Home > Planning > Planning Policy

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

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) - SS0257 - Land east of Brook Street and Chequers Lane

Representation ID: 12814

OBJECT Miss D Willett

Summary:

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!

More details about Rep ID: 12814

Representation ID: 11482

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: 11482

Representation ID: 11428

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: 11428

Representation ID: 11313

OBJECT Mrs Rhona Jones

Summary:

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.

More details about Rep ID: 11313

Representation ID: 10589

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: 10589

Representation ID: 10135

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: 10135

Representation ID: 10094

OBJECT Glemsford Parish Council (Mrs Deborah George)

Summary:

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.

More details about Rep ID: 10094

Representation ID: 8968

OBJECT MR Christopher Anstee

Summary:

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

More details about Rep ID: 8968

Representation ID: 8544

OBJECT Mrs H North

Summary:

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.

More details about Rep ID: 8544

Representation ID: 8520

OBJECT Mr Simon Ranson

Summary:

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!

More details about Rep ID: 8520

Representation ID: 8490

OBJECT Toni Ranson

Summary:

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.
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!

More details about Rep ID: 8490

Representation ID: 8473

OBJECT Glemsford Parish Council (Mrs Deborah George)

Summary:

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.

More details about Rep ID: 8473

Representation ID: 8407

OBJECT Mr Todd Cunliffe

Summary:

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.

More details about Rep ID: 8407

Representation ID: 8339

OBJECT Mrs Linda Cunliffe

Summary:

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.

More details about Rep ID: 8339

Representation ID: 8272

OBJECT Miss Tracey Beckwith

Summary:

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.
School and Dr's full.
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?
No employment in the village.

More details about Rep ID: 8272

Representation ID: 8148

OBJECT MR Matthew Heath

Summary:

I would like to object to the proposals for further development (SS0257, SS0226, SS0286 and SS0757) in the village of Glemsford. My objection is based on a number of concerns listed below:

Highway Infrastructure
Traffic Generations
Vehicular Access
Parking Issues
Public Drainage
Water Systems
Health Facilities
School Facilities
Noise Pollution

Please see read my full statement.

More details about Rep ID: 8148

Representation ID: 7915

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: 7915

Representation ID: 7751

OBJECT C Farmer

Summary:

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.

Enough is enough!

More details about Rep ID: 7751

Representation ID: 7416

OBJECT Miss Rebecca Holt

Summary:

Poor infrastructure, school Is at capacity, inability to get doctors appointments, parking, access, privacy, drainage, safety.

More details about Rep ID: 7416

Representation ID: 7361

OBJECT Mr Edward Hunt

Summary:

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.

More details about Rep ID: 7361

Representation ID: 7103

OBJECT Mr Ernest Bellamy

Summary:

I do not believe the infrastructure and medical services will support this development.

More details about Rep ID: 7103

Representation ID: 7094

OBJECT Mr Ernest Bellamy

Summary:

I do not believe the infrastructure and medical services will support this development.

More details about Rep ID: 7094

Representation ID: 7075

OBJECT Miss Lindsay Fisher

Summary:

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.
Why not build a separate town elsewhere with lots of houses and proper infrastructure like the likes of Camborne? You can't just keep on adding without putting proper structures and support in to the village
Does it comply duty to corporate said yes but don't fully understand the question

More details about Rep ID: 7075

Representation ID: 7053

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: 7053

Representation ID: 6695

OBJECT Mrs susan witt

Summary:

Roads inadequate for current traffic
School has no capacity for more students
Surgery has two doctors - already inadequate
Drainage issues in the nearby Hopkins Homes
At times of heavy rain, area at lower end of Low Street and B1066 is
flooded.
Damage to dwellings of historical importance
Proposed access from site to Low Street is dangerous
'infil' developments already detrimental to infrastructure
No employment in Glemsford.
No rail link near Glemsford
Bus service primitive
Vista of village from bottom of Low Street will be severely damaged

More details about Rep ID: 6695

Representation ID: 6687

OBJECT Mr Kieron WITT

Summary:

SS0257 I strongly object to the proposed development of the site east of Brook Street and Chequers Lane

More details about Rep ID: 6687

Representation ID: 6640

OBJECT L. J. Whitehead

Summary:

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.

