Arlen Hill Draft Local Plan

12 Meadow Lane
Bristol BS1 1AA
United Kingdom

The emphasis on creating 'An Open Arlen Hill' resonates deeply with me and reflects the inclusive and welcoming nature of our community. Ensuring safety and celebrating diversity are paramount, and I wholeheartedly support the commitment to these ideals.

I also appreciate the proactive approach to responding to significant changes, such as the introduction of new national policies and addressing the climate emergency. It's reassuring to see the council taking decisive steps to adapt to evolving challenges and opportunities.

Furthermore, the transparency regarding the plan's preparation process, including the extensive evidence base and rigorous tests of soundness, instills confidence in the thoroughness and integrity of the planning framework.

Lastly, the acknowledgment of the duty to cooperate underscores the importance of collaboration and partnership in shaping the future of our borough.

I believe there may have been a lack of transparency regarding the decision-making process and the incorporation of public feedback into the plan.

Firstly, it appears that significant changes in the planning context, such as revisions to national and regional policies, have occurred since the initial consultation period. However, it's unclear how these changes have been integrated into the draft plan and whether sufficient consideration has been given to the evolving needs and priorities of Arlen Hill residents.

Additionally, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the planning process is acknowledged, but it's essential to ensure that the concerns and challenges brought about by the pandemic are adequately addressed in the revised plan. As our community continues to navigate through these unprecedented times, it's crucial that the Local Plan reflects the realities and aspirations of residents in a post-pandemic world.

The strategic objectives do not adequately address certain important issues, such as transportation and infrastructure development, which are essential for the sustainable growth and prosperity of our borough. It is crucial that the local plan includes robust policies to address these critical areas and ensure the timely delivery of infrastructure to support our growing community.

the strategic objectives do not adequately address certain pressing issues, such as affordable housing and environmental sustainability. In my opinion, it's crucial that the local plan includes robust policies to address these challenges and ensure that Arlen Hill remains an accessible, equitable, and environmentally conscious place for all residents.

I am in support of Option A for the M32 flyover extension. I believe that Option A strikes a better balance between accommodating development and preserving the character of the surrounding areas. It also appears to address the amount of development that could be accommodated while also considering the distribution of this development across the Borough. This approach aligns well with the overarching objective of achieving ‘An Open Arlen Hill’ and ensuring that growth is managed in a sustainable and inclusive manner.

While I understand the importance of establishing a clear direction for the development and use of land across the Borough, I have concerns about the proposed M32 flyover options A and B. These options seem to prioritise development without adequately considering the impact on the character and liveability of our neighbourhoods.

Additionally, while the spatial strategy aims to manage growth and guide investment over the next 20 years, I believe there needs to be more emphasis on preserving green spaces and promoting sustainable development practices. The proposed options do not seem to adequately address these crucial aspects, which are essential for maintaining the quality of life in Arlen Hill.

While it is indeed important to ensure that everyone in Arlen Hill has access to a good quality of life, regardless of their background, age, or ability, I believe that the statement regarding "prosperous neighbourhood's" and "limited access to social and economic opportunities" oversimplifies the complex dynamics at play in our community.

Firstly, the characterisation of certain neighbourhoods as "prosperous" and others as facing limited opportunities may perpetuate stereotypes and stigmatise certain areas. It's essential to recognise that every neighbourhood in Arlen Hill is unique, with its own strengths and challenges.

Furthermore, while it's acknowledged that inequality and deprivation exist in some localities, the causes of these issues are multifaceted and cannot be addressed through a one-size-fits-all approach. Instead of focusing solely on addressing the symptoms of inequality, it's crucial to also tackle the root causes and implement targeted interventions that empower marginalised communities and address systemic barriers to social and economic mobility.

I have concerns about the proposed M32 flyover extension. While it may facilitate increased housing and job opportunities in the New Canal / Arlen Hill / Upavon corridor, it's essential to consider the potential negative impacts on the local environment and community. I urge the council to carefully assess the environmental and social implications of such a project before proceeding.

I worry that the emphasis on new development must not overshadow the need to preserve and protect the unique character of Arlen Hill. As our borough continues to evolve, it's crucial to strike a balance between accommodating change and maintaining the distinctiveness of our neighbourhoods.

I'm also concerned that the study's findings may not fully capture the diverse perspectives and preferences of all residents. It's essential to ensure that the voices of all community members, especially those from historically marginalized groups, are heard and incorporated into the planning process.

