Having witnessed accidents on this road, proposing more traffic is terrible. No clear line of site for entrance or exit. If buses do not feel its safe surely adding more cars would be stupid. Nearby houses are not on main sewage as Anglian Water say it is not safe. Glemsford has a very fragile infrastructure adding more building will simply destroy it. School is at full capacity, major firms are due to close so that will mean less local jobs. If this carry's on you will find people moving away from the area and not moving in!
Area is a farming community, rural, small lanes and still an area of great beauty. Legally historic entrances to a village cannot be altered, this would happen here. Borders conservation area.
Great impact on wildlife, proximity to a wildlife corridor. Skylarks, bats, owls, hedgehogs, badgers are frequent visitors.
Infrastructure at breaking point. Sewage problems. Footpath to village centre is often in passible due to thick mud. Field next to Foundry Close is often boggy, previously used as a quarry. Highway safety concerns.
Proposes 60 units for the elderly. Village has no community amenities. People need cars and they need to drive, village is dangerous already.
Park lane is unable to cope with anymore traffic.
Windmill Row is right on junction, cars travel at speed.
To drive on park lane is difficult because road is narrow, adding extra traffic will make it more difficult.
Flax lane is only 1 car width. Lane gets flooded when raining.
Trouble getting doctors appointments because not enough appointments.
Water pressure drops often and get sewerage blockages.
The school cannot take all local children as there are not enough spaces.
No employment in the village.
The village has doubled in size over past 30 years.
SS0257, Land East of Brook Street and Chequers Lane, will have a negative impact on Listed Buildings and a Conservation Area. The visual impact on what is a Special Landscape Area will be huge and access to the site will drive traffic through an already congested part of the village.
Infrastructure within the village could not cope.
Crime rate would increase and emergency services already take over 30 mins to respond.
It really is time for all those political bodies responsible to take stock of the heritage of this country not just in terms of historic buildings but conservation areas too. Housing on such sites which are prime agricultural sites is not acceptable. We seem to be in a no win situation as the Neighbour Hood Plan will be flung back at villages if they object to any development. We do not need statistics to prove a point - the facts from the villagers speak for themselves as does the visual impact on the village infrastructure.
The proposed site in located between 3 of the most historic medieval sites in Glemsford, St Marys Church, Monks Hall which is GRADE II* and Chequers which is Grade II.
Building a development on this site no matter how sympathetic would have a detrimental effect on views and landmarks. These sites must be conserved for future generations and Glemsford as a whole. Once it's gone it's gone!!! Glemsford has had its fair share of development over the past 4 years, it is not a dumping ground for the area!
This site in located between 3 of the most historic medieval sites in Glemsford, St Marys Church, Monks Hall which is GRADE II* and Chequers which is Grade II.
This site will have a negative impact on Listed Buildings and a Conservation Area. The visual impact on what is a Special Landscape Area will be huge and access to the site will drive traffic through an already congested part of the village.
Inappropriate as an environmentally sensitive site (Special Landscape Area) and next to Conservation Area. Lack of local infrastructure to support development, specifically, Churchgate/Low Street would be totally inadequate to accommodate extra traffic.. Glemsford has received more than its fair share of housing development over the last few years.
SS0257 not suitable as close to Conservation Area and within one of the few Special Landscape Areas in Babergh. Drainage of west side of field very poor. Road access not good - narrow with dangerous bends. Village infrastructure already struggling to cope with recent increase in housing. Some school classes full and unable to take residents. GP surgery at capacity. Insufficient local transport. Little local employment available.
New figures out from government say crimes are not solved or even reported because of shortage of police, we are fortunate our crime rate is low at the moment, what's to say that will not change the more our village is expanded?
Emergency services already stretched a friend waited over 3 hrs for a ambulance to arrive.
Staggered bus service so if Dr's are full and those that cannot drive namely the elderly and feeling unwell, would they be up to the journey?
Please see read my full statement.
