This proposal does not reflect any consistency to existing housing types by way of density, designs and styles.
The only access for an addition 100 or more homes, each with an average of two cars from at estate road (Kingston Way), with almost 70 existing houses is considered totally unacceptable, unsafe and impracticable especially for all service and emergency vehicles.
Ecologically the proposal is on a valued wetland site surrounded by and including a woodland perimeter full of wildlife including bats, songbirds, badgers muntjacs, hedgehogs, indeed wildlife in abundance and with particular note to the pond and bog area which contain yellow crested newts, frogs etc.
It is obvious this development does not provide sufficient areas of separation and green wedge.
Local facilities for shopping amenities will be approximately 2km from the site. Schooling close by is already full to capacity with medical surgeries and community facilities likewise, making abnormal demands and difficulties for young families.
Affordable housing needs to be centred to more accessible/new facilities and recreational areas which are not provided in this proposal.
The current farm access is barely suited for purpose and we understand it is to be retained, this is not shown on the existing plans. Further in depth consideration must be given to the access for the site development vehicles as negotiating this farm access of Burnmill Road is very limited and inadequate. It is understood that site access for development is intending to use the farm track and one must assume that they are intending to use Alvington Way and Burnmill Road to negotiate this. Assuming therefore the alternative Alvington Way and more particularly Bates Close and Kingston Way access would have to be used. This abnormal and monumental intrusion is not considered to reflect any consideration given to those existing residents.
We hope our comments will help balance your proposal aimed at policies to protect and improve a quality of people's lives and approve your objectives for the environment. In addition any development of the site should be considered within the future plans for land off Leicester Road, West of Burnmill Farm where upon adequate road and service facilities suitable for this size of development could be implemented.

In conclusion we feel we must point out that the promise from David Wilson Homes to notify all residents within 1 km of the development of the Presentation Meeting was to be held on 24th October, sadly failed. As a result of no communication whatsoever to a very large proportion of local residents this has lead to a limited period of time for which to reflect and underwrite our points. This lead to a doubtful explanation of this oversight.