Plans to build up to 75 new homes on land off Back Road in Linton, Cambridgeshire, have sparked fierce debate
Residents across Cambridgeshire have expressed firm opinions on proposals for new housing in Linton and surrounding villages, with the majority of remarks centring on congestion, parking availability, education facilities and GP surgeries. Some insist on reduced car dependency and improved public transport infrastructure prior to any construction. Others support new developments, even if it results in increased traffic on local routes.
Proposals to construct up to 75 new dwellings in Linton have prompted opposition from residents living close to the intended development location. Local people have expressed concerns about the “long-term harm” the new properties could cause to “road safety, local services, and the existing community”.
The dwellings are planned for land off Back Road in Linton. Of the 75 properties, 30 are intended to be designated as affordable housing, with 45 to be sold on the open market. Gladman Developments Ltd stated its proposals would deliver an “attractive, welcoming and walkable new residential development” with a “strong sense of place that is well integrated within its surrounding landscape”.
The design statement says: “At its heart, the scheme will promote health and well-being through the provision of accessible green public space, new play opportunities, and provision for community food growing; ensuring a vibrant and enduring new community.”
The outline planning application lodged with South Cambridgeshire District Council seeks to deliver a range of housing to address local requirements, while “respecting and enhancing” the site’s environmental features. The proposed development has provoked considerable local opposition, with numerous objections submitted to date. One objector warned that Back Road can “barely sustain the amount of traffic as it is”, cautioning that additional vehicles using the route could “cause chaos”.
One reader, Windypants, comments: “It would be better off being turned into a solar farm.”
Calumen Nomen writes: “Stephen Reed is the housing minister. So he needs a big number of houses to shout about. He thinks this may stop him from being booted out at the next election. He is wrong, but Linton – and a thousand other settlements round here – is to be sacrificed. Tell him all about schools, G.Ps, traffic, etc.”
Freddly quotes: ” ‘One objector said ‘Back Road can barely sustain the amount of traffic as it is’, so more cars using that road could ’cause chaos’.’ We’ve become a one-adult, one-car country. It works in countries with vast empty space, like the US, Aus or NZ. It doesn’t work in crowded countries like the UK. I say build the houses. I am happy to see the SUV people sitting in endless queues of cars and vans.”
Whynot2 replies: “Are you confused with SUVs and 4+4s? There’s a big difference! If developers want to build all over the place they should be obligated to fund an extra GP or nurse at the local surgery and the bigger the development an extra classroom plus teacher or two! This should be done before any development starts, so developers cannot weasel their way out of their obligations when the houses are built.”
Over on our Facebook page, Alan T comments: “75 new builds = 400 extra vehicle movements (trips in & out) per day onto the local roads, probably a few more if school runs are involved. New Build housing creates car-dependent households. Each dwelling has to accommodate parking for at least 2 vehicles.”
Darren Shaw says: “We are getting 80 houses just on the site of the RGE factory and carpark site in Godmanchester, imagine the impact of the extra traffic on the small local road right next to the medieval bridge that can barely deal with the traffic as it is.”
Do you agree with the proposed plans? Comment HERE or below to join in the debate.






You must be logged in to post a comment Login