Your Views

I am writing to you to lodge my objection with re to the south Berkhamsted concept.
The site can not and should not be considered as either a site allocation in the core strategy nor for a development proposal of this (or any) size, as it contradicts both existing plans and the emerging core strategy and their assumed principles of sustainable development.
The site can not be in accordance with any existing plans in the first instance as the site(s) is located within the green belt. This itself is a policy designation, and although granted the site it is asthetically pleasing in itself, its main purpose is to limit urban sprawl. National, regional and local policy all state that allowing any development in the green belt is inappropriate. I believe that the developer would be very hard pressed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances for a development of this nature, size and scale to be built in this location within the green belt.
Second to that the evidence base that supports the plan process can demonstrate that there is enough housing capacity in exisiting brownfield and some (small) greenfield sites in the town and that any sustainability appraisal of the site would rule it out, when looked in the wider context of the core strategy and the concept of spatial planning.
Thus in the initial stages of plan making process (site allocations) or in consideration of any planning application this site should be ruled out as an inappropriate location for any development on the basis of its policy designation.


  • I, like many other parents in the town, have fought for years to get out children into local schools. There has been no long term plan in place (it took a bunch of mums and dads to make the local authority to realise there was a problem) and the local government are scrapping around trying to find a solution. Even if we do manage to create some desperately needed primary school places, where are all these children going to go when they get to middle or senior school age ? The last thing the town needs is 800 new homes (they would need a school to accomodate the potential children as Berko is a place for families apparently).Have you tried getting a seat (or even to stand sometime) on the daily run into London at 8am in the morning ? The trains can’t cope.Its laughable that this plan looking likely to go ahead. Myself and many others I talk to are fast falling out of love with Berkhamsted – which is perhaps what the powers that be are hoping for … to free up some space.

    I object strongly to the plans.

  • We are a town all ready under huge pressure for schools and parking.We are missing aprox 80 places for schools in 2012,it is predicted to become worse there after, we are trying to resolve that with a new school, we are having problems finding funds and space to build it. How on earth does adding another 1000 homes make any sense when we can not currently manage the size off town we have. Parking will become ridiculous, it is all ready a joke with in the town. Why are developers hell bent on turning our lovely town into a ugly place to live
  • Already the schools in Berkhamsted are at bursting point with children being shipped to Hemel for their education.
    Why Why do they want to add more homes especially on our lovely country side round here.
    This company must be stopped at all costs
  • Unless you plan to move Swing Gate School you simply cannot get rid of parking on the lane. This hill is treacherous in cold weather and we wait days for it to be salted. Access Is limited and Swing Gate Lane is simply not a sensible point of access. The infrastructure at this end of town is already overburdened and the addition of 800 new homes is ridiculous. It’s not needed in this town and the schooling system would collapse! Why can’t you just stop meddling with things that do not need to be fixed?
  •  “My children are 4 and 6 and are extremely lucky to have a place at Swing Gate school which is excellent. However there are many children in the town who, come September will not have school places. We need a new school to accomodate the EXISTING children of the town. I fail to see how your develpoment of a Primary will solve the problem for the Middle and Upper Schools. Also if 800 families move in then they will take all of the new places you create so  there will still be a shortfall anyway.”
  •  My children are aged 5, 9 and 11 and are extremely lucky to have a place at both Swing Gate and Thomas Coram schools. However there are many children now in the town who, come September 2011 will not have school places in the town in which they live. We ALREADY need a new school to accomodate the EXISTING children of the town.  HOW will your develpment of a Primary solve the problem for the Middle and Upper Schools? When 800 families move in then they will take the new places you create so there will continue to be a shortfall.
  • My children attend Swing Gate School at the moment but will be moving onto Thomas Coram when they are old enough.  Middle School children are at present encouraged to walk to school independently.  Personally I think the increased traffic will make parents less likely to allow their children to walk, and so will end up either walking them to school or most probably driving them.  I know that I personally will feel very uncomfortable allowing them to cross the road unaccompanied. Which brings me to my next point; school places.  Will my children still get a place at Thomas Coram if these new houses are built?  Probably not, so they will either end up at a school in Hemel Hempstead or having to travel across town to Bridgewater – thus creating even more traffic in the town.  Which is ridiculous considering that Thomas Coram is only a few minutes walk from our house.As administrator of admissions for one of the pre-schools in Berkhamsted, I am very aware of the already lack of pre-school, nursery and school places for children residing in Berkhamsted.  Adding even more families to the equation will create serious problems, even more children will end up having to travel out of Berkhamsted to school away from their friends and families.  Why is it fair that children of families who have lived in Berkhamsted for generations should not be able to go to school in the town where they live??

