QUESTION 10: Do you support

Object

Representation ID: 181

Received: 24/06/2021

Respondent: Mrs Sharon Gabriel

Our small roads have become dangerous here as many of our lanes have no paths and the roads are of very limited width and already struggle with the extra traffic that other new housing has caused. I now feel unsafe walking. So much traffic travels at speed now through our small village of Alpington. There are no shops, the buses run at very limited times which means more cars with more housing. The junction at Castle Meadow will become congested and dangerous. The Dentists are not able to take on residents ALREADY living here. The Doctors Surgeries are also struggling!

Support

Representation ID: 201

Received: 26/06/2021

Respondent: Miss Lindy Rose

This is the least damaging site. It would add to the growing volume of traffick on the A146 but has least village impact.

Object

Representation ID: 414

Received: 14/07/2021

Respondent: Mrs Sue Price

You have stated that Bergh Apton has C class and unclassified roads. All roads leading into Bergh Apton, Alpington and Yelverton have single track areas. The verges, banks and edges of the roads are being damaged by the increased traffic in our area. This particular preferred site is on a narrow road, no footpath and definitely not a safe walking route to the local school - this is a reason for sites to be rejected elsewhere in the village. You have stated that development in Bergh Apton is linear in nature, this preferred site would not be linear in nature.

Support

Representation ID: 514

Received: 21/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Bernard Pitt

It looks to be be a suitable for limited development but it's history of aggregate extraction might present problems

Object

Representation ID: 616

Received: 25/07/2021

Respondent: Mrs Susan Barfe

Again the same problem with increased traffic on single carriage roads, the route from this site to Poringland is particularly dangerous, very narrow with several blind bends. There is no walk or cycle route to school which would again increase the traffic in the village.

Support

Representation ID: 625

Received: 26/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Robert Rudd

Although I do wish for any additional building work to take place in the surrounding villages, I feel this plot is the most suitable overall and the least disruptive.

Support

Representation ID: 631

Received: 26/07/2021

Respondent: FW Properties

We strongly support the draft preferred allocation of this site. This is currently a very unattractive brownfield site which is completely inappropriate for its attractive rural setting. Whilst it does have some constraints in relation to its brownfield status and current use, FW Properties are confident that its redevelopment is entirely deliverable. The early scheme concept plan prepared for the site confirms that a development of 25 dwellings can be accommodated on this land together with appropriate access and public open space. The land is immediately available and FW Properties believe that its redevelopment is a viable proposition.

Comment

Representation ID: 919

Received: 30/07/2021

Respondent: Bergh Apton Parish Council

The Bergh Apton Parish Council approves of the selection for development of the former concrete blockworks on Church Road (site SN0412REV), as this is a brownfield site, capable of fulfilling Bergh Apton's obligation under the Village Clusters housing allocation. The Parish Council requests that a large proportion of the houses to be built there should be in the more affordable category. Church Road should be capable of accommodating this site. The access from The Street, near the village sign is wide, with potential for improvement, possibly incorporating a footpath.

Support

Representation ID: 1022

Received: 31/07/2021

Respondent: Mr T Beardmore

Existing brownfield site which would benefit from re-development. Clearance of land and redevelopment to residential property could result in:
1. Improved aesthetic more in keeping with local area.
2. Development of around 25 properties which could include affordable housing & which would better address housing need than other sites in the village cluster.
3. Provision of improved ecological habitat through landscaping and development of residential gardens benefitting local wildlife including pollinators, small mammals, invertebrates and insects which will also benefit the wider environment.
4. Site and highway has proven to sustain larger lorries etc. during operational time as cement works.

Support

Representation ID: 1038

Received: 31/07/2021

Respondent: Ms Susan Stacey

I support this site as it is the redevelopment of a brownfield site rather than a greenfield site and thus likely to have less of an impact on the local environment.

Comment

Representation ID: 1118

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Ms Annie Whiteman

Although using the brown field site is preferable, I am concerned that 25 houses is excessive on this site. I am concerned that the mains drainage will not be able to cope with this amount of extra housing. the extra traffic [ mostly in a 60 mph limit ] on these narrow roads [ including journeys to Alpington school ] could be dangerous and affect the village and that the general infrastructure be unable to cope. This as a rural village. perhaps a smaller number of houses would be acceptable.

Object

Representation ID: 1128

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Miss Angela Rowe

The suggestion that 25 houses can be built here is outrageous! Nowhere in Bergh Apton is there such a dense concentration of housing. The road in all directions is woefully inadequate to support the inevitable increase in traffic. The light and noise increase will blight the rural setting of the neighbouring properties. 10-12 houses constructed around a green with tree planting to buffer the noise and increase privacy might be acceptable. Serious consideration should be given to using 'in fill' sites elsewhere in the village to take up the further 10-15 homes.

Object

Representation ID: 1172

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Yelverton Parish Council

We object to the extension to settlement boundaries in our rural communities due to the negative impact on highways and because of poor public transport arrangements.
If this site were to be allocated due to it being a brownfield site and having a lesser environmental impact than the other greenfield sites, then the following specific requirements should be set out:

1) A high percentage of affordable and single storey homes.
2) Retention of all existing boundary hedgerows and trees and significant additional new hedgerows
3) Houses to include as many environment-friendly features as possible. Including renewables, eaves incorporating nest boxes, hedgehog highways, wildflower planting.

