GNLP2111

There are already too many new houses in this area and the schools and GP practices are all at capacity





p

Norfolk FA are supportive of residential development in Stoke Holy Cross, associated to the proposed S106 agreement which could provide an offsite contribution to support local football provision. Stoke United FC are a growing football club and have plans to try to redevelop their existing facility in association with the Parish Council.

We are very worried by this proposal. Stoke Holy Cross has grown by a third in just 4 years. Our son's school is full to bursting, and our house's primary school catchment has changed even though we live in Stoke Holy Cross!
This piece of land is outside the development boundary, and to build on it would mean building on rural green belt land. At the moment I watch tractors on my road, working on local food, providing local jobs.
I am already concerned by the amount of traffic on our little road: Subsequent building of houses will create industrial traffic, followed by excess cars in the area.
I continue to be worried by the lack of footpath between upper and lower stoke, especially as our one and only bus has been threatened. Our GP surgery has moved recently, but even in its new building, parking is hard and appointments are difficult to get. As someone who is disabled, this is extremely worrying.
I'm concerned about the surface drainage problems that have already been a problem on Brickle road. We have so many flash floods nowadays, this is a real worry.
I have lived in and around Stoke Holy Cross for fifteen years. I moved here soon after leaving home in my early twenties, and have settled and raised my family here. The south of Norfolk is so special to me because it is so rural and separate from the city, and yet so close as well. If we continue like this we will become yet another suburb, with no nature and wildlife left, and nothing that makes us special or unique.

- outside settlement boundary.
- will have negative impact on the landscape and wildlife of the historic Tas Valley
- s.h.x has already made a sufficient allocation of new housing..
- impact on existing new development has meant that roads and services in area are stretched to limit.
- this site is also close to dangerous junction on a hill
- this and after proposed sites do very little to provide affordable, low cost housing

S.H.X has already made sufficient allocation of new housing
will have a very damaging impact on the landscape and wildlife of the Tas Valley
Development is outside the Settlement boundary

This site access is too close to a dangerous junction on the hill near church.
It does very little to provide affordable low cost housing
Existing new developments have already impacted heavily on existing roads and services.
It would close off yet another wildlife corridor to and from the Tas Valley

Firstly I wish to comment on the following proposals:
GNLP 2124 - Model Farm on the South side of Poringland Road
GNLP 2111 - Brickle Road
GNLP 2094 - Stoke Road
According to the plans that will be 80 dwellings behind Model Farm; 60 dwellings along Brickle Road and 110 houses along Stoke Road,
This is in addition to the 1,042 dwellings in the process of being built or completed around our house and near vicinity
Total 1292 dwellings which, at 4 persons to each dwelling and at least two cars per home, is 5168 people and 2584 vehicles.
Stoke Holy Cross is a village.
The proposals of turning it into a concrete, congested, polluted town are unforgivable.
The rolling hills and arable farmland will be gone. So will the birds, trees and deer and all things precious to us villagers who moved to this area many years ago for the unpolluted, uncongested way of life.
The roads cannot be widened; and they are B and C roads anyway. Down which the lorries thunder at speed already, bringing building materials to the sites still to be completed.
I do not understand the proposal of 250 dwellings when the planning was refused for 54 dwellings recently at the bottom of our garden. I would like to remind you the reasons for the refusal of this build which is a follows.
"The proposed development does not represent a sustainable development, having regard to the three tests (social, economic and environmental) set out in the NPPF, by virtue of the harmful impact to the character and visual appearance of the area and encroachment into the open countryside, together with the detrimental impact on the amenities of the existing neighbouring properties which significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefit of housing in the Norwich Policy Area where there is not an up to date 5 year housing land supply, which is diminished by virtue of the evidence contained in the SHMA. Accordingly, the proposal fails to comply with policy DM1.1 of the South Norfolk Local Plan and Paragraph 14 of the NPPF.
It is considered that the proposal would be harmful to the character and visual appearance of the area; is incompatible with the existing grain of development and would not make a positive contribution to the village, in terms of integrating itself appropriately into the settlement form and character and its surroundings. Consequently, the proposal would result in the erosion of the rural undeveloped character of the site and lead to an encroachment on the open countryside. The proposal in view of the above is therefore contrary to policies DM 3.8, DM4.5, Policy 2 of the JCS, together with Section 7 of the NPPF and the design principle 3.4.1 of the South Norfolk Place-Making Guide requires new development to relate well to the character of the local area which this proposal does not do."