Promises of amenities:

  •  “I am extremely sceptical about your promises of ammenities for local residents of the new development. My sister moved into a similar development known as Red Lodge in Suffolk which contains the usual building companies like Bloor Homes, Barret, Crest Nicolson etc etc. They moved in with a promise of a shop, cafe, doctors, pub and dentist etc etc. There is literally nothing there except a post box and a childrens playground. The developers made all of these promises but now 3 years on nothing has materialised. She lives in a ghost town and has to drive to Newmarket to buy a pint of milk. Should this happen in Berkhamsted there will be 800 families driving into town for their shopping – where are they going to park???”
WHAT THEY SAY:  “The new development would be able to make appropriate financial contributions to providing new educational facilities”
WHAT THEY ACTUALLY MEAN: We’ll throw a few quid at education – but we’re certainly not promising a new school.
WHAT THEY SAY: “Environmental and economic improvements can be achieved by reducing High Street congestion and improving public transport access to the town centre from the rest of the town.”
WHAT THEY ACTUALLY MEAN: Lets just divert the problem to Swing Gate Lane where it isn’t so visible
WHAT THEY SAY: A Community Orchard
WHAT THEY ACTUALLY MEAN: An area where the school should have been built but we ran out of cash so we planted a few fruit trees
  •  I am extremely sceptical about your ‘promises’ of amenities for local residents of the new development. Should this happen in Berkhamsted there will be 800 MORE families driving into town for their shopping – where else are they going to park? Waitrose – no already full, Tesco, no already full, the station, why should they have to pay and walk into town…
  • The ‘Berkhamsted Place Workshop Report’ of October 2008 identified five ‘Visioning Priorities’ ‘Berkhamsted Place Workshop Report’ of October 2008 identified five ‘Visioning Priorities’ – NOT ONE OF THEM SAID BUILD 800 NEW HOUSES ON GREENBELT LAND.

Congestion, increase in traffic and parking:

  • Berkhamsted and the surrounding area is already overrun with cars, causing constant traffic problems. Another 1600 cars will make this much worse and increase rat-running. And, due to the valley, people will not be able to walk and will have to use their cars.
    Also, it is outrageous that we should lose 97 acres in an area of oustanding beauty, all for the greed of developers.
  • – Unsustainable increases in traffic levels during construction and as properties are occupied, resulting in additional traffic burden on our already busy town centre, pressure on parking in town, excessive traffic on Swing Gate Lane (including the safety risks associated with the 2 schools on his route) and contribution to poor local air quality;
  • I live with my husband and two children in a house on Swing Gate Lane.  We are all extremely worried about the huge increase in traffic that would be using the road.  It is already busy at peak times but adding an extra 800+ cars to the area will turn Swing Gate Lane into a constant flow of traffic.  The road is a very steep hill in parts and I have known cars to loose control driving down the hill at speed.  I would think that with the already very busy High Street, Swing Gate Lane could turn into a car park at peak times as the filter into the High Street/London Road can be slow.  The noise of the traffic is also a worry.  At the moment the traffic can be noisy in the day time as cars rev to increase speed up the hill.  The noise generally eases at off-peak times, but there won’t be such an “off-peak time” with a huge housing development at the top of the hill.
  • I watched my best friend die at the age of 11 as he crossed the road in front of his house, in front of a bus and was killed instantly by oncoming traffic…yes maybe he should have crossed more carefully, but do I want to increase this risk to my own children – ABSOLUTELY NOT. I personally make sure I see 11 children aged between 9 and 12 SAFELY across the part of Swing Gate Lane where I live, every single school day, to ENSURE I don’t have to relive the agony of watching a child die.  Can you categorically PROMISE that by adding more houses, more families with more children and most importantly MORE TRAFFIC, to an already dangerous ratrun (yes, maybe only between 8-9 a.m. and 3-4 p.m) you are not increasing the risk – NO YOU CANNOT – DO NOT play with the lives of our children – SHAME ON YOU.
  • “You cannot get away from the fact that your plans will turn Swingate Lane into a ‘motorway’. It is bad enough as it stands with commuters/school traffic cutting down past Ashlyns and using the road at high speeds even in peak times. But, should there be even more traffic I fail to see how I will get out of the end of my road. I will also never be able to let my children walk unsupervised to school at Thomas Coram (that is assuming they get a place -which is unlikely if you put 800 new families next door to it).”
  • WHY remove roadside parking for the residents of Swing Gate Lane?  Some families like myself, have a drive,  others however, will have to park elsewhere – will you provide free garages to residents without driveways – I doubt it? – if so where can they go?  Where can Swing Gate School & Thomas Coram parents park to drop off their children? 4) You cannot get away from the fact that your plans will turn Swing Gate Lane into a ‘motorway’. “Only an increase of 20%” when I asked at the Civic Centre “debacle”…well that’s ok then – NOT. It’s a main road, a school bus route, 2 schools already create an enormous amount of traffic and yet you feel it necessary to increase it by 20%, 20% more fumes, 20% more cars, 20% more accidents, 20% more cars unable to get up this steep hill when it snows…
  • “I don’t understand how you can have the right to remove roadside parking for the residents of Swingate Lane. Yes some families have drives but others who have lived down the bottom end for years will have to park somewhere- will you provide free garages to residents? – if so where can they go??? Where can Swing gate School parents park to drop off?”
  • PROBLEM – The A41 road passes west of Berkhamsted. The bypass opened in 1992 to alleviate congestion caused by traffic passing through the town centre. SOLUTION – Lets build at least 800 more houses and INCREASE congestion.
  • I object to the south berkhamsted concept on the grounds that our already fragile town infrastructure will be sorely threatened and stretched to breaking point by the development of so many new homes and the introduction of hundreds more people to the area. I fear that increased traffic will pose a very serious threat to the safety of our children.
  • I am not opposed to the development of new housing in Berkhamsted as a concept but the propsal to develop the land as presented in GUI’s plans pay little or no heed to the existing local infrastructure.
    The affect of over a 1000 extra vehicles accessing the town centre via Chesham Road (effectively HillTop Road), Swing Gate Lane and through the Hall Park area will have massive consequences on the quality of local life. With one way systems and on road parking these roads are already effectively single track and are busy enough at the moment at peak times. The increased traffic flow will lead to more accidents and congestion.
    The high street, parking facilities and number of schools is already incapable of dealing with the existing population level and it is rather a glib statement to say that the introduction of a development of this magnitude will force the hand of the local authorities or utlities comapnys to upgrade the infrastructure.
    Berkhamsted can’t cope with an development of this size without significant investment in schools, especially lower schools and transport.

Infrastructure and sustainability:

  • – pressure on the already strained local services, in particular schools which are already over subscribed but also doctors surgeries, dentists and rail services;-  pressure on local sewage systems;- loss of a green field site;- loss of character of our market town through ‘sprawl’.The scale of the proposal beggers belief, and will have significant negative impacts on our town. There are no benefits to the town.  The most immediate benefit I assume the is in the pockets of Grand Union Investments. Meanwhile the residents of Berkhamsted have to put up with a large number of negative consequences. Capitalism gone mad.
  • I object to building more houses in Berkhamsted until major infrastrutcture issues are addressed. These include traffic flow, schools and even dentists.
  • I object wholeheartedly to this ridiculour proposal. You plan to build another school and another supermarket and car park too do you? Thought not.
  • It seems that every time new housing is built in Berkhamsted, that the existing soft “infrastructure” is never added to. This has resulted in a shortage of school places, doctors, dentists etc as the increasing population of Berkhamsted over the last few years has outstripped basic amenities. The sheer scale of this development (increasing the population by over 10%) will add to these extreme shortages. Similarly, traffic has increased over the last few years, that despite the building of the by pass, has resulted in traffic jams along the high street and adjoining roads during peak times, creating congestion and pollution. Finally, the local paper has a story almost every week about water shortages in the town and the surrounding areas, and of pressures on the old, existing sewerage system. Again, the sheer scale of the proposed development will make an already bad situation, much worse. In summary, I strongly object to the extremely large proposed development, and would appreciate your views.
  • I object wholeheartedly to this ridiculour proposal. You plan to build another school and another supermarket and car park too do you? Thought not.
  • I object to the South Berkhamsted Concept because it simply cannot pass the test of being a sustainable development. Sustainability is not about the odd solar panel. Fundamentally it is about meeting the needs of the present community without compromising the needs of future generations. Adding pressure to the already creaking infrastructure of Berkhamsted not only fails the current community but also clearly compromises the needs of future generations. 800 new dwellings will bring an influx of people from outside the town, so by definition it is not a development for the current community and destroying this Market Town is clearly not protecting it for future generations.
  • I appreciate that people need housing but please do it somewhere that isn’t greenbelt, built in a valley, with an already crumbling infrastructure and with 2 large schools with hundreds of schoolchildren in the immediate vicinity who will be put at greater risk…I thought children were the future…I doubt I will look forward to hearing your response.
  •  “I live on Greene walk which runs into Swingate Lane. The sewage system in our road regularly blocks and floods out of the manhole (at number 20) which then runs raw effluent down the road where Swng Gate Primary school pupils walk. As with the rest of this end of town the 1930’s houses all feed into old fashioned badly maintained pipes. I fail to see how adding the effluent from 800 homes is going to be physically possible as is stated in your development plan.”
  • “I appreciate that people need housing but please please please do it somewhere that isn’t built in a valley with an already crumbling infrastructure.”