More details about Rep ID: 6640

Representation ID: 6593

OBJECT Mr Bill Jones

Summary:

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.

More details about Rep ID: 6593

Representation ID: 6576

OBJECT Mr Bill Jones

Summary:

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.

More details about Rep ID: 6576

Representation ID: 6556

OBJECT R Farmer

Summary:

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?

More details about Rep ID: 6556

Representation ID: 6498

OBJECT Jane Finbow

Summary:

I object to housing development on green field sites in the village of Glemsford on the following grounds:
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.

More details about Rep ID: 6498

Representation ID: 6260

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: 6260

Representation ID: 6256

OBJECT Mrs Elizabeth Dunn

Summary:

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.

More details about Rep ID: 6256

Representation ID: 6188

OBJECT Miss Tracey Beckwith

Summary:

Narrow winding roads, double parking is an issue too. Wear and tear the roads cannot deal with excessive traffic.
Abundance of wildlife in proposed site
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?

More details about Rep ID: 6188

Representation ID: 6130

OBJECT Miss Tracey Beckwith

Summary:

126 + properties?

More details about Rep ID: 6130

Representation ID: 5792

OBJECT Mrs Teresa Rush

Summary:

The large scale of the proposals is a cause for concern given Glemsford's roads are already very busy and, in some parts of the village, dangerous as a result.
Bumper-to-bumper parking is commonplace along many roads, often obscuring visibility at junctions and leading to access problems. One need only try and drive along Brook Street when the refuse carts are doing their rounds to witness the problems and the potential danger to road users and pedestrians.
What is more, all approaches to the village are narrow country lanes, already unsuitable for the volume of traffic they are required to carry.

More details about Rep ID: 5792

Representation ID: 5554

OBJECT Andrew French

Summary:

In summary, I object to residential development of this site for the following reasons;
-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.
-Sited within The Dedham Vale AONB & Stour Valley Partnership (special landscape area)
-Light pollution & loss of dark skies.
-Bats in the area.
-Highway safety.
-Lack of supporting infrastructure.

More details about Rep ID: 5554

Representation ID: 5551

OBJECT Miss Tracey Beckwith

Summary:

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 ?

More details about Rep ID: 5551

Representation ID: 5483

OBJECT Miss Tracey Beckwith

Summary:

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.

More details about Rep ID: 5483

Representation ID: 4994

OBJECT Mrs Marilyn Hughes

Summary:

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.

More details about Rep ID: 4994

Representation ID: 4909

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)
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: 4909

Representation ID: 4514

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: 4514

Representation ID: 4448

OBJECT Miss Tracey Beckwith

Summary:

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.

More details about Rep ID: 4448

Representation ID: 4435

OBJECT Miss Tracey Beckwith

Summary:

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.

More details about Rep ID: 4435

Representation ID: 4431

OBJECT Miss Tracey Beckwith

Summary:

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?

More details about Rep ID: 4431

Representation ID: 4427

OBJECT Miss Tracey Beckwith

Summary:

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?

More details about Rep ID: 4427

Representation ID: 4316

OBJECT Mrs Clare Gatt

Summary:

We object to plan SS0257
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.

More details about Rep ID: 4316

Representation ID: 4305

OBJECT Mrs Karen Crossan

Summary:

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.

More details about Rep ID: 4305

Representation ID: 3987

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: 3987

Representation ID: 3648

OBJECT Mr Andrew Powell

Summary:

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.

