Policy VC BAW1: Land east of Stocks Hill

Object

Representation ID: 3107

Received: 02/03/2023

Respondent: Mrs Glynis Watling

Number of people: 2

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The proposed site is right next to our property and we feel very strongly that any development will enroach on our privacy with excess noise and air pollution both during and after the build. Part of the reason we moved here was because of the quietness, tranquility and rural views. This, we feel, will be spoilt forever.

Object

Representation ID: 3112

Received: 08/03/2023

Respondent: Mr Kevin Clark

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

I object to the 35 houses. Additional traffic on an already busy road. Very small school with no space meaning more cars going on school runs to other schools. The sewage blocks at the bridge now and can't cope with more houses. We have no housing shortage in Norwich area. Thousands of houses are being built on big estates. If more houses are built in Bawburgh we will lose another village to big building developers. We have a small and beautiful village something to be proud of. The impact on wildlife and the environment will be impacted on with pollution from more cars and people. The 18th century bridge is weak and small. (Sewerage works building work) noise and light pollution. No shops. Bus service paths to cope with 35 house after already having houses built recently is too many for Bawburgh.

Object

Representation ID: 3115

Received: 08/03/2023

Respondent: Mrs Anne Laubscher

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Bawburgh is a conservation village not in a village cluster. At present Bawburgh is the only real village within 4 miles of Norwich - all nearby villages e.g. Little Melton, Easton etc. have been ruined by indiscriminate over-development. It would be a tragedy if the only decent village in this area was wrecked. Roads too narrow, no pavements, Drs surgeries nearby over-subscribed, no bus services, very narrow bridge and more traffic would heighten the danger to pedestrians and oncoming traffic.

Object

Representation ID: 3116

Received: 08/03/2023

Respondent: Mrs Jennifer Press

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

1. Bawburgh is a small village, sloping down the valley to the river Yare. The flood meadows edging the river floods regularly - See attached photographs taken opposite my house on December 24th 2020. On that night neighbours and I were told by the police that we may have to leave our homes if the river rose further. Luckily this didn't prove necessary.
2. As the drainage is poor and sewers regularly block, more building on high ground will inevitably cause more flooding and contamination.
3. The brick built bridge is a scheduled ancient monument (number 348) and carries far too much traffic already. It is badly battered and cracked by dangerous and careless drivers.
4. There are no buses or shops, few pavements and no street lights. And we like it that way!
5. Far too many cars already speed through the village, using it as a rat-run.

Object

Representation ID: 3118

Received: 08/03/2023

Respondent: Mrs Pamela Chamberlain

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

1. When we had a flood 2 years ago, the people in the bungalows opposite Hockering Lane had raw sewerage in the back garden. They wanted to stay in the village but the new houses had to be built on stilts.
2. Too many cars use Stocks Hill as a cut through.
3. We have no facilities to accommodate more housing.
4. The school is not big enough for more children.
5. There are no shops or post office.

Object

Representation ID: 3119

Received: 08/03/2023

Respondent: Miss Charlotte Kenny

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Bawburgh is a peaceful, quiet village with the perfect amount of residents, anymore will just ruin the peaceful, natured environment we have.

Object

Representation ID: 3120

Received: 08/03/2023

Respondent: Mr Nigel Thompson

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

I think that 35 properties is too much. Maybe a smaller amount, say 10-15 properties. This is mainly due to the amount of traffic it would produce on already very busy narrow roads.

Object

Representation ID: 3121

Received: 08/03/2023

Respondent: Mrs Rachel Lane

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Bawburgh village has very little amenities at present, i.e. no shops, therefore home owners drive causing an increase in traffic throighout the village. The traffic is already excessive for a small village due to the school, popularity of the pub and drivers using the village as a cut thrrough to avoid the bypass.
Building more houses will only increase the traffic further.
The river also attracts visitors in the summer months and can be difficult to drive through the village at times.
The proposed site access is concerning too as its on the brow of a hill. Although the speed limit is 20mph most drivers don't stick to that speed limit.
We don't have any public transport either so those would also cause an increase in traffic. Every year the village has flooding issues, reducing available land for soaking up water would make the flooding worse.

