South Gloucestershire housing targets at heart of plan for next decade

Councillor Brian Allinson: "South Gloucestershire's Core Strategy is a vital blueprint for the future of our district ... for the next 14 years.

14 years? The future? 26,400 houses? If the last 14 years are anything to go by, they'll probably not even get 5,000 houses. I don't call that much of a future plan. Going with the average annual house build rate over the last 10 years, it'll take at least 35 years to get 26,400 houses built and that rate included a house building and buying boom time.

"This is a joined-up document that reflects the aims and strategies of a wide range of local people, groups and organisations.

Joined up? So why has it been so easy to pick its legality, soundness and many other aspects to pieces? A wide range of people? OK, a wide range of people made a fantastic amount of submissions to the consultations, which I applaud, but why didn't the Core Strategy change in any significant way, when, for instance, over 75% of respondents made some very cogent and convincing arguments why Filton Airfield should not be included in the Core Strategy?

"It would not have been possible without extensive consultation and engagement and I am extremely grateful to everyone who has contributed to its development."

Extensive? See my last comment. The consultations were a sham and very obviously arranged so SGC could tick the appropriate boxes. I repeat, if so many people have contributed to its development, why did the Core Strategy not change in any significant way after the consultations, despite the majority of people objecting to many of its proposals?

I submit that this Core Strategy has been compiled only for the benefit of SGC housing targets and the corporate vested interests who are in bed with SGC, with no respect for the environment or infrastructure and no thought for true sustainability of the areas they've chosen to subject to the massive overcrowding that their plans will create.

I can only hope that the planning inspector will have the courage to stand up to SGC and rule that this plan is neither legal, sound nor sustainable. He certainly has plenty enough real evidence in his hands to support that decision.

@nljack and Baldeeheed
NO THANKS FINE AS IT IS

Lanata has it right (I've lived both in Filton and in Winterbourne and know how bad the infrastructure is). They've basically failed to complete the infrastructure of Bradley Stoke. That large an area with only 2-3 points of access is a disaster and there is a massive lack of employment. not all life has to be within the city: if you added as little as 30-50 houses in the surrounding towns it would add up fast: but even that needs infrastructure to be invested in. Of course: houses are money for SGC and donations to the government from housing associations, they get nothing for the roads.

@bristolreded "@lanata there is a lack of housing so stop being a selfish nimby."

If showing concern that the proposed housing expansion infrastructure can not cope with this large number of additional housing is "nimby" - then yes I am. Many of these proposed areas struggle with the current housing, so will definitely struggle without addtional infrastrcuture - not just roads.

Going back to the early 90's when Bradley Stoke was started, planning permission was given on a plan that included direct road connection to the M32 - 20 years later that still hasn't happened, so Patchway, Filton, Stoke Gifford etc get clogged to the gills during rush hour every day!

I was merely raising questions on issues that should be addressed before more additional housing is agreed and implemented in these affected areas.

"Provision for gypsies and travellers?" Not necessary. Let them live the nomadic lifestyle they have chosen.