Comment

Representation ID: 1192

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Guy Warde-Aldam

SITE: SN0412REV

1. Do not object in principle to the residential development of this site.
2. Object to number of houses proposed which should be drastically reduced.
3. Current vehicle movements less than 5 per day on average.
4. Proposed number of houses will overwhelm local single track roads.
5. Would like to be consulted on detailed design of site layout.

Comment

Representation ID: 1288

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Mrs Helen Hyett

Although I do not support further building in the village, if the development has to go ahead, I feel this is the most suitable site. It is already a concrete works, so building would not destroy areas of natural beauty and homes of wildlife, as the other sites would. There are more routes into this site to better manage the increased traffic that building more homes would cause.

Comment

Representation ID: 1344

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Mr David Whitehead

Although I object to any further development in Alpington, Yelverton and Bergh Apton as this is a brownfield site if further development was forced on this village cluster then I consider that this is the site that should be used for limited development including an allocation of affordable homes.

Object

Representation ID: 1532

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Mr David Skedge

This site is only acceptable because it is a brownfield site.50 cars travelling at 60mph will generate a great deal of traffic in the village, which will need highway assistance to cope with that.A safe route to Alpington School needs to be established.

Comment

Representation ID: 1618

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Mrs Lesley McNulty

Redevelopment of a brownfield site is preferable to building on a greenfield site..

Comment

Representation ID: 1620

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Mr.

If there has to be development, then let brownfield sites should be the absolute priority.

Comment

Representation ID: 1839

Received: 22/07/2021

Respondent: South Norfolk Council

Site: SN0412REV The Environmental Protection Team is aware that this is a brownfield site which has been subject to uses that have the potential to give rise to significant land quality issues. Having regard to this along with the size of the site and sensitivity of the proposed development it is considered that a Detailed Land Contamination Report (Phase One and Phase Two) 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: 1923

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Water Management Alliance

See attachment for full response.
SN0412REV – Former concrete works, Church Road, Bergh Apton
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).

Comment

Representation ID: 2015

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Environment Agency (Eastern Region)

Sites SN0412REV, SN4052, SN2065REV and SN4079 are located within 250 metres of an existing landfill that could result in the nearby community being exposed to impacts including odour, noise, dust and pests. The severity of these impacts will depend on the size of the landfill, the nature of the waste it takes and prevailing weather conditions.
Planning policy requirements (paragraph 182 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)) state that new development should integrate effectively with existing businesses and not place unreasonable restrictions upon them. Where the operation of an existing landfill could have significant adverse effects on new development (including changes of use), the applicant should be required to provide suitable mitigation for these effects. Mitigation can be provided through the design of the new development to minimise exposure to the neighbouring landfill and/or through financial contributions to the operator of the landfill to support measures that minimise impacts.
Environmental Permitting Regulations require operators to demonstrate that they have taken all reasonable precautions to mitigate impacts of their operations. This is unlikely to eliminate all emissions and there is likely to be residual impacts. In some cases, these residual impacts may cause local residents concern. There are limits to the measures that the operator can take to prevent impacts to residents. Consequently, it is important that planning decisions take full account of paragraph 182 of the NPPF. When a new development is built near to an existing landfill this does not automatically trigger a review of the permit.

Comment

Representation ID: 2029

Received: 21/07/2021

Respondent: Historic England

Please see attachments for full response.
Site SN0412REV Former Concrete works, Church Road, Bergh Apton
There are no designated heritage assets on site. However, there is a cluster of grade II listed buildings to the east of the site. However, the redevelopment of the former cement works will enhance the setting of these assets rather than detract from them.
The policy for this site should reference the nearby heritage assets.
Add policy criterion to read,
Development should preserve and enhance the significance of the nearby listed buildings (including any contribution made to that significance by setting).

Comment

Representation ID: 2094

Received: 14/07/2021

Respondent: Norfolk County Council - LLFA

See attachment for full response.
Few or no constraints. Standard information required at a planning stage. "1.] At risk of surface water flooding?: Yes
* 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]: Minor flooding
* 0.1% AEP Event [Depth]: 0.00- 0.30cm.
2.] Internal & external flooding?:
* On-site: No
* Within proximity to site (~500.00m): No
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: 2175

Received: 13/09/2021

Respondent: Norfolk County Council

Bergh Apton / Alpington – SN0412REV
As previously expressed, it is appreciated that the site is brownfield but it does not directly relate to the existing built area and highway access is regarded as a constraint.

Unfortunately, it is not possible to provide data relating to previous traffic arising from the site, but mindful that the site has been a traffic generator, the Highway Authority would support a maximum allocation of 25 dwellings.

The development should comprise frontage development at Church Road, along with a private, non-adoptable drive serving a maximum of 10 dwellings.

As previously stated, local highway improvements would be required to provide safe and suitable access.

Comment

Representation ID: 2189

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.
Site currently occupied by industrial buildings and areas of hardstanding. Site located in amber 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.