💡 Quick Tips for Residents

• Customise it! If you make this your words the recipients will pay more attention. They will also pay more attention to letters that include personal details (e.g., “I have lived on Megs Lane for 20 years and…”).
• Be Polite: Angry letters can sometimes be dismissed; factual, firm letters get read.
• Remove the brackets: Make sure you delete the [ ] instructions before hitting send!

Following our page about the Traffic Crunch you can add something along the lines of this to point 1: “Industry standard trip rates suggest this development could generate over 130 vehicle movements in the peak morning hour and over 1,200 movements per day. Forcing this volume of traffic through a single access point on Meg Lane is unsustainable and dangerous.”

---

Email To: hello@houriganplanning.com
Subject: OBJECTION: Land north of Rake Hill, Burntwood Consultation

Dear Hourigan Planning Team,

Re: Proposed Development of 225 Homes at Rake Hill / Meg Lane

I am writing as a local resident to formally object to the “Illustrative Development Framework” currently proposed for the land between Rake Hill and Meg Lane.

While I understand the need for housing generally, I believe this specific site is unsuitable for a development of this scale (225 homes) for the following material planning reasons:

1. Severe Impact on Traffic Safety (Meg Lane) The proposal relies on a single vehicular access point off Megs Lane. This road is already [DESCRIBE MEG LANE HERE – e.g., narrow, busy, used as a rat-run, lacks pavement in parts]. Adding approximately 225 households—likely resulting in over 400 additional cars—will create dangerous congestion at the proposed junction and the critical realignment at Ogley Hay Road. [OPTIONAL: Also add a personal experience here, e.g., “I already experience near-misses at the Ogley Hay junction…”]

2. Loss of Green Belt & “Grey Belt” Dispute I strongly dispute that this land should be released under “Grey Belt” rules. This site provides a vital visual and physical break between the built-up area of Burntwood and the open countryside. Building here would create unrestricted sprawl. The offer of 43% affordable housing, while noted, does not compensate for the permanent destruction of 14.5 hectares of Green Belt land that currently defines the character of our town’s edge.

3. Unsustainable Pressure on Infrastructure With an estimated occupancy of over 500 new residents (based on 225 homes), this development will place an unmanageable strain on local services.

• Schools: Local schools are already oversubscribed.
• Health: Getting a GP appointment in Burntwood is already extremely difficult. Financial contributions (Section 106) cannot solve the physical lack of space and staffing in our local services.

4. Harm to Local Character & Heritage The introduction of a modern housing estate of this density is entirely out of character with the semi-rural lane. It will also negatively impact the setting of the Grade II Listed buildings at 32 and 34 Rake Hill, which rely on the current open agricultural setting to maintain their historic context.

5. Flooding and Drainage [OPTIONAL: Delete if not relevant] I am concerned about surface water runoff. The fields currently act as a natural soakaway. Paving over 43% of this site increases the risk of [mention any local flooding issues on Rake Hill or Meg Lane].

I urge you to reconsider moving forward with this proposal.

Yours sincerely,

Name: [YOUR NAME]
Address: [YOUR ADDRESS & POSTCODE]