I need not repeat all the objections here that have been so well presented on this site by other objectors.
I object very strongly to this proposed development for all those reasons.
Glemsford has done its share in providing additional housing in the recent past.
Poor infrastructure, school Is at capacity, inability to get doctors appointments, parking, access, privacy, drainage, safety.
I object to the proposed development, Glemsford does not have the required infrastructure to cope with this development, its already atrocious for parking, struggling to provide school places and has unacceptable waiting times for the doctors surgery. We will looses privacy from all angles, noise disturbance will be increased, drainage is already an issue around this development, access to the village will be further inhibited and there is currently a chronic lack of entertainment for young people, its probably one of the worst villages in that respect, this will only get worse.
I do not believe the infrastructure and medical services will support this development.
Glemsford does not have the infrastructure to cope with this volume of houses proposed, I have lived here 17 years and not seen any improvements to the roads and the sewers can barely cope.
1.Existing facilities at or beyond limits.
5.Agricultural land of this value is needed to grow every scrap of food we can. The future is uncertain, both due to Brexit and the population growth in areas of the world that currently export to us.
Glemsford is a village not a town, and the population should reflect that. I am particularly concerned about the increase in traffic this will cause. Also, if large numbers of people come to the village where will they send their children to primary and secondary schools? Where are the hospital beds and the GP surgeries to cope with additional patients? My surgery is the Long Melford practice and I currently have a 3 week wait to see my doctor.
I accept the need for more houses but, please, limit the number to what the village can handle.
Oppose any development on site SS0257 without adequate infrastructure, any access into Chequers Lane, any further expansion of Glemsford, without serious consideration given to the impact on schools, doctors surgery, employment and public services.
Glemsford is a village and the infrastructure cannot cope with large scale development. Brook St always has lots of cars parked there so it is difficult to drive up the road. When turning left into Bells Lane the traffic is also very busy, again with lots of parked cars. 13 bungalows are shortly to be built on the Old Silk Mill site in Chequers Lane which leads into Brook Street. Any further development in this area is in appropriate.
Access to this proposed site is limited and the only entrance is on a blind corner. This is unacceptable for over 160 houses.
A development on this site will degrade the rural setting of one grade II*, and two grade II houses.
Glemsford has no large employers nearby, and no rail link.
All services in Glemsford are stretched, especially the Surgery. The school is virtually full.
The further loss of agricultural land increases the amount of food needed to be imported.
Glemsford has built probably over 50 houses in the past year---have we not done our share?
The village should remain a village, it is already the largest village in Babergh without the facilities of many others.
The infrastructure, especially roads and drainage system are inadequate for large scale development.
Good agricultural land should not be lost to farming.
A wildlife corridor will be adversely affected.
The Conservation Area and buildings of historic significance should not be compromised by future development.
The AONB should be extended to include Stour Valley to protect this area for generations to come.
I feel that Glemsford does not have the capacity to accommodate any more houses at all. There has just been a development completed and already the local schools are over subscribed. Glemsford primary is full, as is Stour Valley secondary school. Also, I don't believe the country roads can take any extra traffic. Glemford used to have a reputation of anti-social behaviour, this has settled down now and it would be a shame if it were to resurface.
Strongly object to the planned proposals. Glemsford does not have the infrastructure to cope. There is already congested traffic throughout the village, an oversubscribed primary school (listed building) which would be unable to cope with an increase in pupils and a GP surgery that covers many local villages and which already struggles to cope with the number of patients. The proposed site is often water-logged due to its position (on a considerable incline) and when there is heavy rainfall rainwater rushes down Low Street. Local employment is scarce.
Narrow winding roads, double parking is an issue too. Wear and tear the roads cannot deal with excessive traffic.
Flooded areas and Drainage issues are abundant particularly in Foundry close the most recent of new homes, and water pump that services that area has repeated problems. I it cannot cope with 46 new homes how will it deal with the proposed buildings?