I worry that the current framework may not go far enough in protecting and enhancing our local environment. As we face the urgent challenges of climate change, it's crucial to prioritise robust measures that ensure the long-term sustainability of our borough.

While the Local Plan aims for a more compact and efficient urban structure, I urge the council to consider additional measures to mitigate the environmental impact of development. This could include stricter regulations on carbon emissions, incentives for renewable energy adoption, and greater emphasis on green building practices.

Arlen Hill's rich historic environment is indeed one of its most valuable assets, reflecting the social and cultural history of our borough and its people. Preserving and celebrating our heritage is not just about maintaining old buildings or landmarks; it's about honouring the stories and identities that have shaped our community over time. By protecting our historic landscapes, buildings, and archaeological sites, we ensure that future generations can connect with their roots and understand the foundations of our society.

Conservation areas play a crucial role in preserving the unique character and charm of our borough. By maintaining or enhancing the special characteristics and appearance of these areas, we ensure that Arlen Hill retains its distinctive identity for generations to come.

I particularly appreciate the emphasis on supporting proposals that preserve, refurbish, or reinstate features important to the significance of a conservation area. This approach demonstrates a commitment to honouring our heritage and protecting the historic fabric of our community.

I believe that the proposed criteria for supporting enabling development pose significant risks to the preservation of our cultural heritage.

Firstly, the requirement that enabling development will only be supported if it "will not materially harm the heritage values of the asset or its setting" is subjective and open to interpretation. This ambiguity could lead to projects being approved that ultimately degrade the historic significance of the asset.

Secondly, the condition that enabling development should "secure the long-term future of the asset" may prioritise short-term gains over the preservation of our heritage. There is a risk that developers may exploit this requirement to justify projects that prioritize profit over the conservation of our cultural legacy.

The emphasis on promoting Lewisham's role in the London economy, particularly in sectors such as cultural, creative, and digital industries, raises questions about the potential impact on the unique character and identity of Arlen Hill. While economic growth is undoubtedly important, it should not come at the expense of the cultural heritage and social fabric of our community.

Additionally, the focus on delivering new workspaces and safeguarding employment sites, while providing affordable workspace, may inadvertently exacerbate existing inequalities within our borough. There is a risk that new development initiatives will prioritise commercial interests over the needs of local residents, particularly those from marginalised communities who may struggle to access affordable workspace.

Firstly, prioritizing Class B1 uses within LSIS locations may limit the potential for diversification and innovation in our local economy. By focusing solely on industrial uses, we risk missing out on opportunities to create vibrant and mixed-use communities that can support a range of businesses and activities.

Additionally, the restriction on non-employment uses within LSIS sites seems overly restrictive and may hinder efforts to revitalize these areas. It is essential to recognize that supporting the long-term viability of LSIS locations requires a holistic approach that takes into account the needs of the surrounding community, including the provision of amenities and services.

Limiting development proposals to commercial or industrial uses may overlook opportunities to repurpose railway arches for cultural, social, or community purposes. Railway arches have the potential to serve as vibrant spaces for arts, entertainment, or local initiatives, contributing to the cultural richness of our borough.

The proposal to actively source local businesses, recruit local workers, and provide job and training opportunities to Arlen Hill residents is commendable. By prioritising local businesses and residents, we can foster a stronger sense of community and promote economic resilience within our borough.

Furthermore, the requirement for major development proposals to provide job and training opportunities to Arlen Hill residents, including apprenticeships, is a crucial step towards creating a more inclusive and equitable local economy. This initiative not only supports the growth and development of our community but also ensures that opportunities for employment and advancement are accessible to all residents, regardless of background or circumstance.

By ensuring that new developments contribute positively to the local character of these areas, we can preserve the unique identity and charm of our town centres while accommodating growth and progress.

I particularly appreciate the emphasis on promoting a beneficial mix of uses within the town centre, as this approach encourages diversity and fosters a dynamic and inclusive environment. Encouraging new retail development in Primary Shopping Areas is a sensible strategy that can help to consolidate and strengthen these important commercial zones, benefiting both businesses and residents alike.

It is crucial that all development contributes positively to the fabric of our community, and I am pleased to see provisions in place to support the vitality and viability of our town centres. By resisting proposals that could lead to harmful over concentration of certain activities, such as nighttime activities, hot food takeaways, and betting shops, the plan demonstrates a commitment to maintaining a diverse and balanced local environment.

