Object

New Local Plan: Spatial Options Document 2021

Representation ID: 42714

Received: 09/09/2021

Respondent: Emma Mountain

Representation Summary:

CFS216/CFS133 promoted sites
I’ve found the website/links a bit tricky to navigate so I’m hoping that I can e mail my objections to the above promoted sites?

I thought the first site was on Coastal Protection Belt and shouldn’t be built on? As agricultural land it has been successfully farmed since anyone can remember.
Building on this land would ruin the visual amenity of the area. The school has always been semi-rural and this proposed development site would ruin that.

It would also cause issues with traffic at an already busy and dangerous junction that is subject to discussion already.

The second site is opposite the school (CFS133) has again been successfully farmed for years, and regularly floods at the bottom. This again is an inappropriate location, again ruining the visual amenity of the area, would again compromise the planning framework for urban sprawl.

For both sites, in terms of transport, there is an overloaded Roman Road with a dangerous junction, speeding drivers with a previous serious accident site too. Adding another road junction in there is unsafe. There are no cycle paths or means to incorporate one. The pavements remain to be overgrown and have been for the last 40+ years, narrowing to a ridiculous point which remains dangerous for the children walking to school. Today I witnessed a lady with a pushchair having to cut back over growing brambles etc to be able to walk past safely.

Full text:

CFS216/CFS133 promoted sites
I’ve found the website/links a bit tricky to navigate so I’m hoping that I can e mail my objections to the above promoted sites?

I thought the first site was on Coastal Protection Belt and shouldn’t be built on? As agricultural land it has been successfully farmed since anyone can remember.
Building on this land would ruin the visual amenity of the area. The school has always been semi-rural and this proposed development site would ruin that.

It would also cause issues with traffic at an already busy and dangerous junction that is subject to discussion already.

The second site is opposite the school (CFS133) has again been successfully farmed for years, and regularly floods at the bottom. This again is an inappropriate location, again ruining the visual amenity of the area, would again compromise the planning framework for urban sprawl.

For both sites, in terms of transport, there is an overloaded Roman Road with a dangerous junction, speeding drivers with a previous serious accident site too. Adding another road junction in there is unsafe. There are no cycle paths or means to incorporate one. The pavements remain to be overgrown and have been for the last 40+ years, narrowing to a ridiculous point which remains dangerous for the children walking to school. Today I witnessed a lady with a pushchair having to cut back over growing brambles etc to be able to walk past safely.