How can the council possibly believd the already creaking infrastructure can support this increase in population? As ever, greed exceeds any sort of common sense

  • The town’s infrastructure is already crumbling under the weight of all the recent developments on the other side of town. These developments, allegedly, promised extra schools and facilities for the new influx of people that arrived in the town and, no surprise really, the developers ran out of money and the facilities were never provided. I dread to think what will happen when a developer is given the freedom to extend our town by almost a third. How can they think that Swing Gate Lane is a viable thoroughfare for the new development?! This steep hill is completely un-passable even in early winter when the thick frosts arrive. When it snows, even delivery vans refuse to attempt to climb it. The sewage system is an ancient, leaking mess and is always under repair. Adding hundreds of homes and plumbing them into this system will surely cause a flood of stinking effluent to run down the road!
  •  The town simply can’t take the strain on it’s amenities from this size of development. Trains into London are already packed, schools are oversubscribed, there is a lack of parking in the town centre. There is already strain on the most basic of children’s amenities – we have to sign our children up to pre-school and cubs/brownies from birth. Even then, there is no guarantee of a place if your child is born in the wrong month. No, no, no to this absurd development.
  • The infrastructue of the cannot cope with the level of traffic / population increase that this site would createThe schools in the town are bursting at the seams as it isWe regularly walk in the area that is proposed to be built on – I do not want to take my children on a walk through a housing estate!
  • Already the schools in Berkhamsted are at bursting point with children being shipped to Hemel for their education.
    Why Why do they want to add more homes especially on our lovely country side round here.
    This company must be stopped at all costs


