St Clements and Iffley Road Conservation Area and the adjacent Grade II listed James Stirling Florey Building and 27 St Clements Street. Trees which positively contribute to the site will be removed to facilitate the development and proposed new planting is entirely inadequate.
For the third time since 2005, Southwark Cathedral will be submitting plans to Southwark Council to redevelop All Hallows Church, Church Hall and Community Garden with a development of private flats for rent.
Residents have twice successfully opposed proposals that would have damaged the quality of community life in a conservation area. The Cathedral is proposing to demolish the church and replace it with a building that will box the estate in, reduce natural light and privacy, and increase artificial light levels and noise.
The latest proposal could also ruin and end access to our award-winning walled community garden that was created from the rubble of a WW2 bombsite by local residents and maintained by them for nearly 40 years.
In September 2009, residents presented alternative plans drawn up by our architects, for a community and cultural centre and garden, instead of the market rent flats proposed. Our proposal could provide as much, if not more, income for the Cathedral than its own proposals. In June 2010, the Cathedral made the decision to submit a new application.
Once again the Cathedral has ignored the letters, voices and wishes of local people by refusing the offer to consult or hold a public consultation meeting before submitting a new planning application.
Twice in the past, Southwark Council has rejected proposals by Southwark Cathedral thanks to the campaigning efforts of hundreds of local residents, workers and supporters.
An order has been approved to demolish the Glenelg Ozone Cinema situated on Jetty Road, Glenelg South Australia.
This cinema with a heritage application pending is a rare art deco "gem" and having so few authentic art deco buildings in South Australia, it is imperative we conserve this type of architecture for future generations.
The NYC Landmarks Preservation Commission on July 13, 2010 held a hearing to determine the eligibility of 45-47 Park Place as deserving Landmark Status. The commission will be voting on the matter later on this summer and this is an opportunity for all Americans to be heard.
Granting Landmark Status will make the goal of turning this property into a 13 story mosque in the shadow of the September 11 attack on the World Trade Center a more difficult task and may result in abandoning the plans all together.
There are plans to build 150 Residential properties on the field at the rear of of Abingdon Road, Honiton Road & Moorlands Road. The field is the only place in the local area where families & local children can play in a safe environment. The field is also well used for out door sporting activities by the Harry Crook centre.
The residents are opposed to the plans to build 150 residential properties in the field as it is feared this will cause a variety of problems including a drop in the value of properties (many residents only purchased their homes because of the field) , the increase in traffic & nowhere for local children to play within the boundaries of their homes. The Harry Crook centre may also suffer. There is a fear of a rise in crime.
Burglaries are always a problem & it is feared that 150 more properties may attract more house breakins. We the local residents will oppose the plans to build on the field beginning with this petition.
Ugie Salmon Fisheries have put into Aberdeenshire Council a planning permission to extend on the current shed that they have at the moment to expand their current business.
I understand that this is good for business and will create jobs but I object to the where they are building. That area means a lot to me and to see the area filled with masses of traffic, noise and unbearable smells is a travesty! I just think it would spoil a very nice area within Peterhead that is peaceful and content place to be.
There are gorgeous views of the sea, beach and golf club and I just do not want it spoiled by this. If you agree please sign my petition!! The more people that do the more chance we have of stopping them!
The City of Cottleville Planning and Zoning Commission is conducting a public hearing on April 7, 2010 at 7:00pm to review a request from Twin Eagles, LLC to rezone Lots M7 through M11 of "The Courtyards at Harmony Ridge" and the Future Development Parcel on plat “The Lofts at Harmony Ridge, a Condominium” recorded under PB 45 PG 303 for use as multi-family residential development and commercial development.
If approved, this will allow Twin Eagles, LLC to build a multi-story apartment/condo complex in the same area as the courtyards, adjacent to current homeowners.
This land was intended for courtyard homes, not a multi-story building, and goes against everything we were told this community would be when we bought our homes. Rezoning this land would have an immensely negative effect on the quality of life in the neighborhood.
If you care about our AONB, please sign this petition by March 30, 2010.
The Barn aside Bottom Farm (at the bottom of Beacon Hill) is owned by a Ferrier with horses located in a field (owned by Sita Waste Management Company) behind his residence in Denham. The official application for this barn on Beacon Hill is to store farming vehicles and hay for his farm in Denham!
