QUESTION 2a: Do you agree with the allocation of SN0433, Land south of Wheel Road, Alpingtonfor at least 12 dwellings on an area of 1.0ha? Please explain your response.

Unless part of the site is dedicated to the widening of the road it is not feasible to increase the amount of traffic exiting onto Wheel road. The Wheel road is no more than single file at the best of times and the route is used by buses and often used by Police/highways as a diversion for traffic following accidents on the A46. There is no footpath for children to walk from the proposed site to the school safely and the route to Poringland/Framingham Earl on the school bus is treacherous at best. I OBJECT

This site has been put forward recently before. It is rather frustrating that it is being considered again so soon. As before, developing this site is unsuitable as it will suffer poor access due to the narrowing and contours of wheel road. It would be very difficult to create a safe access to this site. The road is already busy as it is used as a cut though to Poringland and gets particularly congested when the Wheel of Fortune Pub is busy and Patrons park along the road. This already causes damage to our driveway as people use it as a passing place. A delelopment on this site will also adversely impacting the rural nature in the immediate vicinity, dramatically altering the character of the village. It will have an adverse affect on the enjoyment and outlook of those properties that current overlook the proposed site, particularly houses who would no longer have uninterrupted views across the local countryside. With the site being relatively small stating “at least 12 properties” does not provide any reassurance that the development will reduce the local impact (from what was previously rejected) as this number is non-specific.

This village has very poor road access as can be seen by the increasing damage to roadside verges and the almost impossibility of traveling in any direction without pulling in somewhere, any new houses will increase traffic and accelerate the erosion of road edges. To describe the bus service as limited is an exaggeration, it is useless for working people.Whilst the football club is shown as an amenity all the players live outside the village and travel, therefore not an amenity.The site is on a curving bend so will be difficult to access and on the narrower part of Wheel Road, it will have an impact on the listed property at Staceys Cottage Reeders Lane. This village has no shop and no street lighting and very few pavements so it makes residents reliant on the car. Put plainly some of the base facts are misleading or have changed and on purely traffic basis the roads are totally inadequate either for more cars and the lorries required for building.The school is at capacity and cannot expand.

Site SN0433 originally promoted 10/ha site density. At least 12/ha is open-ended, does not appear to be ‘a significantly reduced level of development’.
Removal of any part of an ancient hedge (and trees) is contrary to the Countryside hedgerows: protection and management guidelines, and will result in the loss of the colony of House Sparrows-conservation status red.
A footpath adjacent to the road will inevitably be used as additional vehicle parking, as east of The Wheel PH, despite it being an offence to obstruct public footpaths.
Any ‘straightening’ of the highway will encourage road traffic speed to increase

Insufficient access via small already over used roads.

This is a small village which is already over populated.
People move to this village for a quiet lifestyle and to have the beautiful fields. We pay an expensive price for this neighbourhood and this will ruin it.

I live on wheel road. Congestion at school times is crazy. We can’t get in or out of our property at morning drop off nor school pick ups.
The congestion on wheel road and church road so bad already. We have found it unsafe sometimes to walk our dogs too at these times.
Any more developments will make an already bad situation worse.

The infrastructure of the area can not cope with any further development. The school is full, the doctor's surgery is full. The roads around this area are too narrow for any increased volume of traffic.

Dear Council Members,
Subject: Objection to Proposed Building Project in Aplington
I am writing to express my strong objection to the proposed building project in our village, referenced under application number Application Number. As a concerned resident of Alpington, I believe that our current infrastructure is not equipped to support the additional strain that this development would impose.
Our village’s charm and character are derived from its tranquil environment and close-knit community. The proposed project threatens to disrupt this harmony by introducing increased traffic, noise pollution, and potential environmental hazards. Moreover, our existing facilities, such as roads, sewage systems, and public services, are already operating at capacity. Introducing a new development without first addressing these infrastructure limitations is not only imprudent but also poses a risk to the safety and well-being of all village residents.

This planning application raises concerns about the strain on Alpington’s infrastructure. The current issues with congested roads and an overcrowded local school suggest that the area is ill-equipped to handle additional residents. Without a clear plan to address road widening and allocate more parking spaces for the school, approving this application may exacerbate existing problems, making navigation and daily life even more challenging for the community.

I am writing to express me and my wives strong objection to the proposed building project in our village, referenced under application number SN0433. As a very concerned residents of Alpington, I believe that our current infrastructure is already over burdened and thus not equipped to support the additional strain that this development would impose.

Our village’s charm and character are derived from its tranquil environment and close-knit community. The proposed project threatens to disrupt this harmony by introducing increased traffic, noise pollution, and potential environmental hazards. Moreover, our existing facilities, such as roads, sewage systems, and public services, are already operating above capacity. The village also lacks sufficient street lighting and footpaths and I note that the development would be on a blind corner. Introducing a new development without first addressing these infrastructure limitations is not only injudicious but also poses a risk to the safety and well-being of all village residents.