The proposed development land is outside the development boundary and would encroach into rural green belt. Inspite of many houses going up in this area there has been no improvement to the road.

Stoke has given up some of its rural nature already and now needs protecting.

The development would have a negative impact on the local area due to increased traffic and lack of infrastructure to support 60 new dwellings.

We have experienced drainage issues which will be exacerbated.

The pace of growth in Stoke Holy Cross and surrounding villages is to quick and is taking its toll on the rural environment.

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.

I object to the proposed site behind the house we live in. We love to live in a rural setting close to amenities and the proposed housing development would ruin that.
This area is in need of land for agriculture and the development of it would result in the loss of local food production.The vast array of wildlife in the surrounding fields would be in danger. We have a pair of Red Kites nesting in the area of trees to the left of the field that would be adversely effected by the proposed development. The land behind our house is outside the development boundary and it would encroach into the rural, open "green belt" countryside, something that is important to keep our villages separate and individual. The roads here are busy enough and Brickle road is used as a rat run. Long Lane is a narrow very windy dangerous road to walk and is and not suitable for any more traffic. This area is used as a popular cycle route for many large clubs and popular with many walking clubs, more traffic would jeopardise this and halt extra income for our pubs and shops. The proposed entrance to the development is on a bend. Based on two vehicles per household would mean a great deal more traffic on the local roads. Currently 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. Our local surgery which has recently been expanded is at bursting point and they have already stated that they cannot cope with any further increase in the local population. 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 would be at breaking point. Brickle road already have issues with sewerage. 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 is unacceptable. Upper Stoke and Stoke Holy Cross would eventually merge and that would mean losing our village rural status.

I object to the proposed site for development of more houses. This is a rural area with much wildlife that would be adversely affected by the proposed development. We need all the land we can get for agriculture and the development of it would result in the loss of local food production.We have a pair of Red Kites nesting in the area of trees to the left of the field that would be adversely effected by the proposed development. The land behind our house is outside the development boundary and it would encroach into the rural, open "green belt" countryside, something that is important to keep our villages separate and individual. The roads here are busy enough and Brickle road is used as a rat run. Long Lane is a narrow very windy dangerous road to walk and is and not suitable for any more traffic. This area is used as a popular cycle route for many large clubs and popular with many walking clubs, more traffic would jeopardise this and halt extra income for our pubs and shops. The proposed entrance to the development is on a bend. Based on two vehicles per household would mean a great deal more traffic on the local roads. Currently 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. Our local surgery which has recently been expanded is at bursting point and they have already stated that they cannot cope with any further increase in the local population. 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 would be at breaking point. Brickle road already have issues with sewerage. 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 is unacceptable. Upper Stoke and Stoke Holy Cross would eventually merge and that would mean losing our village rural status.

1. Encroachment into the rural 'green belt' countryside.
2. Traffic effect on local narrow roads - based upon average of 2 vehicles per household. ROAD SAFETY (even if there is an extended 30mph limit) will be a concern with residential vehicles entering/leaving the site. IF THE DEVELOPER PROPOSES USING AN ALTERNATIVE ACCESS OF BRICKLE Road itself then the volume of traffic and injury/collision risk will increase on Brickle road.
3. Absence of footpath or cycle paths linking this with schools in Lower Stoke and Framingham Earl.
4. Impact upon local services - schools & GP services which are already over-stretched.
5. Ability of local infrastructure to cope with another 60 houses. Water pressure is low in our area already. Surface drainage problems already occur at the bottom of Brickle road and this problem will increase.
6. We have already had a huge number of houses built in the last few years - more than originally planned.
7. We will loose our rural character, just creating a longer residential arc spreading around the south of Norwich.

Roads already overused and not able to cope with further congestion. Not enough capacity in local school, have to go into Norwich yet more traffic. Doctors and dentists already full.
Bus service very poor and is going to be cancelled through Upper Stoke Holy Cross. Will have problems with drainage if field is developed. Hundreds of new houses have been built/are being built. The infrastructure is already at capacity.
With all the building/proposed building in the area we are becoming yet another suburb of Norwich.