Object

Representation ID: 3122

Received: 08/03/2023

Respondent: Mr Daniel Lane

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The traffic in the village of Bawburgh is already excessive with very little amenities and no shops. Home owners would therefore need to drive to access shops. We have no public transport either.
We already have an increase in traffic due to the school, popularity of the pub and drivers using the village as a drive through to avoid using the bypass. Building more houses will only increase the traffic further.
The river attracts lots of visitors during the summer months and the village can be difficult to drive through at times.
Every year the village has flooding issues reducing available land for soaking up water will only make the flooding worse.
The proposed site access is concerning too as its on the brow of a hill. The speed limit there is 20mph but most drivers don't stick to that limit.

Object

Representation ID: 3123

Received: 08/03/2023

Respondent: Mr Allan Parsons

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Objections:
1. Too much traffic already especially at the river and school (river during the summer).
2. Flooding in Bawburgh is getting worse every year. Building more houses on land that is needed to soak up the rain water will only make the flooding worse.
3. No facilities for people. No shops, doctors or bus service. No suitable footpaths to be able to walk out of the village.
4. The proposed site access is also concerning as its on the brow of a hill and on a 20mph road.

Object

Representation ID: 3124

Received: 08/03/2023

Respondent: Ms Vanessa Maguire

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Every year the village of Bawburgh suffers with flooding. Building more houses would limit further the ground that's needed to soak up the rain water which in turn would make the flooding worse.
We have a lot of traffic already in the village due to the pub and school and building more houses will increase the traffic.
We also have no facilties, no shops or doctors, no bus either. People moving to the village would have to be able to drive as we also have no safe footpaths to be able to walk out of the village.
People/drivers also use Bawburgh as a cut through to avoid the bypass and to go through Bowthrope.

Object

Representation ID: 3125

Received: 08/03/2023

Respondent: Mrs Brenda Bell

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The site is infill and depending on number of dwellings could cause a problem with vehicle access onto Stocks Hill. The village hall opposite is well used most days too so there is traffic movement and it's a main route in and out of the village. Also a lack of amenities, no bus transport, no shops and school is full. At most a maximum of twelve dwellings or preferably none at all.

Object

Representation ID: 3126

Received: 08/03/2023

Respondent: Mrs Paula Clark

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

My objections to the 35 house site are:
1. the proposed site is on the brow of the hill and on a blind bend opposite the village hall and children's playground.
2. School already to capacity.
3. More traffic using an already weak and deteriorating 18th century bridge.
4. 35 houses will increase light and noise pollution.
5. Traffic over-spill onto Stocks Hill from the village hall already creates a serious road hazard.
6. Large developments are already being built in nearby villages (Little Melton and Hethersett).

Object

Representation ID: 3127

Received: 07/03/2023

Respondent: Mr Michael Andrews

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Given the extremely short period of time between receipt of consultation paperwork and the deadline for comment I do not feel that the villages have had sufficient time to appoint a professional body to determine the legality of this proposal. Without specialist advice I cannot comment on the legality or otherwise on this particular proposal. I will therefore use this space to outline a couple of my objections:
1. The initial phase of buildings is for 35 dwellings. I am confident that once this has been passed it will only be a matter of time before further planning applications will be proposed.
2. Assuming 2 children per dwelling that would entail schools for approx 70 children, not to mention health and dental services.
3. Having just moved to the area I am becoming aware of just how stretched Dr's services are in the vicinity.

Object

Representation ID: 3128

Received: 07/03/2023

Respondent: Ms Pamela Ross

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

1. We have already absorbed two new developments adding to the fast traffic up and down Stocks Hill. Increased traffic would be a nightmare, as cars use the roads as rat runs through the village.
2. There are no significant amenities in Bawburgh; no decent buses; none into Norwich.
3. Is the projected housing fit for young, first homeowners? There are no amenities here for retired people. The school is for young families.
4. Issues of retaining open vistas, fields village non-density, if is a rural community.

