QUESTION 12: Do you think

Object

Representation ID: 101

Received: 16/06/2021

Respondent: Mr Michael Hibbin

Site SN0433 - should be rejected as a reasonable alternative. I agree with rejection reasonings as detailed for site SN0433REV which predominantly apply to SN0433. Irreversible change to the character of the area would cause material harm to the open and rural appearance, particularly considering the proximity of the site to our rural village pub. Any extension of a public footpath down Wheel Road would further exacerbate the existing problem of parked cars by pub patrons when busy.
Rejected site SN0434 is a better alternative - closer proximity to school and better access via Back Road to the A146.

Object

Representation ID: 184

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: 197

Received: 26/06/2021

Respondent: Mr David Latimer

We sold our House in Poringland 7 years ago to get away from all the noise and traffic coursed as to all the new housing
as the roads are not up to it it have now ruined Poringland
And now it will the same impacted here at Alpington the roads are not up to it and you will be ruining the surrounding area.
How far away do I have to move this time .
We strongly object to any more developments in this village .

Object

Representation ID: 203

Received: 27/06/2021

Respondent: Mr paul sayer

Local infrastructure in the Village is virtually non existant. The School is small with no room for expansion, there is no local affordable shop, (farm shops are for middle/higher income families), the transport system is not fit for purpose, not everyone has cars and we and local goverment should be encouraging less reliance on cars inline with becoming a more environmentaly sustainable.
Doctors and Dentists are becoming oversubscribed.
If the council were to invest in roads, public transport, schools, and other necessary amenities at the same time such rural constructions would be more acceptable and supportable.

Object

Representation ID: 292

Received: 05/07/2021

Respondent: Mrs Mary Black

Land at Wheel Road, Alpington. This is on an extremely dangerous bend and would necessitate a major alteration of the roads. What is presently a quiet rural village is fast becoming another satellite to Poringland. These 'small' developments will all too soon become joined together into one huge housing estate - a glance at the maps prove this. I object most strongly, especially as the land has already been cleared and it makes one wonder what the developer knows that we villagers do not.

Comment

Representation ID: 491

Received: 20/07/2021

Respondent: Dr M Fewster

SN0400. I note that there is no plan showing the proposed development. The only conclusion to be drawn is that the proposers do not care how this development takes place as the increase of the over-development of this area, at an urban, not a village, density, is only detrimental to those who already live on the estate. No open space has been earmarked for protection. In the previous expansion of Church Meadow the developers initially proposed one row of houses and an area of grass. They then retrospectively obtained permission for two rows of houses and no open space.

Object

Representation ID: 502

Received: 20/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Jason See

SN0433 is unsuitable for very same reason SN0433REV was rejected. "The western limit of the village along Wheel Road / Burgate Lane is clearly defined by a significant tree belt on the north side of the road, which together with open fields on both sides of the road maintains the separation between the main village and the small cluster of dwellings to the west." SN0433A was rejected for reason that this defining character would be destroyed. Reeders Lane is single carriageway, short cut to and from Bungay Rd, it is hazardous for traffic & pedestrians even with current local occupancy.

Comment

Representation ID: 515

Received: 21/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Bernard Pitt

The villages of Bergh Apton and Alpington need to retain their rural character .Excessive development particularly in the Poringland area is having a knock on effect on these villages ,especially with much greater numbers commuters and delivery vehicles using local narrow roads

Object

Representation ID: 1000

Received: 30/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Harry Boyt

I oppose the development of site SN0433 for the reasons laid out in the rejection notes for SN0433REV, principally these are:

- Negative impact on the surrounding heritage of listed buildings.
- Negative impact due to the increased traffic flow of Reeder's Lane.

Object

Representation ID: 1001

Received: 30/07/2021

Respondent: Mrs Emma Boyt

I oppose the development of site SN0433 for the reasons laid out in the rejection notes for SN0433REV, these are:

Negative impact on the surrounding heritage of listed buildings.
Negative impact due to the increased traffic flow of Reeder's Lane; the road would become hazardous to residents and pedestrians.

Comment

Representation ID: 1040

Received: 31/07/2021

Respondent: Ms Susan Stacey

SN0433 has been shortlisted as a reasonable alternative but on the site assessment form it was rejected as a reasonable alternative. I therefore do not understand why it had been shortlisted. The access to the site is extremely difficult as it is close to the narrow junction of Wheel Road, Reeders Lane and Burgate Lane.

Support

Representation ID: 1132

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Miss Angela Rowe

SN0210 should not be considered a reasonable site for development. Located opposite the recycling centre (noise, smell, traffic congestion) it is also adjacent to the historic church and a conservation area.

Object

Representation ID: 1345

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Mr David Whitehead

I do not think that the shortlisted site should be considered for development as the road infrastructure and in particular the roads near this site are inadequate to support this development. In addition it would have a negative impact on the landscape and environment.

Object

Representation ID: 1367

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Ms Annette Whitehead

I consider that this is not a reasonable alternative site and should be rejected as any development here would damage the landscape and environment and the road infrastructure and lack of paths mean it is inadequate to support further housing.

Object

Representation ID: 1663

Received: 30/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Harry Boyt

I am emailing you to comment on the village cluster plan. I wish to raise objection to site SN0433.
We observe that SN0433REV has already been rejected as a viable site and we believe that the reasons for this rejection apply to the site SN0433. Principally that this development site would significantly change the character of the area and concerns of wider landscape character. The rejection mentions the impact on the listed cottage south of the site (Stacey Cottage). Further south of the site is a listed farmhouse and listed outbuildings which I feel will be adversely impacted by the development of site SN0433.
Furthermore, Reeder's Lane is a minor country road and cannot hold anymore traffic that will be associated with a new development.

In summary I oppose the development of site SN0433 for the reasons laid out in the rejection notes for SN0433REV, these are:

• Negative impact on the surrounding heritage of listed buildings.
• Negative impact due to the increased traffic flow of Reeder's Lane.

Object

Representation ID: 1664

Received: 30/07/2021

Respondent: Mrs Emma Boyt

I am emailing you to comment on the village cluster plan. I wish to raise objection to site SN0433. We observe that SN0433REV has already been rejected as a viable site and we believe that the reasons for this rejection apply to the site SN0433. Principally that this development site would significantly change the character of the area and concerns of wider landscape character. The rejection mentions the impact on the listed cottage south of the site (Stacey Cottage). Further south of the site is a listed farmhouse and listed outbuildings which I feel will be adversely impacted by the development of site SN0433. . Furthermore, Reeder's Lane is a minor country road and cannot hold anymore traffic that will be associated with a new development.

In summary I oppose the development of site SN0433 for the reasons laid out in the rejection notes for SN0433REV, these are:

• Negative impact on the surrounding heritage of listed buildings.
• Negative impact due to the increased traffic flow of Reeder's Lane.