I have published my previous observations on the web at

http://dropsafe.crypticide.com/article/4017

…and additionally have submitted them to the parish council website.

I hereby submit additional observations, and some revisions; this message will also be posted, with illustrations, at http://dropsafe.crypticide.com/article/4078

UPDATE: see also the set of photos on Flickr

ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS

1) RISK OF FLOODING

Sandy Lane slopes quite strongly downhill; at the junction with Green Lane are four drains which take runoff water from Sandy Lane; to build a large brick “platform” at the road junction will inhibit the flow of drainage onto the pedestrian pathway, and possibly into one of the house gardens.

2) HEAVY PARKING AROUND SCHOOL AT EVENTS

I have posted at http://dropsafe.crypticide.com/article/4078 pictures of a football club event next to the school; traffic has parked between the school entrance and exit, filling one lane of the road – not least because the vehicles are largely 4x4s and people-carriers because this was a youth event.

Traffic conditions on this day were, as they are often, bad; by which I mean much stopping and starting due to the lack of width to the road, and due to the mass of large vehicles.

This thereby provides an indication of how impractical the proposed traffic calming will be – the nuisance to residents – as well as pointing to a misunderstanding on the part of the designers who consider Green Lane to be primarily a thoroughfare which is not parked-upon.

3) WIDE PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC / CYCLE TRAFFIC

To reinforce some points from my previous observations, I’ve posted a picture of a woman pushing a pram whilst walking 2 dogs; she entirely fills the width of the footpath, and I believe any “gates” that reduce the width of the footpath will be popular with her or any other resident.

I’ve also posted a picture of a cyclist to reinforce the point that there is no provision for cycling in the buildout scheme.

4) FORMAL OBJECTION TO THE CONSULTATION PROCESS

I would like to register a formal objection to Barratt’s planning, and to the consultation process; I attended the presentation at the Scout Hut for one and a half hours, on April 30th, and met not one resident who was happy either with the proposal, or the process.

Most specifically: the copies of the plans made available via the parish website were erroneous; they show the buildouts to be on the opposite sides of the roads from those presented in the Scout Hut.

This changes entirely the traffic flow questions, and also suggests a certain slapdash approach to the proposal’s design.

Further, at least four of the other residents I met in the Scout Hut were complaining that they had only received their notice of the plans through letterboxes in the past day or two, albeit the letters were _dated_ in early April.

I feel these two flaws compromise the consultation’s worthiness, and wish this to be taken into consideration.

IN CONCLUSION

At the Scout Hut consultation, I overheard one ot the Barratt representatives say to another: “None oh them want this. They all want road-humps.”

I would agree, or recommend alternatively that the entire proposal be scrapped.

Alec Muffett