Policy VC ALP1: West of Church Meadow

Object

Representation ID: 2280

Received: 25/01/2023

Respondent: Mr jonathan taylor

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

25 houses is far to much for a small village accessible by single track roads never mind widening junctions

Object

Representation ID: 2289

Received: 05/02/2023

Respondent: Mrs Helen Hyett

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

outside village boundary. The essential widening of church road is not possible due to adjoining private gardens. The village is too small for this amount of houses, narrow roads, no amenities and no capacity in the school. The building would destroy homes of protected wildlife. The field regularly floods, doesn’t have sufficient drainage. The new development would ruin the outlook for adjacent homes, increased traffic would endanger lives as families walk to school through the village on roads with no paths. There is a public right of way across the field.

Object

Representation ID: 2305

Received: 09/02/2023

Respondent: Mr IAN CLARKE

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? Yes

Duty to co-operate? Yes

The proposal will place further significant burden on our inadequate road infrastructure and services. Leading to significant increase in traffic movement in and out of the villages, where in many places there is only enough room for single lane traffic. Verges and driveways are already being eroded, by the large number of traffic movements at peak times.
It would be detrimental to the quality of life for residence on Church Road with the significant increase in traffic movements from this proposed development. The additional traffic would also increase the risk to pedestrians, as there are no footpaths in Yelverton.

Object

Representation ID: 2306

Received: 09/02/2023

Respondent: Mrs Sharon Gabriel

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The proposal to build further housing behind Church Meadow is ludicrous! The infrastructure is inadequate to cope. Our small lanes/ roads in Alpington with few paths cannot cope now with the traffic flow. The Slad / Slade Lane is narrow with no paths for walkers and cars have to pull in on many occasions to allow for oncoming traffic. Doctors/ Dentists can't cope with servicing our current residents / patients now!

Object

Representation ID: 2369

Received: 19/02/2023

Respondent: Tinitta Hewkin

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Concerns about additional dwellings proposed in our village- roads, drainage and amenities not adequate to support. Small school unable to allow for children in 25 more families to enroll. Traffic along church meadow may pose risk to the safety of children.

Object

Representation ID: 2373

Received: 20/02/2023

Respondent: Mr Ian Brown

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Access to Alpington is very poor. We have repeatedly been told that there will be no new development until the access is improved. The public transport provision is so poor that most journeys involve cars. The primary school is full. The nearest shop is in Poringland, two miles away.

Object

Representation ID: 2383

Received: 21/02/2023

Respondent: Mr Robert Rudd

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Church Road is tight and difficult to pass traffic on, it cannot be widened without impacting the residents living along it by using some of their private gardens. If the widening work happened it would result in roadworks and traffic controls into the village, which again would impact all residents.

Has the school attendance quota been reviewed? The school is already busy and I suspect oversubscribed.

Nature on the plot will be impacted, deer's, owls, bats. For some reason this is acceptable?

Adjoining houses to the plot will be significantly impacted, from building work, noise, traffic and privacy.

Object

Representation ID: 2421

Received: 23/02/2023

Respondent: Mrs Lesley McNulty

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

This is not a suitable site for development as it will create a large housing estate. Villages by definition have linear developments. The loss of another piece of green space is reprehensible.
Mr Gove MP has stated that whilst national housing targets remain local authorities can build fewer homes if they can show that meeting centrally imposed targets would damage the character of their area. This absolutely is the case here.
"Brownfield land will be prioritised for development". You have identified Bergh Apton as this. That must be the limit of what our Cluster has to provide.

Object

Representation ID: 2427

Received: 23/02/2023

Respondent: Ms Susan Stacey

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

The number of additional dwellings proposed for the cluster (50) is too high . The road access to the Village is poor, the primary school is at capacity, local GP and dental services are already stretched with no local NHS dental practices taking on new patients.
In addition this is a greenfield site and housing development will have a detrimental impact on local wildlife and the environment.
The number of extra vehicle journeys resulting from this many additional households is a serious concern.

