QUESTION 8: Do you support

Object

Representation ID: 98

Received: 16/06/2021

Respondent: Mr Luke Keegan

I strongly object to the proposed 25 dwellings on Church Meadow. Access through the village is narrow and inadequate and an extra 25 dwellings here would worsen this problem. Also, I’ve seen that cars occasionally speed to get to the end of church meadow, there is a lot of children living down church meadow -any more cars could be a safety issue. I also have concerns around school capacity.

Object

Representation ID: 99

Received: 16/06/2021

Respondent: Mrs Kerry Keegan

Disruption to road leading to main road.

Reaching school’s capacity.

Disruption to wildlife.

Object

Representation ID: 132

Received: 20/06/2021

Respondent: Mr David Hyett

The village simply cannot cope with the extra demands this would bring. The road to access this site is regularly used by elderly people and children and this would cause a significant safety risk particularly for the children. There is an established public right of way (May 2015) across the field and the land is outside the village boundary. There is lots of wildlife in the field that would be harmed by this proposal alongside the extra noise pollution from increased traffic. The local school would also struggle to cope with an increased number of students.

Object

Representation ID: 138

Received: 20/06/2021

Respondent: Mrs Helen Hyett

This development would reduce light, cause noise disturbance and a significant loss of privacy to adjacent homes. There are no paths and limited passing places on the mostly single-track road up to Church Meadow. Children use Church Meadow to walk to school, pre-school and to catch the highschool bus. Families cross the road (blind bend/ no path) at the end of Church Meadow to access the pre-school, hall/park. Increased traffic would risk lives. There is a public right of way across the proposed field. Sadly, this development would destroy homes of deer, owls, birds, and insects in this field.

Object

Representation ID: 183

Received: 24/06/2021

Respondent: Mrs Sharon Gabriel

Our small roads have become dangerous here as many of our lanes have no paths and the roads are of very limited width and already struggle with the extra traffic that other new housing has caused. I now feel unsafe walking. So much traffic travels at speed now through our small village of Alpington. There are no shops, the buses run at very limited times which means more cars with more housing. The junction at Church Meadow will become congested and dangerous. The Dentists are not able to take on residents ALREADY living here. The Doctors Surgeries are also struggling!

Object

Representation ID: 185

Received: 24/06/2021

Respondent: Mrs Claire Rochford

I object to this planned building work on land due to the increased amount of traffic which will directly pass my house. You will be increasing the noise due to increased vehicles passing down Church Meadow and throughout the village. Building on this peaceful beautiful piece of countryside will spoil the look of the village. By building up to 25 houses you are effectively turning Alpington into an estate. Residents did not move to a small quiet village for their enjoyment of living here to be disrupted. Many houses’ gardens will now have their privacy taken away.

Object

Representation ID: 190

Received: 25/06/2021

Respondent: Mrs Barbara Rowles

Vehicle access not suitable for further development. Parking for football already too small which causes problems on Church Meadow. Refuse trucks and hgv’s already having to reverse up because of limited access. Site also has drainage problems as field floods. Would not be conducive to ‘village’ setting and become more and more like a massive housing estate.

Object

Representation ID: 193

Received: 25/06/2021

Respondent: N/a

The infrastructure of Alpington and yelverton is insufficient to support the proposed developments, the transport routes into the villages already creaking under the weight of traffic particularly because of the village school (which seems to attract far and wide since most pupils are driven into school causing road and parking chaos). further reductions of green and open spaces is unnecessary and unwelcome and would impact the quality of life of existing village residents.

Object

Representation ID: 195

Received: 26/06/2021

Respondent: Mr Paul Witty

Basically Church Meadow is a one way street and the resultant increase in traffic would not be tolerable

Object

Representation ID: 196

Received: 26/06/2021

Respondent: Mr Roger Brown

The inadequacy of roads in Alpington, Bergh Apton and Yelverton to cope with existing traffic, has been well documented in recent years. The plot would be accessed along the narrow Church Meadow and would pass between two exiting houses. Church Road, Slade Lane and the lanes from Wheel Road onwards towards Poringland are currently well beyond capacity. Roadside verges are being gouged out to provide passing places. Walking along any of the local roads has become perilous. Please let common sense return to planning so that small villages with narrow and difficult access can be spared further deterioration.

Roger Brown

Object

Representation ID: 198

Received: 26/06/2021

Respondent: Mr Charles Garlick

The building development is very unsuitable for the area, which is a natural habitat for many species.

