PUBLISHED: 19:36 26 November 2009 | UPDATED: 15:45 03 July 2010
MY concerns on the proposed development of the cycle way at Warren Road in Gorleston are as follows:
Why fix something that isn't broken. While the lane is rough, the cyclists can't travel very fast making it safe for walkers and young cyclists alike.
MY concerns on the proposed development of the cycle way at Warren Road in Gorleston are as follows:
Why fix something that isn't broken. While the lane is rough, the cyclists can't travel very fast making it safe for walkers and young cyclists alike. There is also the two golf courses that run either side of the lane to be considered (Gorleston links and Hopton Holiday Village). There is a real danger of stray golf balls flying onto the lane. I have collected over 200 golf balls while walking my dog there. We have a problem with motorbikes and motor scooters using the lane as a cut through. If the proposed plans go ahead this problem would only get worse. The local police are aware of this. Surely a style/walk through railings at both ends of the lane would stop this. To spend £90,000 is a huge amount of money on something that, in reality, doesn't need doing. It would be cheaper to install railings along the already established cycle route along the A12. If the council think this route isn't safe for school children, why put it there in the first place. Would the council have to put up street lights? This would encourage the underage drinkers into the area. This is an already small problem (usually only during the summer months) that would again only get worse.
There is also the wildlife to take into account. We have spotted a huge range of uncommon birds, foxes and deer along the lane.
While some of those opposed to the plans have been branded as snobs, my concerns are all about safety and the decline of the countryside (small though it may be).
Hopton on Sea
IN reply to the previous letters concerning the proposed Hopton cycle path I feel I need to clarify some points.
Firstly, it is not a case of not wanting cyclists passing our “nice homes” as stated by Vivienne Trorey, (are we not allowed to take pride in our homes and area?) nor nimbyism Mr Ward, it is all about “health and safety” issues. Mr Ward states that Warren Road is not narrow. While the northern section is of a fairly reasonable width, the southern end is definitely not. If there are vehicles parked on the road there is no room for HGV's whatsoever and cars have little passing room. This is not caused by residents with four or five cars parked there as suggested by Mr Ward but by visitors or tradesmen. Residents actually have ample parking room by way of driveways. The point being made is that any cyclists would have to negotiate around these parked vehicles directly into the pathways of any other vehicles using the road. Mr Ward also states that he believes NCC will be sensitive to the nature of the route and will not necessarily concrete over the area. Well Mr Ward, that is the residents point to all of this. NCC don't give a dam. They do in fact actually plan to do this thus our objections. Cyclists will be able to reach a much faster speed as they approach vehicles using Warren Road plus there is the added issue of motor bikes too. A concrete surfacing will also increase the flooding at the bottom of the footpath as rainwater will run at a much faster pace with nowhere for it to soak away thus exacerbating the flooding of nearby homes. As to the hedgerows, a large proportion have already been hacked away with no regard for wildlife. It does not end there however as NCC and Mott Macdonald plan to take the hedgerows back even further at the southern end thus destroying a major part of the countryside environment. Mr Ward also states he is against the A12 route as it is unpleasant, unlit and threatening. Would not the Hopton cycle route be too, in the winter months? I would also like to question Mike Butcher's comments that he only knew of 27 objectors.....were you asleep Mr Butcher at the recent meeting at Gorleston Golf club that you attended, when there were almost 60 objectors and only one person for the scheme. Mr Cook states correctly the area to be upgraded is rural and not part of the residential road maintained by homeowners. Mr Cook, do you then expect the users to fly over the private part of the road? As stated previously, all the residents contribute to the maintenance and upkeep of Warren Road, all extra traffic would increase the need for repair and an increase in insurance, which would then come from the residents own pockets. Do you think this fair? When we purchased our properties it was because we wanted to live on a private, rural road, not a busy public thoroughfare, not because we are snobs!
IN reply to the articles in the Mercury concerning the proposed cycle pathway between Warren Road and Hopton, I would firstly like to say this road is a private road (un-adopted), and is paid for and maintained by the residents of Warren Road and Kennel loke, so will the users from Hopton be prepared to make payments annually towards its upkeep? I doubt it. Admittedly the council have agreed to make a one off payment as a sweetener, but this won't go far over the years. As for the comment made regarding people on Warren Road owning four cars, (I haven't seen many) may I suggest they look around Hopton, they will find many homes exactly the same. I am sure there will also be an increased amount of rubbish that will be dumped, as we are already witnessing this, who will clear this litter? What about all of the wildlife now established in these hedgerows? Should we just cut the hedges back and ignore the poor little creatures. Yes, we chose to live on this road for the peace and quiet and because of its rural settings as do the people from Hopton chose to live where they do, so why do they whimper on. If they are not happy living where they are, why not move. This planned cycle path is still to be unlit, so as a parent I would not want my children to cycle through there on their own, it can be daunting for an adult. Also no one has yet mentioned that once they reach the end of Warren road it comes out onto a blind corner, nobody seems to be concerned about this! At least the A12 is lit by on coming vehicles. In my view I believe the only reason for this so-called cycle path is to allow eventual property developments on the old driving range. After all this footpath is used by cyclists now and pedestrians and it has been like this for around 100years so why the need to change it now.
IT'S nice to see the town centre is gearing up for Christmas, with the Christmas Fayre and new shops opening. The only problem on the horizon is parking area. In the past two weeks we have had difficulty finding spaces in the King Street and Palmers car parks owing to the allocation of so many disabled spaces which are usually empty apart from two or three cars. The roads surrounding these car parks are taken up by disabled drivers parking free on double yellow lines as is their prerogative. As one who has had mobility problems in the past, I am the first to acknowledge that convenient parking is a must for the infirm, but it does seem silly that there are not enough spaces for drivers that are willing to pay, especially as so many designated spaces remain empty.
I WISH to correct the presumption of P Sutton in the letter last week, that the silent majority of residents were in favour of the wind turbines. I suspect many others were like me and unable to attend the public meeting, but I had taken the trouble to go to the Planning Office to take a look at the proposed plans. Within the file were a number of wonderful landscapes, illustrating the effect the turbines would have from aspects such as the Acle New Road or Breydon Water. I couldn't help but notice there was no such artists impression on how the turbines would look just little over 500m from my house. I also noticed what I suspect was an obligatory inclusion of possible leakage of oil from the site into unknown water courses. Having lived in the area for some 28 years and walking my dogs over the land on a regular basis, I have good knowledge regarding drainage. The proposed site is obviously on high ground which slopes down into a farmyard. Natural drainage and water from heavy rainfall takes water through the land and the downhill farm tracks into the farmyard where it enters the drains. The land drains empty into my large duckpond, which I share with the farm. The surplus water from which passes through my fresh water drains, through my land and under my property into dykes and eventually into Ormesby Broad and your drinking water.
Although the duckpond is on private land, it is a wildlife haven, enjoyed over the years by many people from Hemsby either bringing children to feed the ducks or walking their dogs and enjoying both the resident and visiting wildfowl from Ormesby Broad.
And as for the suggestion that half a dozen turbines would be a "visitor attraction" I think somebody is having a laugh at our expense. Like thousands of others, I believe wind turbines are necessary, in the right area. The proposal for a huge windfarm in the North Sea seems the best place for it. Years ago I recall small fishing boats plying for trade on our beaches, their owners calling “Trips round the Island to see the Seals.” If P Sutton is correct there may be a wonderful opportunity to buy a boat and put notices up saying “Trips around the Turbines.”
IN response to recent negative comments regarding the proposed windfarm. Some villagers think as I do, that the turbines we have at present are an enhancement to our region of windmills and have their beauty as well as function. We all want our 21st century gadgets, yet without harnessing what nature has given us, would we be happier with another nuclear power station? The villagers of Hemsby and Ormesby can today play a positive role in preventing global warming and protecting the planet. SLP have duly considered the views of the local population, the plans we have on offer can make a real difference. Now is the time to say “yes in our back yard” and with conviction and pride.