-Glemsford is a village & should remain so.
-Some modest infill development would be acceptable but no new medium/large scale.
-Loss of agricultural land to residential development.
-Degradation to the environs of listed buildings & other historic buildings within conservation area.
-Light pollution & loss of dark skies.
Further to my last objection submitted 9.15 pm on 08/11/17, so why can you be sold a house with a view and then have that taken away when that is a big consideration when buying a property. If it can be taken away that easily it should not be used as a selling tool and I know that it affects the cost of a property if one has a view and one does not. Therefore how do you think this affects one mentally and emotionally to have this taken away, maybe the blow could be softened with compensation ?
Internet, the papers we are looking for a house to fit a certain criteria, and there are many things to consider.As I said in my first objection the first is location, city town or village. The size of the property, amenities, how far from work, decorative state ,your outlook etc. But we are told that you do not buy a view ? So why is it that in any property particulars if a property has a view they include that as a selling tool, and is obviously taken into account when valuing the property.
Village infrastructure is stretched as it is..Doctor and School would not cope with extra capacity.
Road network is of concern already with present level of population. In-fill building has let to even more on-road parking which makes for dangerous overtaking.
Drainage issues in that area of the village.
Present public transport is inadequate as are employment opportunities int he immediate area.
Glemsford has had no alteration to its road infrastructure for many years and suffers from narrow and congested roads into and through the village, no or only very limited footpaths.
Traffic already has to pull over to allow vehicles to pass at many places. Vision is restricted in many places..
There is little or no employment prospects in the village therefor any new residents will have to commute, possibly some long distance, for work increasing the fumes and pollution in the area.
The Dr's surgery is overstretched and runs on locum doctors so how on earth is it to cope with an extra 200-300 + residents. You cannot make an appointment until 8.30am on the day but then the phone is constantly engaged and if you do manage to get through the appointments for that day have gone.Yes there is the health centre in Sudbury but if you re elderly person who no longer drives can you really expect them to get on a bus when they are ill.
There is significant wildlife on this site, barn owls, bats and there was talk of ancient newts. These creatures have made their homes here way before we have so what right do we have to destroy their lives. Some may say that's sentimental and they get rehoused but I for one would like to see evidence of this please.
Why do people choose to live in a city, because of work, lifestyle, hustle and bustle. Why do people choose to live in a town, work, lifestyle, quieter than a city but amenities on hand for growing families. Why do people choose to live in a village? Quieter life, community life, surrounding countryside, safer place to be. Don t mind travelling to work as would rather be out of the so called rat race. So why are the hearts of these beautiful villages being torn apart and peoples lives being ripped apart for huge developments? Money maybe?
With ref to development SSO257 Have you considered the access road being on a bend, with potentially an extra 200 + cars how can this be viable?
The architects talked of emergency access being Brook St, this is not a two way road and an accident waiting to happen. As they did not know the village at all they had no idea of these problems. The drainage system is overloaded as it is and the new small development in Foundry Close has had significant problems so how can it possibly cope with a further 126 + houses?
The villages infrastructure will not cope with this size of development. It will compromise the villages conservation area of historical importance and threaten protected wildlife. The access to the site for construction traffic is dangerous and the roads would not cope with increase in car numbers. The site issucceptibke to flooding and already has drainage and sewage issues that have not been solved since the Hopkins development.
Again concerns over access to the site, please see my objections to SSO286 and SSO226. Over the past few years Glemsford has already grown with the building of new homes particularly off Crown Field Road and Fair Green and I do not believe we have the infrastructure to support many more. It would have a severe impact on our surgery, pharmacy and primary school notwithstanding the increased traffic and parking issues. The identity of Glemsford as a village would be lost.
The present doctors surgery doesn't seem capable of dealing with current levels of population, parking adjacent to the surgery is often chaotic and dangerous as the parking area within the doctors forecourt is inadequate.
