Home > Planning > Planning Policy

PLEASE NOTE: You only need to register / login if you wish to make representations.

If you haven't got an account you can register now.
If you have forgotten your password you can request a new password.

You can view the full details of a representation by clicking either on the Representation ID in the top right of the summary box or on the More Details... link at the bottom.

Representations on BMSDC Joint Local Plan Consultation Document (Interactive) - SS0226 - Land to the south east of George Lane, and south of Flax Lane

Representation ID: 11478

OBJECT Mrs Olive Smith

Summary:

The infrastructure and services such as school and doctors in Glemsford is already overstretched. access is restricted to a number of minor roads and the village is already littered with cars parked along it's one main road. Access to these proposed sites would be almost impossible without dramatic improvement in the infrastructure. Several new houses have been built in Glemsford over the last few years and I do not believe the village is able to take any of the proposed developments.

More details about Rep ID: 11478

Representation ID: 11425

OBJECT Mr Kevin Smith

Summary:

Over the last 25 years all the factories in Glemsford have been demolished and replaced with houses. There have been no corresponding improvement in infrastructure. This has resulted in the one main road through the village being littered with cars creating many dangerous blind spots.
Glemsford is only entered by minor roads which would not be able to take additional traffic and make access through the village almost impossible.

More details about Rep ID: 11425

Representation ID: 10587

OBJECT Mrs R Turner

Summary:

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.
No hourly bus service.
The village has doubled in size over past 30 years.

More details about Rep ID: 10587

Representation ID: 10359

OBJECT Nicholas Barnes

Summary:

Objection to SS0226:

Anglian Water will not be able to provide help, support or waste disposal facility for additional properties.

Access roads are not wide enough to accommodate traffic and increase would serve to make road surfaces more damaged. Footpaths also non-existent between George Lane and nearest amenities.

No houses in Egremont St have off-street parking - constant issue and driving in/out of village hampered by parked cars. Problem would only increase.

No spaces in local schools and dr appointments difficult if population increases.

Large scale development would impact quality of life for current residents. Glemsford cannot accommodate large developments.

More details about Rep ID: 10359

Representation ID: 10134

COMMENT Historic England (Katie Parsons)

Summary:

The Glemsford Conservation Area Appraisal refers to the rich archaeological remains
within the parish which indicates further archaeological potential. Any development of these sites has the potential to impact upon these heritage assets. The presence of these heritage assets should be considered carefully as part of the site allocation
process.

More details about Rep ID: 10134

Representation ID: 9804

OBJECT Gary Wilkinson

Summary:

1. Lack of infrastructure - roads, schools, sewerage capacity, public transport, etc.
2. Health and Safety - already severe road congestion, lack of parking, speeding through the village, building works congestion
3. Environmental - area of outstanding beauty, Stour valley path, noise and light pollution
4. Employment - No employment opportunities in the village would lead to new home owners having to commute, leading to increased pollution

Primary concern would be increased traffic to and from the village as the highway system is already dangerous.

Additional recreational amenities may be required. Information regarding the volume of traffic and the commuter routes must be investigated and highway provision planned at the earliest stage.

More details about Rep ID: 9804

Representation ID: 9287

OBJECT Mrs Angela Barnes

Summary:

My property is on the perimeter of this land, but neither I, nor any of my many neighbours were not consulted or informed about this proposed development by the local Parish council, or Babergh District Council, despite assurances from both that they had posted details to every household in the village.

Aside from the visual impact this development would have, let alone the noise pollution it would cause and the decrease in value it will inevitably have on my own property, I would like to draw your attention to the following reasons for my objection:
Under capacity of physical infrastructure/drainage
Highways issues
Parking issues
Lack of social facilities

More details about Rep ID: 9287

Representation ID: 8594

OBJECT Mrs H North

Summary:

Before we pack the village any further let us look at how we can improve what we already have. Herding more people in without any thought given as to how whether there is any space in the school or doctors is ludicrous. Also with the cuts in policing and an inadequate community centre it is really irresponsible to just go ahead and build.