The barn is larger than in the submitted drawings, and is almost complete, even though planning permission has not been granted yet.
No doubt you have seen the lorries up and down the lane. Local residents have witnessed waste materials delivered and burnt on site.
If this barn is really for storage of large farming vehicles and for hay both required by horses in Denham, then there will be frequent haulage of large vehicles on Beacon Hill.
There may be an ulterior motive with this building.
In 2006 the owner had a plan rejected by the Denham Council for a similar styled barn to be used as a Sand School and hay store. Sand School/Dressage training may be a possible connection with this construction.
Nevertheless, it certainly is an eye sore in an AONB for the many walkers who pass by.
If you are resident of Penn/Tylers Green, you can sign this petition to have your say. It must be done by March 30, 2010.
In order to get a construction certificate for properties near the rail corridor, home owners in NSW currently need to get an acoustics assessment The Department of Planning applies this condition to all properties near the rail corridor regardless of the type of rail operating. In the "Development Near Rail Corridors and Busy Roads Interim Guidelines 2007", it is stated that ‘The impact from railway depends on a range of factors including train type.’(p14).
However, The Department of planning does not make any distinction between the different types of rail in practical application. Therefore an acoustic assessment is required by anyone who wants to develop a property located near rail regardless of the type of rail it is.
This requirement is excessive in the case of light rail as the noise generated by light rail is significantly less than other types of rail.
ATC have shown in their dealings with Molson Coors that they are not qualified to make the best decisions on behalf of all Altonians in respect of town planning.
They have also shown that they are not prepared to listen to residents whose views do not coincide with their own.
They have allowed their own personal agendas to take priority over what is best for the town in the long-term,
We are a group opposing two planning applications one by Sainsbury's and one by Tesco's to build out of town superstores in our market town, which has a population of 19,000 approximately. We believe that these stores will destroy our historic market town centre laying waste to hundreds of years of heritage within our town centre area.
An independent survey by The National Retail Forum shows that 93 individual superstore opening led to nett job losses of 25,000. This equates to 276 per store. If these two stores are built and these statistics are replicated Leek will lose 552 jobs nett.
Note: This petition now endorsed by Tuscaloosa Neighborhoods Together, "TNT." See their letter:
Paste the following link to your browser: https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AVNWIoxaKu_PZGdzcG1wanpfMThndmpncDM5Yg&hl=en
The Issue: Downtown redevelopment is happening on our doorstep. A key part of the Downtown development plan, as stated in the Greater Downtown Plan created by the Greater Downtown Advisory Committee Report (and endorsed by the City Council) calls for the protection of existing nearby residential neighborhoods.
The residential neighborhoods are recognized as a resource worth preserving. The plan calls for "no commercial intrusions" into the residential districts, and calls for a safe and walkable greater downtown.
Recently the city council has licensed business adjacent to our district that have had a negative impact on residents. Moreover, there is the possibility that things may get worse in the near future if we do not make our views clear to city officials. The City needs to stay true to its commitment to protect and promote safe and attractive places to live near downtown. To do so, it will have to make changes and work with residents to insure that further damage is not done.
What has already happened: In what was the Norris Garage (20th Ave & University Blvd), now sits the Innisfree restaurant and bar. The Innisfree is a popular business, but it is not popular with many nearby residents. It draws a very large number of students and other customers in the late evenings. Unlike "The Strip" near the university, customers do not walk to the Innisfree. They drive, and they make use of parking provided by taxpayers along 20th Ave. They are driving towards and away from this establishment through our neighborhood. They do so in large numbers. They do so late into the evenings. This is not consistent with the City's stated pledge to help preserve our neighborhood as a "residential resource." It is also not consistent with the "walk-able" and safe downtown called for in its greater downtown plan.
What may happen soon: We need to get ahead of new risks to our neighborhood. Most importantly, the city announced that the Focus on Seniors building (located next to the Innisfree, and behind Hooligans on the Corner of 20th Ave, and 6th Street) will be sold (Tuscaloosa News, Jan 17th, 2009.) The question is: What will take its place? Will it be another mega-restaurant or bar that will turn a bad situation for the neighborhood into something worse?