There does not appear to be any plans to attract employers to the area.
I am concerned that this proposal compromises the conservation area around St Mary's church in Glemsford. The open area to the north of the church leading down to Monks' Hall is an integral part of the charm of this remaining part of early modern Glemsford. Building on this land will significantly change the character of this end of the village for the worse. I suggest a 50m strip of ground should be retained to the west of Low Street, planted with trees to mitigate the damage to the character of this part of the village.
THE FARMERS FILED RISES UP HILL, WE WILL LOOSE OUR SKYLINE ALL WE WILL SEE IS PEOPLES WINDOWS AND ROOFTOPS.
PEOPLE WILL BE LOOKING INTO OUR HOUSE AND GARDEN FROM ALL ANGLES.
PUBLIC DRAINAGE IS A HUGE ISSUE IN GLEMSFORD WITH FLOODING IN OUR BACK GARDENS - THIS WILL WORSEN WITH ANY EXTRA PROPERTY.
At times of heavy rain, area at lower end of Low Street and B1066 is flooded.
This site is undulating and has poor drainage already and sewage is also a problem, access into this field is inadequate due to the narrow winding lane.
I wish to object to the SS0257 plan because of regular flooding (surface water run-off), Access to the site is on to a minor road on a hill leading to a narrow blind bend/junction. Also there is no employment in the area and core services are poor i.e. the one and only school is full as is the doctors surgery and both are more than 10 minutes walk away. Public transport is poor which would lead to more polution fron cars etc.
on roads not designed to cope with such volume,and already in poor condition.
Potential Drainage and Sewage problems.
Local Surgery already under pressure.
Local School already under pressure,with no room to expand.
To sum things up Glemsford has not got the infrastructure to support this level of development.
The village is small and doesn't have the infrastructure.
Impact on GP services and school with bigger population.
Requires a big improvement to serve the village now.
I object to the whole scheme as the disruption of construction and density of the site build will change the environment totally of living in Chequers Lane. My property is a listed Grade II 15/16 century building and sits opposite buildings that date to 15 century, that could be impacted by traffic and construction vibration from the lane and adjoining sites. I object to the Emergency Access being located in Chequers Lane due to the unsuitability of the single track lane that would not be an appropriate access for emergency vehicles to rely on.
Poor drainage and sewage problems associated with this immediate area need resolving before any further building allowed.
Insufficient capacity in local services, school, doctor's surgery, bus services to support proposed development.
Road infrastructure is inadequate now and building here on this scale would make this worse particularly the road junction with Hobbs Lane/Bells Lane.
Not necessarily opposed to future small scale development provided infrastructure issues addressed before it takes place.
The development is too close to the conservation area.
The field in question is undulating and subject to flooding.
The access to the development would be off a narrow country lane opposite a medieval church.
The drainage/water system is already overstretched in this part of Glemsford.
The local primary school is already oversubscribed.
The doctor's surgery is at full capacity and struggling to cope.
The roads in and around Glemsford are not capable of handling anymore increase in traffic and are congested with parked vehicles.
How on earth could anyone think it a good idea to allow a development of this scale that would blight the when approaching the village from the direction of Stanstead. It is an outrageous proposition. We should value the rural nature and benefits of a village like Glemsford and not seek to destroy it with large scale, disproportionate development. There is no employment in the village to support a population increase and this serves to exacerbate the dormitory nature of Glemsford and cause further problems in relation to traffic, amenities, surgery and school.
SS0257 would appear to have ab even greater impact on the village and its inhabitants due to the area being a conservation area, the lack of drainage, access and visual impact due to topography.
Traffic using this would enter/emerge onto Low Street, an "A" class road but with "C" class quality and visability, which was never intended to support such a huge volume of traffic. Traffic using this access would undoubtedly increase traffic back through the village. Access via the Brook St. Area would involve narrow roads and parked vehicles.
