Please leave constructive comments here. All initial submissions will be manually approved by the admin. After you have had one comment approved all subsequent submissions will be approved automatically.


  1. If this awful project is allowed to go ahead, I for one, will never ever have any respect for the Church and all that they believe in. Having been born in Lowick over 60 years ago to a farming family, I have seen far too many changes in this area. Money MUST NOT be allowed to come before our ever decreasing countryside. Our health depends upon areas of green fields. The wildlife are suffering so badly from pollution, noise and lack of space. The A605 is massively overcrowded already. The A14 and A45 are also gridlocked far too often. WHY would anyone even conceive this ridiculous proposed development. PLEASE CHANGE YOUR MINDS ASAP

  2. The Peterborough Diocese are selling 114 acres of land in Northamptonshire to turn Titchmarsh into an industrial estate.

    PCC (Peterborough County Council) tag line is –

    ‘PETERBOROUGH creating the Uks environment capital’

    The Peterborough Church (Diocese) should look at selling land in PETERBOROUGH not Northamptonshire!!!! Peterborough council probably wouldn’t allow the environmental impact in their county so why should we allow it here?

    What money does the church (diocese) need? Instead of selling land could we look into crowd funding for the Peterborough Diocese?

    What is the money needed for?
    How can we help?What can we do to help as a community to save the land and save the church in return?

    Can we see proof of their accounts to see what their situation is?

    Surely it’s best for the church to look at a different approach to work with the people of Titchmarsh rather than sell instantly and upset everyone who has supported the church.

    As a parish we should have some say in what happens especially as we pay tax towards the church.

    Can get Alan Titchmarsh involved?

    Can we go to the newspapers? Do we need a social distance meeting for everyone to get together and the press and radio for interviews?

    Billboards as people drive in to the village?

    Has this been explored with national nature reserves and forestry commissions to look into the impact on wildlife and air quality?

    I’m volunteering myself as a photographer if anyone is writing to the newspapers and need content.

    The objections that are generally valid all apply –

    * The proposed development is contrary to national, regional or local planning policy, government circulars, orders or statutory instruments.
    * The proposed development is not in keeping with the stylistic context or scale of the local area.
    * The proposed development will have a negative impact on the amenity of another property, through noise, overlooking, overshadowing, smells, light pollution, loss of daylight, loss of privacy, dust, vibration or late night activities.
    * The proposed use is not compatible with existing uses, for example an industrial use in a residential area.
    * The development may cause traffic problems such as traffic generation, access or safety problems.
    * The proposal reduces the amount car parking available or provides insufficient parking space itself.
    * There is a history of rejecting similar developments in the area.
    * Approval would create a precedent meaning that it would be difficult to object to similar proposals.
    * Local infrastructure is not adequate to service the proposed development.
    * The proposal is a piecemeal development that would prevent proper development of the area.
    * The proposal will have an economic impact, such as impacting on tourism or on small businesses.
    * The proposal will have environmental health impacts such as the use of hazardous materials or ground contamination.
    * The proposed development will impact on listed buildings or a conservation area.
    * The layout and density of the proposed development is inappropriate.
    * The proposal is an inappropriate development within a green belt.
    * Proposed advertising creates visual clutter.
    * The proposed development includes insufficient landscaping.
    * The proposed development will demolish or adversely affect an ancient monument or site of cultural or architectural value.
    * The proposed development will damage the natural environment or will result in significant loss of trees or the loss of trees for which tree protection orders are in place.
    * The cumulative impact of the development when considered alongside other development will have an adverse impact on the area.
    * There is inadequate access for people with disabilities.
    * Archaeological issues.
    * The type of housing proposed will not satisfy local housing needs.

    We all need to do everything we can.

  3. Please tell the Bishop that the warehouses on Halden ‘s Parkway next to the Glebe land, already have a devasting impact on our lives with noise pollution at night. We live on Lazy Acre in Thrapston and you can’t have the windows open on warm nights. All we hear at night is the constant humming sound of the air conditioning in the large warehouses, the beeping noise constantly through the night of forklifts and lorries reversing and the crashing and banging of loading and unloading. It’s dreadful and some nights I don’t sleep, leaving me stressed and tired the next day. The impact on health is not good. We also walk and cycle along here, with beautiful views over the lakes and the Nene Valley, all of this will be destroyed. Added on to what is already there, it would mean the warehousing area would be bigger than both the town and village and completely change rural life. Both are already surrounded by large, noisy and polluting warehousing and the number of lorries has got ridiculous. It would mean double the noise and pollution. This is also the route for all the children travelling to Prince William School, with more traffic and more lorries, it will make it even more dangerous for them. We should be saving land like this to help us all with our mental health and well-being, especially after the pandemic, not threatening us with more warehousing and lorries which will have such a detrimental impact on the lives of people in both Titchmarsh and Thrapston. If the church can’t see that, then they are not worthy of preaching to people about looking after others.

