29.18

Object

Representation ID: 2335

Received: 16/02/2023

Respondent: Mrs Janet Rogers

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Access between the boundaries of 24 and 26 The Street is inadequate.
There is no explanation of how the footway from the proposed access road and 34 The Street would accomodate the adjacent pond.

Object

Representation ID: 2675

Received: 04/03/2023

Respondent: Mrs Janet Rogers

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Both VC ROC1 and VC ROC2 equates to a potential 250 vehicle movements daily. The village is congested with on street parking all day in the area from the Surlingham Lane to School Lane. The village is the route for Langly School minibuses, a regular bus service and diverted traffic from the A146.
Area between 24/26 The Street is 4.6 mtrs. Type 6 road requires 5mtrs.
Clarify agricultural vehicles accessing farmland and protection of the orchid meadow.
There are bends for 3.5 miles from this access.
The verge between the pond and the highway is not adequate for a footpath.

Object

Representation ID: 2686

Received: 04/03/2023

Respondent: Mrs Tamlyn Francis

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Private Access Road to Doctors surgery. Access would be difficult because of close proximity to the only shop in the village. There is already a very high volume of traffic for the shop, school and doctors surgery where cars are parked, and only a very narrow pavement for pedestrians on the opposite side of the road.

Object

Representation ID: 2848

Received: 06/03/2023

Respondent: Mr Philip Lewis

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Access would be difficult, especially when considering the main road through Rockland itself is narrow. The size of the development seems excessive for the village. The biodiversity on the proposed field includes an impressive range of wild orchids which would be lost. Also any run off from a building site would run down the field towards the Rockland & Hellington Nature Reserve. Much is made of the linear shape of the village and this development would be in keeping, however it will impact enormously for houses which border the site and alter the character significantly.

Object

Representation ID: 2851

Received: 06/03/2023

Respondent: Mr Adrian Rayner

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

This site should be rejected . The Promoter has not shown within the submission, land within his control, to provide Access to comply with the Highway Authority Standards. Land owned by Third Parties is required and said Third Parties have confirmed that the land is not for sale. The Access track is not wide enough, and land for visibility splays and pavements is not available.
Previous access submissions have failed for the same reasons.
Even if land was available access at this point would be unsafe due to prevalence of parking on the Highway.

Object

Representation ID: 2889

Received: 07/03/2023

Respondent: Sheila Axworthy

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

There would be too many cars entering and exiting from a very narrow point with many cars overtaking parked cars at the shop. This would further endanger pedestrians crossing and cyclists.

Object

Representation ID: 2900

Received: 07/03/2023

Respondent: Mr Rupert Read

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

HELAA/site assessments raised amber concerns in Reg 18 not adequately dealt with in Reg 19. Access for VCROC2 is unworkable and recommended Type 6 for compliance not achievable; also relies on third party land to provide new, safe pathways.
iv. Inclusivity and safety: disabled mobility/wheelchair access seems unachievable; VCROC1 encourages more car use into village. VCROC2 vehicular access is not safe and results in bottle neck for residents in high traffic area. The vehicular access point creates new dangers and the increase of pedestrians on existing inadequate safe footpaths increases chances of accidents at dangerous bends and necessary crossing points.

Object

Representation ID: 2961

Received: 08/03/2023

Respondent: Mr Peter Armitage

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

There is no safe access to this housing allocation and it will pose a danger to all traffic, cyclists and pedestrians accessing the shop and surgery

Object

Representation ID: 2991

Received: 08/03/2023

Respondent: Rockland St Mary With Hellington Parish Council

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Concerns have been raised regarding the proposed vehicular access, the new access point and footpaths. Please see the attached documents.

Object

Representation ID: 3006

Received: 08/03/2023

Respondent: mr Christopher Tusting

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The proposed access is unsafe and unsuitable. This is the busiest part of the village with a lot of pedestrian use and many cars parking/stopping on the roadside. Furthermore it is also the only road that can be used by lorries and farm machinery and a recognised and well used cycle route. Any addition of vehicles will add to this danger and conflicts with NPPF (110). The proposed access also has many other issues which include road size, pedestrian access, visibility splays, ponds and 3rd party ownership.

Object

Representation ID: 3035

Received: 08/03/2023

Respondent: Mr Ross Wylie

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

There is no suitable direct vehicular access to the site to support this allocation and it is stated that third party land will need to be purchased. As owners of 24 The Street, which is adjacent to the existing field access in question, we are not prepared to sell any land. Therefore this allocation is unsound.