Object

Representation ID: 3129

Received: 07/03/2023

Respondent: Prof Roger Thompson

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

As well as the inadequacy of village amenities, no shop, no proper public transport, NHS provision etc. and the danger of our uncalmed Stocks Hill rat-run traffic on the blind hill/road bend where traffic from new housing would have to join Stocks Hill. My main objection is to the urban density of proposed 35 houses on 1+ hectare. If there must be any new housing on the agricultural land the maximum should be 12. I do not want our village turned into a Norwich suburb.

Object

Representation ID: 3131

Received: 08/03/2023

Respondent: Mr Peter Briggs

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

- Stocks Hill is a narrow road with old single-lane bridge.
- Traffic is already a problem and dangerous for bikes and pedestrians.
- Local facilities are limited. No shop or surgery or bus service.
- Drainage/sewage in area already a problem.
- Similar but smaller planning applications have been rejected recently setting a precedent.
- This is a small rural village and proposed development is, due to its scale, in conflict with community approach to rural villages.

Object

Representation ID: 3132

Received: 08/03/2023

Respondent: Mrs Helen Andrews

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Short period of time given to villagers cannot be compliant. We should be given due consultation period. This seems to be already done and determined behind the villagers' backs. This cannot be right.

Complete lack of infrastructure within the village:
- No pavements to walk on.
- No facilities.
- Lack of Dentists/Doctors in the area.
- Already too much through traffic, especially in busy periods.
- Extra dwellings will mean extra cars.
- Ruin village life for existing villagers.

Object

Representation ID: 3133

Received: 17/03/2023

Respondent: Mr Ian Clark

Number of people: 2

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The site is in a satisfactory position for development but the 35 dwellings proposed is out of scale and unnecessary for our village. We have no street lights, footpaths or most importantly, a bus service.
A footpath to the Watton Road would give the whole village accessibility to the regular Norwich to Watton bus service, and make the most treacherous stretch of road very much safer and go some way to justifying an influx of new properties

Object

Representation ID: 3162

Received: 01/03/2023

Respondent: Historic England

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Whilst there are no designated heritage assets within this site, the site lies immediately to the south of the boundary of the Bawburgh Conservation Area. Any development of this site therefore has the potential to affect the Conservation area and its setting including views into and out of the Conservation area.
We welcome the preparation of an HIA for the site. The HIA makes several recommendations. These have been included in bullet point 2 and 4 which is welcomed.
Bullet point 3 states that the HER should be consulted to determine the need for any archaeological surveys prior to development. However, this is different to the recommendation in the HIA which states that ‘Require investigation on the proposed site prior to development commencing to identify and further historic activity’.
In our view, some assessment is needed to inform any planning application.
We therefore advise that bullet point 3 should be amended to read, ‘Planning applications should be supported by archaeological assessment including the results of field evaluation where appropriate.’

Object

Representation ID: 3208

Received: 17/03/2023

Respondent: Denise Findlay

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

I am a resident in Bawburgh and I wish to object to the proposed development for the following reasons:-

1. Bawburgh is a small village which already experiences traffic issues and overcrowding during the summer months. Stocks Hill and Long Lane are used as cut through’s with people driving over the speed limit.
2. The roads are narrow within the village. There are very few pavements. It is already difficult for traffic to pass easily.
3. I am concerned about maintenance of the bridge in the village. It is a very old bridge which could be damaged as a result of traffic increasing.
4. We do not have any facilities in Bawburgh. We have a pub, a village hall and a church but no shop or GP surgery. The school is already overcrowded. Because we do not have a shop in the village it is necessary for residents to drive in and out for shopping. Walking or cycling is not safe due to the lack of pavements and no cycle paths. We have no street lights which makes walking and cycling anywhere from late autumn through to spring dangerous.
5. We do not have any public transport links.

Support

Representation ID: 3248

Received: 08/03/2023

Respondent: Anglian Water Services

Anglian Water agrees with the approach taken regarding the site allocation policies for Wicklewood where matters regarding cumulative/in-combination effects with the development identified in the GNLP may require the phasing of development beyond the early years of the plan, are addressed in the supporting text and therefore a policy requirement is not considered necessary.

We suggest that the same approach is taken with other VCHAP allocations within WRC catchments that have in-combination effects with the GNLP developments, including sites within the catchment of Whitlingham WRC: