Policy VC BAW1: Land east of Stocks Hill

Object

Representation ID: 2742

Received: 05/03/2023

Respondent: Mr Robert Adams

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

As a homeowner, I am very concerned about the increase flooding risk and the pressure on an already weak sewage infrastructure. Added volumes of traffic in the village are also a worry. Bawburgh is a quiet village with low density housing. The proposal will see a radical change to this in an extremely negative way. As the proposed development is on the brow of a hill and the village already suffers with antisocial driving, I fear accidents may arise.

Object

Representation ID: 2748

Received: 05/03/2023

Respondent: Mrs Linda Kendrick

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? Yes

Duty to co-operate? Yes

35 new dwellings is too many. Stocks Hill is already busy and another junction will be dangerous.
Bawburgh does not have the facilities to cope with these extra properties - no shops or regular bus service meaning just about every journey will be by car.

Object

Representation ID: 2763

Received: 05/03/2023

Respondent: Mr James Craig

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Too many houses for the space. Loss of green space. Changing character of village. Existing amenities are not suitable for current population. Additional traffic to an already dangerous stretch of road. No bus route. No pathways of cycle routes. School already oversubscribed. Land helps drainage for village, increases surface water flood risk. No SFRA Report.

Object

Representation ID: 2765

Received: 05/03/2023

Respondent: Mr James Plant

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

I am worried that a development such as this, will substantially affect surface water flows and certainly add to the ongoing issues with waste water. Especially when this housing estate is combined with any future developments. I would be very concerned that the various Section 106 requirements would pose many constraints on a development of this size. Especially with regards to layout, number of affordable housing, green spaces and of course nutrient neutrality. Leading to the obvious increase in development size to mitigate these requirements, causing permanent damage to the picturesque village in terms of landscape and visual appearance.

Object

Representation ID: 2769

Received: 05/03/2023

Respondent: Mrs Dawn Craig

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Too many houses for the space. Loss of green space. Changing character of village. Existing amenities are not suitable for current population. Additional traffic to an already dangerous stretch of road. No bus route. No pathways of cycle routes. School already oversubscribed. Land helps drainage for village, increases surface water flood risk. No SFRA Report.

Object

Representation ID: 2788

Received: 06/03/2023

Respondent: Mr John Wyndham

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The village has a history of flooding and there is a serious concern regarding surface water and waste capacity for the proposed site.
To ensure this is managed correctly more land than currently proposed will be needed which is concerning as the site is a green field site. There will be a considerable negative impact on the environment.

There needs to be more detail provided regarding the landscaping of the proposed development. Bawburgh is a conservation village and the new development on a green field site is not in keeping with this.

The village cannot support the additional traffic.

Object

Representation ID: 2816

Received: 06/03/2023

Respondent: Mrs Caroline Hancock

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Roads and Traffic – narrow roads, no passing places, speeding in village, lack of footpaths and street lighting, limited public transport, no bike paths. Increased traffic could be dangerous to residents and add to noise and air pollution.
Facilities and Infrastructure – no shops, GP, or dentist. Existing sewerage already struggling, more houses will make the situation worse. School already oversubscribed.
Bridge – is a scheduled monument – extra traffic may have a detrimental structural effect.
Flooding – adding houses onto farmland will increase the risk of surface water flooding.

Object

Representation ID: 2837

Received: 06/03/2023

Respondent: Mrs Kay Hipperson

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Please can someone explain why in 2018 this site was rejected for ANY housing development because bawburgh was specifically excluded as it was considered to be an ‘other village’ and therefor should not be part of the cluster proposal.

We also have to take into consideration nutrient neutrality and what this proposed site will do to the Yare River and all of our wildlife!

Object

Representation ID: 2856

Received: 06/03/2023

Respondent: Mrs Patricia Bayne

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Junction on bend and brow of hill, opposite three entrances.
Construction traffic obstructing main highway in and out of village.
Generating 70 extra vehicles in small village on speeding rat-run between B1108 and A47.
Additional traffic over single-track historic bridge..
Loss of informal green space on entrance to village and water will not be able to drain down from field into Yare.
Density of building out of scale and character of conservation village. Already water and sewage problems in village.
Village school and both local surgeries already over-subscribed.
No shop, employment or surgery in village and poor bus service.