Ormesby St Margaret
IT brought back memories to see the picture of the dedication of the war memorial in St George's Park in 1949, as I was there. My mother's name is on the one for those killed in the second world war, Charlotte Stolworthy, died May 11 1943, I also have a great uncle and his cousin, both named Sidney Bowles, on the one for the first world war. Wish I could have been there for the dedication for the 60 years' remembrance, but I live in the US and did not know anything about it, but I had already been home this year anyhow. I visit both sites every year I come home, and lay flowers at both sites. I won't be able to do it much longer as I am 75, but will do it as long as I am able
READING Peggotty's article regarding Cottons dairy and seeing the photograph of the premises at junction of Alderson and Ormond Road, brought back quite a few memories to me. My late brother in law, Maurice Share and his wife Dorethea took over these premises in the 1950/60s and ran a general grocery store for some time. And I used to go in and help on a Saturday morning during the summer season to make up and put into boxes the grocery orders from occupants on the Broads cruiser' berthed at the Yacht Station. Then I used to deliver them to the boats; quite a job sometimes getting on and off the craft. Very busy but pleasant and interesting time and I met some very nice people.
D J BULLARD
Gorleston on Sea
I AM grateful for the many responses to my recent request via The Mercury about the service provided by First Bus. It is clear there are a number of issues that need to be addressed, such as route changes, the state of the buses, lack of information and buses not turning up. What was apparent however, was that overall the respondents had a great deal of sympathy for the bus drivers themselves. I am still open for any more comments and am seeking a meeting with First Bus to discuss and hopefully make it clear that an early resolve is necessary. Once again thank you for your replies so far.
TONY WRIGHT MP
TO summarise the views and needs of the parties involved in the outer harbour debate is relatively easy and I believe our council must bear the major share of any blame. Mr Eddie Freeman has reviewed what he considers to be his stance and there has been much evidence regarding the shortcomings of our council and those councillors as paid board members who represented our interests on the now defunct great Yarmouth Port Authority. From the council there has been an ominous silence, is it guilt at giving much and gaining little or just that they weren't good enough for IPH?
Mr Freeman needs to make the maximum return he can for his company and is under no obligation to consider the community with their concerns because he apparently wasn't forced in the negotiations to go for the best projects in the communities interests: Ro Ro in which there is a 4.1pc shortfall of facilities in the UK giving jobs and prosperity to our resorts; care of heritage areas such as Gorleston pier which Great Yarmouth Port authority has neglected for many years.; and putting the costs of Haven bridge onto county council rate payers.
Our council's aims are difficult to understand since we were heavily sold an idea which has so changed that it is now a dream. It seems in the end they so wanted the fame of building an outer harbour but they took their eyes off the real ultimate goal of jobs, prosperity and community, the reasons how the grants were obtained. We feel let down by both the council and the defunct Port Authority and why they refuse to answer any questions.
I am minded to ask that without the outer harbour would there be the need for the enormous cost to rate payers of the third river crossing if the bypass was improved significantly and successfully?
REFERENCE the Mercury headline, November 20: “Port IS good for the town”. Everyone in the borough is overjoyed the Outer Harbour has been built. This is not in dispute! What is, is the way our Inner Port and its assets have been gifted to International Port Holdings (IPH) for them to use as possible collateral to raise funds for construction. I believe, as many do, that Mr Eddie Freeman has done a remarkable job in bringing the Outer Harbour to near completion.
In July 2006, Mr Baillie, Chair of IPH stated in the EDP that Englefield Capital was the backer of IPH. On March 23, 2007 this was confirmed at a NCC pension committee report.
On May 25, 2007 contracts were signed between IPH and NCC, GYBC and GYPA. Then Englefield Capital dropped out. On the May 29, Global Infrastructure Partners, acquired 100pc of IPH.
On June 4, 2007 IPH asked NCC, GYBC and GYPA for a further £1.5m. This was after the contracts were signed. NCC paid £1m and GYBC paid £454,000, all from the ratepayer.
Why did Englefield Capital withdraw their offer? Did we have to gift our Ports assets and a further £1.45m to IPH to enable IPH to raise funds from Global Infrastructure? If so, why didn't those acting for us raise the funds instead of IPH, to build the Outer Harbour? After all IPH did not use their own money they borrowed, we could have done the same!
Why did councillors and members on the board of GYPA have to rush to accept the first bidder? What was their incentive to do this? Did they want to go down in history as the “team” that built the outer harbour? And in doing so assisted IPH in every way possible rather than look for alternative builders.
Mr Freeman is correct, he has never promised a Ro-Ro service, but EEDA did, as did Mr Baillie, Chairman of IPH.
