QUESTION 141: Do you agree

Comment

Representation ID: 176

Received: 23/06/2021

Respondent: Mrs Julie Twite

The sites identified cannot support housing. The road infrastructure is poor and some of the sites would lead to traffic in areas that are already dangerous when higher volumes of traffic come through. Significantly higher volumes are always seen on these small back roads when there is an accident/incident on the A146 and that occurs so regularly these days. These small roads just cannot cope with the two way traffic that it then experiences. The rural location, wildlife, farming and trees would all be adversely affected. In villages that have very few amenities and require cars to shop, work etc

Comment

Representation ID: 379

Received: 12/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Terence Kitt

Ashby St Mary.
I support the decision of the District Council that the four sites identified should be rejected.
The sites include housing and commercial premises which would all have a major impact on the adjoining road network, Mill Common/Mill Road junction,Ashby Road/A146 Junction and School Access.
The increase in traffic on Mill Road and Mill Common would increase danger to pedestrians. Spoil the character of our village.The sites are outside the development boundary.
The Parish Local Plan expresses the views of residents
“Any development apart from minor infilling of plots within the development area
were neither warranted or necessary.”

Comment

Representation ID: 649

Received: 27/07/2021

Respondent: Mrs Elizabeth Reed

SN0585 -Land opposite Hill Top Barn, Mill Common, Ashby St Mary. I have been advised that the decision on this propossed plan is being appealed. I live near oppisite the site and would like to register my objection due to the dangerous nature of the access. Being on the opposite side of the road from current properties there would zero visibilty of traffic coming from the sharp bend to the right making it very dangerous to all road users, walkers, cyclists and motorists. There is no footpath so walkers have no choice but to use the road.

Object

Representation ID: 778

Received: 29/07/2021

Respondent: Mrs Jacqueline Goldring

No
The increase of vehicle traffic would be a danger to pedestrians due to the lack of footways in both Mill Common and Mill Road, unless addressed
Development of the area would adversely effect the rural character of the village.
All of the proposed sites are outside the development boundary for Ashby St Mary
Further development could potential affect the balance of wildlife in the area
Development in the area would impact the flooding at the bottom of Mill Common near to the the current cottages

Comment

Representation ID: 897

Received: 30/07/2021

Respondent: Not applicable

I support the District Council’s decision to reject the proposal for the four sites at Ashby St Mary.
Housing and Commercial properties, which are outside of the development boundary, would cause:
• Major disruption to the road networks – Mill Common/Ashby Road single track roads, Ashby Road junction with the A146 which is already the site of regular accidents.
• Detrimental impact on the dangers already faced by children at the Village School.
• The eco system at Mill Common to be adversely affected, flooding, disruption to wildlife, natural habitat.
• Danger to all road users, drivers, pedestrians and cyclists.

Object

Representation ID: 1130

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Alan Ayres

Ashby St Mary
I support the District Council that these sites be rejected.
Development of all sites would have a major impact on the adjoining road network, Mill Common/Mill Road junction,Ashby Road/A146 Junction and School Access and increase flood risk at the bottom of Mill Road / Mill Common.
The increase in traffic on Mill Road and Mill Common would increase danger to pedestrians. Spoil the character of our village. The sites are outside the development boundary.
“Any development apart from minor infilling of plots within the development area
are neither warranted or necessary.”