MORE THAN 90 residents from Tytherington met on Monday to discuss the formation of an action group against proposed new housing in the village.
The meeting at Tytherington Village Hall saw a lengthy discussion on how to approach the issue of almost 100 new homes being proposed in small developments – amounting to a potential increase 30 per cent for the village.
Villagers questioned whether the group would offer individual stances to each development, including two proposed builds put forward by developers Cotswold Homes and Resolved, which have both gone to public consultation.
It was suggested that the group could “co-operate with developers” but to the extent that future building was containable and evenly distribute with a plan of 15-to-20 years.
“We are trying to get a feeling from the village about the developments,” said the meeting’s acting chairman, Tytherington resident Martin Brice.
“One thing we do not have is time. The likelihood is that a planning application will be put in over Easter while people are away.
“We need people to be ready to submit their comments as soon as it comes up.”
Questions were asked on how the infrastructure would be improved ahead of new housing, with concerns over congestion, superfast broadband and sewage pipes leaking into people’s gardens being raised.
Resident Roger Unwin pointed out that Tytherington had already taken on more than half of the new homes it had declared in the South Gloucestershire Council’s Policy, Sites and Places (PSP) plan it could manage.
Following the meeting, contact details were taken of all the prospective members, with a call put out for anyone wanting to take on a job within the group.
Tytherington Parish Council chairman Rebecca Longworth, who attended as a resident, said: “I thought the meeting was very informative, productive and it was great to see a wide representation at the meeting.
“Villagers who attended were requesting all of the information available in order to make an informed decision. There was no NIBY-ism but a reflection that we required all of the facts, both pro and anti the proposed developments.”