On February 20, 2006 EEDA stated that Super Fast Ferries were the preferred Ro-Ro service and this would produce 1m000 jobs and 120,000 visitors. There were £8.8m in grants specifically for jobs. These have not materialised. Instead of increase, workers have been sacked. This is why we complain!
Mr Peter Hardy has stated: “We should not get too hung up on the ferry issue.” Does he forget that as far back as year 2000 he is one of the main instigators in selling the ferry idea to EEDA, the NCC, and us? And Mr Hardy, when IPH first came in their chairman Mr Baillie talked of Ro-Ro NOT container traffic. As for jobs, look at the hundreds employed in Dover RO-RO and compare with the pittance at Felixstowe. Will containers bring tourists to our resort? I do not think so.
JOHN L COOPER
WELL the saga of the outer harbour rumbles on. I do think if people give it time it will be fine- the thing is not up and running yet. If people do not like the local council and the things they do they should get out and vote as the Tories have been in control of the council since the stone age - well, almost.
EVER since the first publication of the book Front Line Town, published soon after the war describing the heavy death toll and destruction inflicted on Yarmouth in the low level air attacks, I think I have read all the accounts which have been published since , including the latest, Great Yarmouth During The War Years, but none of them describes as an important development in the defence of Yarmouth which, if my memory is correct, brought the hit and run attacks to an end. One afternoon, at the time the attacks were taking place all too frequently, I remember coming out of school and I and my pals couldn't believe our eyes when we saw ten barrage balloons flying over the town, and from that day I can't remember Yarmouth suffering another low level attack. Although our fighter pilots were doing a wonderful job there was nowhere near enough of them to protect the town all the time, but the fact that steel cables were now extended from the ground and up into the clouds by barrage balloons was enough to make German pilots think it was unwise to make any more low level attacks. In fact, I don't think there was any more serious attacks the town after that day the balloons took to the sky over Yarmouth. I have always thought it is a pity the skill of the crews who controlled them in all sorts of weather, especially in high winds, have never had a mention. I remember people saying if only we had the barrage balloons as soon as the attacks started a considerable amount of death and destruction would have been avoided. I still remember most of the sites in the town from which the balloons were operated: 1. Barnard Avenue playing field 2.Tar Works Road 3. Beaconsfield recreation ground 4. St George's Park 5. On a large cleared bomb site at corner of Anson Road and Southtown Road 6. Admiralty Road area. Can any readers remember the other four sites?
REFERRING to the recent correspondence with regard to the church pews at St Andrew's, I would like to say that, in my opinion, to remove them would be absolute sacrilege and would the replacement chairs bring more people to church? I don't think so.
This proposed project will no doubt be extremely expensive, so may I suggest that, with so many starving people in the world, the money saved be sent to them.
IN response to the article in last week's Mercury: “Warning from mother as bus route remains”. I would like to say I am disgusted in the so-called response to the so-called questionnaires, as I have personally spoken to quite a few people who live in the surrounding area and they have said they do not want the buses, it is only a short walk to the Norwich road. I am disgusted that people are putting their own convenience before the safety of others. On a weekday morning, at about 8.10am, we get three double decker buses down the road one behind the other, none of them are full and none of them stop, I understand they are taking children to school but surely if they are not going to stop why do they need to turn down Prince of Wales Road? As for the bus company saying buses do not pass each other on this road, well we see them passing each other everyday and I have photographic evidence of this. When will the bus company see sense and if they won't stop the buses then cut them down, we don't need them every 20 minutes, up and down, especially as they hardly ever stop? What have we got to do next?
Prince of Wales Road
WALKING along the beach in the Horsey area, I saw a couple trying to get a seal to go back into the water, and having succeeded they were quite happy with themselves not realising how much damage they had actually achieved. The adult female seals have travelled 200/300 miles to actually get onto the beach to give birth; they arrive sometimes quite exhausted only to be scared by the very people that think they are doing a good turn. Once back in the water they have to struggle again to get onto the beach which exhausts them further - and as any women who has given birth knows the delivery is exhausting too, so starting exhausted can be detrimental. If they deliver the pup in the water it will drown, the pups require weaning by their mother for at least three weeks on the beach. If a mother seal is scared off by people or dogs it will abandon the baby which will then become prey to the fox, dogs, starvation or unthinking public that will try to get into the water where it will drown!