What can be done: We need to make a strong statement to our city officials and elected leaders. Downtown redevelopment does not need to threaten our neighborhood. Establishments that serve drink should be encouraged to locate away from residential neighborhoods. There is plenty of room to go around. The City has built an enormous parking garage (the "Intermodal Center") so that bars, restaurants, and shops can locate downtown without fear of losing customers for lack of parking. If clients of drinking establishments are unable to park in existing non-residential entertainment zones, the City Council should adopt policies that encourage these customers to park at the Intermodal Center and walk.
We want your signature: To help save our neighborhood, we request you sign this petition. It calls upon the City Council to keep its promise to protect where we live by fixing current problems and by denying licenses to businesses that threaten to undermine the conditions that allow for successful residential neighborhoods.
49. Gun Wharf update
Durkan estates have applied for planning permission to amend the approved development at gun Wharf (Old ford Road) by adding an extra floor from 4 to 5 and reducing the number of affordable houses in the scheme to 0. Whilst at the same time reducing their contribution to support its impact on the local infrastructure through section 106 by 59% from £7296 per unit to £3000.
They claim that their reasons for doing this is that the development is currently not economically viable. In essence leaving the local community to deal with the consequences of a commercial developers poor financial planning. I hope you will agree that this is shocking!!
More details on the history of the development can be found at http://gunwharf.wordpress.com/ and the application can be viewed in full at http://188.8.131.52/WAM/findCaseFile.do?appNumber=PA/09/02543&action=Search PA/09/02543
I am a local Brown Belt Nia teacher, who would like to use a derelict building to offer Nia - health, fitness and well-being classes for all ages.
The building we propose to use has been empty for the last few years and starting to fall into disrepair. It is the old sales building on Windsor Quay, Cardiff and was only granted a temporary planning permission and now a demolition order has been served on it.
The plan is to destroy the building and replace it with landscaped gardens. In other words a piece of grass or flower bed.
We believe that repairing the building and making good use of it by offering small community classes that will improve the health and well-being of local people is more valuable than their plans. Tearing it down would be absurd. It would be a poor environmental and social decision to do this.
Nia is a barefoot practice and over the last 6 years our group has been desperately looking for a safe, clean space where we would be able to dance. We would create a place where everyone would be welcome - providing classes for all ages and all backgrounds. We would dance, share, get fit, heal, inspire and be inspired.
The exciting news is that the building's owners would even donate it to us as they see us offering value to the community and they don't want to tear it down.
The only thing stopping us is the Cardiff Council Planning Department.
Please support us, tell all your friends, help us find Nia a home in Cardiff. Sign our petition to show how important it is that we save this building and use it for a good cause - improving the health and well-being of the whole community.
Developers Balfour Beatty have applied for planning permission to erect eight 23 foot (eight metre) high floodlight columns on the sports and games areas at St Aloysius School in Hornsey Lane. The pitches are next to a woodland conservation area and the floodlights will be clearly visible to homes on all sides of the school. This contrary to policy.
The facilities can accommodate 3 football games, the users of a large sports hall and associated spectators. The planning application requests permission to use floodlights until 9pm weekdays and until 7pm weekends and Bank Holidays.
Beacon Court, a sheltered accommodation scheme in Hertford Heath, is planned to be demolished in order to become a social housing estate without any consultation with the public and parish council.
53. Save Lea Bank
Plans have been submitted for the proposed demolition of ‘Lea Bank’ (on Sleningford Road, Crossflatts) and the construction of 1 bungalow, 1 pair of semi-detached houses and 8 townhouses on the same site.
Please see the Sleningford Area Residents Association website at www.sleningford-residents.co.uk for further information.
The former RAF Yatesbury airfield dates back to WWI and the only reaming airfield with complete suite of buildings and hangars in the country. The hangars are listed Grade II* and believed to be the only remaining of it’s type in the world.
At the public inquiry, evidence was submitted by English Heritage that established that the site is of international, as well as national, importance. It retains “the best preserved flying field of the First World War period, bounded by one of the most complete suites of technical and hangar buildings of the period up to the end of the First World War period” and “the most complete of all 56 of the Civilian Training Schools built in the inter-war period”. At the time of its construction, this Flying School was singled out for praise by Flight Magazine which stated that “…they have unhesitatingly made at Yatesbury a model school whose pattern few will equal and none will better”.
English Heritage and Wiltshire County Council have spent great efforts to support the restoration of the airfield yet they failed to extend support at these difficult times by relaxing the onerous legal agreement they forced the owners to sign.