Lack of infrastructure such as sewage/drainage. The school is virtually full now. The surgery would be under further pressure. Where will people work. Travel to work in places such as Bury St Edmunds and Haverhill will increase traffic. Public transport is dire. Roads through the village are narrow, made even narrower by parked vehicles.
Design and layout, Highway Issues, Traffic Generations, Vehicular Access, Parking Issues, Capacity of Physical Infrastructure, Public Drainage/Water Systems, Lack of social facilities (i.e. employment), healthcare, community facilities, school spaces etc. We have enough problems in Glemsford with adding to them. So I wanted to ask the planning officers and planners to rethink these proposed plans.
We have not got roads to take the traffic generation and highway safety we have no main roads in or out of Glemsford. We do not have a good bus service there is no work in Glemsford you have to have a car to live here we can not take any more kids in our school and they have no way to make it bigger. You can't get a doctors appointment now so what will it be like with another 3000 going to the doctors. We cant take any more here.
Development would have a significant impact on the existing conservation area. This site would be sandwiched between three of the most historic medieval sites in the area, St. Mary's Church, Monks Hall and Chequers; buildings of considerable historic value. Steep gradient on site, could cause flooding issues.
Roads in and around Glemsford are not capable of handling an increased demand. Improvements needed before development.
Limited employment opportunities leading to more benefit claimants and linked increase in crime.
Primary school, ambulance service and doctors surgery could not cope with additional demand. Policing is already an issue in Glemsford, this will only cause additional problems. Sewage issues.
Development should be adjacent to the A1092, no additional traffic impact on Glemsford, no historic interests.
Glemsford does not have the underlying infrastructure to support this amount of expansion. Water main on Kings Road has needed attention at least 6 times. Current volume of traffic means that parking spaces are at a premium. Hobbs Lane/Egremont St/Park Lane has a mass of potholes & require attention. School places & healthcare facilities are already stretched to bursting, there are very limited opportunities for employment in the village which means extra traffic in & out of the village on a daily basis.
The village has seen considerable expansion, with recent large developments. There has been no consideration given to social facilities such as clubs & play areas particularly older teenagers. Tensions have boiled over between elderly residents and young families, because planners & builders gave no consideration to social & leisure facilities.
There is no public transport into/out of the village after 6.00pm, youngsters cannot attend clubs. The current road system is very poor & cannot take any further increase in traffic. The school cannot expand.
Glemsford is being turned into a town. Education, healthcare, employment, leisure, transport & roads are all under significant pressure already. Glemsford does not have the infrastructure to accommodate this expansion.
The village infra-structure could not possibly sustain this level of development.
We only have one ill maintained road through the village which could not cope with the increase in traffic.
The primary school is certainly not large enough without building an additional school to meet the needs of the increased population.
The doctor's surgery is already one doctor short and has been for a while.
Water and sewage would need upgrading.
Already there are developments going on in the village the impact of which have not yet been fulfilled.
I therefore oppose these development applications.
I understand approx 160 houses are thought to be built on this site. With the drainage problems in this part of Glemsford and the Howdens site which is still not connected to the main drainage system (no it's not). Another 160 houses built near is just plain crazy, not to mention school places which is full, and the doctor's surgery, that still has only 2 doctors.
Roads in Glemsford are already dangerously inadequate for present demand. We have too many cars and not enough parking spaces already. On road parking makes it difficult to progress through the village. Increasing the population of this village will serve only to exacerbate the existing problem.
The school and doctors surgery is struggling to keep up with demand. Presumably you will be checking that supplies of water and facilities for sewage are adequate for the additional demand.
Before further building in Glemsford is considered I would urge that current inadequacies in the village infrastructure are addressed. The problems already exist.
I strongly object to the 3 proposed development sites in Glemsford as this would increase traffic in an already very busy and narrow road infrastructure, parking in the village is already potentially dangerous and access to the village is hard enough.
Local doctors surgeries will not be able to cope as it is hard enough now to get appoints at the best of times.
