Re: Gladman Developments, Proposal to build in Radford Semele, next to St Nicholas Church.


I wish to object in the strongest terms to this proposal.

There are many reasons why I feel that this development is inappropriate, and none of them are because I object to development in/of Radford Semele - the village needs to move forwards, and there are many ways in which new housing could be introduced to the village which would not detract from the existing nature of the village.
The Gladman proposals appear to be very aggressive, very forceful, somewhat over-ambitious, and generally poorly communicated - the impression is that Gladman are attempting to "rail-road" their way in to the development of the village, introducing a high-density, "not in keeping with the surroundings" development, without proper consultation or appropriate consideration of future impact.
I am sure that it would be very easy to sit in a Head-Office in Cheshire and not take appropriate heed of the real impact of a development taking place a hundred miles away - however, life should not just be about meeting a politicians housing plan, there is a need for all of us to act in a professional, sympathetic and considerate manner in the implementation of such a plan.

My biggest concern with Gladman's proposal is the sheer volume of dwelling being proposed - the correspondence received from Gladman suggests that they are planning to provide approximately 130 "homes". Please compare this to the existing local population density.
By my reckoning, (using Google Maps, and Gladman's own plan), there are 42 houses immediately adjacent to the proposed development - and they appear to occupy approximately the same area as the proposed development, further, the Gladman proposal includes a significant Public Open Space which I have not removed in this comparison.
I believe that the Gladman proposal equates to a development that has more than 3 "Gladman homes" for every existing home in the area.
This cannot be considered to be comparable or sympathetic.

After the above objection to the Gladman proposal, the obvious objections rank:
* The character and feel of the village is defined by the openness created by the space surrounding the Church - Gladman's proposal would destroy this. (even if they stick to their plan for Public Open Space, which I cynically believe would miraculously metamorphose into property by the time the development were complete).
* Traffic flow is already compromised in the village - to build where Gladman propose would significantly worsen the situation.
* There are many listed properties in the immediate area, which deserve better than to be crowded out by a mass-built, densely packed, modern housing estate.
* An alternative proposal exists for (I believe) a better development; it appears to be a slightly smaller site, proposes "about 60 homes" (far more in keeping with the existing property density), has better potential for vehicle access, has less opportunity to impact upon existing rain-water drainage routes, and appears to have better potential for sustainable development in the future.