Signatures 170 total
-
101
Name: Marlene Topler on Feb 22, 2010Comments: If this is a true consultation the views of residents should be heard. We do not want this introduced in Kintbuey and should be allowed to voice our opinion in a proper manner at the next Parish Council meeting. We have not bee kept informed about this and it will effect us all for decades once the scheme is in. I objectFlag
-
102
Name: Klem LeMonier on Feb 23, 2010Comments: Don't want them. Do not change our village. It will destroy the place.Flag
-
103
Name: Dave Blake on Feb 23, 2010Comments: Speeding can be a problem. This should be tackled by using flashing signs and cameras not by using road humps where they are not necessary and not wanted. The Council is meant to represent the people, not steamroller us. Our Councillors need to let us know how much input they have had. We do not want this type of obstruction in Kintbury. I objectFlag
-
104
Name: Barry Adcock on Feb 24, 2010Comments: Road humps are an absolute nightmare for those unfortunate enough to have them adjacent to their home. They cause noise, vibration and added pollution.Flag
-
105
Name: Lynne Brown on Feb 24, 2010Comments: Speeding through the village is a problem with SOME drivers - why should we all suffer. I have lived in the village for 25 years and am unaware of anyone being hit by a car speeding or otherwise - I think this will change when people are racing between speed bumps. We are a quiet vilage not a town centre - lets keep it that way!Flag
-
106
Name: Laura Hutchinson on Feb 24, 2010Comments: I think I put all my views in the email!Flag
-
107
Name: J Amore on Feb 24, 2010Comments: I feel there is no need to install speed humps within our village. This will not solve a problem, but cause one. This is an obsolute waste of tax payers money and I'm sure the council could put this to better use, i.e. repair all the pot holes left after the bad weatherFlag
-
108
Name: A W Broke-Smith on Feb 25, 2010Comments: I am delighted to add my support but I have beenn advised that the Council will not recognise a petition. It is vital that everyone contacts Mr Garrat directly. I cannot remember being consulted by the viallage council and I suggest that Stephen Cook is told that it is not goodenough to say that the plan "may not please everyone" when everyone has not been consulted and that to claim "scaremongering" in the media is completely out of order.Flag
-
109
Name: Jane Stephens on Feb 25, 2010Comments: Please listen to our viewsFlag
-
110
Name: Mrs A M Newland on Feb 25, 2010Comments: As a resident in Kintbury for over 16 years I object most strongly to the possible introduction of speed humps in the beautiful village. I live on the Inkpen Road where it is suggested ugly speed humps be erected. I have lived on Inkpen Road for over 16 years. Please do not destroy this beautiful village. Speed humps are not welcome and I wish to make the strongest protest. Speeding is not a huge problem and the introduction of speed humps would be outrageous.Flag
-
111
Name: Mark Roberts on Feb 25, 2010Comments:Flag
-
112
Name: Mrs Jennifer Adcock on Feb 25, 2010Comments:Flag
-
113
Name: Mr Chris Hopkins on Feb 25, 2010Comments: I have e-mailed and written as requested because I wholeheartedly agree with your campaign and I also am VERY concerned with the possible damage to the inner wall of car tyres when the humps are straddled.Flag
-
114
Name: Diana Bailey on Feb 25, 2010Comments:Flag
-
115
Name: Julian Rota on Feb 26, 2010Comments: No thanks, no urbanisation here, no speed cameras either thanks.Flag
-
116
Name: Victoria Robb on Feb 26, 2010Comments:Flag
-
117
Name: Tina Dines, on Feb 26, 2010Comments: I am not too sure about camera's , but I wholeheartily agree that we do not need speed humps.Flag
-
118
Name: Mr & Mrs Burnham on Feb 26, 2010Comments: My husband and I have lived in Newbury street for over twenty years agree that speeding cars are a problem. We also have to park outside our cottage on the road as we have no parking. Measures need to be taken to stop Newbury street being used as a rat run and to slow down cars but speed humps are NOT the answer. One idea would be to restrict the amount of cars using Newbury street by barriers, so only residents can use Newbury street and other cars can go around the village, not through it. Camers are a much better deterrent.Flag
-
119
Name: A Ferris on Feb 26, 2010Comments:Flag
-
120
Name: Marcia And Robin Kinnill on Feb 27, 2010Comments: we would prefer a cameraFlag
-
121
Name: Emma Couzens on Feb 27, 2010Comments:Flag
-
122
Name: Ann Couzens on Feb 27, 2010Comments:Flag
-
123
Name: Danny Hart on Feb 27, 2010Comments:Flag
-
124
Name: Loraine Couzens on Feb 27, 2010Comments:Flag
-
125
Name: Bobby Couzens on Feb 27, 2010Comments:Flag
-
126
