Policy VC GIL1: South of Geldeston Road and Daisy Way

Showing comments and forms 1 to 11 of 11

Object

South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 19 Pre-submission Draft)

Representation ID: 2301

Received: 07/02/2023

Respondent: Resident

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

It seems totally crazy that the previous Cluster plan approved in 2015 ( with 22 properties having been built and only just finished) hasn't been taken into account when allocating extra housing in Gillingham. does this now mean that in a few years time another Cluster pan will be put forward with more housing.
Surely a plan is exactly that, planning for the future and not in this case just a few years. The needs of the housing community hasn't changed that much in just 7 years.

Change suggested by respondent:

The plan does say what is required in the way of forward planning for housing in South Norfolk but it doesn't then say no more after that.
It needs to include a date at which further planning approval can be applied for in the future so at least residents know where they stand.
Forward planning doesn't mean short term planning which in this case it is short term, it upsets everyone.
The residents of Daisy Way Gillingham were informed when they purchased their home that there would be NO more properties built on their small estate, now there will be 35 more and years of disruption, the houses in Daisy Way being built on the 2015 approval the next 35 on this application, just a few years later. I'm sure they might not have purchased (some at £600.00) had they known.

Object

South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 19 Pre-submission Draft)

Representation ID: 2361

Received: 17/02/2023

Respondent: Williams/Harrod

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

- The development of VC GIL1 (south of Geldeston Road, The Street) will not enhance the rural community. The allocation of the site for up to 35 dwellings would represent gross over-development of a Service Village, particularly when taken alongside the previous development 2022/1897 at Fieldgate Reach (Daisy Way and Tulip Close) which was completed only in summer 2022.

Change suggested by respondent:

The plan to develop further houses on this flood plain needs to be scrapped. If houses are still to built against all the concrete evidence against it, there should at least be access from a different point i.e. not through The Street and thus not through Daisy Way.

Object

South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 19 Pre-submission Draft)

Representation ID: 2419

Received: 23/02/2023

Respondent: Miss Mandy Peck

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

Noise 24 hours 7 days a week more brighter as more lights, traffic on roads that can't cope now. Roundabout is Already an accident hotspot. Being built on a flood plain, when planning was supposed to be for houses. Effect it will have on wildlife, with badgers hedgehogs (an endangered species) with various protection acts, birds bats field mice water voles, also it's a lovely quiet place to walk round. Who wants that industrial estate on there doorstep not me would you. Depriving nature of a home you wouldn't want to be kicked out of your home

Change suggested by respondent:

No more building in Gillingham leave it to the countryside as it is meant to be. We are depriving nature of its home like foreign countries are doing and animals are becoming endangered, like hedgehogs are here on the red endangered list hence the protection acts

Object

South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 19 Pre-submission Draft)

Representation ID: 2448

Received: 24/02/2023

Respondent: Mr Michael Green

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

My main concern would be the increased volume of traffic through the street in Gillingham which this proposal would effect.
My other concern is to the risk of flooding on the development site being a resident in the village for over fifty years I have witnessed this site flooding annually.

Change suggested by respondent:

The traffic problem through the street would have to be addressed in some way as to aliviate the problem that already
exists with vehicles parked on the roadside
this at the moment causes a major risk for some people exiting their property onto the road
Also the risk of flooding
on the site would have
to solved in a
satisfactory way .

Object

South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 19 Pre-submission Draft)

Representation ID: 2453

Received: 24/02/2023

Respondent: Ms Tamsin Watt

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

This site is inappropriate for development and should not be allocated. Reasons include:
- Lack of services within Gillingham (dental, doctors, social care) and lack of capacity in Beccles
- Large scale development in Beccles (c.450 homes) not considered in this plan
- Clear issues of flood risk, safe access and egress (see EA's holding objection to (2022/1993)
- Clear issues with safe access along The Street and the acute blind bend (see NCC highways response to 2022/1993)
- Local significant adverse impacts on rural character and on nationally designated sites including Broadlands SPA and Broads SAC

Change suggested by respondent:

VC Site GIL 1 is not appropriate for development and should not be allocated for the reasons given above. In addition, recent development has taken place in the village with the addition of 22 new houses at Fieldgate Reach which was only completed in 2022. The impacts of this site on the environment and community are not yet understood and the proposed allocation of VC GIL 1 is not considered cumulatively with the recent Fieldgate Reach development. This is a clear short fall of the plan and the cumulative effects of these developments should be considered. Development at this location would also have a number of significant impacts which are not in line with national policy or with the core objectives of the Village Clusters Plan itself. For these reasons the plan should be reviewed and this site should not be allocated for development.

