From: Jack Griffiths Mailto:Jtgriffiths Hotmail

From: Jack Griffiths Mailto:Jtgriffiths Hotmail

From: Jack griffiths [mailto:
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2011 8:57 AM
To: Celia Dring
Subject: Re letter now electronic

copy of letter received by Celia Dring 22/3/2011

Even Keel, Moor lane, Backwell, N. Somerset BS48 3LL

Telephone 01275462985 Mobile 07715489229

e- mail

North Somerset Planners 20th March 2011

Following my 2010 correspondence with you, regarding our land adjacent to the boundary line in Moor Lane, Backwell, I housing in this area. Houses could go right up to the drainage ditch, provided for the 86 Bryant homes built on the village side of Moor Lane, and form a new defined boundary.

This development would not be visible to the major part of the Village of Backwell and should be used for housing as the majority of it, including the field and the land owned by the council, have had no profitable use for at least twenty years. I did hear that the council have denied owning part of this land. Having lived here for nearly fifty years I know historically that it was the old sewage works for Backwell and later a coach proprietor rented part of it from the council.

I find this statement conflicting,

‘The subject matter of the SPD is housing in villages with settlement

boundaries. The SPD provides guidance on meeting the requirements of

Policy H/7 v) of the North Somerset Replacement Local Plan, which seeks to

ensure that residential development in villages with settlement boundaries

does not add to or contribute to creating a dormitory settlement with high

levels of out-commuting.’

Isn’t the development of the villages on Weston Airfield outside WSM contributing to commuting? It also looks very costly to improve infrastructure

Your local plan strategy

3.18 states the role of the main railway line as a gateway and corridor to North Somerset and the South West and yet you only concentrate on WSM when Nailsea and Backwell has a fast growing use of the railway and bus service, this can be substantiated by the number of cars using the area for parking. With more local housing, on the land in Moor Lane, the station is in walking distance. This will not ‘contribute to creating a dormitory settlement with high levels of out-commuting.’

4.8 (Backwell included) quote ‘to encompass recently developed land.’ The Bryant estate is recently developed despite any opposition newer residents to Backwell may have had and I cannot see any reason why the land on the other side of Moor lane has not been allowed to develop in the same way. You say you have listened to Backwell voices many who are against development of Backwell, apparently ours ‘for’ does not count.

I admit I have a vested interest in the omission of our land from your Core Strategy plans but would ask you to look again at what I see as an opportunity missed by the exclusion of the land adjacent to the railway line at Moor Lane, Backwell. If development for housing is granted on the land already enclosed in the village boundary where does this leave the land up to the drainage ditch in the future?

Excess roads and services need to be considered before the area is cut off and therefore a decision to include this land is an important consideration for the current planning.

The railway and bus services from this area are good and should be used to a greater extent to help to save private car use. The areas now designated by the council in their Core Strategy are more dependent on private cars and add to the sprawl of Weston Super Mare.

These are my objections to the proposed Core Strategy plan for 2011.

Yours sincerely,

Elizabeth Griffiths