More details about Rep ID: 8594

Representation ID: 8525

OBJECT Mr John Bangs

Summary:

Yet another Greenfield Site adjoining a Rural

Village location to be sacrificed on the alter

of our political masters' 'A Quick Fix' for the housing

problem.

Have a planners dream, build new settlements,

a Babergh Utopia,

then you will stop ruining all the existing

ones.

More details about Rep ID: 8525

Representation ID: 8467

OBJECT Glemsford Parish Council (Mrs Deborah George)

Summary:

This site will require extensive road improvements and will have the visual impact of extending the village beyond its present rural agricultural boundary.

More details about Rep ID: 8467

Representation ID: 8386

OBJECT Mr Todd Cunliffe

Summary:

Lack of local infrastructure to support development, specifically, Flax Lane would be totally inadequate to accommodate extra traffic.. Glemsford has received more than its fair share of housing development over the last few years.

More details about Rep ID: 8386

Representation ID: 8313

OBJECT Mrs Linda Cunliffe

Summary:

SS0226 not suitable as road access extremely poor. 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.

More details about Rep ID: 8313

Representation ID: 7912

OBJECT mrs Julie Marsh

Summary:

Infrastructure within the village could not cope.
School in the village is not big enough and close to full
Doctors Surgery is full.
Crime rate would increase and emergency services already take over 30 mins to respond.

More details about Rep ID: 7912

Representation ID: 7293

OBJECT Mr Andrew ROWBOTHAM

Summary:

The increase in traffic.
Services won't be able to cope, schools, doctors, sewerage.
Problems with parking, traffic and safety for pedestrians
Won't be a village any longer.

More details about Rep ID: 7293

Representation ID: 7253

OBJECT Mrs AMANDA ROWBOTHAM

Summary:

I feel that Glemsford is a large villlage which needs better services and facilities and the amount of development suggested is extreme. The wide variety of infrastructures such as sewage, roads, health services and schools are all inadequate to support development of this enormous size. We don't want our village changed beyond recognition.

More details about Rep ID: 7253

Representation ID: 6999

OBJECT Mr Adrian Ablitt

Summary:

Further development in Glemsford on the scale proposed is not desirable on the following grounds:-
1.Existing facilities at or beyond limits.
2.Drainage issues
3.No employment locally, requiring mass travelling on roads
4.Road system in rural areas inadequate
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.

More details about Rep ID: 6999

Representation ID: 6269

OBJECT Mr Patrick Hemphill

Summary:

It is folly to consider mass development in an area which does not have sufficient infrastructure or employment to support extra residents. Farmland which has been earmarked for development will no longer be available for food production, and if paved over will cause localised flooding. The primitive road network cannot support any further traffic flow especially at peak times, therefore the prospect of 2000 extra vehicles using Flax Lane and the already-congested Egremont Street is incomprehensible.

More details about Rep ID: 6269

Representation ID: 6255

OBJECT mrs Clare Hammond

Summary:

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.

More details about Rep ID: 6255

Representation ID: 4967

OBJECT Mrs Marilyn Hughes

Summary:

Real concern regarding increase of traffic in that area. The roads are very narrow and there is, in that area of the village especially, a high incidence of on-road parking. Many houses have more than one car which is essential for many because of the reduced public transport now available.

Village infrastructure is strectched with the population as it is. There has been an increase in the number of houses and there is concern that the school and doctor's surgery will not have the abiltiy to cope with an even greater population.

More details about Rep ID: 4967

Representation ID: 4904

OBJECT Mr Roger Hughes

Summary:

Village infrastructure (e.g. drainage) already creaking without any further development
Road network inadequate even for existing level of traffic-with previous expansion/in-fill having added to the increased traffic congestion, amount of on-road parking and consequential (and sometimes dangerously) reduced visibility in too many places in the village when passing parked vehicles(not least close to the surgery and school)
The narrow roads around George Lane and Flax Lane accentuate the problems
Village school capacity and surgery resources already stretched
Public transport for existing population already very limited-further growth will merely exacerbate this
Employment opportunities in immediate area very limited-with various consequential implications

More details about Rep ID: 4904

Representation ID: 4601

OBJECT Mrs Pauline Searle

Summary:

The infrastructure of Glemsford cannot support this level of expansion. The roads are totally inadequate for any more traffic, they are narrow and made even more difficult by cars being parked on the road many of the houses do not have offroad parking space. Buses already struggle to get through the village. The doctors surgery would also struggle to cope and it is already very difficult to park at the surgery with no room to enlarge the car p ark there.