The council ought to reconsider the long-term implications of this project and to prioritize the preservation of our village’s unique identity and the quality of life of its inhabitants. We are not alone in our concerns, and I stand with many fellow residents who are prepared to take further action should this project proceed without due consideration for the points raised herein.

Its a "NO" from us!

In order to address some of the concerns raised by local residents on the potential development of this land, FW Properties confirm the following;
• The new dwellings will be served by two new private accessways on to Wheel Road only.
• The new properties will be set back from Wheel Road to minimise the effect of the development on the existing houses opposite. The scheme will be based upon a similar design approach to the FW Properties' development off Cooke's Road in Bergh Apton for 11 houses which was completed in 2018.
• The scheme layout will reflect the advice of our highways engineers in relation to widening the stretch of Wheel Road in front of the two new accesses to 5 metres (together with a 2 metre wide pavement) and to achieve the required visibility for the two accessways on to this road. This will result in the removal of some of the existing hedge along Wheel Road - a new mixed species hedge will then be planted along this section of the frontage. It is our intention to retain as much of the existing front hedge as possible.
• A drop kerb is proposed to the northern pavement to the east of Fortune Green to provide a crossing point for pedestrians to the new pavement proposed along the southern side of Wheel Road - this will connect into the existing pavement in front of the pub that runs alongside Wheel Road to the village primary school.
• FW Properties are proposing an overflow car park for the Wheel of Fortune Pub as part of the development of this land. This will help to prevent patrons from parking their cars along the verge of Wheel Road during peak times. The freehold of this car park will be transferred to the pub once it has been completed. This will be based upon a very similar design to the gravel car park developed for the village primary school as part of our previous Alpington development in Wheel Road.
• The development will include some additional soft landscaping on the strip of land immediately to the south of the existing front hedge to further reduce the scheme’s impact and will also have a mixed species hedge and post and wire fence along the whole of the boundary with the land to the south which will remain as arable/grazing land.
• The existing ditch and the mature hedge which runs alongside the eastern boundary of the land (which is shared with the pub) will be retained. There will be a landscaping buffer between this hedge and the new overflow car park to reduce the impact on the pub.

See attachment for full representation.

See attachment for full representation.

See attachments for full representation.

The reasoned justification provided for proposing this allocation is fundamentally flawed. The revised proposal has done nothing to address the significant impact that the positioning of new dwellings would have on the character of the village and indeed acknowledges the requirement for loss of hedgerow frontage in order to provide direct access from Wheel Road. Perhaps more worrying are the significant road safety implications that such a development would create. Wheel Road itself is barely passable for cars travelling in opposite directions around the area of the proposed development, particularly at the start and end of the school day and at when the pub is busy due to cars parked right along the length of Wheel Road. Wheel Road also contains a blind bend in direct proximity to the proposed development site. The proposal also has wider traffic safety significance for other access routes which will inevitably see an increase in usage. Burgate Lane is predominantly single track with limited areas of double width with a dangerous blind bend at the Aldis Farm Shop junction. Reeders Lane and Dove Lane are single track roads already which are already deteriorating due to excessive traffic, passing places are limited and insufficient for vehicles larger than small cars and similarly contain blind bends which are already the locations of multiple traffic accidents per year, these lanes are used as a thoroughfare between the village and the B1332. Wider justification is required before the site can be seriously considered

My concerns are the road is not wide enough to include a footpath or widen without removing an ancient hedgerow that is home to a colony of sparrows. The road is already busy and with a bad bend, entrances would cause more hazards. The road to Poringland is narrow with many bends, traffic is not travelling slowly enough for the conditions. All roads out of the village are single lane in places. Diversions from A146 make it impossible. Grass verges being destroyed, ditches and the gullies leading into them not maintained properly. Infrastructure not able to keep up with building.

This will increase to 62 proposed dwellings for the Village cluster which is excessive for the area. In the site assessment no mention is made of the distance from nearest GP, which at 2.1 miles is in excess of the 1200m and 1800m walking distance flagged as Red in sites rejected such as SN6002 Needham, SN6001SL, Norton Subcourse and SN0531REVA Rockland. 1 mile of the route to nearest GP in Poringland is on narrow, winding road with not footpath and bordered by hedges and ditches. The site is accessed from a narrow part of Wheel Road and would require significant changes to make for a safe access which may make the development less viable and thus not able to provide any affordable housing. In addition this would necessitate the removal of some of the existing hedgerow. My main objection however is that the total new houses proposed under the VCHAP for Alpington would be 37 if this site is added- way in excess of what was originally suggested.