There are enough people as it is for the road capacity, which can't even fit 2 cars on slade lane width wise and is prone to accidents.

The school is at full capacity with an overspill from poringland.

The diggers and equipment used to build the development will cause high levels of traffic and noise disruption.

There are plenty of other areas for development which are away from existing settlements and won't concentrate the traffic in one area.

Object

Representation ID: 199

Received: 26/06/2021

Respondent: Miss Lindy Rose

I believe the extra traffick and houses will destroy the surrounding area. It is a beautiful area with limited schools and doctors,dentist. The demand would be overwhelming.

Object

Representation ID: 202

Received: 26/06/2021

Respondent: Mr Nigel Dix

These proposals do not include any additional infrastructure to support new housing. Existing households will suffer increased traffic along single lane poorly maintained roads, lower water pressure, poor broadband performance, greater pressure on local school placement etc. In particular, residents of Church Meadow Close will suffer increased traffic long term and disruption by building traffic in immediate future. Reasons for rejecting more suited sites include lack of footpaths and having to remove hedging! Since when should these perceived obstacles override peoples living environment? Pavements can be built, hedges and trees can be planted - problems solved. Money is the issue.

Object

Representation ID: 206

Received: 27/06/2021

Respondent: Mr Nathan Heelas

Two reasons for me personally - one the school network is already at capacity and struggling to accept school children from the local community.
Also church meadow is a community of young and old families and I would have concerns about more traffic down the main road with some speed restrictions/bumps being considered for the extra volume of traffic to the road and surrounding areas.

Object

Representation ID: 212

Received: 28/06/2021

Respondent: Mrs Tina Randell

I object strongly to any more housing we can’t cope now with the amount of traffic I’m referring to all the sites in and around our village,

Object

Representation ID: 213

Received: 28/06/2021

Respondent: Mr Paul Witty

I strongly object to this development as it would result in an huge increase in vehicular movements. Church Meadow is effectively a cul-de-sac & whatever vehicles enter have to leave by the same route which doubles the traffic flow. There will be and endless procession of lorries delivering materials, all the associated vehicles re bricklayers, plumbers etc etc during the construction & then the new residents which I would imagine to be another 40 vehicles. Presently, some people have no option but to park on the road/pavement which will lead to difficulty for large vehicles to access/egress Church Meadow.

Object

Representation ID: 225

Received: 28/06/2021

Respondent: Mr Steven Cushing

Being a resident of church meadow,I totally disagree with this proposal.one of the reasons we moved here was for the peace of village life.25 new dwellings would increase traffic and noise.also roads into the village have already become a rat race since we moved here 5years ago,hence the need for constant speed monitoring. More houses means more traffic. There are other sites outside the village which,in my opinion would be far more suitable as they are easily accessible from the main roads without the need to race through the village.

Object

Representation ID: 253

Received: 01/07/2021

Respondent: Mrs Linda Sumser

My husband and I strongly object to more building work in and around Alpington/Yelverton e.g. Church Meadow, Wheel Road etc.. In the 18 years we have lived in Yelverton the traffic has increased significantly and we feel that the road infrastructure is not able to cope with any more traffic safely. You take your life in your hands if you walk your children to school or take your dog for a walk as very often you have to walk on the road as often there are no pavements. Also, the school is full and there is a limited bus service.

Object

Representation ID: 274

Received: 03/07/2021

Respondent: Tinitta Hewkin

The traffic on church road will be significantly increased (esp at school times) making it unsafe for the children in the village.

Object

Representation ID: 287

Received: 30/06/2021

Respondent: Mr Michael & Jill Curtis

Number of people: 2

I would like to object to this proposed development. There is quite enough local traffic running through Yelverton and Alpington. Both villages are accessed by single file road infrastructure. This development would lead to an increase in local traffic in and around the villages. Without proper access roads where provisions are improved to 2 lane roads this would increase the traffic load to a critical point where collisions with pedestrians would be at a much higher risk. Also the school already has increased its size and therefore the volume of traffic from attendees outside of the villages has resulted in speed through Yelverton Church road.

Object

Representation ID: 288

Received: 05/07/2021

Respondent: Mr M Goldspink

The proposed development is entirely unsuitable for the village, no consideration has been given to the demands this would bring to the roads and would cause a significant safety risk particularly to the many children and elderly residents. The single roads through the village simply cannot cope with increased traffic demands and there is no regular bus service. The local school would struggle to cope with an increased number of students.
There is additionally an established public right of way (May 2015) across the field, along with the significant environmental destruction the development would cause this development must be rejected.

