QUESTION 8: Do you support

Support

Representation ID: 548

Received: 22/07/2021

Respondent: Hibbett & Key

Agent: John Long Planning

The allocation is supported. Technical work supporting a previous planning application demonstrates that: the site, though mitigations including potential highway widening and haunching works can be adequately accessed and traffic from an additional (up to) 25 homes would not have a severe impact on the local highway network; construction traffic can be managed by a construction management plan; the site can be adequately drained to not cause a risk of flooding on site or elsewhere; that there are no ecology or heritage concerns; and that the site would not have a detrimental landscape impact due to its enclosed nature.

Comment

Representation ID: 614

Received: 25/07/2021

Respondent: Mrs Susan Barfe

This area can not support an increase of 25 new dwellings, which can potentially lead to an extra 50 cars using the already inadequate road system through the village and the link to Poringland, which is a single carriageway with several blind bends, which is now a dangerous road with the increased traffic from Poringland at school drop off and collection times.

Object

Representation ID: 624

Received: 26/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Robert Rudd

I strongly object on a similar basis as the other objections which have been submitted, e.g. additional traffic and the risk it brings, disruption, local amenities being overloaded, infrastructure being stretched and affect to the surrounding area and its wildlife. There is also a right of way across this plot which would be affected.

I would expect SN Council to strongly consider the type and number of objections which have been submitted and therefore understand the view of the residents. Clearly out of all the plots proposed this is the most unsuitable and most unwelcome, hopefully common sense will prevail.

Object

Representation ID: 865

Received: 29/07/2021

Respondent: Mr steve hyett

It’s an area which we have seen a lot of nature in and believe this will be unsettled if houses are built. Also the increase of traffic would not be good for the village.

Object

Representation ID: 879

Received: 29/07/2021

Respondent: Mrs Emma Goodyear

I wish to object to the preferred site of Church Meadow, Building works at this location would increase the volume of traffic to a already busy road, Church Road does not have a footpath along its whole stretch increasing the risk when walking children to school.
Building works will cause disruption of the habitat of wildlife already established at this location.
Surrounding network of roads are narrow and already struggling with demand of traffic extra housing would contribute further.

Object

Representation ID: 916

Received: 30/07/2021

Respondent: Michaela Trett

I do not support the proposed development of up to 25 new dwellings. The average number of residents for new households is usually based on 2.2. The likelihood is there will be an additional 50 cars as well as trades and delivery vehicles through the road and village which is not set up for this level of transport. The school is already at capacity and there are no services/facilities as set out in the reasoned justification. Primary Care is already at breaking point within South Norfolk, with Heathgate in Poringland already close to being constrained.

Comment

Representation ID: 1004

Received: 30/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Harry Boyt

The school is already at capacity and further housing will put strain on the school. The increased volume of traffic would adversely impact the village in terms of its wildlife and safety of road users.

Comment

Representation ID: 1005

Received: 30/07/2021

Respondent: Mrs Emma Boyt

The school is already at capacity and further housing would put a strain on this outstanding ofsted school. The increased volume of traffic would have a negative impact on the village and the wildlife.

Object

Representation ID: 1030

Received: 31/07/2021

Respondent: Ms Audrey Chappell

As so many other people have said, our villages are already overstretched with the amount of traffic generated and an additional 25 dwellings could mean 50 more cars on the roads. It is unpleasant and becoming dangerous to walk and cycle through the village and along the lanes. At a time when we should be focussing on our environment and helping people to live healthy lives, we should be preserving our green spaces and rural landscapes.

Object

Representation ID: 1032

Received: 31/07/2021

Respondent: Ms Audrey Chappell

The reason for my objection is that 25 dwellings are too many for this site. The roads here cannot cope with potentially 50 more cars. There is a case for the site to provide more housing but no more than 12 would be appropriate. I would suggest that the remaining land could be landscaped to provide an amenity for the local population, such as a community orchard similar to the one in Bramerton, a small park or an addition to the Bergh Apton nature reserve. That would balance the effects of the increase in buildings we are all experiencing.

Object

Representation ID: 1033

Received: 31/07/2021

Respondent: Ms Susan Stacey

I object due to impact on climate change, sustainability, loss of habitat and the impact on local community and infrastructure. All access roads to the Village are narrow single lane. There are issues with waste water management and sewerage. I dispute the need for 25 new homes in Alpington and Yelverton and feel that windfall sites and brownfield or repurposed buildings should be used to provide new homes (11 new homes being provided in this way over last 3 years.
I have sent an email with further details.

Object

Representation ID: 1065

Received: 31/07/2021

Respondent: Mrs Ceri Browes

There isn’t the infrastructure for additional housing in the village. The local schools are all oversubscribed.

Comment

Representation ID: 1074

Received: 31/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Bart O'Brien

As they are going to be built regardless what the people that it affects think then: A greater degree of affordable housing built for those who actually do something for community and society. An upgrade to the road infrastructure and a blanket 20mph speed limit for the whole village area. I don't care if its "unenforcible" (an argument used before here, lame) it will enforce itself, and be applicable to ALL on the school run. This to be paid for by the developers. They want to milk the village location cash cow without feeding it grass it needs.

Object

Representation ID: 1113

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Dr Matthew Hyde

Building on this particular site would have a disproportionately negative impact on the residents of Church Meadow, and the extra traffic will make it unsafe for the many children walking to school. There are other sites more appropriate for development, in terms of the traffic impact being spread out. The junction of church meadow and church road has a preschool, busses/coaches stop there, and children cross the road to and from school. Making that junction more of a bottleneck is not reasonable or sensible. See the full text for additional concerns around the impact on the village in general.

