QUESTION 9: Do you support

Object

Representation ID: 194

Received: 25/06/2021

Respondent: N/a

The infrastructure of Alpington and yelverton is insufficient to support the proposed developments, the transport routes into the villages already creaking under the weight of traffic particularly because of the village school (which seems to attract far and wide since most pupils are driven into school causing road and parking chaos). further reductions of green and open spaces is unnecessary and unwelcome and would impact the quality of life of existing village residents.

Object

Representation ID: 200

Received: 26/06/2021

Respondent: Miss Lindy Rose

This proposed site would cause disruption to and from Alpington school, which is full. Again the volume of increased traffick that would need to go through the village and lanes would be damaging. The increased traffick would add to the ever increasing volume on the A146 and poringland village.

Object

Representation ID: 299

Received: 05/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Christopher Black

Road network is narrow around this proposed development.

Support

Representation ID: 489

Received: 20/07/2021

Respondent: Dr M Fewster

The proposed development is a natural extension to the nucleated village, The centre of the village is along the Church Road-Nichols Road spine, and the Bergh Apton-Wheel Road road give a natural focus for development, as the recent Earls Mead estate has shown. This development would continue the pattern, and maintain the scattered aspect of development, rather than producing a suburban density, such as that to the west of Church Road. The area is close to village amenities such as the school and the bus stop.

Object

Representation ID: 615

Received: 25/07/2021

Respondent: Mrs Susan Barfe

The area put forward for building is a complete disregard for people’s safety. Nichols Road is a single track with very few passing places. It is a problem for refuse collection and further development will only extend the illegal parking on the pavements, at school collection and drop off times further along a very narrow road. This junction is already unsafe at peak times and the land would be put to much better use if a car park for the school was put there instead.

Comment

Representation ID: 900

Received: 30/07/2021

Respondent: K Garnham Design

Site SN0529SL is in a sustainable location with services and facilities available in the local area, the land is immediately available, and the owner is committed to the development of the site.

An experienced local development company, Crabtree Living Limited have been in discussions to bring the development forward, they are looking to progress a scheme to bring a high-quality development that respects the area and enhances the village.

Based on the above we have drafted an indicative site plan which concluded that the proposed site (SN0529SL) could be developed following the criteria detailed above as enclosed.

Comment

Representation ID: 1006

Received: 30/07/2021

Respondent: Mrs Emma Boyt

The school is already at capacity. There has been recent housing development close to this proposed site and further development would cause increased level of traffic which cannot be supported by the roads.

Object

Representation ID: 1018

Received: 31/07/2021

Respondent: Mr T Beardmore

The proposed development is unsuitable because:
1. It would lead to an irreversible transformation of local community through loss of farmland and important ecological habitat leading to a reduction in biodiversity.
2. It would have a negative impact on the safety of road users and pedestrians with the highway unable to support additional demands.
3. Local primary school and services unable to support increased demand.
4. The proposed site is elevated 4ft above current highway & neighbouring properties leading to loss of light and privacy for existing residents.
5. Better alternatives available within local cluster which could offer affordable housing.

Object

Representation ID: 1029

Received: 31/07/2021

Respondent: Ms Audrey Chappell

Nichol's Rd is a quiet, narrow, rural road. I walk my dogs along it daily for that reason. On approaching the village from the south along Nichol's Rd there are two beautiful trees, an oak opposite a horse chestnut at Field House. I do not see how buildings would enhance this approach. A development on this site would further detract from the rural character of this quiet and historic area of the village. The traffic, already problematic for pedestrians and cyclists, would be increased dramatically.

Object

Representation ID: 1037

Received: 31/07/2021

Respondent: Ms Susan Stacey

I object to the proposed use of the site for Settlement Limit extension. Brownfield sites should be developed in preference to greenfield sites. Although the site smaller and more in keeping with the Village, the access from the extremely narrow Nichols Road is not satisfactory and the site would require extensive landscaping where it faces open countryside views. In addition there’s a mature Oak tree that would probably require felling in order to extend the footpath and provide access to the site should it go ahead.

Object

Representation ID: 1066

Received: 31/07/2021

Respondent: Mrs Ceri Browes

The village doesn’t have the infrastructure to support additional housing developments of this scale. The local schools are already oversubscribed.

Support

Representation ID: 1090

Received: 31/07/2021

Respondent: Mrs Amanda Pummell

I feel this site will cause the least impact on the existing houses in the village and the small scale won't cause a notable impact to the village itself.

Object

Representation ID: 1170

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Yelverton Parish Council

Although the size of the site is more in keeping with what we prefer for the Village, access from the extremely narrow Nichols Road is not satisfactory and the site would require extensive landscaping to the side and rear that faces open views of the surrounding landscape.
Site has been farmed for generations so in addition to points made above about negative impacts of destroying greenfield land, this would reduce available land for food production.
There is an established oak tree on the roadside verge which could be lost if the road was widened and/or footpaths extended to serve this site.

Object

Representation ID: 1181

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Matthew Wright

Loss of countryside, few amenities.

