Representation by Kenneth Martin Pollock
- Date submitted
- 21 March 2024
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
I objected to the Options consultation in 2020 and received a reply promising a detailed response, (which of course never came). Principal objection was (1) to the 'Link Road' through Green Belt to service merely the 'Cyber Park' portion of the 'West Cheltenham' Urban Extension, and (2) to the failure by GCC Highways to propose an integrated highway network linking the permitted, large West and NorthWest urban extensions around Cheltenham towards Bishops Cleeve (town) and to the Golden Valley Bypass (for Greater Gloucester, without loading local traffic onto the national M5 route). Here is an extract: "It is inefficient 'patching' by GCC to now be proposing a link road to service the West Cheltenham UE (urban extension) separated from the adjacent North West UE. Designing an integrated road network connecting the large West and NorthWest UE's, thereby linking them around from Bishops Cleeve through to the Golden Valley Bypass, was ducked due to GCC's chosen minimal involvement in the lengthy JCS Examination process. Thus, reference (in scheme Objective 3) to providing connectivity with "the transport network in west and north-west Cheltenham" (i.e. as it exists, with minimal upgrades) simply means further overloading of Princess Elizabeth Way by the gyratory traffic for a much expanded Cheltenham. There also needs to be some integration shown with the West Cheltenham UE's 'spine road', including with an upgraded (widened) B4634, through from the A4019 to the B4063 (Staverton crossroads). Otherwise we get yet more piecemeal highways 'planning'. Remember that Cheltenham has NO outer ring road, not even on its flatter (yet greatly expanding) West and NorthWest side."