Stop the development of land to the North of Chestnut Drive, Claverham.
67 Comments
R
Rachel Geal
11 years ago
No, Claverham is not big enough to cope with 100+ houses, our facilities are at breaking point now.
O
owen
11 years ago
DO NOT DO IT!!!!
R
Richard Sibley
11 years ago
New extra homes to meet local needs are best done, by knocking down large homes on big gardens. This can be done by local small builders, who can create interesting new homes, which maintain our existing settlement boundaries. By 2020, another housing price crash is forecast, because younger people won't earn enough to buy the bigger homes, which post-war 'bulge babies' will need to sell, for their old age provision. Building on farmland, will just make sustainable house prices worse, forcing us back into recession and intolerable personal debt (repossessed properties and bankrupt families - just for big developer profits!).
B
Becky Barnes
11 years ago
Featured
100 new houses will put pressure on our local schools, the GP's surgery and the local environment. These factors have been totally ignored by the developers. Please stop these people from ruining our locality to line their own pockets.
H
Helen bidwell-Ford
11 years ago
really not needed there &will only cause more flooding no infrastructure to support that many people.
D
doug wort
11 years ago
this is yet another poorly thought out scheme, similar to the one just aporoved in nearby Yatton. Yes, we need new homes, but surely safeguarding existing communities should also be a priority?
D
Dr Anne Hancock
11 years ago
The access roads for commuters from this development are inadequate. This area regularly floods and where would the extra water go? Building so many houses on an area which already floods and blocking a natural soak away is a ridiculous idea. This housing development would have a massive impact on the existing community, especially local schools and GPs which are already stretched.
M
Marguerita Ahlquist
11 years ago
There have been so many specific reasons given already I don't need to repeat them.
D
David Hayler
11 years ago
This is farmland within 5km of a sensitive moor and wetland area of scientific interest. It is outside the boundary of the village and the development will impact on the area negatively. There is already inadequate surface drainage for the area, evidenced by routine flooding following heavy rainfall for many years. This flooding has included roads, gardens, paths and houses, and my own house has suffered sewerage flooding 3 times in the last couple of years. Flooding is an on-going problem and in the last fortnight the main Claverham Rd flooded again. The land is home to bats (as supported by Rural England’s submission to NSC), which have frequented if for many years that I am aware of. The vehicle access to the site is wholly inadequate and is via narrow lanes from whichever direction, and while it is accepted these lanes already carry some traffic, that is not reason to add to the problems and increase it. Footpaths are non-existent for children and the elderly residents of the area along these lanes, and there is insufficient space to provide them without affecting the existing nature of the area. Additionally, at ‘under 100 units’ the development as referred to in the EIA request appears to be particularly low density when considered against the whole of north Somerset. My understanding is that in 2005/6 net ‘dph’ (density per hectare) of housing in North Somerset was 42 (the same as for England), albeit the amount of land actually required to support such a density after taking account of such non residential components as strategic landscaping, community facilities/services, main roads, and employment provision is considerably more; it is accepted that the inclusion of these uses across local areas will be vital in delivering balanced and sustainable communities when assessing the overall space a development impacts on beyond its own boundaries. New housing in England is typically built at 25 dwellings per hectare, and as Carter Jonas state the prop
P
Peter Kesby
11 years ago
It has already been said
P
pat Titterrell
11 years ago
the development would spoil Claverham , we do not have enough facilities to house more example school/doctors/buses etc
C
Clive Fletcher
11 years ago
This development would spoil Claverham
C
Chris Moore
11 years ago
This development would change the whole character of Claverham, add to the flooding problems, and overload the access roads to the site.
J
Jackie Blake
11 years ago
Featured
The fields are completely unsuitable for development as they are wet most of the year and often flood. They are also a green space in the middle of the village, which are used by many locals as part of the local walks.The infrastructure would be unable to cope with such a large increase in population.
G
George Cooper
11 years ago
Streamcross is such a narrow lane. All the extra traffic would be incredibly dangerous
G
GT BARTLETT
11 years ago
landowner greed.
D
douglas meek
11 years ago
roads/amenities for such a large development would not cope in this small village location
N
Natalie Ogden
11 years ago
Claverham would become way too busy with 100+ houses being build. Schools couldn't cope or doctors. It's a no brainor!!