  • We have only lived in the area for 2 years and we are planning to start a family here for the long term. I am convinced that the GUI development will prevent me from getting my children into the local school and the extra traffic created will a) destroy the already potholed roads at this end of town. b) cause gridlock so I won’t be able to get out of my cul-desac c) pollute and raise noise levels. The plans don’t commit to providing a commensurate level of infrastructure to support the additional population. This development will fail the beautiful town.
  • The strain on the resources of already overpopulated town. There has to be a point where you ruin the charm of a traditional market town?
  • Money making scheme. All for People want to move into the town not those it says it wants to serve. Facilities in schools are already stretched with lack of places.
  • This development will change the town forever and it will no longer be able to call itself a small market town surrounded by countryside but yet another sprawling housing estate catering to the ever-growing London overspill. If this development is allowed where will it stop? The protected greenbelt area is protected for a reason. This proposal is NOT looking out for the needs of our town. I don’t know a single person here who agrees with it. Apparently, even the council oppose the development. It is surely just a means to make the developers lots of money.Berkhamsted has a healthy community, a village feel and an atmosphere of friendship and unity, to increase the population, so quickly and with out consideration would damage or even destroy the atmosphere of this beautiful town. The residents of Berko thrive on her charm, don´t ruin what is a rare and precious place.
  • Berkhamsted is not big enough to accommodate the increase in population, the increase in traffic and the strain on infrastructure that this development would need.
    I am against building on the green belt.  There is already a severe lack of school places in the town.   I totally oppose this plan.   Please listen to the residents of Berkhamsted.
  • “I would like to point out that we are not a rich middle class family with a ‘not on my doorstep attitude’. We are hard working and it took us 10 years to save up the deposit for our house which is a modest 1930’s semi. If you are allowed to develop our town into another ‘Hemel’ then I know the value of my house will go down and we will be stuck in negative equity here forever unable to escape.”
  • If you want to perform a public service, why not also build a new prison on the proposed development site, this would also create more jobs, more traffic, and would provide vital care in the community, the residents alongside the new motorway (sorry) Swing Gate Lane will not be able to go anywhere safely anyway.
  • My next concern is the wildlife that will be affected.  My family and I regularly take walks up along the top of Swing Gate Lane and often spot various rare birds flying across the fields.  What will happen to the wildlife??  It will be scared away and eventually become a thing of the past. I could go on and on about what else will be affected; harder to get a doctors appointment, impossible to get a parking space in town, etc etc, but I’m sure you will hear plenty of other of objections from other local residents.  Everyone I have spoken to in the town is against this development.  I hope that you will find a more suitable town to develop your concept.
  • The infrastructure of the town cannot sustain such large scale development. the problems include:
    A current lack of parking in the town centre.
    Over-congested roads at peak times, which is dangerous for school children who predominantly walk to school
    A water system that is already reported (in the local paper) to be struggling to cope leading to water table levels dropping. The suggestion is that the current residents reduce their consumption.
    As a commuter town a train system that is almost at capacity and couldn’t take several hundred more commuters (and their cars as these houses are too far from the station for people to walk/cycle)
    A lack of school places which is under consultation as 2012 intakes are over-subscribed with larger intakes on their way, these may already lead to building new first schools on green belt. In the future these larger intakes would work their way through and require extra capacity in the middle and upper school too.
    A change to the type of town that Berkhamsted is. A town with a town centre, which is why people like Berko. Not a town with satellite centres more the style of Hemel Hempstead. This is what is proposed int he South Berkhamsted Concept.
    The use of farm land to build on – aren’t we supposed to be short of food and looking to maximise our local food production?
    As to the claim that local residents want this, I think they mean there are people who would like to buy houses in the town, not the same thing. Please could they ask these residents to put forward their reasons for liking these plans? I am always open to hearing other points of view! Or don’t they have any specific individuals they can quote , I suspect not. I certainly don’t know anyone who wants expansion of the town on this scale.

    Berkhamsted does not need a single development of 800 new homes. A population increase of 13%-18% from this one development is unwarranted. The resulting excessive strain on infrastructure means that both the present and future needs of the town will be compromised.

    Berkhamsted is amarket town in a valley location and the scale of development is totally inappropriate.
    Utilities such as sewrage treatment are already under stress. Road surface rain water is already overfilling the the drains and concreting over the land at the top of a hill would mean rainwater would flow down the valley and cause more flooding.
    One of the deveoper’s ‘Visioning Priorities’ with more emphasis on the use of buses/cycling has obviosly not tried the steep/narrow roads surrounding Berkhamsted.
    The development will probably bring more cars that the already streesd high will not be able to cope with.
    Side roads such as Bridgewater Road are already under stress from people trying to avoid the High Street grid locks.
    There will be increased flow on local roads that are too narrow due to parking on one side of a narrow street which also become impassable in severe winters.

    It is a loss of 97 acres of protected designated greenbelt farming land.The infrastructure of the area will not cope with the addition of such a large development.

    The drains of the Hall Park area struggle with heavy rain at the moment and rivers run down the roads. The sewerage system will not cope with the increase from such a large development. In fact concreting over then land at the top of the hill will increase the run off of rainwater down the valley and increase the flood risk. We used to live somewhere which had big flooding problems which were directly attributable to building on fields so we have first had experience of how bad this can be

    The roads in the HallPark /Swing Gate area will NOT be able to cope with the increased volume of traffic that would occur. The increased levels of traffic would completely change the nature of the roads of Fieldway, Hall Park Gate. Upper Hall Park. These are currently quiet residential streets, not built as through roads, but would become the entrance to the east end of SBC (as there are only 3 ways out of the new development, it is not unreasonable to assume that 1/3 of the traffic will come via this route). The roads are narrow and often have parked cars so bottlenecks are likely to occur.