Object

Representation ID: 1253

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Andrew Saville

Little/no pavement. Increased traffic detrimental and a risk.
Vehicles parked every day, visibility and restricted access a danger
Lack of parking, congestion by primary school
A146 only local road not classed as growth corridor.
Many roads from/to village restricted by single lane.
No existing formal road access currently exists
School already over capacity.
Limited local services
Identified alternative brown sites would be more suitable
Lacking local support
Detrimental impact on skyline, rural landscape and village views.
Pushing more traffic from the southside hazardous
Bats, nature, bio-diversity negatively impacted
Longstanding, established footpath. Road regularly used for walking, leisure activities

Object

Representation ID: 1340

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Mel Risebrow

We live in a rural village and Nichols Road is a sanctuary for walkers, cyclists and those wanting to step out into our rural environment. The idea that this development would somehow improve the approach to the village from the south is a ridiculous fantasy. The approach is currently quiet and an opportunity to enjoy wildlife and a peaceful environment. These are the amenities of the village and allowing a further extension of settlement done this lovely lane will damage irreparably the character and peacefulness of the community and village.

Object

Representation ID: 1343

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Mr David Whitehead

I object to the proposed use of this site for a number of reasons as follows.
1. Nichols Road is already a narrow and dangerous road with many traffic movements, it is a single track with very restricted passing places and any further development would make it more unsafe to walk and drive down the road.
2. It would cause harm to the landscape and view from this side of the village.
3. An established oak tree would have to be removed.
4. This is farmland used for growing crops.
5. Negative impact on the environment.

Object

Representation ID: 1366

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Ms Annette Whitehead

I strongly object to this development because of the impact on the landscape and environment, the road is single track and dangerous for walkers and cars, the field is elevated compared to the surrounding houses and an oak tree would have to be felled to give access. In addition the village development should not be extended as the affordable housing was an exception development which should not be used to justify extension.

Object

Representation ID: 1393

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Mr jonathan taylor

Exceptions site for affordable housing with a promise from SNDC of no further development

Support

Representation ID: 1541

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Crabtree Living Ltd

SN0529SL - Nichols Road, Alpington
We support the draft preferred settlement limit extension for this site which has no specific site constraints and is therefore entirely deliverable. A high quality development will be progressed for this land comprising a range of house styles with a concept plan prepared for the site confirming a development can be accommodated together with appropriate accesses onto Nichols Road with pavement running along the road and a design that enhances the entrance to the village, complemented by landscaping to the East and South. The land is immediately available and Crabtree Living believe that this development is a viable proposition.

Object

Representation ID: 1606

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Mrs Lesley McNulty

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.

The site is on a very narrow lane used by walkers and cyclists and is unsatisfactory

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 including I suspect the removal of a mature Oak tree

Object

Representation ID: 1617

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Mr.

This site is grossly unsuitable for development as it would remove valuable farmland and destroy habitat for wildlife and flora. The road is narrow and it would negatively impact the village and setting of the rural nature of the road. Using greenfield land for new housing is unnecessary when brownfield sites are available.

Comment

Representation ID: 1838

Received: 22/07/2021

Respondent: South Norfolk Council

Site: SN0529SL 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: 1922

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Water Management Alliance

See attachment for full response.
SN0529SL – Nicholas Road, Alpington
Outside the IDD boundary, within the Waveney, Lower Yare and Lothingland IDB watershed catchment.
Minor development – no further comments

Comment

Representation ID: 2122

Received: 14/07/2021

Respondent: Norfolk County Council - LLFA

See attachments for full response.
Few or no constraints. Standard information required at a planning stage.
"1.] At risk of surface water flooding?: No
* 3.33% AEP Event [Extent]: No flooding present
* 3.33% AEP Event [Depth]: No flooding present.
* 1.0% AEP Event [Extent]: No flooding present
* 1.0% AEP Event [Depth]: No flooding present.
* 0.1% AEP Event [Extent]: No flooding present
* 0.1% AEP Event [Depth]: No flooding present.
2.] Internal & external flooding?:
* On-site: No
* Within proximity to site (~500.00m): Yes - External Flooding
3.] Watercourses [Online ordinary watercourses or mains rivers]?:
* On-site: No
* Within proximity to site (~100.00m): No
4.] Surface water sewer systems?:
* On-site: No
* Within proximity to site (~100.00m): No
5.] Source Protection Zone?: No
6.] Internal Drainage Board?: No IDB referenced
7.] The site predominantly has superficial deposits of DIAMICTON. Comments on infiltration potential are dependent on a complete geotechnical investigation, including BRE365 Soakaway Testing. Where possible, surface water infiltration should be utilised."
Assessment: Green

Comment

Representation ID: 2188

Received: 28/09/2021

Respondent: Norfolk County Council - Senior Ecologist

Rating: Green no major ecological constraints identified from desk-top search. Surveys, and biodiversity enhancement in accordance with policy required.
Part of agricultural field to south of dwellings. No priority sites identified (see MAGIC) but aerial image son google out of date (2008). Site located in green risk zone for great crested newts (Identified by Natural England). There are no priority habitats onsite. Site in a SSSI IRZ, but residential development is not identified as a trigger for consultation with Natural England. Applications for planning consent should be accompanied by a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal/Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) which, together with the mitigation hierarchy should inform the design. Consideration should be given to delivering Biodiversity Net Gain.