Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 19010

Received: 13/12/2018

Respondent: Mrs Avril Eastwood

Representation Summary:

Personal health issues with the pollution
Loss of rural living
Loss of nature and our view
Lack of Privacy
Noise pollution
Vehicle and housing pollution
Too much traffic
More than enough development in the area
Strain on all the local services
Impact on wildlife

Full text:

I object very strongly to the proposed site behind the house we live in. We moved here to live in a rural setting close to amenities for many reasons and the proposed housing development would render our rural setting void and would essentially dump us in the middle of a housing estate. Which would mean we would have to move for the sake of my health.
Firstly on a personal note the effects that the development would have on my health are considerable. Due to a serious lung disease we live in a rural location with plenty of fresh air. If a housing estate were to be built at the bottom of our short garden, I would no longer have the fresh air that I so desperately need. The effect of heating system, open fire and car exhaust fumes to the rear of our house would have a detrimental affect on my already deteriorated health. If building were to commence on the site the pollution with all the construction vehicles and generators building 60 houses would affect my lungs badly and exasperate my already frequent chest infections. We would be unable to sit in our garden enjoying the fresh air and the daily airing of my house would be diminished greatly. There is a beautiful peace and tranquillity in our garden that would be gone. I enjoy the view immensely while standing cooking in my kitchen which faces west onto the proposed development. Waking up in the morning to the fantastic view through our bedroom patio door is one of the highlights of my day. Our privacy would be lost completely and we would be overlooked by other houses. Instead of the wonderful views we would have net curtains to look at! We have the most beautiful view from the ground and first floor to the rear of our house, overlooking fields, trees and an immense array of wildlife. The sunsets are beautiful and when there is a crop fully grown in the field it is a calming and fabulous view which would be devastated by the development. We enjoy a vast array of wildlife which would be in danger and in particular the hedgehogs that we get in our garden that come in through the hedge from the field would decline even further. Earlier this year a Red Kite moved into the area of trees to the left of the field and recently was joined by a mate. They hunt a great deal in the field behind our house and nest in those trees and I am sure they would move elsewhere if the proposed development was to be approved. We enjoy so much watching them fly above and behind our house on a regular basis. We also have a huge array of birds in our garden including a great number of pheasants and partridges that come through our back gate. The deer we see in the field on a regular basis would be no more. It is completely unfair to situate a housing estate behind all the houses in this road when the residents obviously live here for the rural location and the views. Our son whiles away many hours standing behind our hedge enjoying the view or sitting watching the wildlife and sunset and taking pictures to post to his friends. Something he would be unable to do with a housing estate right outside our back gate.

The following points are all the issues that our area faces if this development goes ahead: The land behind our house is outside the development boundary and it would encroach into the rural, open "green belt" countryside; the roads here are busy enough and are narrow and based on two vehicles per household would mean a great deal more traffic; there are no paths linking this development to schools, shops and amenities in Stoke Holy Cross, Lower Stoke & Framingham Earl therefore putting children at risk; Long Lane is a very windy dangerous road to walk on as it is and not suitable for any more traffic; our local surgery is at bursting point and they have already stated that they cannot cope with any further increase in the local population; it is difficult to get an appointment with either the nurses or doctors without having to wait for over a week if sometimes two weeks or more; the ability of the local infrastructure to cope with another 60 houses that require roads, sewage, drainage, education and health services when so many new housing estates are already available in the local area; Stoke Holy Cross has already seen a huge increase in new houses built in the last few years - increasing the number of houses built in the village by >30%, far more than originally planned and agreed; it would mean losing our village's rural status and possibly Stoke Holy Cross would be merged with Poringland and Framingham Earl losing our village character.