H
Helen Hopkins
11 years ago
we want to keep open spaces so we can breathe and enjoy rural areas and not be hemmed in with concrete
L
Lucy Perrott
11 years ago
The land is well used by dozens of walkers with and without dogs, it floods every year (normally continuously between November and the end of February or March), the roads around the land among the existing housing are poorly maintained with lots of potholes and the drains in the area overflow during and after medium to heavy rain.There are practically no facilities in Claverham and those in Yatton are already stretched and are only going to be put under more pressure by the two recently allowed developments (150 and 170 houses) at the North End of Yatton.
No, Claverham is not big enough to cope with 100+ houses, our facilities are at breaking point now.
DO NOT DO IT!!!!
New extra homes to meet local needs are best done, by knocking down large homes on big gardens. This can be done by local small builders, who can create interesting new homes, which maintain our existing settlement boundaries. By 2020, another housing price crash is forecast, because younger people won't earn enough to buy the bigger homes, which post-war 'bulge babies' will need to sell, for their old age provision. Building on farmland, will just make sustainable house prices worse, forcing us back into recession and intolerable personal debt (repossessed properties and bankrupt families - just for big developer profits!).
100 new houses will put pressure on our local schools, the GP's surgery and the local environment. These factors have been totally ignored by the developers. Please stop these people from ruining our locality to line their own pockets.
really not needed there &will only cause more flooding no infrastructure to support that many people.
this is yet another poorly thought out scheme, similar to the one just aporoved in nearby Yatton. Yes, we need new homes, but surely safeguarding existing communities should also be a priority?
The access roads for commuters from this development are inadequate. This area regularly floods and where would the extra water go? Building so many houses on an area which already floods and blocking a natural soak away is a ridiculous idea. This housing development would have a massive impact on the existing community, especially local schools and GPs which are already stretched.
There have been so many specific reasons given already I don't need to repeat them.
This is farmland within 5km of a sensitive moor and wetland area of scientific interest. It is outside the boundary of the village and the development will impact on the area negatively. There is already inadequate surface drainage for the area, evidenced by routine flooding following heavy rainfall for many years. This flooding has included roads, gardens, paths and houses, and my own house has suffered sewerage flooding 3 times in the last couple of years. Flooding is an on-going problem and in the last fortnight the main Claverham Rd flooded again. The land is home to bats (as supported by Rural England’s submission to NSC), which have frequented if for many years that I am aware of. The vehicle access to the site is wholly inadequate and is via narrow lanes from whichever direction, and while it is accepted these lanes already carry some traffic, that is not reason to add to the problems and increase it. Footpaths are non-existent for children and the elderly residents of the area along these lanes, and there is insufficient space to provide them without affecting the existing nature of the area. Additionally, at ‘under 100 units’ the development as referred to in the EIA request appears to be particularly low density when considered against the whole of north Somerset. My understanding is that in 2005/6 net ‘dph’ (density per hectare) of housing in North Somerset was 42 (the same as for England), albeit the amount of land actually required to support such a density after taking account of such non residential components as strategic landscaping, community facilities/services, main roads, and employment provision is considerably more; it is accepted that the inclusion of these uses across local areas will be vital in delivering balanced and sustainable communities when assessing the overall space a development impacts on beyond its own boundaries. New housing in England is typically built at 25 dwellings per hectare, and as Carter Jonas state the prop
It has already been said
the development would spoil Claverham , we do not have enough facilities to house more example school/doctors/buses etc
This development would spoil Claverham
This development would change the whole character of Claverham, add to the flooding problems, and overload the access roads to the site.
The fields are completely unsuitable for development as they are wet most of the year and often flood. They are also a green space in the middle of the village, which are used by many locals as part of the local walks.The infrastructure would be unable to cope with such a large increase in population.
Streamcross is such a narrow lane. All the extra traffic would be incredibly dangerous
landowner greed.
roads/amenities for such a large development would not cope in this small village location
Claverham would become way too busy with 100+ houses being build. Schools couldn't cope or doctors. It's a no brainor!!
we want to keep open spaces so we can breathe and enjoy rural areas and not be hemmed in with concrete
The land is well used by dozens of walkers with and without dogs, it floods every year (normally continuously between November and the end of February or March), the roads around the land among the existing housing are poorly maintained with lots of potholes and the drains in the area overflow during and after medium to heavy rain.There are practically no facilities in Claverham and those in Yatton are already stretched and are only going to be put under more pressure by the two recently allowed developments (150 and 170 houses) at the North End of Yatton.