QUESTION 60: Do you think

Object

Representation ID: 345

Received: 07/07/2021

Respondent: Ms Kirsty Aldis

SN0478
The current site is new and hasn't been given time to see the impact this will have on flooding, local environment etc. Residents of the new estate were informed that it would not be extended due to the risk of flooding and the site sitting on a flood plain so this would mean that have been lied to.

Comment

Representation ID: 707

Received: 27/07/2021

Respondent: Mrs Shirin Salt

SN0437 - land in Geldeston should be rejected for all reasons stated under Q56 & Q57.
A suburban appropriate development will destroy the historic character and rural community.
Excessive traffic on rural roads will result in accidents as the roads are used by people and animals and not just vehicles.
Speeding is already a problem.
The recently finished development has already caused severe traffic issues with traffic volume and speeding.
Development will result in more people and vehicles creating pressure on the environment, waste water management and surface flooding.

Object

Representation ID: 1079

Received: 31/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Christopher Black

Ref. SN0274, in addition to the comments in question 58, these site should be rejected on the grounds of flooding, the site here has already been waterlogged with run off collecting at this low point already.

Object

Representation ID: 1238

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Ms Tamsin Watt

Shortlisted sites SN0274 REV A and REV B are located directly opposite preferred site SN0478 and should be rejected for the same flood risk and environmental concerns as set out in response to Question 58 above.
However, it is noted that these sites could provide some benefits in terms of potential transport linkage to the existing service station to the north which could alleviate pressure on The Street through Gillingham. No such benefits would be provided through development of site SN0478.

Object

Representation ID: 1246

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Sid Anverali

Shortlisted sites SN0274 REV A and REV B are located directly opposite preferred site SN0478 and should be rejected for the same flood risk and environmental concerns as set out in response to Question 58 above.
However, it is noted that these sites could provide some benefits in terms of potential transport linkage to the existing service station to the north which could alleviate pressure on The Street through Gillingham. No such benefits would be provided through development of site SN0478.

Comment

Representation ID: 1728

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Ms Catherine Bickmore

SN 0274 rev A and B Gillingham
Both these should be rejected on similar grounds to SN 4078, but with greater impact.

Reject other proposals in Gillingham as creeping suburbanisation with associated environmental implications.