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.
As a resident of Langham I would like to express my concerns on the present draft proposals. My principle concern regarding the Wick Road proposed development, (RNE 50) is that the 'rural sense of place' at this junction which bears the coat of arms needs to be protected. This can be achieved by not building right up to the junction as the plan seems to indicate.
I am strongly opposed to any significant growth in School Road and 115 is indeed significant and my comments below relate to the 115 proposed there.
1. Langham is, and should remain, rural. Apart from war time the population of Langham has not changed much over the last few hundred years so proportionate to our past there should be no growth in the number of dwellings. However, I am realistic enough to know that there must be some and this was agreed democratically after consultation. However the proposed 3rd site for 60 new properties which has been slotted in without consultation and is located between Power Plus and the Community Centre is a totally unsuitable location. Additionally, and catastrophically, the building of a green estate would join up St Margarets Cross with Langham Moor. This green corridor on the north side of School Road has marked the separation of these 2 distinct settlements for hundreds of years, and being separated by an historic airfield used by the Americans in the 2nd World War. As you may know this historic past is celebrated by existence of the airfield museum located off Langham Lane. This airfield also forms the very centre of the village, is unique in this regard, and should not be altered. The other site in School Road (RNE 11) should be of a design with no backfill and therefore cannot accommodate 55 new dwellings.
2 . To build any kind of 'green estate' in School Road will completely ruin the rural feel of the centre of the village and to build 115 properties with estate like backfill so close together could not have been suggested in a worse place as School Road:-
A. Suffers from surface water flooding on a regular basis
B. Is extremely busy as there are 3 educational establishments, a community centre, shop, an industrial business park using tractors and HGVs ( plus the workers who predominantly travel to the business park by car from outside Langham)
C. Has residential properties (including many bungalows) with a high number of elderly people and all the existing properties just fronting School Road.
D. Has alternate paving on either side of the road and no street lights which are typical rural features I would like to protect, additionally even if no street lights are added light pollution from 115 new properties will dilute the rural feel of the village,
E. Forms the southern boundary of the Stour Valley Project Area, which needs protecting
F. Has a well used outside play area for young children immediately adjacent to the nursery/community centre in School Road. Any further pollution caused by increased traffic could negatively increase the health risks of the young users.
3. The draft plan seems to have ignored Hornestreet Field just off School Road opposite the community centre which is part of the SVPA. This has been promoted as a wild life area with proactive tree species being planted and has had help from volunteers from the Dedham AONB and the Stour Valley Project assisting in its development. The consequent increase in vehicle movement can only have negative impact on this locally recognised resource - it needs to be protected and enhanced even, not threatened by increased traffic volumes. It goes without saying therefore that Dedham AONB is also threatened due to its close proximity to School Road.
4. You do not qualify what you mean by 'proportionate' in your draft document so it must be acceptable for me to interpret this as I, and the English language, see fit. It appears that Langham is being treated very unfairly in comparison to other villages - there are 419 properties and the proposed increase of 125 dwellings is totally dis-proportionate to the existing number of dwellings and also vastly more than what other villages are being asked to accept.
Please note there is no such place as the wider Langham area - our parish has defined boundaries and these boundaries separate us from other villages.
5. Lastly, however many properties Langham takes, that these are built incrementally over the period to 2033 and not all in the first few years from now.