Object

Representation ID: 291

Received: 05/07/2021

Respondent: Mrs Mary Black

I object most strongly to the proposal. Many people have pointed out the dangerous roads and we have personally seen a car overturn on the bad bends by the church, opposite our bungalow. The over-subscribed school has resulted in cars parked on all roads around it and we now avoid going that way at school drop-off and pick up times. The newly installed 20mph signs at school times are a waste of money as certain people delight in speeding through anyway.

Object

Representation ID: 313

Received: 06/07/2021

Respondent: Mrs Sonia Rush

I strongly object to this site being used. The access is very poor (Church Road is mainly one lane, has blind corners and very limited pedestrian paths.). The increase in resulting traffic would be dangerous, especially as many children and elderly people live on Church Meadow and in the vicinity. The site is also outside the village boundary. The village school and pre-school are at capacity with long waiting lists and the village does not have amenities to cope with an additional 25 houses (no shop or post office etc).

Comment

Representation ID: 319

Received: 06/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Matt Goodyear

Future development would increase traffic along church road, no current footway provided until after church with pedestrians walking within the carriageway.

Object

Representation ID: 367

Received: 11/07/2021

Respondent: Andrew and Ruth Green

Slade Lane is a dangerous single track road with no official passing places, hazardous at school drop off and pick up times. Further development in the village would make a dangerous situation worse.
Church Meadow, which will become the access to the proposed new housing estate, is often very difficult to navigate due to parked vehicles, making emergency access impossible.
Consultation Document refers to the development being ‘visually well contained’. A new development should enhance the village and not destroy trees, hedges and reliant wildlife. Out of sight, out of mind, seems to be the main consideration with this allocation.

Object

Representation ID: 415

Received: 14/07/2021

Respondent: Mrs Sue Price

Main access to the village is via Slade Lane leading onto Church Lane. This is a single track road in parts, some areas of this road which were single track have been eroded, banks undercut by already increasing traffic this will only increase with 25 more developments. Access to the villages from the A146 has to be improved if further development is to be sustainable. Eco friendly transport routes need to be reviewed and improved as currently no route into Norwich is completely bike friendly.

Object

Representation ID: 425

Received: 15/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Kenneth Miles

Site SN0400. My daughter lives in Church Meadow, Alpington, and I am alarmed by the current development proposals. Firstly the access roads into the village are narrow with passing places which are totally inadequate for the existing traffic and certainly not suitable for the additional traffic this development would bring. There is also the heavy construction traffic to be considered along with the safety aspect to residents and children.
The local school would probably not be able to cope with the increased numbers of children and the lack of shops and other amenities would put extra strain on roads.

Object

Representation ID: 426

Received: 15/07/2021

Respondent: Mrs Diane Miles7

Site SN0400. I am most concerned about the effect that the proposed development in Church Meadow, Alpington would have on my grandchildren and other children and families who live on the Church Meadow estate. The initial construction traffic in the narrow estate roads together with the dust and noise that would undoubtedly be present would affect the safety and living conditions of residents.

Their is also a distinct shortage of amenities in the village which means that there is more traffic using the roads  when leaving and returning to the village. The school will also be put under additional  strain.

 

Object

Representation ID: 488

Received: 20/07/2021

Respondent: Dr M Fewster

This area is already over-developed. I suppose 'visually well contained' means 'it won't adversely affect other villagers, and is only detrimental to those who already live on the estate.' Church Meadow is already heavily used, The junction onto Church Road is dangerous, opposite the Village Hall and playing field, with a lot of traffic from Cottontails Pre-School, activities such as Brownies, and for private and village events. The bus stops on that junction, and this is where the school bus waits. With almost 60 houses already, and approximately 100 cars already, another 50 cars will create even more congestion.

Object

Representation ID: 503

Received: 20/07/2021

Respondent: Mrs Laura Rudd

I strongly object to the proposed development of land at Church Meadow. The narrow roads into and out of the village simply could not cope with the added traffic these houses would bring. Church Meadow itself is in no way suitable for construction traffic. The school is already over subscribed and there are not sufficient amenities to cope with more homes and residents. Building on this site would disrupt the habitat of wildlife including bats and owls, and would destroy established trees. Planning on this site has previously been rejected on grounds which are unchanged so should still stand.