Please note: You only need to register / login if you wish to make representations.
If you haven't got an account you can register now.
If you have forgotten your password you can request a new password.
Objection to the proposed development at Site 106 in Layer-De-La-Haye:-
Road Infrastructure:- The proposed site is currently serviced by three minor "B" roads (namely The High Road, The Folly and Malting Green Road) and could not sustain the influx of additional traffic that would be generated from the proposed development. Furthermore the suggested access point to the proposed site via Hawthorn Road/Great House Farm Road would severely impact the residents on the existing housing estate there by producing a much higher level of noise, pollution and potential increased danger to pedestrians from the additional traffic travelling to and from the proposed site.
Our roads are already chaotic, particularly at peak times, with Traffic from all the other new housing developments in the surrounding areas to Layer-De-La-Haye. The infrastructure is far too fragile to sustain an even higher volume of traffic. Our Bus service into Colchester is pretty infrequent, so residents are generally reliant on their cars for transport.
Utilities:- These are already strained in our village as evidenced by the relatively low Gas and Water pressure, not to mention the frequent electrical power cuts that we experience. All of these current issues would only be exasperated by further demand on these resources emanating from the proposed development.
Medical:- The surgery in New Cut was closed some time ago and more recently the surgery in Birch has also been closed, thus leaving just one remaining surgery in the immediate area. An increased demand in patients resulting from the proposed development could not be facilitated by this surgery, thereby having a serious impact on the welfare of our current residents and in particular our more elderly and less mobile villagers.
Education:- We understand that Layer primary school is already oversubscribed as indeed are a number of other surrounding secondary schools. The potential additional schooling requirements from the proposed development could not be catered for locally which would mean that parents would have to look and travel further a field for their children's education thus creating even more pressure and problems to our already busy roads.
Environmental:- Layer-De-La-Haye is a rural Essex village and should remain so. The proposed development would completely ruin and destroy the current vista and ambiance of the Village by merely turning it into yet another suburb of Colchester. The additional strain on the current infrastructure and amenities could not be cater for and the noise and pollution caused would be seriously detrimental to the wellbeing of the local environment.
The village is currently an established collection of private dwellings surrounded by agricultural farmland and fields. The proposed development, being effectively a housing estate, is not conducive to maintaining the environmental aspect and persona of our village.
The proposed development would encroach on the "Green Envelope" of our village by removing a perfectly fertile agricultural field(s) together with public footpath and bridleway thereby resulting in our open spaces being reduced and not protected as they should be!
Hedgerows and other natural Flora and Fauna, all of which harbour an array of wildlife, surround the proposed site. By building on this site the natural habitat for these creatures will be decimated and destroyed. Furthermore millions of pounds have been spent on the Abberton Reservoir Expansion Project, a big part of which has been to ensure that its status as a premier nature reserve for all types of birds and general wildlife is maintained. The increased noise, pollution and additional ambient light produced by the proposed development would most certainly have a seriously detrimental effect on this beautiful and treasured nature reserve.
General Comment:- The site in question has been proposed for development at least three times before to the best of my knowledge with each of these previous applications being refused for good reason. As a consequence I see no justification for this new proposal to be approved and nor should it be!