As a resident of Reepham, I have attended many town council meetings and have seen the hard work the councillors undertake – all on a voluntary basis.
I have also witnessed the rudeness the council is faced with when residents are personally affected by certain issues; it’s a thankless, unpaid job.
I would like to take this opportunity to express my thanks to the councillors for all they do for the town. Les, Anne and Jools – you will be sorely missed!
Judy Holland, Cawston Road, Reepham
Glad to see that Hugh Ivins wants to keep the Market Place as an open space (Letters, 23 September).
Perhaps he is looking back to the proposal made some years ago to pedestrianise the Market Place and return it to its former glory.
Open-air dining outside the King’s Arms and the Dial House, perhaps the odd busker or street entertainer.
Now that would make Reepham a tourist destination.
Les Paterson, Ollands Road, Reepham
I was pleased to note that, following our petition, Reepham Town Council has voted for the removal of the planters from the Market Place within two weeks.
However, it is understood the council intends to consult with businesses “to see if a better place could not be found for them, without compromising parking and safety, as these were resident’s main concerns”.
On the basis of that decision, it is intended to approach the town centre businesses concerned and to continue with the online petition to ensure the planters are removed completely from the Market Place.
I note the town council consider there is a long-term need to make the Market Place a more attractive feature and not just function as a car park.
This is a misconception as the Market Place has many attributes and uses that seem not to have been recognised.
Whatever has happened to the 2013 Reepham Economic Strategy published by Ingham Pinnock Associates and adopted by the town and district councils?
The Market Place functions particularly well as it is at present for its regular market day and annual events such as the food festival, music festival and classic car festival.
Reepham Market Place is unique in having an enclosed “open” area not found anywhere else in the county and it should stay that way for the benefit of the town.
The strategic use of trees, plants, benches, pedestrian areas and a one-way traffic system would be the end of the Market Place as we know it.
I also refer to Broadland District Council’s officially adopted Reepham Conservation Area Appraisal of May 2008, which states that the Market Place is of “townscape importance”.
Any proposals by Broadland or the town council that compromise that assessment would be contrary to the adopted policy.
While continuing with the current petition for the complete removal of the planters, we trust another will not be necessary.
Hugh Ivins, Whitwell, Reepham
A number of residents, shopkeepers and businesses in the Market Place have expressed significant concerns regarding the recent installation of two groups of planters within the parking areas of the market square.
There has been a lack of consultation with owners of business premises around the Market Place, as well as with local residents, and it has had an unnecessary detrimental effect on businesses and parking availability for residents and visitors.
An online petition has been set up remove the planters from the Market Place. We currently have more than 300 signatories, and will present the results to the town council at its next meeting on 17 September.
Typical reasons for signing the petition include:
The latest government guidance COVID-19 Secure: Safer Public Places – Urban Centres and Green Spaces concerning social distancing in market places does not advocate using planters in existing parking areas.
We look forward to your added support on this petition.
Hugh Ivins, Whitwell, Reepham
The government’s gigabit voucher scheme has £70m available to poorly served communities.
I came across this on the BBC website. The full article can be found HERE
Is this something that Reepham should be looking at?
Vouchers are available up to £1,500 per household and £3,500 for businesses to install high-speed connections (although this money does not come directly).
Martin Sullivan, Kerdiston Road, Reepham
We had many happy years in Reepham, but had to move closer to our family a couple of years ago.
On a recent visit to some friends in the town, we noted letters [on the Reepham Life website] about the proposed development off Broomhill Lane, which was to have 120 units with 30% affordable, and would supply a sports hall and land for the cemetery extension.
This has now totally changed with the developer wanting to build 147 units with only 20% affordable – and only making a contribution to a new sports hall on council land.
If the developers cannot afford to build what was promised, why did they buy the land? No one forced them, or are they just “trying it on”?
Greedy developers and landowners are trying to impose unwanted development on this unique town of Reepham.
We hope the elected councillors stand up to these powerful people and make them build what was promised.
Tim and Jo Mason, Rayleigh, Essex
Michael Pender-Cudlip (School sports hall has costs as well as benefits, 10 July 2020) is right about the cost of the proposed new sports hall to Reepham residents.
It seems we have been “sold down the river” by the plans for this being submitted during lockdown: residents deserve to have a proper consultation prior to planning approval being given.
There are many concerns about the size of this development and the potential chaos it will cause to residents in the area of Broomhill Lane, School Road and Whitwell Road, as well as adjoining roads.
The possible weight of increased traffic will cause enormous congestion at certain times of day. It is already an area to be avoided during the morning and afternoon, when pupils are arriving and leaving the high school. There will be the added danger to primary school pupils on School Road.
And how Reepham can possibly absorb 141 new dwellings is impossible to imagine.
The fact that only 20% of these homes will be “affordable” instead of the earlier allocated 30% for 120 dwellings means that Reepham residents are footing the bill and being subjected to environmental damage so the high school can have a new sports hall. This is hardly a “necessity” and is a high price to pay for Reepham.
We certainly need more housing, but not four-bedroom, highly priced properties. We also need environmentally friendly properties with solar panels, wind turbines, double glazing and good insulation. Will Lovells be building such properties?
Reepham is a unique, community friendly, small town. The roads and the Market Place are not well placed for widening or “improving”.
A development of the size of that proposed off Broomhill Lane has the potential to ruin the uniqueness we currently enjoy.
Brenda R Palmer, Chapel Close, Reepham
I would like to congratulate Michael Pender-Cudlip on his letter (School sports hall has costs as well as benefits, 10 July 2020) regarding the “bribery” behind the proposed new sports hall at the high school.
The high school is part of an academy trust, which should be paying for any improvements to the school facilities.
As the community as a whole will suffer through the housing development off Broomhill Lane, the money being given by the developers should be used to the benefit of the whole town by perhaps building a new community hall/sports facilities on Stimpson’s Piece.
Bryan Gostling, Bircham Road, Reepham
The case made by Tim Gibbs (“Community benefits from new high school sports hall”) enthusiastically describes the benefits to school and community, but it is hardly a balanced assessment as it is silent on two important issues:
1. The high school will receive £1.5 million from the Broomhill Lane developer in return for its support for this plan; the school can hardly claim to be a disinterested party.
2. The developer is using this additional cost to justify reducing the proportion of affordable houses from that agreed by Broadland District Council (20% instead of the stipulated 30%) and raising the density on the site (141 houses instead of the specified 120).
It may well be that the school intends to share this facility with the community, but since the community is bearing the cost for the benefit of the school, shouldn’t the community be asked whether it is happy with this trade-off?
Michael Pender-Cudlip, Mill Road, Reepham
Re: More memories of Ollands House
My mother worked for Mr and Mrs Irwin when I was at primary school. The daughter’s name was Ethany.
Mr Irwin was an underwriter for Lloyds of London and Mrs Irwin was from Egypt, so I was told; they used to go there a lot.
Reepham House was sold after I married in 1967 for about £3,500 – a total shame to all of us born here.
Marion Youngman, Ollands Road, Reepham
