Object

Site Assessment Pro Formas

Representation ID: 6922

Received: 15/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Tina Mills

Representation Summary:

Little Staughton Sites All General Comments
There are 8 highlighted sites in the village of Little Staughton on the list viewed, with a maximum development quantity envisaged of 85 Houses/builds.
Highlighting high level comments/objections are as follows, there are likely to be many more comments when/if plans are drawn up for approved development at some later stage.
• Village of this size with its own settlement policy I understand, if this quantity of houses were developed on top of building work undertaken in the last year or so would be totally excessive in my view and impact greenery, village life, roads and potentially impact rural location views etc.
• Twenty houses maximum or less, would still not be desirable, but maybe a compromise depending on where placed in the village.
• Farmland seems once again being given up for housing, if we have many houses and a lack of UK agriculture this is a serious risk for the future and surely impacts green credentials on many fronts, and some of the council objectives set out in the overall vision for the 2040 plan.
• The rate of development in Little Staughton has seriously increased of late, along with the impact to the countryside green spaces trees and wildlife. To develop at the suggested rate does not fit in with rural life, and will not be of positive benefit to villagers or the countryside being eroded by development.
• The village has a history of pathfinders base in the war and historic church on a hill, and also noted for its beauty and special wildlife, bats owls etc., and strong neighbourhood engagement, plus camping site for people wanting to get to rural living, this must not be spoilt as it an important reason for villagers living here, and holiday vacations tourist industry.
• We must have some limits on infrastructure if this is developed on this scale, assuming average of 3 bedrooms 255 new villagers requiring electric, sewerage, water an many then experiencing mobile phone signal issues, or will a phone mast then be required and sited as a village eyesore?
• The village pub and shops I would suggest are not geared for this increase, therefore would this drive further development in the village to need to be put in place, doctor’s surgery and increased shopping, negative impact to village character become more urban.
• Rural life should not be impacted by changing the face of the village, it is a rural location with farm machinery etc. constantly using narrow country roads, the village has enough traffic without more being introduced particularly on Spring Hill where people enter/exit drives..
• Many sites listed are giving up valuable green space views of the village, detrimental to country life in our view, and not fitting in with council vision for the future.
• Specific comment can’t find on map: Beaumont House development assume this would mean demolition of older houses (village character/history) with new dwellings, Church Lane leading up to the beautiful agent church would potentially have 15 dwellings visible when walking up this scenic country lane. We need to retain the balance of old and new properties to avoid changing village character, not just replace.
• One site mentioned opposite Grays Grove already has planning application underway, this has already come across some major issues, and is again taking up farmland.