Name: Tim Greenhill on Feb 28, 2010Comments: "A 20mph speed limit on lengths of the High Street, Newbury Street, Church Street, Wallingtons Road and Inkpen Road," Please state the background to this requirement and how the proposed solution was determined. How will the proposed 20mph speed limit be enforced? "Mini roundabouts on Inkpen Road at its junction with Lawrence Mead and Holt Road at its junctions with The Pentlands and Burtons Hill," No objection. "Speed cushions on Inkpen Road, Holt Road and Newbury Street," Objection - Emergency vehicles will have to negotiate the speed cushions leading to delays in reaching their destination whilst occupants may suffer as a result of the action taken. All vehicles will be braking on the approach to the speed cushions and accelerating on departure causing an increase in both noise and air pollution. There will be also be additional wear and tear on vehicles plus potential damage leading to the increase in safety risk and additional vehicle maintenance costs with respective impacts on the environment. "Raised table outside the jubilee centre, which will also aid pedestrian movements across the road," Objection - Emergency vehicles will have to negotiate the speed cushions leading to delays in reaching their destination whilst occupants may suffer as a result of the action taken. All vehicles will be braking on the approach to the speed cushions and accelerating on departure causing an increase in both noise and air pollution. There will be also be additional wear and tear on vehicles plus potential damage leading to the increase in safety risk and additional vehicle maintenance costs with respective impacts on the environment. "Enhanced street lighting at the mini roundabouts and throughout the traffic calmed areas." Please state the implementation and ongoing running costs compared with the lighting already provided. Also please state the light pollution impact. "A road narrowing on the High Street using coloured surfacing," Objection - It appears that coloured surfacing has a tendency to deteriorate faster than traditional surfacing leading to increased risk to pedestrians and vehicles as well as increased maintenance cost. "Gateway improvements at the start of the 30mph speed limits." Objection (red surfacing only) - It appears that coloured surfacing has a tendency to deteriorate faster than traditional surfacing leading to increased risk to pedestrians and vehicles as well as increased maintenance cost. "Extend the 30mph speed limit on the Holt Road approach." Please state the background to this requirement and how the proposal was determined. How will the proposed speed limit be enforced? "Extension of the no waiting restrictions at the cross roads in the village centre." No objection. "The opportunity will be taken to introduce a 40mph speed limit on Station Road between the level crossing to a point north of the last priority working system." Please clarify the "point north of the last priority working system"; also state the background to this requirement and how the proposal was determined. How will the proposed speed limit be enforced? I am also concerned that nothing has been proposed to address the safety of pedestrians walking to/from the train station from the village centre. In particular from Kintbury Mill to the station there are no footpaths. Also, I believe that the proposed measures will encourage road users to take alternative routes through the village. Overall I would rather see the funds for the above scheme spent on improving the surface quality of the footpaths and roads in and around Kintbury.Flag
-
127
Name: Anonymous on Feb 28, 2010Comments:Flag
-
128
Name: Alan Lawrence on Feb 28, 2010Comments: I am concerned about the bumps to be installed along Inkpen road. Speed bumps will be very annoying to those who do not speed in the village. Previously living in Thatcham where speed bumps where added and made journeys very uncomfortable. And will increase village traffic noise as cars break and accelerate at each bump.Flag
-
129
Name: Arlene Ferris on Feb 28, 2010Comments: This will ruin the village & harm the trade of local businesses that will also severely harm the village if they leave. Why do we all have to suffer for the VERY few? I do not wish to the village to have speed cameras but a policeman with a speed gun at critical times should solve the problem. Kind regardsFlag
-
130
Name: Anonymous on Feb 28, 2010Comments: Please can you inform me how I can help? We do not have much time & you have done a wonderful job. The whole village needs to be mobilized against this. Many thanksFlag
-
131
Name: Shirley Workman on Feb 28, 2010Comments: I find it difficult to understand that the people that are proposing a 20 mile an hour speed limit do not comply to the 30 mph speed limit elsewhere in the village. If they can't comply to the already speed restriction why do they anticipate that other members of the village will comply to the 20 mph speed limit where they want it. I cannot see that Speed Bumps would be the answer having observed areas in both Thatcham and Newbury where there is little or no regard to what is already there. LETS HAVE THE SPEED CAMERAS, please.Flag
-
132
Name: Ellen Rumsby on Feb 28, 2010Comments:Flag
-
133
Name: Malcolm Weatherhead on Feb 28, 2010Comments: We have already objected on the grounds of Vehicle damage Excess Noise damage to buildings due to excessive vibration (Kintbury is renowned for unstable ground leading to costly subsidence problems) Won't stop the motorbikes Painful to people with health problems (back, abdomen, bladder and various disabilities etc) - and mini roundabouts are to enable traffic to keep moving not to be simply used as an obstacle! The excess pollution caused by these is also a big issue - to say nothing of the loss of parking spaces.Flag