Object

Representation ID: 2883

Received: 07/03/2023

Respondent: Mr Christopher Bayne

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Access to site from A47/Stocks Hill or through village over Bridge - designated of National Importance. Local roads struggles to cope with present level of traffic as recent fatality shows. New development will add minimum 45/50 cars accessing Stocks Hill from a difficult junction on a steep hill!
Village facilities Public House,Village Hall,Golf Club. No Surgery (nearest 2.4 miles by car) or dental service; shops 1.8- 2 miles ; school over-subscribed; timely public transport.
Site opposite Village Hall - possible source of complains from new residents/noise at night, car parking, disturbance from visitors to V. Hall.

Object

Representation ID: 2892

Received: 07/03/2023

Respondent: Ms Mary Wilkinson

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

1. Residents depend on cars to access all essential services; no regular, accessible bus service.
2. The primary school is already over-subscribed.
3. The site is on the brow of a hill, opposite two residential developments and the village hall; visitors to the hall regularly park on the road. This, plus the excessive speed and volume of traffic, will increase the dangers to drivers and pedestrians. Traffic-calming measures have proved ineffective.
4. The proposed development adjoins the conservation area, and, because of its size, will inevitably detract from the character of the village.

Object

Representation ID: 2911

Received: 02/03/2023

Respondent: Mr Alan Goldsmith

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

1. The traffic on Stocks Hill is already very busy and used as a rat run. Further significant traffic from a new development would increase all the risks of accidents on Stocks Hill and the bridge in particular.
2. Drainage is also a big problem and can only be made worse with further houses.
3. Further housing developments would change the character of our conservation village.

Object

Representation ID: 2912

Received: 07/03/2023

Respondent: Mrs Ruth Walford

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

An extra 35 homes will significantly change the character of the village. I would not like to see more traffic in this conservation village as I am going to be 102 in August and feel more houses will make it a housing estate and not a little village. Thank you.

Object

Representation ID: 2915

Received: 01/03/2023

Respondent: Mrs Sandra Gunning

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

1. Bawburgh is a conservation village and introducing 35 new homes changes the scale and character of this village.
2. If site is built then the land would extend eventually further to more houses and we would be in a huge estate.
3. Development would impact greatly on the village school which is always oversubscribed.
4. Traffic through the village has increased substantially and is used as a fast run from the Watton Road through to the Dereham Road, hence we have had to install speed cameras. Therefore, 35 houses with potentially two cars per house will further increase road traffic and pollution.
5. There are no local amenities in Bawburgh just one pub. No buses into Norwich each day, no shops. Doctors are completely overloaded and it's impossible to get an appointment.
6. Flooding and sewerage in the village is a problem and can only be made worse with new houses, and the proposed gypsy and travellers site as well.
7. I moved from Kent to this conservation village to retire. If I had wanted to live in a housing estate I would have moved there. I really do not want these 35 houses to be the beginning of such an estate and this is what I fear.

Object

Representation ID: 2917

Received: 07/03/2023

Respondent: Mr Stephen Brolly

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

-site is on the brow of Stocks Hill
-No amenities in the village apart from pub
-local school oversubscribed
-up to 70 cars will increase pollution
-sewage system already compromised. Multiple floods
-no streetlights, footpaths or bus routes

Object

Representation ID: 2937

Received: 07/03/2023

Respondent: Mrs Kate Brolly

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

35 houses will significantly increase traffic through the village on an already busy road, and over Grade 2 listed bridge.
Entrance onto Stocks Hill will be on a brow of the hill, increasing risk of accidents.
Drainage is poor throughout the village with ground water flowing down Stocks Hill during heavy rain and sewers backing up.
No amenities in village apart from pub, school and village hall. School is oversubscribed and GP surgeries have waiting lists. No regular bus route through village means reliance on driving.
Bawburgh is a conservation area. 35 modern homes will have a negative impact.