Jamal Khanfer has fought and waited 8 years before he succeeded in securing a planning consent, which ensures its survival for future generations. Jamal has sacrificed every thing possible to secure the consent financially, personally and gave up his very promising career.
The project is funded by RBS who have in October 2008 stopped funding the project. The project, however, remains widely supported by the local community and many associations as well as nationally and internationally.
Big Yellow Self Storage want to construct a five-storey, 10,000 sq metre (approx) self-storage warehouse on 155 Lewisham Way. Existing businesses were not consulted and will either close or be forced out of Lewisham. It will result in the loss of at least 30 jobs.
The architecture is unsympathetic and sits opposite a listed building and conservation area. If it is built it will blight the area for decades. There are already 11 storage companies within a 2-mile radius, nobody in Lewisham needs another one.
If it is built it will blight the area for decades. The first application was unanimously thrown out by Lewisham Councillors, but now Big Yellow are demanding a Public Inquiry and we need to make the Planning Inspectorate fully aware of local feeling by the 5th November. Please sign this petition.
A & J Stephens Ltd has applied for planning permission for an as yet un-named superstore in Scone. The store floor area will be 3500sqm. with almost 300 parking spaces.
Details of the application can be found on
BCJ HOLDS, L.L.C. (Allen Edwin Homes) has applied to the Charter Township of Texas Planning Commission for approval of a Planned Unit Development (PUD). This proposal includes a request for rezoning (currently zoned R-2) due to substantial reductions in lot size. The reduction in lot size is due to their proposed 38.3 acres of preserved open space, including a perimeter trail that may provide beneficial neighborhood transition zones, and help retain access to open space recreation that Bay Ridge families currently enjoy in the undeveloped lot/field. Without the rezoning, the development would not include preserved open space, and would include a 216-lot subdivision (Comparison Plan), as opposed to a 237-lot subdivision (Preliminary Concept Development Plan). The Concept Plan, which includes the preserved open space, also calls for retaining the Bay Ridge Road and Bentley Drive cul-de-sacs.
However, the Township, County Road Commission, and Fire Department may or may not approve the retention of the two cul-de-sacs, in part based on Section 16-82(a)(1)b of the Zoning Ordinance under Subdivision Control, which requires that “the arrangement of streets shall provide for a continuation of existing streets from adjoining areas in the new subdivision.”
This Preserve Bay Ridge Neighborhood petition seeks approval from the Charter Township of Texas Planning Commission not to extend Bay Ridge Road and Bentley Drive into the new Concept Plan development, and to upgrade the existing cul-de-sacs as per recommendations provided by Thomas C. Wheat in his April 13, 2009 memorandum to the Planning Commission. This request is based on three important factors:
1. Concern that extending Bay Ridge Road and Bentley Drive as through-streets would degrade the quality of life, and decrease the safety of residents and children in the Bay Ridge neighborhood by increasing the speed and frequency of traffic to and from the new Rudgate Trails development.
2. Despite the lot size variance for the Concept Plan, we believe that integrating open space, or “green infrastructure,” in subdivision developments provides substantial quality of life and environmental benefits, including, but not limited to access to recreation lands; natural storm water runoff filtration and retention; wildlife habitat; and scenic beauty.
3. An adequate transition zone would help preserve the character and identity of the respective neighborhoods.
A planning application has been lodged for a small plot of semi natural woodland to be developed into housing. 10 (7+3) terraced courtyard houses are proposed.
The plot consists of an east facing railway embankment; a narrow strip of land between the railway and Hayburn Lane, with around 80 mature and semi mature trees, bushes and natural undergrowth, which is bordering a recognised wildlife corridor running along the railway.
This small bit of Hayburn Lane is a quiet back lane, belonging to the properties of Hayburn Crescent, Victorian blond sandstone tenements, built in the 1880s.
The railway embankment and the lane are used by local children as a ‘wild’ place where they can play and build dens. A lot of people walk their dogs along the lane, and it is also used as a shortcut by pedestrians and cyclists. The trees form a natural screen from the busy railway line. The only traffic in the lane is currently the refuse collection and the odd delivery to the back gardens of Hayburn Crescent.
To make way for the buildings the developers would have to remove all trees, bushes and ground covering vegetation, dig out and remove the railway embankment, which would completely destroy the green space.
