WITH regard to the Sully Sports Field Housing application, I am writing to show my strong objection as follows:

Schools: I expect 500-plus children requiring school places, including 600 plus from the approved Cog Road Development (assuming two per household).

How will the schools physically cope?

One document stated ‘possible funding for a school extension’ or ‘other arrangements’. This is unacceptably vague and there has been no indication of available funding, what will be the other arrangements?

Traffic and safety: The traffic assessment concluded that the current road system is ‘adequate and doesn’t require changes’. I expect an extra 1,000 plus cars in the village (assuming two per household).

It is common sense that extra cars will further add to an already busy and dangerous road network. A minor roadwork crossing or a stopped bus/delivery van already causes tailbacks on South Road.

The assessment concluded ‘trip rates and traffic volume generation are satisfactory’.

To whom are they are they satisfactory?

Accident analysis concluded ‘there are no issues with highway design and collisions are down to driver error’.

There are often near misses at pedestrian crossings when cars fail to stop or speed excessively. The excess traffic that will be generated, will increase the odds of a serious accident occurring soon.

A construction period of seven years will be intolerable and affect people’s commutes to/from Sully.

Visual impact: The fields are used for family events such as fetes, football tournaments and car shows, which will be lost. Previous applications have been rejected based on ‘limiting damage to the landscape and settlement boundary; loss of space; prevention of urban sprawl’.

Surely these reasons still stand?

Demographic: Responses in favour of the application are primarily from members of the bowls club, who don’t even live in Sully.

I imagine if such a development were to be built next to their houses, they would have a very different view.

Mr A Healey

Sully

Penarth