All site allocations for Alpington need to be renewed. You are talking about the land behind Church Meadow having 25 houses. This is incorrect as the deeds of the neighbouring houses to Church Meadow only allow 16 maximum houses to be built on this site (written proof which can be provided). Therefore you would need to rethink the allocation/numbers of all Alpington sites.

No more than the 12 proposed houses with garaging and a driveway at each plus front and rear gardens. A minimum of a 5kw solar installation on each property and a new cul-de-sac, from the main road, to provide direct access to each property. The site should be bounded by indigenous hedging with adequate screening between the pub and the adjacent houses.
The application should recognise the pub as an ongoing business and no restrictions be placed on the pubs current activities including receptions, occasional outdoor music and the use of the pub garden.

This cluster has been allocated 50 dwellings. +12 is a significant allocation and contrary to the original assurances that each cluster would get one site. This demonstrates that the VCHAP strategy is flawed.
The site will need part of an ancient hedgerow removed. Higher development costs necessary could impact on the ability to deliver the full quota of affordable housing.
Accessibility from our village is along narrow rural lanes and an increase in traffic movements is a genuine concern.
The Children's Service comment that the school can support additional 12+ houses. Are they aware of the 50 properties already committed?

All plans seem to be creating an excessive amount of houses in one small village area. As its already stated on a number of objections for the Alpington, Yelverton and Bergh Apton plans, the surrounding area is already unsuitable for this many additional properties due to several reasons. In relation to the plans regarding the land behind Church Meadow. The plans state 25 houses, while in-fact the neighbouring properties to this land have it documented in their deeds that only allow a maximum of 16 houses to be built on this site. Proof of this is been sent to SNC.

See attachment for full representation.

The Parish Council strongly objects to further development in this village cluster. Two sites have already been allocated totalling 50 houses and a further 12+ is 62+ too many given the lack of infrastructure. We question the Children's Services report that approves these additional 12+ houses as they have not commented on the approved 50 and the school is already at capacity. All roads in and out of Alpington are single track at some point and additional traffic will cause even greater congestion.

See attachment for full representation.

I object to the proposal SN0433 on the following grounds:
Number of dwellings unclear.
The roads are already busy and are not able to cope with additional traffic; they are narrow and further congestion will be dangerous.
The village school is full and GP surgeries locally are working at full capacity. The local amenities are not sufficient to support additional residences.
The ancient trees and hedgerows must be retained. They offer habitats for protected species (conservation status red).
There are several listed houses in the area and this development would have a significantly negative impact on these protected buildings.

I oppose the planning proposal for SN0433, Land south of Wheel Road, Alpington, based on the following significant concerns:

1. Destruction of Ancient Hedgerows: The proposed site access to the housing development will lead to the destruction of ancient hedgerows, which currently harbour a diverse biodiversity, including a colony of 'conservation status red' house sparrows. This goes against the 'Countryside Hedgerows Protection and Management Guidelines.' Additionally, the proposed pedestrian path linking the site to local amenities poses safety risks due to the narrow road width and dangerous bend.

2. Uncertainty Regarding Housing Quantity: The site, previously deemed undeliverable, now faces a proposal for 'at least 12' houses, with no specified upper limit. This vague approach to housing quantity undermines the consultation process, leaving residents uncertain about the scale of the development and impeding their ability to provide meaningful feedback.

3. Impact on Local Character: The local area has several listed properties whose character and heritage would be compromised by the proposed development. Preserving the historical and architectural integrity of the neighbourhood should be a priority.

4. Insufficient Capacity in Local Amenities: The proposed development lacks consideration for the already strained local amenities, particularly the school. There is insufficient capacity to accommodate the increased population, potentially affecting the quality of education and community services.

Drastic alterations to Wheel Road/Reeders Lane, part of the character of the village.
12 houses equates to 24 more cars on narrow lanes.
The hedge is ancient and needs protecting.
Can the sewerage works at Sisland cope with the extra waste?
What about the Doctor and Dental services, which are oversubscribed now.
The school is now used by families from neighbouring villages and would it be able for further intake.
Stacy Cottage in Reeders Lane is a listed building.
This village has had enough development and no thought has been given to the consequences
of climate change.

The identified need to resolve access matters is unaddressed, only a maximum of 22% of the hedgerow will remain, this constitutes it’s “removal”. The site promoter’s stated intention is to widen the road and to provide a 2m wide footpath. The reduced scale scheme still retains all the impact of the 25 dwelling scheme that was discounted on grounds of impact. The identified “need” to review the power lines constraint is unaddressed. A field drainage ditch alongside Wheel Rd is an unacknowledged constraint. The site should be discounted at this current time, there is no evidence that SN0433 is deliverable.

Although I still strongly object to any building work on Church Meadow, some new information has come to light. After a review of my housing deeds for [redacted], I note it states that only a maximum of 16 properties can be build on the adjoining land. The VCHAP current plans state an intended 25 properties will be built, so this means the current plans are in breach of these deeds.