PLANNING APPLICATION 01678  LAND OF SUDBROOK ROAD _ RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (42 DWELLINGS AND ASSOCIATED WORKS)

2nd AMENDMENT

Portskewett Community Council wish to OBJECT to the 2nd amendment of  this application on the same grounds as the original application and 1st amendment.  Also:

• Although some re layout of the site has been attempted, it has not gone far enough to allay the concerns of the residents from Canterbury Way and Wedgwood Drive who are most concerned with the proximity of the development to their properties – loss of light, view, privacy, affect on the price of their home.  Although not technically planning issues, people feel very strongly about this.   The density of houses in the development. The site is thought to be far too small to accommodate 40 dwellings, and this has now  been increased to 42!  The UDP advises 10 houses being appropriate. The style of the houses are not in keeping with the surrounding dwellings which are mostly dorma bungalows.  These residents are also extremely concerned that some of them had not been notified of the amendment by MCC.

• Although the access onto the site has been amended, it is still totally unacceptable, given the amount of traffic that uses the road on a daily basis. Although the paper mill is closed at present, the future plans are not known and it could be opened again as an industrial site, bringing with it the return of the heavy lorries.   We are led to believe (and have seen a plan) that the shipyard in Sudbrook could be developed to provide between 50 and 60 units for social housing, provided by Charter Housing Association. The narrow railway bridge is the only access into and out of Sudbrook and this should not be compromised in any way.  A second access road into Sudbrook should be considered before any further development in this area.
  

• There is no provision for a pavement to cross the access road into the site.  There is no pavement on the opposite side of the highway.  This would mean pedestrians would have to walk in the road, putting children in danger on non-school days when they are walking to the centre of Portskewett village.

• 
  The proposed access off Main Road is completely unacceptable.  This access is very close to a dangerous corner in the highway and is on a blind bend and does not provide for adequate visual splays.  Although this has been reduced to allow access for 1 dwelling, this is still unacceptable.

• If the traffic lights were re-formatted, this would not help the traffic problems that would be caused.  If the traffic lights were moved it would restrict access to and from Canterbury Way.  It is surely not cost effective or good practice to have traffic lights  on a development of this size.

• Safety of pedestrians and vehicles in the already congested surrounding roads.  The development of 40 dwellings would bring in the region of an extra 280 vehicular movements onto the roads.  Children in the village use these roads daily to get to school.  Also children from ARW school visit the church every week, which means they have to walk en masse along the roads in the area.

• Sewerage. The proposed development is on a field in which a sewerage pipe runs.  This pipe often bursts, leaving the lower end of the field flooded with sewage.  Also the sewage system in the village would possibly not be able to cope with the additional houses.

RECOMMEND REFUSAL