I hope that the council will reconsider this proposal.
Increased traffic generation on to the main road to Sudbury and narrow local roads would be dangerous.
The main road through Glemsford is very narrow.
The sewer/drainage is such that many houses on the periphery of Glemsford suffer sewerage blockages or 'back flow'.
There is only one doctors surgery staffed by only 2 regular doctors, aided on occasions by a locum.
At this time there are only about 30 vacancies in the school.
There is no employment around here, in addition Phillips Avent is closing. And Dephi Diesel in Sudbury is/has gone, this leaving another 500/1000 unemployed.
Second highest impact area SS0257: I have issues with Highway, Traffic Generation, Highway Safety, Vehicular Access, Public Infrastructure and Parking Issues.
Our doctor's surgery already finds it difficult to cope at times. Our primary school is pretty full, extra water will be needed in an already dry area, not to mention sewage. Skates Hill is already a nightmare with so many parked cards. I feel I take my life in my hands every time I drive up or down it. To top all that, Delphi's in Sudbury is due to close within two years. Where will all the people work, their children go to school. I strongly object to all this building, for the sake of the infrastructure.
Will access be constricted to the B1066 via Stansted and Park lane in order for normal traffic flow to utilise the Egremont Street/Skates Hill roads?
How will the current roads cope with increase in traffic?
Glemsford School has a waiting list for admissions.
Doctors - every 500 new houses will require 0.5 of a doctor, this should need inclusion in the planning especially with the problems of recruiting GP's into a rural practice.
Drainage and sewerage - given that certain recently built properties are having problems with sewerage - will the current system be upgraded?
The village cannot sustain any further developments, the school is oversubscribed. It is very difficult to get a doctors appointment. Parking has already become horrendous, the roads in the village are not sufficient to take any more traffic. Ongoing problems with the sewers must be a matter of priority before exaggerating the existing problems by adding more dwellings. I understand the need for more affordable homes to be built but let's get things done in the right order. I would recommend a neighbourhood plan so that the people of the village, the government and the local councils all have their opinions taken into consideration.
5 could our sewers take the extra input?
Already there is a problem with sewerage in the village/ new houses not linked properly to waste.
School would not be able to facilitate any more children it is a listed property with no room to develope.
Glemsford cannot accommodate any more large developments. This is a village and fast becoming a town and is just not big enough for the three proposed developments. This village needs its fields, trees and open spaces. There are many new estates and gardens accommodating new builds recently and that is enough.
Doctors surgery and village school cannot accommodate hundreds more people.
The infrastructure, drainage and water systems will not be able to cope.
Traffic generated now through the village is at its limit. What will happen with hundreds more houses and the pollution and safety issues due to excess traffic.
This village has been under seige by developers of housing estates for the last few years. Glemsford is a village and we (Glemsfordians) want it to remain so. These new housing estates are merely creating a dormitory for workers. Our roads are at times almost impossible to manoeurve and before long there will be an accident.
Doctors' surgery and village school are overstretched now. Our infrastructure would need improving.
Please bear in mind Glemsford is a village. Housing estates need to be built next to the towns that need the workers thereby decreasing the constant flow of traffic and pollution.
The school and surgery need to be able to cope with all these families.
There will be a considerable amount of traffic using this lane. The building of all these proposed homes will also impact greatly on the road access through the village, it is already a nightmare travelling from Churchgate to Skates Hill.
I also have concerns regarding the cemetery, the graveyard is almost full now. When you keep building on farmland do you not understand that you take away wildlife sanctuary and cause flooding as these fields absorb water,you concrete over them and where does the water go?
I wish to object to the above proposed development. The infrastructure of this village could not support another three hundred houses on this site. It would be a very dangerous exit road coming out on to Low Street.
1. Traffic Generation: Roads into the village are narrow and already busy.
2. Highway Safety: Safety issues caused by on road parking. Increased traffic would greatly adversely impact on safety issues around the school, pubs, shops, post office and other community areas. Speeding cars is an issue.
