GNLP0547

Showing comments and forms 1 to 7 of 7

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 14215

Received: 17/03/2018

Respondent: Mr Douglas Allen

Representation:

The proposed site is on a dangerous bend with limited visibility. Even though our stretch of The Turnpike has a 40mph limit, it is frequently ignored, resulting in numerous small accidents.

The additional traffic from the site, and the fact that school children will have to walk on the Turnpike to catch the bus, leads to a dangerous situation.

Full text:

The Turnpike is a very dangerous road. We live about 800mtrs from the proposed site, on The Turnpike, in an area with a 40mph speed limit. Many drivers ignore the speed limit. Over the years, many cars have left the road, some with very serious consequences.

The proposed site is on a bend, just before a crossroads. Even with a lay-by, vision would be limited. Additionally, traffic turning out of the proposed site would cause extra hazards. We have some difficulty entering and exiting our own property, where the visibility is considerably better than at the proposed site. We feel this site traffic would be quite considerable because there are no facilities within practical walking distance.

The idea of children having to cross The Turnpike, walk down it and wait for a bus is a frightening prospect.

In summary, we feel that this site would make The Turnpike even more hazardous than it is currently.

Support

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 14608

Received: 19/03/2018

Respondent: Mrs Susan Dennis

Agent: Mr Peter Moore

Representation:

SUSTAINABILITY Village has church,village hall,first school,public and school bus services.Village shops are not financially viable as they are not needed.

HIGHWAYS NCC highways objected only on sustainability grounds

SAFETY Public and school buses stop,at present, on the Turnpike within site frontage to pick up and drop off passengers and schoolchildren who have to walk along the main road//unmade verge to gain access to the village via Rode Lane.My Client,in conjunction with developing the site,will provide layby,behind the site lines,for buses to pull in,in conjunction with a footpath link from the rear of the site to Rode Lane on land owned.

Full text:

SUSTAINABILITY Village has church,village hall,first school,public and school bus services.Village shops are not financially viable as they are not needed.

HIGHWAYS NCC highways objected only on sustainability grounds

SAFETY Public and school buses stop,at present, on the Turnpike within site frontage to pick up and drop off passengers and schoolchildren who have to walk along the main road//unmade verge to gain access to the village via Rode Lane.My Client,in conjunction with developing the site,will provide layby,behind the site lines,for buses to pull in,in conjunction with a footpath link from the rear of the site to Rode Lane on land owned.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 14867

Received: 20/03/2018

Respondent: Mrs Margaret Smith

Representation:

Greenfield site on outskirts of village, situated on bad bend with poor visibility. Proposed 10-15 dwellings gives potential of 30 extra vehicles accessing this site on a daily basis for schools, shopping, healthcare, employment, plus all service/delivery vehicles. No pedestrian footpaths. Remote from main village. Nearest village shop approx. 3mls.

Full text:

Greenfield site on outskirts of village, situated on bad bend with poor visibility. Proposed 10-15 dwellings gives potential of 30 extra vehicles accessing this site on a daily basis for schools, shopping, healthcare, employment, plus all service/delivery vehicles. No pedestrian footpaths. Remote from main village. Nearest village shop approx. 3mls.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 16181

Received: 16/03/2018

Respondent: Mr Kevin Greenwood

Representation:

I do not think the proposed development on this site is appropriate for the same reason in my attached letter for the previous application ref: 2014/2418. In addition the site with fifteen houses would be classified as hard standing where water run off would go across my land where the drainage pipe would not cope and flood my land.

Full text:

RE: GNLP0547 CARLETON BARN, CARLETON RODE
I do not think the proposed development on this site is appropriate for the same reason in my attached letter for the previous application ref: 2014/2418. In addition the site with fifteen houses would be classified as hard standing where water run off would go across my land where the drainage pipe would not cope and flood my land.

Attachments:

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 16182

Received: 16/03/2018

Respondent: Mr Barry Garner

Number of people: 2

Representation:

With Reference to our attached letter date 11.12.14. with respect to the previous planning application 2014-2418 our concerns remain the same however this proposed development is 7 1/2 times greater than the 2014 application.

Full text:

With Reference to our attached letter date 11.12.14. with respect to the previous planning application 2014-2418 our concerns remain the same however this proposed development is 7 1/2 times greater than the 2014 application.

Attachments:

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 16183

Received: 16/03/2018

Respondent: Mrs Patrica Graham

Representation:

I do not think this proposed development is appropriate for the following reasons:
Concerned about the number of houses in an isolated situation away from the rest of the village.
Also concerned about the entrance on a bend of the Turnpike Road. A dangerous bend where accidents have happened.

Full text:

RE : GNLP0547 Carleton Barn, Carleton Rode
I do not think this proposed development is appropriate for the following reasons:
Concerned about the number of houses in an isolated situation away from the rest of the village.
Also concerned about the entrance on a bend of the Turnpike Road. A dangerous bend where accidents have happened.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 16346

Received: 16/03/2018

Respondent: Mr David Watson

Representation:

In summary this application is outside the development boundary, on a greenfield site, in open countryside where a smaller application was minded for refusal by SNC, is not a sustainable location with significant Highway safety issues and could act as a precedent to other similar applications.

Full text:

I refer to the above consultation and wish to register my concerns over this site proposal for the following reasons.
1. A smaller version of this proposal for 2 houses was submitted in 2014 (SNC planning application ref 2014/2418. Please see my attached letter of objection 16 Dec 2014. [attached to this record]
This application was withdrawn by the applicant when the planning officer (Robert Webb) advised the applicant that SNC were minded to refuse the application on the grounds of various planning policies and that Highways objected on the grounds of sustainability. The attached letter from RW refers.
2. In the present site proposal submission (GNLP0547) para 12e says the application was withdrawn because of residents and our Parish Council concerns about precedent and it being outside the village boundary. It makes no mention of the main concerns from SNC about conflicting with planning policies or Highways objection on sustainability grounds. It fails to note that SNC were minded refusal per RW's letter above.
3 In para 13 of the submission it notes the need for the landowner to obtain legal consent from adjacent landowners to cut back vegetation to ensure adequate sightlines over their land. The main owner in question said he would not provide the agreement for the previous application, and will not for this new proposal.
4. SNC were minded to refuse for 2 houses why would they accept this for up to 15 on exactly the same area with the same plans for access onto the apex of a dangerous bend on the 81113? If GNLP do consider inclusion of this site will they please have a site visit to see how dangerous this bend is before deciding.
5. The Carleton Rode Parish Council unanimously objected to this proposal for the above reasons on Tuesday 13 March 2018.
6. In summary this application is outside the development boundary, on a greenfield site, in open countryside where a smaller application was minded for refusal by SNC, is not a sustainable location with significant Highway safety issues and could act as a precedent to other similar applications.
Please note these concerns when considering this application
Thank you