Object

South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 19 Pre-submission Draft)

Representation ID: 2520

Received: 27/02/2023

Respondent: Landmark Associates

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

The uncertainty surrounding the implementation of the plan as a result of the impact of Nutrient Neutrality undermines the overall aims of achieving a proscribed number of dwellings. Of the 1122 dwellings shown as allocations 413 (37%) are subject to nutrient Neutrality constraints. Of the 173 dwellings carried forward from 2015 145 (84%) are subject to Nutrient Neutrality constraints. The land to the north of The Street (SN0274) is not subject to Nutrient Neutrality constraints and if allocated could be developed in a short time and make a contribution to the housing provisions of the plan.

Change suggested by respondent:

The land to the north of The Street is not subject to Nutrient Neutrality constraints and if allocated could be developed in a short time and make a contribution to the housing provisions of the plan.

Object

South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 19 Pre-submission Draft)

Representation ID: 2530

Received: 28/02/2023

Respondent: Mrs Rosemary Gage

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Yes

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

At a time when the demand is for us all to “go green” - use our open spaces and walk, South Norfolk is proposing an extensive build, to swallow up acres of land and green space, commandeering Public Footpaths and in general polluting a rural landscape.
With no consideration to the impact this will have on the local residents and the destruction of their local landscape.

The light pollution will have an enormous detrimental effect on humans and wildlife.

The increase in traffic through small village streets is nearly at breaking point and with a further increase will be intolerable.

There are no plans for extra school or health facilities - which are now at a premium.

With all this is mind, as a resident I am extremely worried and alarmed by this extensive planning proposal. This will not be an extension to a village, but a plan to create a town on a flood plain.

Object

South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 19 Pre-submission Draft)

Representation ID: 2560

Received: 28/02/2023

Respondent: Mr Paul Fletcher

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

The road through Gillingham is restricted by parked cars, leading to single track working which is dangerous. The parked cars have nowhere else to go as they are in-front of houses. Surveys carried out of residents by Gillingham Parish Council rejected any option to introduce no waiting restrictions. (I have the survey results in my possession)The road is therefore unsuitable for any increased traffic on it, particularly with the 2 z-bends.
The proposals involve an overlong cul de sac as it gains access through the existing Daisy Way.

Change suggested by respondent:

Construct a new road through the McDonald's site onto The Street. Or develop SN0274 Rev B instead of SN4078 taking access again through the McDonald's site instead of onto The Street. The land in question is under the same ownership for both sites and also the land required for a link to McDonald's

Object

South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 19 Pre-submission Draft)

Representation ID: 2621

Received: 03/03/2023

Respondent: Broads Authority

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? Yes

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

See comment

Change suggested by respondent:

The 5th bullet point needs to mention assessing potential impact on the Broads, as is written in para 16.10.

Where it says in 5th bullet point there is a need for a fill Landscape Assessment, is that a LVIA? Does it need to mention the term LVIA to make it clear what is required? For example, this policy talks about a Landscape Assessment whereas policy VC ROC1 talks about a Landscape and Visual Impact Appraisal. Why the difference?

Object

South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 19 Pre-submission Draft)

Representation ID: 2647

Received: 03/03/2023

Respondent: Norfolk Wildlife Trust

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

This allocation is in relatively close proximity to Geldeston Meadows SSSI, a floodplain grazing marsh and component of the Broads SAC/Broadland SPA which is currently in an ‘unfavourable condition’ with a small part in an ‘unfavourable declining’ condition.

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 180: ‘When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should apply the following principles: b) development on land within or outside a Site of Special Scientific Interest, and which is likely to have an adverse effect on it (either individually or in combination with other developments), should not normally be permitted…..’

Change suggested by respondent:

In light of the NPPF policy quoted above, we recommend that policy wording in VC GIL1 should reflect this. The policy wording should be revised to clearly signpost the need for any application to review any potential indirect disturbances to this site in an ecological assessment, in particular with respect to potential visitor pressure impacts.

This site is also noted as being amber for great crested newts, a protected species. We therefore recommend that any policy wording also includes reference to the need for an appropriate great crested newt assessment prior to determination, in order to ensure that the allocation is supported by the appropriate ecological evidence.

Object

South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 19 Pre-submission Draft)

Representation ID: 2818

Received: 06/03/2023

Respondent: Ms Kirsty Aldis

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

- The previous consultation has not been responded to meaning due process has not been followed.
- South Norfolk Council should look at the objections made to planning application 2022/1993 as it is clear that the LLFA and NCC have severe doubts about the suitability of this site.
- This is gross over development of a service village.

Change suggested by respondent:

The North site should be properly considered with an exit onto the roundabout via Hearts services.