I particularly commend the measures regarding hot food takeaways. These establishments can have a significant impact on the character of an area, and it is reassuring to see guidelines in place to ensure they are distributed appropriately and located away from schools. This proactive approach to regulating the placement of hot food takeaways helps to safeguard the health and well-being of our community, especially our younger residents.

I believe that proposals for temporary use of vacant sites or units should not be restricted to only those locations that meet specific criteria outlined in the plan. Such limitations could hinder the creative revitalisation of under-utilised spaces and stifle innovation within our community.

Limiting temporary use opportunities to sites that are actively marketed or fall within specific boundaries overlooks the potential for spontaneous grassroots initiatives to breathe new life into neglected areas. These temporary uses often serve as incubators for small businesses, community events, and artistic endeavours, enriching the cultural fabric of our town centres.

While I understand the importance of ensuring that community facilities are accessible and well-equipped, I believe that the criteria outlined in the plan are overly restrictive and may impede the development of much-needed community spaces.

Firstly, the requirement for sites to be easily accessible by public transport, walking, and cycling could limit the potential locations for new infrastructure. Arlen Hill is a diverse community with varying transportation needs, and not all residents may have convenient access to public transit or be able to walk or cycle to community facilities. By imposing strict accessibility criteria, we risk excluding certain segments of the population from accessing essential services and amenities.

Furthermore, the stipulation that developments must maximise flexibility and adaptability may be unrealistic and financially burdensome for community organisations. While it is essential to design spaces that can accommodate a range of uses, mandating extensive flexibility requirements could drive up construction costs and deter organisations from pursuing much-needed projects.

While I understand the importance of ensuring that childcare facilities are appropriately located and designed, I believe that the criteria outlined in the plan are too stringent and may hinder the establishment of much-needed childcare services in our community.

Firstly, the requirement for accessibility by walking, cycling, and public transport may limit the potential locations for childcare facilities. Many parents rely on personal vehicles to transport their children to and from daycare, especially those with young children or multiple children. By prioritising alternative modes of transportation, we risk excluding families who depend on cars for childcare accessibility.

Furthermore, the stipulation regarding the impact on traffic movements and car parking could pose significant challenges for childcare providers. It may be impractical for daycare centers to accommodate large numbers of vehicles, especially during peak drop-off and pick-up times. Strict parking requirements could deter providers from establishing new facilities or expanding existing ones, ultimately limiting access to childcare services for families in our community.

While I understand the importance of a well-functioning transport network, I believe that the proposed solutions outlined in the plan do not adequately address the transportation needs of our community.

While I appreciate the intention to improve public transport, I am concerned that the focus on the M32 flyover extension may not be the most effective solution. While the extension may alleviate traffic congestion in some areas, it may also have negative impacts on the environment and surrounding neighbourhoods. I urge the council to explore alternative public transport improvements, such as better bus routes and increased train services, which have received wide support from residents.

While I appreciate the intention to promote inclusive, healthy, and sustainable neighbourhoods, I have concerns about the practicality and feasibility of the proposed measures.

While encouraging walking and cycling is important, I believe that the emphasis on these modes of transportation may not be suitable for all residents. Many individuals, especially those with mobility issues or disabilities, rely on private vehicles or public transport to meet their daily travel needs. By prioritising walking, cycling, and public transport, the plan may inadvertently exclude these residents from accessing essential services and amenities.

While I understand the importance of considering delivery and servicing needs early in the design process, I believe that the proposed approach may inadvertently prioritise the needs of businesses over the well-being of residents.

By focusing on practical site layouts and building designs to accommodate delivery and servicing vehicles, there is a risk of creating environments that prioritise motorised traffic over pedestrian safety and quality of life. This could lead to increased congestion, noise pollution, and safety concerns for residents, particularly in mixed-use areas where foot traffic is high.

I believe that supporting such development in appropriate locations, particularly within or in close proximity to town centers and near stations, is crucial for the efficient functioning of our transportation network. By strategically locating these facilities, we can improve accessibility for residents and visitors, reduce congestion, and enhance the overall quality of our urban environment.

I believe it is essential that any development proposals for communications infrastructure and equipment are carefully considered and designed to their impact on the surrounding environment. By ensuring that the equipment is the minimum needed to meet operational requirements and exploring opportunities for equipment sharing, we can avoid unnecessary clutter and visual intrusion in our neighbourhoods.