WELL now, thank you planning councillors for bringing to light the 'shortfalls' constantly met with planning applications, principally with off-street parking provision.

But what about all the shortfalls? Like the complete lack of an open play space in the Grangers Lane family homes proposal; the provision for parking for The Slough properties but a shortfall for the new homes and the shortfall in the "dense" replacement of the Rough Hill Drive tree belt.

The existing tree belt helps to dampen the Rough Hill Drive traffic noise and absorb the C02 emissions. This is a shortfall in health concerns. There's shortfall garden sizes, shortfalls in consulting local user groups and Towbury residents in the early stages of planning.

The ultimate shortfall is an unsightly provision of an 18-foot high retaining structure behind Towbury properties that looks like those in Tunnel Drive and at B&Q.

At a distance, and only seen by passers by, they may become tolerable but five metres beyond a back fence to be looked out upon daily from ground and upper levels is intolerable. Is there then a shortfall in good judgement and design?

It was confirmed by the chief planning officer that where a balance in judgement has to be struck between Local Plan policy and Government guidelines, the latter takes precedent.

So why has the Government guidelines of PPG3 not taken precedent over LP2 in the green public open space of Grangers Lane?

Is this another shortfall?

V Kendrick

Chairman, Redditch Group

Council for the Protection of Rural England