Against planning policy - sited outside the village development boundary, contrary to the South Norfolk Local Plan Development Management Policies and national planning policy.
No need for further development in the village. 130 dwelling have been or are currently under construction in the village.
Highway and access issues.
Inadequate services and capacity of existing utilities.
It is not sustainable development - no economic, social or environmental benefits.
Lacking local support.

mainly --due to acceddes and traffic

The site is under SHINE protected status and should be considered by planners. The cropmarks of a stretch of Roman road are visible on aerial photographs running intermittently from Upper Stoke, across the former Poringland Heath and joining with the Roman road to Ditchingham, Stone Street, at Brooke to the southeast. The soilmark of a stretch of Roman road is visible on aerial photographs linking the Roman road (NHER 30288) running east from the Roman town of Venta Icenorum, with the section of road (NHER52298) across the former Poringland Heath and joining with the Roman road above.
NHER 58887NHER 58840:

Stoke Holy Cross and the immediate surrounding areas are already growing at an alarming rate.
I don't believe the infrastructure of the current local road system or services .i.e. GP surgeries and schools are able to accommodate extra growth .

This land is outside the development boundary and will if allowed to proceed will have a massive impact on traffic, wildlife, noise and light pollution, GP's, schools ( both already stated they cannot cope with further increase ) shops etc. The local area is already expanding super fast and the amenities cannot cope with this expansion.

Brickle Road is already a fast rat run every morning and was used to the max during the road closures in Poringland. You take your life in your own hands at almost any time of the day walking or cycling along the road, there has been many a near miss when walking my dog.

Traffic refuses to observe the 30 MPH speed limit as you leave the countryside and enter the residential part of the road. Long Lane is the same, there is a 30 mph at St Georges village hall , but rarely is this adhered to. There are crossroads at the top of Brickle Road crossing to Chandler Road and with the new development there, traffic will automatically increase. To add more homes along here would be a nightmare adding to pollution and dangers joining the main road.There are no footpaths to Lower Stoke and we don't need any, this is countryside, you choose to live here because it's the country. To build more homes impacts everything around it.

This will be a massive blot on the amazing views across the fields. One of the reasons I moved here. Quiet, peaceful and no street lights. You can appreciate the night skies and can hear the wildlife that depends on it.

There will be a loss of habitat for the wildlife. There's an abundance of bats, owls, deer, hedgehog, frogs, toads,geese, swans, herons that use this area to hunt and to migrate. Where do they all go? That's the big bonus living here, to watch and listen to owls, bats herons and hedgehogs literally in your garden. This treat will no doubt disappear.

When does it all end, the more we take away the greater the risk to loose wildlife forever, as we know hedgehogs are already in major decline.

I moved here because it was a rural village, we are fast loosing this and eventually, we will join up with Norwich. It will no longer be a country village but a small town.

How very sad.

The impact is too great on everyone living here, nobody wants to see houses literally in their own back garden.

As they are withdrawing a bus from this route there will be more cars as most homes seem to have 2 or more.

The surface drainage problems already experienced towards the bottom of Brickle Rd are likely to be exacerbated. The ability of the local infrastructure to cope with another 60 homes, roads, drainage education and health services.

SHC has already seen a huge increase in new houses built in the last few years, increasing the number of houses in the village by 30% - far more than originally planned and agreed.

The loss of agricultural land.