More details about Rep ID: 4601

Representation ID: 4519

OBJECT David R. Clark

Summary:

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..

I suspect that there would be a difficulties for school, doctors surgery, water and sewage systems

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.

More details about Rep ID: 4519

Representation ID: 4361

OBJECT mrs Mary Newsome

Summary:

GLEMSFORD MATTER AND THE RESIDENTS OF GLEMSFORD MATTER!

* The heart of Glemsford is already over congested with insufficient parking for residence, narrow access, regress and through roads
* Building on South East of George Lane will result in additional traffic being forced to access the centre of the village via Flax Lane and Skates Hill which are unable to cope with further congestion.
* It will effect multiple residents views and the site contains wildlife such as bats.
* Other sites offer more beneficial...

More details about Rep ID: 4361

Representation ID: 4290

OBJECT Mrs Karen Crossan

Summary:

My concerns regarding a development here are firstly the access roads to the site. Hobbs Lane is a narrow lane just wide enough for two cars, let alone construction lorries, Flax Lane itself is even narrower and then there's the main road through the village. The use of these would affect access to and from the village and also cause problems for the buses, both the 236 and school buses. Building here would also cause further problems with drainage, we already have problems with flooding at the bottom of Hobbs Lane.

More details about Rep ID: 4290

Representation ID: 3983

OBJECT Mrs Merlyn Shepherd

Summary:

Village roads are inadequate for current levels of traffic
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.
The Public transport is totally inadequate for Glemsford, what little buses that do run do not provide a consistent timetable
There does not appear to be any plans to attract employers to the area.
The present school will not cope with the influx of children that such housing developments would attract

More details about Rep ID: 3983

Representation ID: 3443

OBJECT Mr Peter Shepherd

Summary:

Village roads are inadequate for current levels of traffic
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.
The Public transport is totally inadequate for Glemsford, what little buses that do run do not provide a consistent timetable
There does not appear to be any plans to attract employers to the area.
The present school will not cope with the influx of children that such housing developments would attract

More details about Rep ID: 3443

Representation ID: 3095

OBJECT Mrs Loretta Edwards

Summary:

Glemsford does not have the infrastructure to cope with any further significant building plans.
The roads through the village are narrow and can hardly cope with the current level of traffic yet alone new resident's vehicles and construction traffic. The school is full and the surgery at capacity. There are no employment opportunities in the village and the limited bus service stops after 6pm requiring residents to need transport for both work and leisure.

More details about Rep ID: 3095

Representation ID: 3086

OBJECT Mr Chris Edwards

Summary:



* Roads are inadequate for current volumes of traffic
o The School in the village has no capacity
o The Surgery currently has only two doctors - already inadequate
o The damage to dwellings of historical importance is very pertinent
o Access on to either George Lane/Lodge Farm Road or Flax Lane - both are extremely narrow roads
o The 'infil' developments in Glemsford over the last few years has had a detrimental impact on village infrastructure.
* There are no employment opportunities in Glemsford.
* No rail link near Glemsford
o The bus service in the village is primitive

More details about Rep ID: 3086

Representation ID: 2508

OBJECT Mrs Pat Graves

Summary:

Planning Ref: SS0286, SS0257 & SS0226
My objection is to the number of houses planned for development in Glemsford.
Lack of suitable roads in and out of Glemsford village.
Parking is restricted in the village due to the roads.
The sewerage system is not adequate to accept any more pressure on it.
The doctors surgery is not large enough to accommodate the houses being anticipated being built.
The school is full already and who would want there five your old to travel by bus to other schools in the area.

More details about Rep ID: 2508

Representation ID: 2455

OBJECT Mr Neville Parry

Summary:

I object in the strongest terms to this proposed development (SS0226). Glemsford is a wonderful village and needs to retain it`s status as a VILLAGE. A development of this scale is totally disproportionate to the existing village footprint. The increase in population would severely stretch existing resources in the local school and doctors surgery. The volume of traffic using Hobbs Lane is already too heavy and access in other directions would add to the already serious traffic problems in the village. Not necessary and not wanted.

More details about Rep ID: 2455

Representation ID: 1993

OBJECT Mr J M McKenna

Summary:

Traffic using George Lane onto Egremont Street or traffic using Flax Lane would encounter dangerous junctions and very narrow roads and create 'rat runs'. Emergence from these junctions would be very dangerous, because of bad visibility and width.

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.

More details about Rep ID: 1993

Representation ID: 1875

OBJECT Mr Sean Graves

Summary:

Planning Ref: SS0286, SS0257 & SS0226
My objection is to the sheer number of houses planned for development in Glemsford.
Getting a doctors appointment is difficult now let alone with the extra homes.
The local sewage works are already at breaking point.
The roads into and in the village are crumbling now.
Park lane and Hobbs lane are continually being patched due to the heavy vehicles that are using this lane.
Our local school is running at 100% capacity.
I'm not against development but just the sheer numbers being suggested.

More details about Rep ID: 1875

Representation ID: 1625

OBJECT Mrs Lucy Woodhouse

Summary:

My objections are on the grounds:
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.

More details about Rep ID: 1625

Representation ID: 1510

OBJECT Rob Abbey & Dennis Hopwood

Summary:

Development would have a significant impact on the existing conservation area.
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.

More details about Rep ID: 1510

Representation ID: 1509

OBJECT Alex Bull & Shaun Everett

Summary:

Development would have a significant impact on the existing conservation area.
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.

More details about Rep ID: 1509

Representation ID: 1421

OBJECT Mr Keith Drury

Summary:

Need to widen Flax Lane and Hobbs Lane. Flax Lane cannot accommodate large vehicles from both directions. Emergency services would struggle getting entry into George Lane due to parked cars.
George Lane must be blocked to all traffic from the new homes built. New road needed for all traffic in/out of site before homes are built.
Residents of George Lane/Lodge Farm Road have great difficulties with access because of parking and traffic movement. Exiting George Lane is also dangerous. Sewer problems with homes built on Lodge Farm Road. Health and safety impacts of increased traffic using George Lane. Underground water springs have been found on the field.

More details about Rep ID: 1421

Representation ID: 1411

OBJECT Michael & Glenda Hunt

Summary:

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.

More details about Rep ID: 1411

Representation ID: 1314

OBJECT Sue Challis

Summary:

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.

More details about Rep ID: 1314

Representation ID: 1309

OBJECT Mr Ian Macpherson

Summary:

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.

More details about Rep ID: 1309

Representation ID: 990

OBJECT Doug Ellis

Summary:

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.

More details about Rep ID: 990

Representation ID: 986

OBJECT Miss Vicky Stonell

Summary:

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 schools will struggle to accommodate the increase in people
Local doctors surgeries will not be able to cope as it is hard enough now to get appoints at the best of times.
The drainage/water system is already overstretched therefore any population increase would lead to major problems
I hope that the council will reconsider this proposal.

More details about Rep ID: 986

Representation ID: 979

OBJECT Henrietta & Michael Soffe

Summary:

Increased traffic generation on to the main road to Sudbury and narrow local roads would be dangerous.
Parking in the village is a real problem and the increase could not be justified
School facilities would struggle
Lion Surgery facilities are already stretched
Lack of local employment
Noise and disturbance problems from local teenagers would almost certainly recur due to increases in population
The local drainage/water system is overstretched, any population increase would lead to major problems

More details about Rep ID: 979

Representation ID: 761

OBJECT Roger Newman

Summary:

Highest Impact Area SS0226: I have issues with Highway, Traffic Generation, Highway Safety, Vehicular Access, Public Infrastructure and Parking Issues.

More details about Rep ID: 761

Representation ID: 757

OBJECT Mrs K A King

Summary:

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.

More details about Rep ID: 757

Representation ID: 744

OBJECT Stewart Hurrell

Summary:

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?

Flood risk - Site is a run off for excess water

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?

More details about Rep ID: 744

Representation ID: 740

OBJECT Christine Beetles

Summary:

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.

More details about Rep ID: 740

Representation ID: 725

OBJECT Mrs Sandra Coster

Summary:

1. Access to Glemsford is limited to 3 roads ,each. Of which does not allow large vehicles to pass each other
2 the school will not be able to take the extra children
3 doctors surgery is just managing now
4 our roads through the village are congested with parked vehicles
5 could our sewers take the extra input?

More details about Rep ID: 725

Representation ID: 720

OBJECT Mr George Mathews

Summary:

Highways are not suitable
Already there is a problem with sewerage in the village/ new houses not linked properly to waste.
Drains and flooding
School would not be able to facilitate any more children it is a listed property with no room to develope.
Our Doctors have problems now with appointments/parking

More details about Rep ID: 720

Representation ID: 608

OBJECT Trinda & Terry Baxter

Summary:

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.

More details about Rep ID: 608

Representation ID: 593

OBJECT Carl & Betty Slater

Summary:

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.

More details about Rep ID: 593

Representation ID: 589

OBJECT Heather Parsons

Summary:

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?

More details about Rep ID: 589

Representation ID: 584

OBJECT Mr Tim Newton

Summary:

This will affect our house and garden, it will cause us lack some sunlight into our garden. the new houses will overlook into our house and into our windows which will affect our privacy.

I also believe that Glemsford infrastructure cannot support another 300 houses. the main roads are regularly blocked by the amount of traffic. the road cannot even support the traffic now. they are too narrow and also braking up.

Also we have had a lot of trouble getting decent facilities here for example drainage and internet. more houses will not help with that problem.

More details about Rep ID: 584

Representation ID: 582

OBJECT Douglas & Kay Mitchell

Summary:

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.

More details about Rep ID: 582

Representation ID: 578

OBJECT Chrissy Marshall

Summary:

Drainage and water delivery through mains services easily breaks down, with unforeseen foul water backup, and reduced mains water flow.
Road safety issues on Egremont Street
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.

More details about Rep ID: 578

Representation ID: 567

OBJECT Jennifer Moore

Summary:

The road is very narrow on Hobbs Lane, the extra traffic generated from this development would congest our village further. The school & doctors are full now, where cannot accept any more house.

More details about Rep ID: 567

Representation ID: 519

OBJECT Mr Joshua Askew

Summary:

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.

More details about Rep ID: 519

Representation ID: 498

OBJECT Mrs Christine Nelson

Summary:

Lack of social facilities, schools , healthcare,our roads could not cope with the extra traffic
Our drains certainly could not cope with drainage.

More details about Rep ID: 498

Representation ID: 489

OBJECT Ms Polly Rodger Brown

Summary:

Glemsford has no more room in its infrastructure for new developments. The streets are already overcrowded and there is far too much traffic for a rural village. The school and surgery are filled to capacity. The infrastructure of Glemsford cannot support any more development.

More details about Rep ID: 489

Representation ID: 479

OBJECT Mr John Borley

Summary:

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.

More details about Rep ID: 479

Representation ID: 467

OBJECT mrs claire Martin

Summary:

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.

More details about Rep ID: 467

Representation ID: 462

OBJECT Mr David Marshall

Summary:

I object to this development on traffic and parking issues. The road infrastructure in George lane Egremont St and Hobbs lane will not accommodate additional development. Additionally sewage and water issues still affect houses at this end of the village. If other additional developments are also brought into fruition then the village infrastructure in terms of roads ,parking. schools and service will not cope.

More details about Rep ID: 462

Representation ID: 375

OBJECT Ronald Newley

Summary:

Increase of traffic, school places, doctors trying to cope and drainage ( sewage) all applies as above as well as the village roads trying to cope with the extra massive amount of extra vehicles.

More details about Rep ID: 375

Having trouble using the system? Visit our help page or contact us directly.

Powered by OpusConsult