Sites and Policies Plan Consultation Draft

Comment ID 8130817//1
Document Section Sites and Policies Plan Consultation Draft Clevedon, Nailsea and Portishead PH3 View all on this section
Respondent Deleted User View all by this respondent
Response Date 18 Apr 2013
We are writing to register our objection to the proposed siting of the Portishead railway station at Option 2 referred to in your Evidence Paper of February 2013.
As far as we concerned the preferred location for the Portishead railway station is at the originally proposed site (Option 1) or if it is felt that more car parking is required then at Option 3.
We understand that Option 2 and 3 have been added as Option 1 would be too costly now that level crossings cannot be used and a road bridge would have to be sited atQuays Avenue.
It has been mentioned in the press that the leases of Old Mill Business Park will be coming up for renewal in 2017 and it is proposed at that time to demolish the Business Park and create a piazza with restaurants, bars and a cinema.  Surely if this is being thought of then it would be better to site the railway site at Option 1.
To site the railway station at Option 2 would in our view cause significant localised environmental impact as follows:
  • Peartree Field (where we live) is a cul de sac and already attracts a lot of traffic merely coming into the road to turn round.  Siting the railway station on the opposite side of Peartree Field would have a significant increase in traffic as we believe commuters would park in the road (especially if parking fees are charged for use of the railway car park).  This would have an effect on the property owners on Peartree Field who use the road for parking.  What provisions would be put in place to safeguard parking for the property owners and to keep driveways and garages clear?  It is known that this problem occurs at the Nailsea and Backwell Railway Station where there is inadequate parking and Yatton Railway Station where parking charges are in place.
  • The map for option 2 showing the extent of land to be taken appears to include the grass area (opposite the houses on Peartree Field) from the kerb of Peartree Field to the wooden fence.  This land is owned by the individual property owners whose properties face the proposed site of the station.  Therefore it is unclear how this land can be used unless the Council uses compulsory purchase provisions.  If this was to happen how would the property owners be compensated?
  • It is mentioned in your comparison table under the heading “Likely wider environmental impact that the Council acknowledges that the proximity of the station to housing could result in some localised environmental impact, however there is potential to design mitigation measures to reduce these impacts”.  What are the Council’s mitigation measures to reduce these impacts for Peartree Field?
In summary option 2 is in the centre of a housing estate.  This would bring parking problems for home owners, added traffic flow congestion and noise pollution.
Option 1 is the best option for the railway station as it is in a central location to the town being accessible to all for the town centre, the lake grounds and the marina.  It is also in an industrial development area where the impact on housing is extremely minimal.  Whilst the car parking proposed at this site has an existing capacity of 100 spaces, the car parking could be increased by using the proposed land for Option 2 Car Park giving an extra 200 spaces.  IfOldMillBusinessParkis to be developed in the future then Option 1 for the site of the railway would definitely be the ideal location.
If it is thought that Option 1 would be too expensive because of having to put in a road bridge then Option 3 would be the next best site for the railway.  Whilst there is the expense of a new highway access and link road, option 3 is not in the middle of a housing development and there is room for additional car parking should it be required in the future.
We respectively ask you to approve Option 1 or if this is considered to be too expensive then Option 3 as the siting for the new railway station for Portishead.