Signatures 170 total
-
151
Name: Doug Harris on Mar 2, 2010Comments: Having stayed in the village on several occasions I can't say that I have ever thought that it needed traffic calming measures of any kind. The roads are too narrow in most places for drivers to speed and there are usually cars parked on the road which restrict a drivers view to the point where you need to drive below the speed limit. Would this money not be better spent on improving the local facilities for children or something along those lines?Flag
-
152
Name: Sarah Peacock on Mar 2, 2010Comments:Flag
-
153
Name: Jill Head on Mar 2, 2010Comments:Flag
-
154
Name: Tony Peacock on Mar 2, 2010Comments:Flag
-
155
Name: Chaz Dyson on Mar 2, 2010Comments: this is bollocks. i think they should think about how much this costs and not do it bacause the money needs to be spend on things for kinbury people like a youth club not a speed humps and traffic lights. We do not have a youth club for the kids and the village is well boring and full of old people. we need stuff for the kids to do like a skate park. i wish i didnt live in this shitty place.Flag
-
156
Name: John & Sheila Case on Mar 3, 2010Comments: Copy of our submission; From: john.c.case@hotmail.com To: agarratt@westberks.gov.uk CC: drendel@westberks.gov.uk Subject: I wish to object to the proposed Kintbury Road Humps! Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 01:07:05 +0000 Hi team, Please do not waste monies by building road humps in the lovely village of Kintbury. My wife and self travel regularily, via Kintbury - to Hungerford, via the Hungerford Common road. We have never seen any speeding cars, and for the majority of the 'village' journey there is no opportunity to do so - as the roads are so narrow and bending. Road humps would only cause people to apply their brakes at inopportune moments, and particularily when the roads are wet or icy, there would be the increased danger of vehicles skidding into parked cars etc.. If the WBC have spare monies and/or tarmac, then please use to repair existing pot-holes quicker, and spend more on maintaining the rural road network. Thanks for your consideration. Regards, John and Sheila Case. "Dorridge" The Grove THATCHAM RG18 4NLFlag
-
157
Name: Gavin Hogge on Mar 3, 2010Comments: I strongly object to the proposal to add speed cushions to Inkpen Road and Newbury St./Holt Road. They will increase traffic noise and pollution levels within the village. Installing them will necessitate digging into the road surface resulting in a greater chance of frost damage which means more frequent repairs and increased cost.Flag
-
158
Name: Elena Matthews on Mar 3, 2010Comments: I agree with the above comments. I strongly agree that a speed camera will punish the offenders. The village has narrow streets and speed bumps will create further unforseen problems for the traffic.Flag
-
159
Name: David Newland on Mar 3, 2010Comments: dear mr garratt i am writing to object to the proposed 'traffic calming' scheme in kintbury. speed cushions will create pollution as drivers brake to traverse the cushion & then have to accelerate to reach the next cushion - this is not a question of excessive speed but merely progressing along the road. furthermore i am seiously concerned that the proposed speed humps on the inkpen road will create accidents. there is a lot of street parking at the lower end of the road; this does diminish durng the day but cars are often parked at the kerb side. this road is used by a lot of commercial vehicles & they will be forced further out in the road if they have to avoid speed cushions. if the try to go over the cushion there is a risk that their loads could become unsecured. if speed through the village is really a problem then the only way to control this is with a speed camera as this will only punish the guilty without subjecting the rest of us to unsightly & noisly speed cushions. yours david newland patience house inkpen road kintburyFlag
-
160
Name: Anonymous on Mar 3, 2010Comments:Flag
-
161
Name: Alexander And Carole Balfour on Mar 3, 2010Comments: We feel strongly that having road humps in Inkpen rd. will only make people speed through Laylands Green instead. We would be against speed humps in Laylands Green for the same reasons given above and would perfer to have speed cameras placed.Flag
-
162
Name: Claire Barnes on Mar 3, 2010Comments: I wish to object to the proposed speed humps in Kintbury..Flag
-
163
Name: Debra Howes on Mar 3, 2010Comments: I wish to object strongly to the proposed speed ramps in Kintbury. Debra HowesFlag
-
164
Name: Christine Crerar on Mar 4, 2010Comments: Kintbury is one place in the UK where the traffic flow works. Visitors from abroad are always amazed that even with the narrow roads and the parked cars, no one gets angry a perfect example of leave the public alone to sort things out and they will! A lot of the residents of Kintbury are retired and being able to park near the shops is an asset. I, nor anyone I know has ever had a problem so why change things. Most councils around the country are considering taking road humps out not putting them in. On the Inkpen road they can only make it more dangerous not less as cars will straddle the road to try and lesson their impact. As for putting down red at the entrance to the village it will look unsightly, not at all in keeping with the rural area and the colour wears off very quickly leaving the road looking dirty and unkempt. Please leave the whole area as it is. No one wants it changed. Christine Crerar Newbury and Hugerford CPRE.Flag
-
165
Name: K&A Cohen on Mar 4, 2010Comments: Our concerns are underpinned by the fact that the District and Parish Council’s have not properly considered the context for this traffic calming scheme. In a rural village in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, traffic calming measures that have been lifted from urban examples are neither appropriate nor necessary. While we welcome the reduction of speeds on certain roads to 20mph, the proposals for speed cushions and roundabouts are an urbanising feature which will have a detrimental impact on the character of the village and in our view, are unlikely to slow traffic down significantly. The proposals for the roundabouts have clearly not taken into account which directions the speeding traffic will come from and will therefore be ineffective. The scheme as proposed would be both a waste of Council Tax money and the resources that West Berkshire Council are willing to invest in this project, while at the same time irrevocably damaging the charm and character of the village. In addition, local businesses are extremely concerned that the removal of the current informal parking will adversely affect their trade. This in turn will have a serious impact on the viability of the rural economy in direct conflict with the aims of national planning policy as set out in PPG13 and PPS4. Having objected to some of the proposals, we do not consider that speed cameras are the answer. Instead, a proper review with innovative and sensitive solutions which properly involve the local people should be undertaken.Flag
-
166
Name: C Peace on Mar 4, 2010Comments: I object strongly to the proposal to install speed humps in Kintbury.Flag
-
167
Name: Veronica Bullard on Mar 5, 2010Comments: NO to yellow lines and speed humps in Kintbury! please could this money be spent on repairing frost damaged road surfaces not yellow lines to stop cars parking near to the village shops. Thank you Veronica BullardFlag
-
168
Name: Jdvdamdt on Mar 16, 2010Comments:Flag
-
169
Name: Pedwwmbv on Mar 28, 2010Comments:Flag
-
170
Name: Anthony Stansfeld on Oct 30, 2010Comments: I notice on the blog that the Thomas family of Church St Kintbury say that I have been 'banging on about road humps'. I have never done so, nor have I ever supported them.Rather the opposite. Quite why they seem so vitriolic and say that I 'am never there', I do not know. I have lived here for 65 years, and hope to do so for another 25!Flag