Object

Representation ID: 2942

Received: 07/03/2023

Respondent: Mrs Fiona Julian

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Increased traffic for the existing road structure and there is only 1 main road through the village.
No medical facilities, retail or financial outlets for the increased population generated by the development.
No public transport infrastructure
No street lighting or consistent pavement and therefore safety concerns for older and younger residents due to recent fatal accident
Increased flood risk due to run-off
Increased noise and light pollution
Environmental impact as possible conservation area and buffer zone for duel carriageway
No school capacity and requirement for own transport for high school
Disruption to existing flora and fauna
Recent developments already existing

Object

Representation ID: 2943

Received: 07/03/2023

Respondent: Mrs Eleanor Faulds

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

No transport infrastructure and access on to the main road has hazardous visibility - recent fatal accident on that road
Increased flood risk due to increased run-off cutting off access to and from the village
No retail, financial or medical facilities - have to have transport or good internet connection to be able to access these facilities
Environmental damage to existing flora and fauna
No crossing for children to safely cross to access play area
No street lighting
Increased noise and light pollution and the site is a buffer zone to a main A road.
Already received recent building developments

Object

Representation ID: 2945

Received: 07/03/2023

Respondent: Mrs Laura Edwards

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

1. Beautiful open land
2. Small village/ community feel
3. Small village school- already oversubscribed
4. Lack of amenities- only a pub and village hall in the village
5. No public transport. Need for own transport- extra traffic on roads of small village roads
6. Ruining or open green space- habitat for wildlife
7. Poor sewage and drainage systems in the village already
8. Plans infringe on a established conservation area
9. Dog walking area be lost
10. Does not fit in with the feel/look of Bawburgh.

Object

Representation ID: 2998

Received: 08/03/2023

Respondent: Mr Adrian Dearnley

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? Yes

Duty to co-operate? Yes

35 new homes is too many for this small village to absorb. Environmental impact from 210 extra car journeys per day will be significant in a village with no shop and few facilities. Permanent and Severe loss of landscape visual impact from buildings on the site.

Object

Representation ID: 3024

Received: 08/03/2023

Respondent: Mr Simon Wheatman

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

The proposal is not consistent with policies of the draft GNLP and NPPF.

Virtually all services and facilities, apart from the Primary School, are located in Norwich, or other settlements. None of these are connected by sustainable means of transport, and hence non-compliance with the relevant strategic policies.

There would be harm to the landscape character and appearance of the area. It is also is an important component of the setting of the Conservation Area.

The accumulation of impacts and non-compliance with policies result in this proposed allocation being unsound.

Object

Representation ID: 3056

Received: 01/03/2023

Respondent: Mr George Gunning

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

1. Statutory conservation implications not considered.
2. Site does not respect scale and character of village.
3. Not clear to what extent neighbouring land will be further absorbed for development.
4. Significant extra traffic will be generated on unsuitable roads. Increased litter and environmental damage.
5. Daily peak school traffic, rat run traffic and new developments do not appear to have been modelled into proposals.
6. Marlingford and Roundwell travellers sites are nearby and already house travellers.
7. No local amenities - just one pub.
8. Due to lack of amenities, houses will likely bring two car families - this has not been modelled in.
9. Primary school does not have capacity for extra children.
10. Village has no walkways or cycleways.
11. Bawburgh bridge is extremely old and vulnerable. Also dangerous for pedestrians.
12. Flooding and sewerage already a problem and will get worse.
13. Stocks Hill is narrow and is congested at school opening/closing. Traffic further exacerbated by delivery vehicles. Much of traffic ends up in Hockering Lane - potentially dangerous.
14. Issue of environmental pollution evidence at P&R site, which planners are fully aware of.

Object

Representation ID: 3069

Received: 28/02/2023

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Jane & Rob Ratcliff

Number of people: 2

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

- No representation from Council at locally held public meeting, even though informed 16/2/23 (packed village hall);
- Will have a most negative effect on nature - wildlife habitats: bats, badgers and muntjacs, birds, great crested newts, birds of prey. Significant impact on existing vegetation;
- No immediate reason for extra houses in a village with amenities that only consist of a public house and a village hall - no bus service, doctor, dentist, P.O, shops;
- Increased traffic pressure over ancient monument of bridge and safety issues here for pedestrians, dogs and motorists. Speeding through the village is already an issue;
- Infrastructure, particularly drainage, is already an issue. This will impound further underground stream across this area, as well as another that flows on Stocks Hill on rainy days.

Object

Representation ID: 3093

Received: 05/03/2023

Respondent: Dr Edward Markham

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

I was very disappointed to see the plans for further houses to be built on Stocks Hill, Bawburgh.