Object

Representation ID: 1169

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Yelverton Parish Council

We do not agree with the principle of building on greenfield sites on the edges of small villages due to impacts on sustainability, climate change, biodiversity, and the local community.
Access - roads into Alpington are narrow single lanes with passing places. Construction vehicles would cause considerable disruption. Site location is not suitable for access.
New development would result in significant increase in vehicle journeys into and out of village, due to lack of local services.
Concerns about impact of development on surface water management and sewerage infrastructure.
Development in smaller villages sis better served by smaller windfall sites, preferably on brownfield sites or repurposed buildings.
See full representation for specific site requirements.

Object

Representation ID: 1179

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Matthew Wright

.

Comment

Representation ID: 1186

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Malcolm Wright

The site in question is very important for wild life.
The village school would be unable to cope with more children.
The village has very little in the way of facilities,ie no shop and a very poor bus service.
The roads around the village are in poor repair and very narrow in many places.

Object

Representation ID: 1187

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Mrs Shirley Wright

I object to the allocation at church meadow. I have always lived locally. It will destroy yet another lovely meadow full of wildlife. We have enough development going on in the area. Local schools are full, too much traffic in narrow lanes. Poor bus services already and drs surgery’s overworked. I enjoy walking the footpath nearby. This will be spoilt too. All very upsetting.

Support

Representation ID: 1335

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Brian Gittins

Out of the three I feel that Church Meadow SN0400 is the best site and will be the least dangerous to both schoolchildren at the school along with the vehicles dropping them off along with the least disruptive for transport of building materials off the A 146

Object

Representation ID: 1339

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Mel Risebrow

We live in a rural village with virtually no facilities, narrow and dangerous access roads that are difficult for vehicles but dangerous for pedestrians. The settlement area has already begun to impact the rural views and wildlife of the area. This proposal will simply add pressure on to already strained infrastructures and environments. More cars, more dangers for pedestrians, wildlife and other road users. This does nothing for our village and threatens our community in the broadest terms with insensitive and inappropriate development.

Object

Representation ID: 1342

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Mr David Whitehead

I object to this proposed development due to the impact and increased traffic flow on the roads on and towards Church Meadow. It would also have a detrimental impact on the environment on the field in question and cause harm to the landscape in that part of the village.

Object

Representation ID: 1365

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Ms Annette Whitehead

I strongly object to this development as the road infrastructure is inadequate and it will cause harm to the landscape and environment.

Comment

Representation ID: 1390

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Mr jonathan taylor

Do not support site village already overdeveloped and no amenities

Object

Representation ID: 1397

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Mr jonathan taylor

Should be reduced to 10 if not rejected

Object

Representation ID: 1408

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Wasantha Darshana

-Narrow/single track roads up to church meadow which would not accommodate up to 50 more cars
- More traffic on church meadow dangerous to children walking to school
- Unsafe crossing from church meadow to village hall (preschool/park) would be made worse
- Destroying homes of wildlife/area of natural beauty
- Council has previously said that water access and drainage would not be sufficient for that many new homes
- Loss of privacy/ lots of noise for current residents
- small school would not hold that many new children

Object

Representation ID: 1596

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Mrs Lesley McNulty

Alpington/Yelverton cannot support up to 25 further new houses and the c50 additional vehicles this will bring.

The villages lack of amenities will increase traffic on its narrow lanes with limited passing places. Whilst more people do now work from home the lack of amenities does not reduce the dependency on the car. The bus service is limited and the school is at capacity.

This is a greenfield site and grassland is recognised by scientists as necessary to help combat climate change. Developing this site would cause significant environment destruction.

Object

Representation ID: 1611

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Mr.

This site is wholly unsuitable for development as proposed. The access is via existing narrow estate road which is regularly congested and restricted by residents and visitor parking in the road. Additional traffic will compound the issue and could easily cause accidents. The land is currently used as meadow, supporting a large amount of wildlife and natural habitat that could never be replaced once lost. It is contrary to common sense and scientific advice to excavate green field sites in support of development, especially when pursuing the Nett Zero Carbon policy as proposed by the UK Government

Object

Representation ID: 1730

Received: 23/07/2021

Respondent: Mrs Helen Hyett

My daughter (age 10) would like to object to the proposed building development:
I really don’t want 25 new houses built in my village. People want them built where lots of wildlife lives. I enjoy feeding the horses who live on one of the site and I like watching them play, as well as bats, owls and deer. I would be heartbroken if they didn’t have a home anymore. I would never in my dreams want more roads, traffic and pollution in our beautiful village. I do not want the animal’s habitat ruined. Me, my brother and sister and loads more children all walk to school. Increasing traffic would make it way more dangerous. I am campaigning against the building work for part of my ‘Speaking Out’ badge for Girl Guiding. I hope you listen to my views.

Comment

Representation ID: 1837

Received: 22/07/2021

Respondent: South Norfolk Council

Site: SN0400 The Environmental Protection Team are not aware of any significant land quality issue with this site or adjacent land. However, having regard to the size of the site and sensitivity of the proposed development it is considered that a Phase One Land Contamination Report (Desk Study) should be required as part of any planning application.

Due to the size of this development and its proximity to existing dwellings, an application to develop this site is likely to attract the recommendation that standard planning condition AM05 Construction Management Plan be attached to any approval. It may be worth highlighting to applicants that to avoid any delay in discharging this condition, they may wish to include a Construction Management Plan with their application. If the submitted Construction Management Plan is adequate, the an alternative condition could be attached to any approval requiring its implementation.

Comment

Representation ID: 1921

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Water Management Alliance

See attachment for full response.
Outside the IDD boundary, within the Waveney, Lower Yare and Lothingland IDB watershed catchment.
Major development - If surface water discharges within the watershed catchment of the Board's IDD, we request that this discharge is facilitated in line with the Non-statutory technical standards for sustainable drainage systems (SuDS).