FALFIELD parishioners are unanimous in their objection to the proposed development of 115 homes and a park and share facility on land off Moorslade Lane, close to junction 14 of the M5.

There have only been two supporting comments, neither of which were made by parishioners.

At the time of writing, no fewer than 80 objections have been published on the SGC Planning Portal.

A number of common themes have been raised by concerned residents who are striving for their community to remain rural.

Villagers are not against development; however growth should be controlled and organic, accommodating the need for Falfield to grow proportionally alongside other villages/towns, without destroying the landscape & character of the village.

A development of 115 dwellings would increase the size of the village from 92 to 207 homes, a rate of growth of 125 per cent which locals consider to be unsustainable due to its location, geology and lack of utilities and services.

The M5 junction is known to be at capacity and as confirmed by the Highways Agency's consultation response, will need a major upgrade to accommodate the increase in traffic generated by the residential development and park and share.

The park and share is on the wrong side of the motorway, as detailed by traffic data collated by the developer, Cotswold Homes.

Their report confirmed only 10.5 per cent of vehicles using the informal Park & Share on the B4509 road travels via the A38; 89.5 per cent arrive from either the M5 or B4509 itself.

This clearly indicates any park and share facility should be to the east of the M5. Tortworth Estate have reiterated in their consultation response, an offer to donate land off the B4509 to SGC for this purpose.

There is potential for the site to become a magnet for anti-social behaviour, fly-tipping, travellers and criminal activity.

The developer plans to use the sewage treatment works utilised by Eastwood Park and Leyhill prisons.

Wessex Water cannot however, confirm if there is capacity to do so until a planned upgrade is complete.

There is also concern, as detailed by Tortworth Estate, that even if there is the capacity, the additional discharge into Tortworth Brook could detrimentally impact the environment.

With no mains drainage, one of the major potential issues for outlying communities is the risk of increased localised flooding to country lanes and properties.

Objectors, including Falfield Action Group, have provided SGC with a collection of photographic evidence of flooding over recent years to Rockhampton, Lower Stone, Sundayshill Lane and Moorslade Lane, which they fear will only worsen if the plans to release run off water from both development sites into the stream to the west of the residential development.

Cotswold Homes claim the development would be sustainable, with new residents being encouraged to use public transport rather than their car.

The reality is that with a fragmented, unreliable bus service which does not connect effectively to other services to take passengers beyond Dursley or Thornbury, residents have no option other than to use their own vehicles, especially in the evenings or at weekends, when there are no services.

With no schools or healthcare services in Falfield, there is also concern that the existing facilities in Thornbury, which are yet to feel the full impact of development within the town itself, will become even more overstretched.

From the consultation responses received to date, it is clear that Cotswold Homes have failed to adequately address the above and other challenges the site brings.

Sue Hicks

Secretary

Falfield Action Group