RESPONSE BY STOKE HOLY CROSS PARISH COUNCIL TO GREATER NORWICH LOCAL PLAN REGULATION 18 CONSULTATION.
The Parish Council would wish to make the following comments about the proposed additional sites for development in Stoke Holy Cross Parish. This includes the following sites that are within, or partially within, the Parish boundary.
GNLP 2091 GNLP 0197 GNLP 0202, GNLP 0524, GNLP2111, GNLP0494, GNLP1047, GNLP2124, GNLP0223.
The Parish Council is very concerned about the prospect of yet further residential development in Stoke Holy Cross without the provision of sufficient supporting services and infrastructure. This has become increasingly apparent following the approval and subsequent development of approximately 150 dwellings in the village approved since 2013, under the polices of the existing core strategy and South Norfolk Local Plan. The Core Strategy actually proposed 20 dwellings for the village with the proviso that additional dwellings could be permitted if sufficient infrastructure existed or could be provided. In reality as stated below, the village has very limited local facilities, and the new housing is already putting considerable strain upon those that exist. Parishioners are also very concerned about the detrimental impact of some of these proposed sites on the picturesque and ecologically rich Valley landscape within which Stoke Holy Cross is situated. The potential impact of proposed site GLP2091 on the River Tas Valley and the encroachment into the rural gap between Upper and Lower Stoke Holy Cross by sites GNLP2111, GNLP0202, GNLP 0197 and GNLP 0524, are of particular concern in this respect.
We wish therefore wish to object to all of the above proposed sites for the following reasons:
There have not been any improvements to services or the essential infrastructure in the village to support recent housing developments, which has resulted in an approximate 30% increase in households.
The Village does not have a Shop, a Doctors Surgery, Post Office, or a regular style Public House meaning that parishioners have to travel to nearby local service centres, the nearest being Poringland some 3 miles away, to avail themselves of these services.
The nearest Doctors Surgery has become over capacity due to the extensive housing developments that have, and are still taking place in Stoke Holy Cross, and nearby Caistor St Edmund, Poringland, Framingham Earl and Framingham Pigot.
The Bus services through the Village have recently been reduced from a half-hourly to an hourly service, meaning that many parishioners are having to resort to other forms of transport, including the private car, to travel to work or to access local facilities.
The road network through Stoke is very vulnerable to rat running from Poringland and the Framinghams, to avoid the severe congestion elsewhere on the network, particularly on the B1332. This is already leading to significant increases in traffic through the village, which will be greatly exacerbated if development of the proposed sites mainly along this route, were to be allowed.
The pre-school and primary School are both approaching capacity, which is already causing concern for Parents, who are having difficulty finding places for their children. This will only worsen as the outstanding planning permissions in the village are built out.
There is no Footpath or cycleway between the two halves of the village meaning that pedestrians and cyclists have to negotiate a narrow, unlit, unrestricted speed, country road to travel between them. This is a problem because the shops, high school, and Medical Centres, are situated beyond Upper Stoke, whilst the primary school, Village Hall and church are within lower Stoke. The recent reduction in the frequency of the bus service connecting the two halves of the village means that persons travelling between the two halves of the village, including the School children attending Stoke Primary School or Framingham Earl School, who decide to walk or cycle, do not have a safe passage to School, apart from when being taken by private car!
In summary, it is our strongly held view that the existing infrastructure within Stoke Holy Cross cannot handle any further significant development, and our experience of the provision of infrastructure in connection with the latest housing developments in the village does not give us confidence that the situation will improve in the foreseeable future. Parishioners currently experience substantial traffic issues and with further developments in Poringland and Framingham Earl still to be completed, this will increase in the future. All of the suggested sites will make a bad situation worse without the lack of local services and infrastructure issue being addressed, and also worsen the existing problems with sewerage and water pressure, in parts of the village. In short these proposed developments would not be sustainable in Stoke Holy Cross.

In conclusion we believe that Stoke Holy Cross has had more than its fair share of development in recent years, and that there should be no further allocation of any housing that is more than infill in scale in the next round of housing allocations, so that the village can adjust to the latest substantial developments currently taking place and the necessary infrastructure and services be allowed to catch up with the development in a sustainable manner in accordance with both national and local planning policy.

* Infrastructure already unable to cope.
* Wildlife habitat's will be destroyed.
* Reduced air quality due to felled trees.
* Eye sore and therefore lower the cost of houses in the area trying to sell.
* Just another suburb of Norwich.
* SHC character will be corroded.
* Encroaching on greenbelt area which is what makes the UK unique.
* Dog walkers/ramblers will have less space to enjoy the English countryside.

GNLP0524

The vast majority of the Lower Stoke residents objected to this site which is situated on either side of the Long Lane road. This is because it involves the expansion of the village boundaries into greenfield areas, most of which is good arable agricultural land. Also the infrastructure cannot support this, having already had large developments over the last 30 years!

Anglian Water Stated many years ago that the water and sewage resources were at maximum limits. The roads are only minor 'C' narrow roads and the traffic using them has increased by factors of 3 or 4 times over the last few years.

The residents stated at the time that this development would lead to further sites being put forward towards Upper Stoke along the Long Lane road and this is now happening!


GNLP0197 & GNLP0202

These sites have been put forward by opportunistic land owners, agents and developers who see a chance to make a killing involving huge amounts of money at the expense of the village and surrounding countryside. These sites are outside the village boundaries and involve building on greenfield sites regardless of the infrastructure, water resources and roads to support them! Also if these sites are accepted will create a precedent and will lead to the march of development, field by adjoining field along the Long Lane road to join up with Upper Stoke Village! This would also again involve a huge loss of prime agricultural land, overcrowd the whole area and result in a massive housing sprawl!


