BARRETT Homes has submitted a planning application to build 110 houses in Sedbury alongside Wyedean School on green field agricultural land.

The development proposes a new road into the 110 house cul-de-sac off the existing roundabout on Beachley Road.

There are some interesting points that arise from the hundreds of pages of ancillary documents that accompany the application:

With the proposed development proposing to develop 110 residential units as well as seeking to provide 60 per cent  (66 houses) market housing and 40 per cent (44 houses) affordable housing. the strategic housing officer of the Forest of Dean District Council considers that the proposed scheme is contrary to Core Strategy Policy CSP.5 and the ethos of the National Planning Policy Framework in relation to exception sites (the site lies outside the existing  Sedbury settlement boundary).

For this very reason, a previous planning application some years ago was turned down, the other reason being that it was deemed to represent a visual intrusion into the open countryside.

On appeal, the Secretary Of State agreed with the reasons for not granting the application – I would suggest that these reasons still exist.

Planning policies and decisions should aim to avoid noise from giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life as a result of new development.

The measured noise levels indicate that the proposed residential units fronting the A48 and the railway line will experience free-field noise levels of approximately 62 dB during the day and 55 dB during the night.

In order to develop the application site for residential use, mitigation measures will be necessary to reduce internal noise levels that comply with the World Health Organisation/ BS8233 criteria during both the day and night.

Noise from traffic associated with the development is predicted to result in a slight increase in road traffic noise impact, when compared to the situation that would exist if the development did not proceed.

Surely, it would be irresponsible to give consent to build, with a significant health hazard that will, over time, affect the hearing and wellbeing of those who will live on this site.

The toddlers play area is closest to the noise-producing railway line and link road; and almost directly next to the mobile phone mast (it looks like a telegraph pole!)

Chepstow Town Council considers that the lack of attractive alternative modes of transport, i.e. pedestrian access and public transport will undoubtedly result in higher dependence on motor vehicles to access Chepstow and the surrounding areas.

The town council is extremely concerned at the implications of such increased traffic volumes on the A48 and ancillary road network of Chepstow which is already close to capacity.

Furthermore the town council has concerns for the potential detrimental impact of such increased traffic on the designated air quality management area on the A48 at Hardwick Hill in Chepstow.

Sufficient land has been identified by Tidenham Parish Council within the parish for residential development within the  Sedbury and Tutshill area to meet local needs. It seems that their sterling work to this end has been ignored.

The original suggestion by Barrett was for some 90 houses, this total was increased to 110 on the suggestion of the Forest of Dean District Council.

This was presumably so that the council would meet the government's requirement for planned housing stock.

Lo and behold, the Forest of Dean District Council was awarded £1m by the government as a thank you.

According to the site plan, a football pitch is envisaged. The parish council will be required to maintain this area and encompass it into its grass cutting schedule along with an additional budget for tree maintenance.

These additional costs will then have to be added to their precept and consequently the Council Tax will be increased!

With 110  houses proposed, expect at least 220 beings that will require medical cover. It is difficult enough at present to get an appointment with the doctors in the Towngate practice in Sedbury.

I wonder if this aspect has been consulted on?

– John Powell, Sedbury.