I object to the field site (CFS064) being used for housing. Housing on this field site will impact greatly on the traffic flor through the Betts Farm Estate. The B1013 is frequently congested and this CFS064 will increase the traffic. In the event of an emergency it is difficult to navigate swiftly, local residents experience slow moving traffic, increased traffic fumes and delays in journey times. Local doctors and schools are oversubscribed. There is no infrastructure in place to accommodate the additional planned housing. Losing yet more green land deprives residents especially children of footpaths and spoils the woodlands. There is no viable exit/entrance route that does not spoil the environment.
At a time when health of residents and especially children should be a higher priority than building on an area surrounded by woodland and removing the designated pathways would appear to take little account of the need for exercise, nor the hope of encouraging children to take an interest in their environment.

Housing on CFS064 will place 214 houses and probably a minimum of 321 additional cars in a vicinity already experiencing traffic congestion. Minor roads on the estate are not suitable for additional car use. Planning should take account of current residents and certainly of the infrastructure required for an additional 214 houses. Placing possibly 400+ adults and 400+ children requiring local services, this needs careful consideration. Are local services, e.g. fire, police, ambulance, refuse collection, schools, doctors, hospitals, clinics actually able to cope effectively with so many additional demands?

Certainly roads will be overcrowded. Cycling will not be a viable option. Child road safety will become an issue and yet children need to be able to play outside. The plan does not seem to work in the interests of a more healthy and greener Britain.