3. Parking issues: Greatly increased traffic volume would exacerbate the existing local parking problems. Parking would be made considerably more difficult around the community areas.
4. Noise & Disturbance: Certain to increase. Traffic and road noise already a problem.
5. Strain on Facilities: Healthcare and schools will not cope with extra demand.
Drainage and water delivery through mains services easily breaks down, with unforeseen foul water backup, and reduced mains water flow.
Glemsford Surgery is struggling. No way can the current facility be increased to accommodate a further 800 to 1000 homes, which would double the size of the surgery patient role.
Youth and the elderly, especially without transport already have limited opportunity for social and community facilities.
The school is totally inadequate in terms of size to accommodate an increased influx of primary school age children, which links again to school transport issues.
Over development of our already over crowded village. Infrastructure of the village can not cope now let alone if more people move here. The school is over subscribed you have to wait for ages to get a nurse appointment. Parking is a major issue now.
My concern stems from 3 large sites being proposed at once. The school and doctors surgery would not be able to cope. Wait times at the surgery are already long.
There's also the serious concern of the roads. At current, the village already experiences heavy bottlenecks due to road being too narrow (due to road parking). Roads are often in disrepair. Adding more traffic will only make matters worse. If the village's infrastructure can be upgraded to deal with extra housing, then I do not see a problem, but as things stand, the village cannot support the current plans.
1. Current road conditions managed by Suffolk highway agencies do not meet the requirements due to potholes, road verges subsiding.
5. Planning submission for Foundry close considered the open field to be of a benefit.
6. Due to the nature of the proposed development outlook & privacy will be compromised, this is also not aligned to the approved planning application for Foundry close.
Our drains certainly could not cope with drainage.
Glemsford is full of new developments. Where will all the new cars and people go? There is no more room in the existing village for more traffic, schoolchildren and patients at the doctors surgery. We cannot support the village growing as it is.
Access to the site is outside the 30 mph speed limit.It is also on a hill with a blind corner at i'ts summit. This road takes the majority of the traffic travelling to Bury St Edmund's.
The road is narrow and cars speed up Low St at up 60mph past the 30mph limit into the village.This will increase the risk of accidents.
The current sewerage system is inadequate for this size of development.
School is over subscribed, already losing vital outdoor space. parking is limited. GP services already overstretched .
I do not feel in any way that the infrastructure of Glemsford can accommodate a development of this size, especially the school and doctors surgery. Also the increase in traffic through the tight road that runs through our village would not be safe for pedestrians and especially children.i so I object in the strongest possible way against this development.
Reason for objection: Highway Issues,Hobbs lane being a narrow road will not cope with volume of traffic.Traffic Generation, Highway Safety, Parking Issues Noise and Disturbances Capacity of Physical Infrastructure( drainage/water system) This is already a problem with pathways bursting leaks along Kings Road. The school is a listed building and with no room to build onto. Doctors surgery could not with stand the capacity.
The village is small and doesn't have the infrastructure in place to support further house building. There is only a small Drs surgery that is already up to capacity, and one small school. If as proposed plans suggest 800 to 1000 homes are built that is an increase in capacity of approx 2000 people and as most families have two vehicles an extra approximate of 2000 vehicles. This would increase noise, pollution and congestion. Suffolk Police do not have the capacity to actively police an area which would almost certainly have an increase in crime and anti social behaviour.
I'm totally against this plan for reasons below.
Access to the site will be dangerous and outside the 30mph limit.
The road is narrow and cars speed up Low St at up 60mph and past the 30mph limit into the village.
The increased danger of water run off and flooding to the neighbouring environment.
160 homes means upto 200 extra cars on narrow lanes with 2/3km drive to trunk roads.
Environmental impact on wildlife and Special Landscape Area, foxes, hares, grass snakes and newts have been seen on proposed site.