Colton Lane cannot cope with the existing 'ratrun' traffic, building more houses will increase the traffic even more. Colton Lane was built to serve the traffic from the residents of Colton, it is not a major highway.
A
Andy Clarke
10 years ago
I oppose this short sighted plan to destroy what is left of a beautiful and historic part of my neighbourhood. Already there are too many houses with no infrastructure to support; roads, schools, facilities.
A
Anonymous
10 years ago
Don't do it.
A
Anonymous
10 years ago
lack of school places for existing residents
P
Peter Robertson
10 years ago
I oppose this plan as Colton and the surrounding area is already busy enough, traffic and schools will be affected.
N
Nicola Goldthorpe
10 years ago
The roads around Colton are already too busy and this plan will only make it worse and will have a negative impact on safety. It will also destroy wildlife and green belt land.
C
Colette Young-Breeze
10 years ago
Please stop building so many houses in our area - the schools and roads are already too full!!!!
I
Indulis Svikis
10 years ago
This planning proposal has not taken into consideration schools and infrastructure.
E
Elizabeth Hayes
10 years ago
This has to be the most ridiculous proposal on so many levels LCC. Have finally lost the plot !!!
B
Bradley Young-Breeze
10 years ago
The local area is already filling up. There is noticeably more traffic (admittedly of which I am part of) but as a parent of young children I have real concerns as to how and whether we have the infrastructure - schools, roads, other resources - to manage any more housing locally.
Surely this should be suspended until at least we have a clear picture as to how infrastructure is to be matched to demand.
As for the Traveller site, it really depends on how this area will be managed and what will be put in place to ensure the area is maintained, supported and funded. What is the benefit to the local area of this site?
A
Anonymous
10 years ago
It seems odd that LCC are proposing a housing development a stones throw from a proposed travellers camp. The sale price of any properties built would you imagine be significantly less and the new homes less desirable, with a knock on effect on the land value.
Coupled with this would be a the potential for colton residents to seek a re evaluation of their council tax banding due to the perceived negative effect on property values, should the travellers camp be built.
The access to the travellers site itself will need to be widened to incorporate a visibility splay. This involves hedgerow destruction and the crossing/ disturbance of the iron age grims ditch. ( I know about this because the council have put signs up with historical information nearby)
The site will need to be serviced gas water, electric and sewers, add in the cost of the design and construction and your looking in the region of 500k to make this a reality.
I feel confident that the proposed travellers site wont go ahead. The housing is another matter and I wish the colton unite team and their supporters (Of which im one!) every success with both objections.
A
Alex Twigg
10 years ago
Please do not wreck my future. Re route HS2 and let us have some green fields.
D
Debbie Twigg
10 years ago
your council has already wrecked our lives by trying route HS2 though our gardens.
A
Andy Twigg
10 years ago
Lets us have some green belt land, your council has already wrecked our lives by trying route HS2 though our gardens.
T
Tricia Chapman
10 years ago
Destroying the lovely area and making it unsustainable for local services as they will be stretched past breaking point. At what point will councils stop building on parkland like this, focus on rejuvenating existing derelict and deprived areas rather than quality land. Far too congested already from previous ridiculous planning arrangements - don't make another, please!
I
Ian Westwood
10 years ago
Please see some sense. Surely there is land in other places where there are derelict warehouses or something. Crowding people into tiny areas that become large estates and bring on depression, anxiety and myriad of other problems. Think again and vote No.
A
Arlene Clapham
10 years ago
please save our woodland we enjoy walks through the park
P
Phillip Abbiss
10 years ago
The traveling community have for many years made it clear that to become static is against their culture. To spend tax payers money to create a static site is clearly unproductive for both communities
M
Mark casey
10 years ago
We say no
A
Arlene Clapham
10 years ago
colton does not want a gypsy site as for Building houses in temple newsom we do not want our wild life and trees to be destroyed save our woodland
Colton Lane cannot cope with the existing 'ratrun' traffic, building more houses will increase the traffic even more. Colton Lane was built to serve the traffic from the residents of Colton, it is not a major highway.
I oppose this short sighted plan to destroy what is left of a beautiful and historic part of my neighbourhood. Already there are too many houses with no infrastructure to support; roads, schools, facilities.
Don't do it.
lack of school places for existing residents
I oppose this plan as Colton and the surrounding area is already busy enough, traffic and schools will be affected.
The roads around Colton are already too busy and this plan will only make it worse and will have a negative impact on safety. It will also destroy wildlife and green belt land.
Please stop building so many houses in our area - the schools and roads are already too full!!!!
This planning proposal has not taken into consideration schools and infrastructure.
This has to be the most ridiculous proposal on so many levels LCC. Have finally lost the plot !!!
The local area is already filling up. There is noticeably more traffic (admittedly of which I am part of) but as a parent of young children I have real concerns as to how and whether we have the infrastructure - schools, roads, other resources - to manage any more housing locally. Surely this should be suspended until at least we have a clear picture as to how infrastructure is to be matched to demand. As for the Traveller site, it really depends on how this area will be managed and what will be put in place to ensure the area is maintained, supported and funded. What is the benefit to the local area of this site?
It seems odd that LCC are proposing a housing development a stones throw from a proposed travellers camp. The sale price of any properties built would you imagine be significantly less and the new homes less desirable, with a knock on effect on the land value. Coupled with this would be a the potential for colton residents to seek a re evaluation of their council tax banding due to the perceived negative effect on property values, should the travellers camp be built. The access to the travellers site itself will need to be widened to incorporate a visibility splay. This involves hedgerow destruction and the crossing/ disturbance of the iron age grims ditch. ( I know about this because the council have put signs up with historical information nearby) The site will need to be serviced gas water, electric and sewers, add in the cost of the design and construction and your looking in the region of 500k to make this a reality. I feel confident that the proposed travellers site wont go ahead. The housing is another matter and I wish the colton unite team and their supporters (Of which im one!) every success with both objections.
Please do not wreck my future. Re route HS2 and let us have some green fields.
your council has already wrecked our lives by trying route HS2 though our gardens.
Lets us have some green belt land, your council has already wrecked our lives by trying route HS2 though our gardens.
Destroying the lovely area and making it unsustainable for local services as they will be stretched past breaking point. At what point will councils stop building on parkland like this, focus on rejuvenating existing derelict and deprived areas rather than quality land. Far too congested already from previous ridiculous planning arrangements - don't make another, please!
Please see some sense. Surely there is land in other places where there are derelict warehouses or something. Crowding people into tiny areas that become large estates and bring on depression, anxiety and myriad of other problems. Think again and vote No.
please save our woodland we enjoy walks through the park
The traveling community have for many years made it clear that to become static is against their culture. To spend tax payers money to create a static site is clearly unproductive for both communities
We say no
colton does not want a gypsy site as for Building houses in temple newsom we do not want our wild life and trees to be destroyed save our woodland