SR/112/001

Object

Representation ID: 342

Received: 01/02/2019

Respondent: Mrs Tess Sinden

Parts of this parcel of land are agricultural, ancient woodland and on a flood plain. There is no suitable access to an adopted road only to a private unadopted, unfinished road with current litigious issues. It is also outside the current 30 mph area of the community and there are other more suitable sites within the 30 mph area which would be in-fill land with better road access. This site is wholly inappropriate for development.

Object

Representation ID: 358

Received: 02/02/2019

Respondent: Mrs Karen Kilburn

I feel the proposed land development is too close to the existing properties and an over development of the area. It would affect the Red Kite which are seen regularly over that field and disturb the rural outlook of our property.

Object

Representation ID: 382

Received: 02/02/2019

Respondent: Miss Jane Kimpton

I would like to object on the extended area of future housing in this area..due to
1..No proper road to get to said site...the one road that is there now is closed as far as the owners concerned it's not owned by the council..
2..the sewerage system that is in place in that area the pumping station would not be able to cope with more houses
3..the loss of all the wonderful trees that are along the bank.....habitats for birds pheasants rabbits foxes

4...surface water from higher levels coming down into watercourse causing problems for other properties lower down.

Object

Representation ID: 403

Received: 03/02/2019

Respondent: Mr Glyn Harbour

The village would be swamped by a large scale development. Major infrastructure improvements would be needed in and around the village. Land already exists in the Development Plan. Small scale, organic growth is desirable and welcome. Benefits to potential new residents would be lost as the village community would have died by such a level of input.

Object

Representation ID: 445

Received: 03/02/2019

Respondent: mrs adele Bennett

Objection to the candidate sites for Meidrim. The cost to the authority is too great considering improvements to the infrastructure that are necessary. Brown Field sites must be explored as infrastructure, resources and facilities are already exist. The Green Belt, its wildlife and natural habitat needs protecting. Air quality needs safeguarding. Once development starts it is difficult to holt progress. Education, employment and health care are limited in this area. The authority is striving to make difficult target cuts to budgets, Justification for development would be more cost effective and better suited to sites that could easily accommodate housing projects.

Comment

Representation ID: 567

Received: 04/02/2019

Respondent: Mr. Gwynfor Price

Access to this site will be an issue.

Comment

Representation ID: 807

Received: 06/02/2019

Respondent: Mrs janice Lovecy

I was surprised at the magnitude together with SR112/02 and SR112/03, of the proposal. It will almost double the size of our village. The latter, at the moment , is a small, rural, Welsh speaking community. Would this proposal impact on the present residents. Where would all these people come from and would they fit in with the present lifestyle of our community, or seek to change it.

Object

Representation ID: 1306

Received: 07/02/2019

Respondent: Mr E Davies

Further to the proposed consultation on the land outlined I object to the proposition for the following reasons.
Bad access in and out of the community of Meidrim. Small country lanes which aren't built for high volumes of traffic.
No ameneties for a further 80 houses.
Detrimental effecte to existing property value and community.

Object

Representation ID: 1397

Received: 08/02/2019

Respondent: Mrs Barbara Bennett

As a resident of Meidrim my objections as I feel the village will not sustain the development. There are no employment opportunities, little in regards public transportation, a primary school with no head teacher of its own, very few recreation facilities and for those seeking to shop or undertake daily living tasks need to access them via inadequate roads but that is the choice for people who move to rural areas. This was my choice to reside in the beautiful, unspoilt strong welsh speaking community. I am confident that a development would spoil the character and community of the village

Object

Representation ID: 1407

Received: 08/02/2019

Respondent: Mr Frank Bennett

As a resident of Meidrim I am opposed to the candidate sites for the following reasons
The increase in the number of houses would have a negative impact on the character of the village and could damage the welsh culture that exists.
The development would massively involve an expensive upgrade of infrastructure such as the widening of rural narrow lanes, drainage, sewage, lighting, policing, health care, education. There is no gas in the village and no mobile signal with poor internet services.
The environmental cost of losing more green belt land that is irreplaceable

Comment

Representation ID: 1428

Received: 08/02/2019

Respondent: Mr E Jones

Sites without access to main highway and the necessary infrastructure should not be included in the LDP.
Existing developments with vacant building plots should be finalised before further development land is allocated.
Affordable housing must be given the highest priority within rural communities. It is the younger generation who will be the future of such communities. Executive housing, built solely to maximise profit will not sustain communities.

Object

Representation ID: 1431

Received: 08/02/2019

Respondent: Mr Huw Bennett

As A new resident to Meidrim I strongly oppose the development. It's my choice and right to reside in a rural village that boasts character with a strong welsh cultural community. After the developers have left Im afraid what the lasting legacy to the area will hold. Council cuts will inevitable have an impact, roads and furnishings will need to be maintained, policing and health care will need to be increased. Public transport and services will need to be more accessible. Loss of open green space is unforgivable, money would be better spent encouraging young people to enter into agriculture.