Object

Representation ID: 2474

Received: 26/02/2023

Respondent: Yelverton Parish Council

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

ALP1 is a green field site. Once developed it can never be returned to the grassy meadow with an abundance of wildlife it currently is. The Government policy (Michael Gove MP) is to prioritise brown field sites so why is this site being considered, especially in a village that simply cannot cope with additional development. Additionally, there is now no Government directive to build where it can be shown that new development is damaging the character of their area. SNDC should should look carefully at their outdated policy or face judicial review.

Object

Representation ID: 2612

Received: 02/03/2023

Respondent: Andrew and Ruth Green

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Alpington is served by very poor single track roads from the A146, Berghapton and Poringland.
Slade Lane is partially dangerous, this is a singe track road and is the busiest access to the village. It has high banks and no official passing places, just unpaved areas that have been formed in the banks by traffic avoiding each other. Further development in the village would only exacerbate an already dangerous situation.
Church Meadow which will become the access to the proposed new housing estate is very often difficult to navigate due to parked vehicles, making emergency access often impossible.

Object

Representation ID: 2689

Received: 04/03/2023

Respondent: Mrs Jenny Watts

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Alpington is unsuitable for this level of development. All access roads are single track in places, with dangerous bends and mostly without footpaths. Additional traffic would make the roads still more hazardous, especially for pedestrians. Public transport is very infrequent and since there are no shops, GP surgeries etc in the village, people depend on cars to reach the nearest services in Poringland (to which there is no public transport at all). The school is oversubscribed and local GP surgeries are already overstretched. Furthermore, this is a greenfield site, and its development will have a detrimental impact on the environment.

Object

Representation ID: 2719

Received: 05/03/2023

Respondent: Mrs Sheila Wilson

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

The development will have to go through an existing estate and will be a danger to the residents there. There will be an impact on traffic movements onto Church Road and Church Meadow is opposite the Village Hall which has it own traffic movement problems.
Further development will mean more traffic, noise and pollution as well as destroying agricultural land.
The lanes round here are narrow in places and it is not uncommon to come face to face with heavy agricultural machinery as well as HGV’s.
Joining the A146 can be challenging due to volume of traffic.

Object

Representation ID: 2783

Received: 06/03/2023

Respondent: Mr David Whitehead

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

The number of additional dwellings proposed for the cluster is too many. Road access to the Village is poor(single track roads), the primary school is at capacity, local GP and dental services are already stretched with no local NHS dental practices taking on new patients.
This ALP1 housing development will have a detrimental impact on local wildlife and the environment and the number of extra vehicle journeys resulting from this many additional households is a serious concern.

Object

Representation ID: 2794

Received: 06/03/2023

Respondent: Mrs Mary Black

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

No consideration has been given to the narrow roads leading into and through the village. Traffic to and from the school is heavy and chaotic., exacerbated by traffic to the playgroup. Roads from Poringland, BerghApton and Norwich to the school are all too narrow in parts to accomodate two vehicles passing. The verges are being eroded. There are very dangerous blind bends on the Poringland Road which have already had accidents. Local people avoid using the roads at school times. More housing will obviously result in more traffic. Until Poringland has an adequate school things will not improve.

Support

Representation ID: 3156

Received: 01/03/2023

Respondent: Historic England

Although this site is located quite close to the grade I listed St Mary’s Church, the site is tucked behind existing development and so the impact on the heritage asset and its setting would be minimal.

Support

Representation ID: 3207

Received: 17/03/2023

Respondent: Otley Properties

Agent: John Long Planning

The Landowner/Developer (Otley Properties) SUPPORTS the proposed allocation of land they have an interest in at Alpington (ALP 1). The Landowner/Developer confirms that the land is available for and suitable for development and are committed to bringing the site forward for residential development as soon as possible.

A Site Promoter Confirmation of Availability, Deliverability and Viability is appended to this submission.