    1. I have first hand experience of an unfair decision made by the Church. They would not allow me to put ‘God Bless’ on my grandparents gravestone in a nearby village. The stonemason had never met such a rejection of wording in the whole of his 40 years of producing text on gravestones! After my refusing to accept the Church’s petty minded decision, and vowing to go to the newspapers if they continued to refuse, after very many emails, phone calls and letters over many months the Church finally allowed me to have the text ‘May God Bless Them’ instead of ‘God Bless’! So why the Church Chancellor could not have said that in the very beginning and saved us all time and energy over many months I do not know! Before that the Church told me I could go to ‘Church law’ or similar wording, which would cost me around £9,000 for them to settle the disagreement! I told them I think not!!! My grandfather was an injured WW1 soldier and stonemason, and my grandmother a maternity nurse. At the very end of the wording on the gravestone was a tribute to my late great uncle killed in WW1. Perhaps the Church objected to God Blessing the killed soldier! He gave his life for us, but the Church objected to the text ‘God Bless’. I told the Church Chancellor what I thought to his petty minded, time wasting, obnoxious decision, stating that I thought the Church stood for kindness and compassion. At the very beginning of the fight he told me I need not bother to put up a fight, as his decision was final. Just goes to show persistence and bloody mindedness can pay off in the end. Keep fighting this awful sell off. Bombard the Church with letters, emails, phone calls, do whatever it takes x 100 to stop this proposed development. This area is overcrowded already, more development equals more problems in every respect for local people. What on earth do they need more money for anyway, they are already the largest landowners in the country. And how come they are blaming this on Covid 19. As almost no-one goes to Church anymore (pre Covid days) I am sure they cannot blame the ‘drop in income’ on smaller congregations, as they are never large anyway in recent years. Fight to the end, but put real weight behind it, huge volumes of letters, emails and phone calls cannot be ignored. Good Luck.

  4. This should also be highlighted as an issue for all the other Parishes along the A605, as the Peterborough Diocese proposal would significantly increase the volume of lorry traffic along this route.

  5. Email to the Lord Bishop of Peterborough regarding his speech in the House of Lords on 4th November 2019:

    Dear Bishop Donald,

    I read with interest your address in the House of Lords on 4th November 2019 in the debate on International Sustainability: Natural Resources and Biodiversity, and in particular your penultimate sentence: “Yes, we need to make the earth as productive as it can be to feed people and for various other reasons—that is fine; but productive while still being healthy and self-sustaining.”

    Indeed, the earth does need to be productive. The President of the NFU, Minette Batters, wrote last week that food security is critical, stating that in 2019, the UK could provide only 64% of its food and that “(August 21st) marks the notional date in the calendar that would see the UK run out of food if it relied solely on UK produce.”

    Every field lost is food lost. Every square metre of concrete is food lost. Slowly we are chipping away minutes and hours from the notional date of August 21st, chiselling away the decimal points of the 64%.

    When does this stop? When there is no longer food available? When the UK is wholly dependent on imported food? When supermarket shelves, shopping trollies, plates and stomachs are empty?

    How will our children and grandchildren judge you who sacrificed food for better investment returns? Is this is how the Church of England and the Diocese of Peterborough and its officers wish to be remembered – the ones who swapped cereals for concrete?

    And how does this sit comfortably with making “the earth as productive as it can be to feed people”? In what sense can an ‘industrial and logistics park’ be construed as being “healthy and self-sustaining”?

  6. The Church of England should be more that about making money they should be about supporting local communities and doing what is right for them.There are already plenty of jobs for the local community and all this development owuld bring is more concrete, noisy lorries and moire pollution, it would be a further blight on our already shrinking countryside. This proposal just shows how out of touch the Church of England has become and who they are no more interested in money that serving the community.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.