Stocks hill is already a busy road. Bawburgh has very few, if any, public transport options. The roads out of the village are treacherous for pedestrians. This means residents in the new houses will have to have cars to live in the village, further adding to the traffic problem.

I note the fragile nature of the sewage system and problematic drainage further down the hill. There have been several occasions when sewage has been noted to pour from the drains, further down the hill, over the last few years.

Last year saw some of the worst flooding in Bawburgh I have known in 40years. My understanding is that further development adds to issues of fast water run off and thereby contributes to the flooding.

Object

Representation ID: 3094

Received: 06/03/2023

Respondent: Mr Robyn Lovatt

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

I am emailing to oppose the development of 35 houses on Stocks Hill for the following reasons.

1. I am concerned about speeding on Stocks Hill.
2. I don’t believe the drainage issues and flooding have been properly considered.
3. We have very few amenities in Bawburgh and nothing in the plan aids this.
4. I am concerned that this small village cannot cater for a further 35 homes, families and upwards of 35 vehicles.
5. This is agricultural land in the middle of the village and there must be better sites with better access and amenities

Object

Representation ID: 3095

Received: 15/03/2023

Respondent: Sony Joseph

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The very quiet nature of the village will be destroyed with the emergence of the additional houses .

Secondly, the traffic itself is already very dangerous in this village due to the lack of enough width to the road, and with the new houses the volume of traffic will be very much increased and thus will cause more chaos to this area. It will increase the number of potential accidents.

Increased traffic will be a major concern for the pedestrians and cyclists in the area.

Another major problem is that it’s going to affect the already weak drainage and sewage infrastructure. We have had several instances of bad flooding in the past few years.

I do appreciate the fact that more houses will be a relief for some who wants to get a new house . But it shouldn’t be at the expense of destroying a fine village atmosphere.

Object

Representation ID: 3096

Received: 06/03/2023

Respondent: Mr Shoji Sony

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Bawburgh is a beautiful small village and a very close knitted community live here. Building another 35 more houses is going bring the population to a much larger number and it will add more chaos to the village .

We do not have enough amenities in our Village to cater to the needs of a larger population; basic facilities such as GP surgery,post office, library, community shops are still not available here.

Traffic is another issue. We already have many concerns with the volume and speed of the vehicles passing through our roads, which are very much narrower than normal and the geographical structure of these roads will add more potential accidents.

Bawburgh village has a history of bad flooding.

We do not have any public transport in our village and the number of increased vehicles would definitely increase the pollution and carbon emissions in this area.

Object

Representation ID: 3098

Received: 06/03/2023

Respondent: Dr Kelly Markham

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Stocks Hill is already a relatively busy road considering its location in a small village.

Bawburgh has no public transport going through the village. The roads out of the village to main roads with bus stops are treacherous for pedestrians.

The sewage system and drainage infrastructure on Stocks Hill has been shown to be problematic in recent years. Overflowing drains at the bottom of the hill, just down from the new housing development have been a common occurrence.

Since moving to Bawburgh 14 years ago I have seen many winters with extensive flooding around the village, which have caused damage to property. I am concerned that any developments on open farm land which acts run off during periods of heavy rain would increase risks of damaging flooding in the village.

Object

Representation ID: 3103

Received: 07/03/2023

Respondent: Mrs Justine Temple

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

I object to the 35 houses being built on Stocks Hill, Bawburgh on the site opposite the village hall. I do not agree that this is a suitable site for the following reasons laid out below.

Noise, Traffic and Pollution
Already Stock Hill struggles with the amount of traffic it encounters leading down to the village and bridge which also experiences numerous traffic on a daily basis.

Amenities and Infrastructure
We have 3 amenities in our village, a primary school which is already over-subscribed, a village hall and a pub.

Flooding
We have experienced several times flooding of the river in Bawburgh village which is very much a concern to our community.

Object

Representation ID: 3105

Received: 03/03/2023

Respondent: Mr Colin Clark

Number of people: 2

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Bawburgh is a small village, well known for it's tranquillity, beautiful valley and valley views and truly British feel. A development of this size is simply completely at odds with what Bawburgh is all about. The village has been classified as 'other village' by planning authorities and only suitable for small developments at most, 35 cannot be considered as 'small'. Overall we consider this a poor choice for a development of this size.