Date not provided
I object to the scale and size of the development in its current form. I do not believe I have been adequately consulted and I believe plans have changed since the initial consultation without fully or sufficiently notifying the community. This project has been heavily pitched as a town regeneration project rather than a housing project, and I believe this has been done to secure buy in from the local community. Looking at the proposals in more detail, the ratios of housing to commercial space, and types of new housing (rental vs available for ownership) appear to show a heavy bias towards rental housing which will generate money for the developer, rather than the advertised focus on developing and improving the town centre for the benefit of the existing residents and the visitors that support the local economy. The residential area of the proposed new development is considerably larger than the commercial area, which flies in the face of previous comms which pitched this as a regeneration project for a struggling town and makes it difficult to e this as anything other than a money making exercise for the developer to benefit from private rentals ' is this increase due to considered demand, or to compensate for a funding gap? My understanding is that the number of houses has increased from 250 on the original proposal to 322 - a 28% increase with no additional parking provision. Capital & Centric typically have very high rents for their rental housing of around £1200-£1500 pcm for a 1- bed. The developer must consider whether this is appropriate or even achievable for a small market town. If they do not rent all of these units what will be the impact to the town and the developer? Given the volume of existing, empty commercial units in the town why do they believe ne commercial units are required? Will they be offering favourable rates on these units to allow existing businesses to move into the new developments? If so this will cause additional empty units in the town. Parking appears to be a major issue, with plans appearing to be based on assumptions about the number of locals who own cars, the parking requirement of these new developments, and suitable provision for visitor and accessible parking. Very little information has been made available on the data supporting parking plans for the new development, leaving many residents with grave concerns. I believe parking permits for locals are also to be scrapped, which is a backwards step in terms of the community. Has this developer got experience of delivering [Page 2] similar projects in small market towns reliant on tourism to support the economy? It would appear a number of essential considerations have been missed. The proposed solution to parking is sited in a location that will make an already complex and busy junction even more complex due to the volumes of traffic on Palace Road/Station Road coupled with the new McDonalds in the area. Can the Planning authority consider a requirement to either scale back the development to ensure parking provision is sufficient, or impose conditions to ensure that the developer plans are not approved until planning is also granted for this sufficient parking provision. Please also consider that development is phased such that the new parking (either the new multi storey or the parking behind the station) is complete before the existing Waitrose parking is lost to housing development. A major selling point to the community was initially that the River Wye would be opened up and included within the redevelopment, however this no longer appears to be the case, and again is a facet which appears to have been rendered impossible by the additional housing. I have grave concerns about the preservation of the atmosphere of our lovely spa town, community and it's many listed buildings. The more I hear about this development the more I feel we are being presented a nicely wrapped parcel which conceals a number of issues, assumptions and missed considerations and I appeal to the Planning authority to impose on the developer that these must be addressed ahead of permission being granted.