-
134
Name: Robin Weatherhead on Feb 28, 2010Comments: At the inaugural meeting held in the village hall - speed bumps were specifically ruled OUT as being TOTALLY unacceptable. So why are we now presented with them? Surely a simple 20mph speed limit throughout the village will suffice? No matter which way I leave my house I'd have no option but to pass over at least three speed bumps according to your proposals. This is TOTALLY unacceptable.Flag
-
135
Name: Anonymous on Feb 28, 2010Comments: Cameras are not the answer either, both speed humps and cameras should be avoided in Kintbury. Make sure all areas have adequate pavements, restrict parking near corners and you will improve safety more. The station road out of the village is a bigger problem, it needs pavements for walkers and cyclists and a mini-roundabout with the A4 The organizers should not many signatories to this partition are not supporting cameras!Flag
-
136
Name: Nicola Locke-wheaton on Feb 28, 2010Comments: Absolutely not...I live on the high street and would not like a speed bump, narrowing lane or better lights outside my house. The road is not wide enough to have an even more narrowed section and I have past experience of living in a house next to a speed bump...incredibly noisy and whenlarge vehicles go over....like the buses it shakes the house. An idillic village like Kintbury should not have modern day bumps and cameras which will impact on the village aesthetics. Having lights outside the house is also unacceptable, we moved to the house in the village a year ago in the knowledge we didnt need black out blinds etc because of light pollution...i do hope the council considers carefully their nexg moves as I know no information has been sent to the house regarding this issue ...the first we hear about it was the local news today.Flag
-
137
Name: Steve Chappell on Mar 1, 2010Comments:Flag
-
138
Name: Sue Chappell on Mar 1, 2010Comments: I Strongly Object to these measures, The illuminating speed warning indicators as already on Inkpen road provide adequate cost effective warnings to drivers in speed restricted areas and work well. The councils money would be better spent on the immediate addressing of pot holes and road maintenance in the Kintbury Area, along with the Installation of a few more electronic speed warning indicators. I thought the Parish Council and West Berks Council should inform everyone in the village, clearly they did not do so as we only found out from neighbours. This has certainly upset me, objection sent by recorded delivery to council offices also.Flag
-
139
Name: Robin And Sarah Barrett on Mar 1, 2010Comments: All previous points noted. Certainly this scheme is over the top. Speed along Newbury is not an issue as the parked cars slow the traffic naturally. Roundabouts and coloured strips are totally out of keeping in this rural situation, let alone more street lighting and street furniture. Speed humps are gradually being abandoned elsewhere in the UK as ineffective and destructive. Support the shops and village life and fill in the potholes. Camera or flashing speed limit sign more effective than any of this proposal.Flag
-
140
Name: Ben Curtis on Mar 1, 2010Comments: I have net been shown any evidence that there are sufficient accidents, or near misses to warrant such draconian measures that will impact the environment negatively as these will.Flag
-
141
Name: COLIN JOHNSON on Mar 1, 2010Comments: as only 4 accedents have be recorded in 5 years I see no need for speed bumps, cameras are the solutionFlag
-
142
Name: L J Hargreaves on Mar 1, 2010Comments:Flag
-
143
Name: Camilla Chancellor on Mar 1, 2010Comments: I agree that Kintbury does not need all these traffic calming measures - the parked cars do the job. This will just lead to a greater urbanisation of our village.Flag
-
144
Name: Maureen Hargreaves on Mar 1, 2010Comments:Flag
-
145
Name: Camilla Chancellor on Mar 1, 2010Comments: I agree that Kintbury does not need all these traffic calming measures - the parked cars do the job. This will just lead to a greater urbanisation of our village. Let the parish council know how you feel - the next meeting is this Thursday 4th March. More importantly register your objections with West Berks by emailing agarratt@westberks.gov.uk before Friday 5th March.Flag
-
146
Name: Anonymous on Mar 1, 2010Comments: Far too many humps for a small village! Surely there are other measures that can be taken?Flag
-
147
Name: Sarah McNerney on Mar 1, 2010Comments: I am very unhappy about the proposed road humps/speed cushions in Kintbury, and hope that an alternative plan can be agreed upon, perhaps a speed camera.Flag
-
148
Name: Deric Bessent on Mar 1, 2010Comments: As well as agreeing that speed humps will be a disaster for Kintbury,very little seems to be planned for Station Road and the High Street where in my opinion the majority of speeding is taking place.Flag
-
149
Name: Wendy Edwards on Mar 2, 2010Comments: Ruins the lovely village and car suspensionFlag
-
150
Name: Ian Robinson on Mar 2, 2010Comments: pathetic... I assume this proposal was not approved by the Parish council... they shooting if it was... Yes, stop the parking near the crossroads... but they must supply an suitable alternative... jubilee centre or the corri hall is not good enoughFlag