Informal Housing Questionnaire Analysis Published


The analysis of the informal housing consultation questionnaire has been added to the website and can be viewed HERE.

In total there were 296 responses (including 3 paper copies), not all respondents answered every
question.  There were 141 additional comments made including some questions, which will be answered and added to the website and Corresponance log as soon as possible.

Thank you to all those that completed the questionnaire.

2 thoughts on “Informal Housing Questionnaire Analysis Published”

  1. I have read the comments on the questionnaire and it is obvious that almost everyone objects to houses being built close to where they live (me included). However, I find it frustrating that those who live away from the B4234 object to one of two houses in their vicinities, but seem to think it is alright for large quantities to be built in the northern and central clusters. They state these are near to facilities such as buses, footpaths, sewers. Well, the buses are too infrequent for anyone to use them, most sail past with no or hardly any passengers. It is cloud cuckoo land to suppose that new residents will use them to go shopping, to work etc. The footpaths are overgrown with vegetation and walkers are bombarded with traffic, including container lorries whizzing past them. Cyclists also take their lives in their hands along this busy road. New residents will simply use their cars as everyone else does. That they won’t is just wishful thinking. Planners don’t deal with reality. With regard to mains drainage, would this be able to cope with any extra houses along with the many being built in Ross?
    As for Coughton and the settlement near to the primary school, if all four proposed sites are approved (11r, 21, 6r and 7r) this would amount to at least 106 houses when at present, according to the draft report, there are 160 houses in these two clusters. This is totally unacceptable and would ruin the countryside in these areas. We value our open spaces just as much as those in the hills do.
    There is also the flood risk to properties in these areas, which is just as important a reason not to rip up the countryside.
    Finally, residents of these areas are fully justified in objecting to such a nightmare scenario whereas those threatened with only very small numbers are not.
    It isn’t people we object to, but the desecration of our surroundings.

    • Thank you for your comments which are noted.

      With regard to your question in relation to mains drainage, Dwr Cymru/Welsh Water is a statutory consultee on the NDP and will advise upon the ability of the mains sewer and wastewater treatment works to accommodate development. Reinforcement works to the latter have just been completed.

      On behalf of the NDP Committee.


Leave a Reply to Ruth Gibbs Cancel reply