GNLP2091, GNLP2111 & GNLP2124

These sites are situated in countryside overlooking the Tas Valley and would be an environmental catastrophe to allow any development in these sites. They are again in greenfield areas and outside the settlement boundaries. The GNLP2091 site, which is in the Tas Valley, is owned by an absentee landowner who has no interest in the village and is trying to maximise his dormant investment from his home in Scandinavia via La Ronde Wright, Development & Planning Agents in Norwich.



In conclusion, the sites submitted during REG 18 and call for sites in 2016 have resulted from the statement made by the GNLP that 36,000 homes are required to satisfy the local needs by 2026! Nobody knows how the GNLP has arrived at these figures or how they have been calculated, it seems to be an arbitrary figure snatched out of thin air! This has resulted in a huge amount of speculative building site applications arriving at local district councils planning departments. The ridiculous ruling by the government that local planning departments of the district councils must have a 5 year bank of approved sites has caused mayhem in our village communities. The building developers have taken full advantage of the situation and especially here in Stoke Holy Cross! Our local Parish magazine is called 'Free For All' and that is what is happening by a huge land grab of potential building sites in the middle of the countryside!

The sites submitted during REG 18 and call for sites in 2016 also are all outside the current settlement boundaries and will result in a massive expansion of the village, which has endured constant development over the past few years. Also the arable land lost questions the future of producing food for the next generations of this country.

I have to question further the remit of the Greater Norwich Local Plan department, how it is made up, how decisions are made and who benefits from the outcomes and results. As I see it the Land Owners get a huge cash windfall, Christmas has definitely come early for them together with the land agents and developers. The councils involved in the GNLP, Norfolk County Council and the utilities derive a fantastic stream of income in council taxes and charges per property built!

The sad state of affairs is that until the Planning Laws are reformed the applicants (developers) will have all the advantages against the objectors. The developers have the resources in lawyers, finances and staff in mounting constant appeals on planning refusals until they get their way. The objectors should at least have the same rights of appeal against planning decisions, similar to the applicants, without the huge costs of a judicial review.

The GNLP states there is a local need for all these thousands of homes to be built but most of these properties are being purchased by investors, second home owners and retirees from outside the county. Our local young couples are priced out of the market with prices starting over £300,000 and very few can afford to buy them. There should be an independent lawful body or organisation looking out for the interests of the villages, residents, farming resources and the countryside involved in decisions taken by the GNLP! Instead we have a situation where any field or piece of land in the countryside can have a development planning application put on it because of the relaxing of the planning laws by the government! This happens even if the land has a special interest or order on it, look what has happened in the Tud Valley in Costessey. This is now happening in the Tas Valley where it is being attacked on all sides by planning applications!

We are now concreting over valued food producing arable land in an area supposed to be the bread basket of the UK.

I myself have had constant disruption over the last 20 years due to construction traffic, noise, dust and damage caused to roads and landmarks. I think I should get a council tax rebate to compensate for all the sites approved by the District Council.

I wish to object to the building of 50 plus houses on the proposed site

See full submission for detail

It is distressing and very disappointing to learn of yet another proposed development in the village of Stoke Holy Cross. So many have been built and are being built on green field sites in the parish and immediate area. The currently proposed site is a particularly sensitive position as it is really the only remaining open visual access from within the village to the precious asset afforded by Tas Valley. In recent memory and currently it has been possible to witness the meandering growth of the built environment as it fills in any remaining spaces on Long Lane to eventually meet and merge with the still expanding and increasingly urban conurbation of Poringland. Another major concern are the pressures that yet another development within the village will put upon the existing services. The sewage system has been functioning at full capacity for many years and local pumping stations certainly do not appear to receive the maintenance care and attention that they used to benefit from. The local primary school would appear to be functioning at very high capacity and the road to and from the school, which is already crowded and hazardous at peak times, would be further congested by the suggested development. In addition, a grave concern regarding the potential nature of this particular development is the lack of overall design that would be a major feature of the proposed scheme. Surely such a scheme exposes itself to "spec" building and inappropriate design.

I strongly object to development on land behind my house on Brickle Road. I have lived here for 35 years and do not want an estate of houses in my back garden.

Stoke Holy Cross has already had 30% of houses, far more than planned. We are a rural village and more developments would spoil that. Apart from that, our local schools and doctors are full.

Traffic on our little roads can't cope either, and 50-60 houses with possible 2 cars per house would be impossible to cope with.

What has happened to our 'Green Belt' countryside.

Please consider all this and say No to this plan.