    The East-West avenue will NOT ease traffic going through the centre of Berkhamsted. The East-West avenue will NOT ease traffic flow as the lower 3/4s of Chesham Road is one-way (away from the High Street) which means that anyone wishing to go into Town will still have to use either Hilltop Road or Swing Gate Lane or the rat-runs around Upper Hall Park. In addition, there will be a further 1,600+ cars (from the new development) that will have to use these routes so, if anything, it will exacerbate the situation.

    The increased traffic will put lives at risk.

    These roads are steep. They are impassable in bad winter weather and with the slightest snow, cars are usually unable to even drive up the hill, leaving London Road lined with cars of all the local residents, The addition of more drivers trying to get up can only lead to more accidents. The suggestion that the new residents of SBC would cycle or walk into town is laughable. Not many can make it to the top of these hills on a bike – and certainly not with shopping.

    Schools –the first schools in Berkhamsted are full. GUI propose to build a school for the new children that are moving into the development, this would be a first / primary school – where would these children go to school then? The system does not have capacity for so many more children.

    The roads around Swing Gate are already crowded with cars and children during peak periods (school start, finish, school events, school activities where they leave school such as visiting Church, etc) as they serve 3 schools (Ashlyns, Thomas Coram and Swing Gate). This already causes safety issues for children, and additional traffic and people on these roads will amplify both the crowding issue, increase the likelihood of accidents and will put more lives at risk

    SBC will destroy the character of this historic market town. The expansion of Berkhamsted over the last 7-8 years has been dramatic. This has already had a significant impact on the town’s infrastructure and character. The town centre can get very gridlocked with the traffic, parking space is already hard to find, we are running close to water shortages, children have to school in Hemel as there are not enough school places in Berkhamsted, and the list continues. Adding a development like this could well be the last straw that breaks the back of Berkhamsted’s infrastructure

    Lastly, Berkhamsted is not a borough or an addendum of Hemel Hemstead. With the continual erosion of the green belt (for example, there is another plot which will at some time be submitted for development between Hall Park area and the railway line), the town will not retain its individual nature

    In short it is an unwanted development

    We trust that as our MP you are against the building on green belt land, and against developments that have no local backing. The main benefactors of this development will be the developers. We hope that you will vote against the planned changes to the planning laws.

    I have several concerns regarding the scale, extent and content of the South Berkhamsted Concept development.

    • The consultation process has not been carried out in a fully open way to fully allow members of the community to comment on the proposals.

    • Education
    There is no commitment to the provision of a primary school, only a site allocated, this is not sufficient as the development will add significantly to the already overstretched schools in Berkhamsted. There is no provision for middle school education or secondary school children, again stretching the existing facilities.

    • Infrastructure
    The general town infrastructure- utilities, road network and rail service are already overstretched and overcrowded, this development will make them considerably worse. There is no financial support within the proposals to improve the existing overstretched infrastructure.
    While bus routes are important, their provision will not prevent an excessive number of additional car journeys and pressure on the existing road network which is reaching gridlock at certain times of the week and the existing parking infrastructure will not be able to support 800 new families in the area.

    • Sustainability
    While sustainability is vaguely mentioned in the proposals, there is no specific commitment to what will be achieved. The reduction in natural habitat is severely underestimated in the proposals.

    The development is described as ‘walkable’ but since not all town facilities will be accommodated in the proposed local centre, additional car journeys are inevitable, therefore increasing car journeys in the area, pollution and carbon use.
    The development is described as a ‘Green gateway’ however existing green space is being destroyed.

    • Scale of development
    The proposals have been reduced from 1000 new homes to 800, however this reduction makes little difference to the negative impact the development will have on the town, local community and environment.

    The quality of local residents everyday lives will be significantly reduced due to more congestion, lack of school places, more pressure on train services, more congestion on roads and parking, and loss of Green Belt land.
    I would also disagree with the argument the developers have put forward that this large scale development is better than piecemeal development. Truly sustainable development within a community builds up over time where towns grow organically. I would argue that this is not the case with a new development of 800 homes.

    The only gains which have been clearly described with the consultation meetings are the affordable homes which the developer will be required to provide and a playing field. I would argue that the benefits offered do not in any way reflect the negative impact on the town. However, the developer stands to gain a significant financial benefit.

    For all the reasons above I object to the proposed development.