More details about Rep ID: 3648

Representation ID: 3562

OBJECT mr gary newley

Summary:

LOSS OF SUNLIGHT
LOSS OF DAYLIGHT
LOSS OF OUTLOOK
LOSS OF PRIVACY FROM ALL ANGLES
HIGHWAY ISSUES
DRAINAGE, SEWERS AND SERVICE WATER
FLOODING
DOCTORS AND SCHOOLS
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.
HUGE INCREASE IN TRAFFIC
INCREASE IN POPULATIONS WITH NO BGGER SCHOOLS OR DOCTORS SPACES
PUBLIC DRAINAGE IS A HUGE ISSUE IN GLEMSFORD WITH FLOODING IN OUR BACK GARDENS - THIS WILL WORSEN WITH ANY EXTRA PROPERTY.
PROTECTED WILDLIFE

More details about Rep ID: 3562

Representation ID: 3454

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: 3454

Representation ID: 3098

OBJECT Mrs Loretta Edwards

Summary:

Roads inadequate for current traffic
School has no capacity for more students
Surgery has two doctors - already inadequate
Drainage issues in the nearby Hopkins Homes
At times of heavy rain, area at lower end of Low Street and B1066 is
flooded.
Damage to dwellings of historical importance
Proposed access from site to Low Street is dangerous
'infil' developments already detrimental to infrastructure
No employment in Glemsford.
No rail link near Glemsford
Bus service primitive
Vista of village from bottom of Low Street will be severely damaged

More details about Rep ID: 3098

Representation ID: 3092

OBJECT Mr Chris Edwards

Summary:

Roads inadequate for current traffic
School has no capacity for more students
Surgery has two doctors - already inadequate
Drainage issues in the nearby Hopkins Homes
At times of heavy rain, area at lower end of Low Street and B1066 is flooded.
Damage to dwellings of historical importance
Proposed access from site to Low Street is dangerous
'infil' developments already detrimental to infrastructure
No employment in Glemsford.
No rail link near Glemsford
Bus service primitive
Vista of village from bottom of Low Street will be severely damaged

More details about Rep ID: 3092

Representation ID: 3048

OBJECT David Stilwell

Summary:

Janice Stilwell objecting to plan SS0257
Roads throughout the village are congested
Already sewage problems and drainage
School and Doctors are full
Emergency services unable to cope and poor bus service
No employment in the area
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.
Nature and wildlife will be affected
Pollution from extra traffic would add to greenhouse gases

More details about Rep ID: 3048

Representation ID: 3042

OBJECT David Stilwell

Summary:

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.

More details about Rep ID: 3042

Representation ID: 2758

OBJECT Mr Alan Harmer

Summary:

Extra road Traffic generating considerable increase in vehicles entering and leaving the village
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.

More details about Rep ID: 2758

Representation ID: 2708

OBJECT Mr William Rowling

Summary:

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.
Update the sewage works

More details about Rep ID: 2708

Representation ID: 2695

OBJECT Mr George Grover

Summary:

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.

More details about Rep ID: 2695

Representation ID: 2524

OBJECT Mrs Christine Bowen

Summary:

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.

More details about Rep ID: 2524

Representation ID: 2512

OBJECT Mrs MAUREEN SAYER

Summary:

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.
Object Maureen & Peter Sayer

More details about Rep ID: 2512

Representation ID: 2509

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: 2509

Representation ID: 2484

OBJECT Mr Neville Parry

Summary:

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.
No more large developments.

More details about Rep ID: 2484

Representation ID: 2131

OBJECT Sally Cain

Summary:

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.

More details about Rep ID: 2131

Representation ID: 1995

OBJECT Mr J M McKenna

Summary:

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.

More details about Rep ID: 1995

Representation ID: 1876

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: 1876

Representation ID: 1627

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: 1627

Representation ID: 1624

OBJECT Mrs J Byrne

Summary:

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.

More details about Rep ID: 1624

Representation ID: 1622

OBJECT Mrs J Byrne

Summary:

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.

More details about Rep ID: 1622

Representation ID: 1512

OBJECT Rob Abbey & Dennis Hopwood

Summary:

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.

More details about Rep ID: 1512

Representation ID: 1507

OBJECT Alex Bull & Shaun Everett

Summary:

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.

More details about Rep ID: 1507

Representation ID: 1409

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: 1409

Representation ID: 1312

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: 1312

Representation ID: 1307

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: 1307

Representation ID: 1218

OBJECT G Borley

Summary:

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.

More details about Rep ID: 1218

Representation ID: 994

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: 994

Representation ID: 984

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: 984

Representation ID: 977

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: 977

Representation ID: 900

OBJECT Adrian Leeming

Summary:

I object to the proposed development on the following grounds:
1) Increase traffic on already substandard roads
2) Access in and out of Glemsford not adequate at present
3) Schools and medical hardly adequate at the moment
4) Employment. Nearest centres. Cambridge & Bury St Edmunds. No local employment

More details about Rep ID: 900

Representation ID: 769

OBJECT P White

Summary:

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.

More details about Rep ID: 769

Representation ID: 762

OBJECT Roger Newman

Summary:

Second highest impact area SS0257: I have issues with Highway, Traffic Generation, Highway Safety, Vehicular Access, Public Infrastructure and Parking Issues.

More details about Rep ID: 762

Representation ID: 758

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: 758

Representation ID: 743

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?

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: 743

Representation ID: 739

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: 739

Representation ID: 727

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: 727

Representation ID: 722

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: 722

Representation ID: 606

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: 606

Representation ID: 591

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: 591

Representation ID: 587

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: 587

Representation ID: 583

OBJECT Lorna Leeming

Summary:

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.

More details about Rep ID: 583

Representation ID: 580

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: 580

Representation ID: 576

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: 576

Representation ID: 569

OBJECT Jennifer Moore

Summary:

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.

More details about Rep ID: 569

Representation ID: 517

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: 517

Representation ID: 504

OBJECT Mr Mark Hyett

Summary:

1. Current road conditions managed by Suffolk highway agencies do not meet the requirements due to potholes, road verges subsiding.
2. Proposed field has poor drainage particularly with water collecting on the surface
3. Smells from the sewage works can often be found and would certainly be a challenge for any new dwellings
4. Current capacity exceeded
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.

More details about Rep ID: 504

Representation ID: 502

OBJECT Mr Paul Grant

Summary:

Insufficient village infrastructure

More details about Rep ID: 502

Representation ID: 495

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: 495

Representation ID: 487

OBJECT Ms Polly Rodger Brown

Summary:

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.

More details about Rep ID: 487

Representation ID: 483

OBJECT Mrs Margaret Holt

Summary:


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 .

More details about Rep ID: 483

Representation ID: 478

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: 478

Representation ID: 465

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: 465

Representation ID: 461

OBJECT Mr Chris Rail

Summary:

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.

More details about Rep ID: 461

Representation ID: 372

OBJECT Ronald Newley

Summary:

I'm totally against this plan for reasons below.
1) loss of sunlight
2) loss of daylight
3) loss of outlook
4) loss of privacy
5) highway issues
6) drainage sewers and service water
7) doctors and schools
8) bats

More details about Rep ID: 372

Representation ID: 366

OBJECT Mr Anthony Hughes

Summary:

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.
Impact on GP services and school with bigger population.

More details about Rep ID: 366

Representation ID: 160

OBJECT Mr & Mrs Martin Divall and 1 other

Summary:

I object in the strongest way to the proposed building of 160 new homes on this site for the following reasons:
1) Risk of surface water flooding my property
2) Inadequate surface water and sewerage drainage in the village
3) Minimal local transport
4) Parking
5) Primary school in the village has no vacancies
6) Construction traffic would pose a danger to the village

More details about Rep ID: 160

Representation ID: 63

OBJECT MR Will Howe

Summary:

Strongly object

More details about Rep ID: 63

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

Powered by OpusConsult