Representation 6417 on BMSDC Joint Local Plan Consultation Document (Interactive) by Sue Jamil & Neil Sanson
|Support / Object:||OBJECT|
|Document Link:||BMSDC Joint Local Plan Consultation Document (Interactive) - Glemsford|
|Representation:||We don't have anything specific to add to Rob & Dennis comments their particular comments regarding conservation and geography, which speak on behalf of us.|
This part of Glemsford is a conservation area and any development in the vicinity would need to be considered extremely carefully in light of retaining the natural landscape and historic features. We appreciate the need for housing but feel this must be balanced with regards to where it is situated - we are certain there are other sites in and around the village that may lend themselves to less impact on the natural environment and would hope that the necessary village amenities would be looked at in terms of coping with larger residential numbers.
We wish to lodge our concerns regarding the proposed development in Glemsford as detailed below in our neighbour's email to you dated 24th. October.
After discussing with our immediate neighbours, Rob & Dennis, we don't have anything specific to add to their particular comments regarding conservation and geography, which speak on behalf of us as well, here on Duffs Hill.
This part of Glemsford is a conservation area and any development in the vicinity would need to be considered extremely carefully in light of retaining the natural landscape and historic features. We very much appreciate the need for housing in this area but feel this must be balanced with regards to where it is situated - we are certain there are other sites in and around the village that may lend themselves to less impact on the natural environment and would hope that the necessary village amenities would be looked at in terms of coping with larger residential numbers.
Sue Jamil & Neil Sansom
We have recently been made aware of the Joint Local Plan currently being considered by Babergh and Mid Suffolk Councils. From the plans we have seen, as they relate to Glemsford, a significant amount of valuable farmland, greenfield sites, have been potentially earmarked for residential development. This is something we are firmly against and wish to lodge our formal objection on the following grounds.
Our objections relate to the following sites, in particular the Low Street site:
* East of Brook St/Chequers Lane - Planning Ref: SS0257
* South of Kings Rd/West of Park Lane - Planning Ref: SS0286
* South East of George Lane/South of Flax Lane - Planning Ref: SS0226
Our rationale for objecting is comprised of a number of points:
Glemsford is a designated Conservation Area and whilst the proposed developments are outside of the current boundaries of the conservation area, such development would have a significant impact on the existing conservation area. The Low Street site in particular 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. Allowing the development of modern housing in such close proximity to these magnificent buildings, regardless how sympathetic the design of said new housing, would be disastrous.
We are led to believe that over 500 new homes may be added to our village, which in turn would generate at least 750 more vehicles. The roads in and around Glemsford are not capable of handling such a heavy demand. The main artery through the village (Bells Lane, Hunts Hill, Skates Hill) are already akin to an obstacle course and significant improvements would be needed BEFORE any development could be undertaken, including yellow lines and traffic control.
Additionally, the primary roads into the village, (Low Street, Church Lane, Park Lane, Water Lane and Flax Lane) are all single carriageway. Again, significant improvements to road width, lane control and lighting would be required to support any such development, BEFORE it is even considered
SCALE OF DEVELOPMENT:
We accept the ongoing need for some new housing but it is the scale of these plans that concern us. Glemsford is not ideal for the elderly, it is 12 miles from the nearest Hospital in Bury St Edmunds. An ambulance already takes considerable time to travel from Bury to Glemsford and an increase in the population of Glemsford (at least 1,000 additional residents should 500 new homes be added) would put additional strain on the ambulance services. Similarly, Glemsford is not ideal for the younger generation as there are limited employment opportunities which may lead to increasing number of residents claiming benefits and the subsequent linked increase in crime.
HEALTH AND EDUCATION:
After attending a recent Parish Council meeting, it was confirmed that the local primary school would be incapable of taking any material numbers of new pupils and the school cannot be developed further. Such wide scale development would lead to additional traffic with parents either taking their children to school in nearby towns and villages and an increase in the number of existing bus and coach services providing this service.
The local doctors' surgery is at capacity and could not cope with many additional patients. Additional doctors would need to be recruited and the size of the surgery would likely need to be increased.
Policing is already an issue for us in Glemsford and an increase in the number of residents will only cause additional problems.
Low Street has particular problems as the field in question is undulating with steep gradients making it a particularly hard site to develop and with the inherent issues of drainage in an area which is already subject to flooding and with a sewerage system that does not cope with present demand.
In summary, Glemsford is a village, not a town. Please do not make it one. We would be happy to support any new development along the primary transport corridor, i.e. adjacent to the A1092 between Long Melford and Cavendish where the majority of the additional traffic would have no impact on our village. Additionally development in this area would also potentially facilitate the development of a new school and perhaps a new doctors office depending of course on the scale. Additionally, along the A1092 there are no buildings of historic interest and the area is largely flat, ideal for development.
Rob Abbey and Dennis Hopwood