There have never been any houses or mews here before, and it would change the back lane into a street with traffic. The proposed courtyard houses are not in keeping with the buildings in the conservation area, nor to the required standard for new builds.
There have been 3 earlier planning proposals, which have been rejected due to the plot’s unsuitable position and size, as well as problems with access and traffic.
Therefore we ask you for your support, and by signing this petition request Glasgow Glasgow City Council Development and Regeneration Services to stop this development, and instead keep the railway embankment at Hayburn Lane as a green space and amenity for the good of the community!
Lewisham Council is proposing to move the swimming pools from Dartmouth Road to Willow Way in Sydenham.
We believe that the new swimming pools for Forest Hill should be a high quality design, retaining the frontage block, on the Dartmouth Road site and built in the near future.
The Council is proposing two options to replace Forest Hill Pools. The first is an attractive modern design which places new pools behind the existing frontage block on Dartmouth Road. This design is favoured by local people, but the Mayor claims that it is not affordable and cannot be built before 2015 and maybe not at all. The other option is to move the pools to the industrial estate in Willow Way in Sydenham SE26. This is unpopular with local people, but it is claimed by the Mayor that it could be built soon and more affordably.
What is so good about Dartmouth Road? This site is at the civic heart of Forest Hill and has been the home of swimming for 120 years. It has good transport links and new pools here would give the town centre a lift and help the businesses along Dartmouth Road to thrive again. This plan will reuse the pools frontage block, a familiar local landmark. We believe that this plan can be made affordable if the Council will look at alternative approaches which we can present.
What is wrong with Willow Way? The site is unsuitable and is situated in a narrow side street. Moving the pools away to this site would threaten businesses on Dartmouth Road and tear the heart out of the town centre. The old pools building would be left derelict for the foreseeable future.
The proposed development of 700 new dwellings at land to the South of the A421 and East of the A413 in Buckingham.
A planning application has been submitted to Aylesbury Vale District Council for 700 new houses, a commercial estate and a primary school on the farmland opposite The Badgers Estate.
The developers are claiming community support despite not having it.
There is a possibility that the A421 Bypass will become dual-carriageway. How else are they going to deal with potentially an extra 1400 cars trying to get onto the A421 every morning?
When you look at the plans, it isn't immediately clear that they are not individual houses, but blocks of town houses, creating a very high density of population.
It is a totally inappropriate density for the surrounding area. There are only two areas of housing in the area to draw on as models: The Badgers Estate and Benthill. They are proposing to build approximately 85 homes in the same physical space as Benthill has 5 and Badgers has 32.
The developer's precedents for architectural style are all drawn from the centre of Buckingham not the area they are actually building in. Where is the nearest 3 story building?
They are calling it the "London Road" development, but the main access route will be from A421 which is a very busy road. Making it a dual carriageway will increase traffic noise considerably. Siting such a large development there would make the Badgers exit onto the A421 either a congested crossroads or a large roundabout over a dual carriageway.
They are claiming there will be minimal traffic impact on the local area or the centre of town because they think people will largely walk to their destinations within Buckingham, completely un-realistic.
Another important point is that the rise in Buckingam's population (potentially 15%) will increase competition for the small number of school places left in Town, leaving many families having to drive their children to schools some distance away.
The Buckingham plan has always instructed that no residential development be situated outside of the bypass for a good reason. The developers knew that the old Buckingham plan will be replaced soon, and have used this opportunity to try and slip this application in. The Buckingham Council are against the plans, but AVDC could decide over their heads.
At the moment the developers have very few written objections, they claim to have majority support, based on this. AVDC have to take into account every written form of feedback, so signing this petition and forwarding it to people who live or work locally WILL make a difference!
If you want to send comments straight to AVDC (which would be brilliant as the more individual comments they get the better)!, you can click the weblink at the top of this page, then press 'Submit Comments'.
If you know of anyone who wants to comment, but doesn't have access to the internet, AVDC also accepts comments in writing to: AVDC Planning Department, 66 High Street, Aylesbury HP20 1SD.
- They'll want your name and address
- The application reference number: 08/02379/AOP
- The address of the site: Land To South Of The A421 And East Of A413 Buckingham Bucks
- Whether you are supporting, objecting to, or commenting on the proposal
- Details of your comments.
We've only got until the 27th October 2008 to express our views!