6.1

Object

Representation ID: 2295

Received: 06/02/2023

Respondent: Mr Mark Tudor

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

35 more houses in a small Norfolk village of only 240 houses is totally unacceptable and out of kilter. The development is in complete contradiction to the “Make Norfolk Healthier” initiative as every resident will have to use their cars as we have no bus route or shops. Traffic flow on our already congested roads will increase significantly. Our local school is full and unable to take any more pupils, resulting in even more travelling. The natural vista looking across the site will be destroyed for ever. I object to this development in the strongest terms as does Bawburgh VILLAGE.

Object

Representation ID: 2326

Received: 14/02/2023

Respondent: Mr Stanley Fisk

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The people of Bawburgh do not want more houses, we do not want anything you’re offering, we do not want to change Bawburgh into an overcrowded place to live with more families that do not understand the way a village works.

It will have profound impact on the environmental sustainability of Bawburgh.

Object

Representation ID: 2334

Received: 16/02/2023

Respondent: Mr Mark Tudor

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Totally unsuitable. Environmentally damaging, unsustainable, NO bus routes, traffic movements up by 210 per day, in breach of Make Norfolk Healthier pillar for planning, destroying the Yare Valley unbroken views, would increase the number of properties in Bawburgh by over 15% in one development, no shops, no doctors. Car travel essential. Road floods every year, on a hill, on a blind bend, fatal accident in last 5 months, school is full. Complete joke. Dodgy deal been done has it? Same developer as the traveller site? Pockets being lined are they? Time for change at SNDC.

Object

Representation ID: 2349

Received: 17/02/2023

Respondent: Mr Gavin Buxton

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Lack of suitable infrastructure for 35 new homes.
Danger of more fatalities as traffic increases through the rat run.
Borders up to conservation area.

Object

Representation ID: 2364

Received: 18/02/2023

Respondent: Mrs Margaret Kemsley

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

The character of Bawburgh was irreparably destroyed by re-opening New Road following the construction of the Southern Bypass (1990s), together with the housing increases in the GNLP and the development of Longwater Retail Park and Park & Ride. These have already turned the village into a speeding “Rat Run” degrading the quality of life and vitality of the village.

Object

Representation ID: 2490

Received: 27/02/2023

Respondent: Dr Ian Tait

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The character of the village would be destroyed. The plan contains incorrect information and the village is not in a cluster so the plan is not appropriate. The village would see no benefits. The road network safety would be totally unacceptable. The plan conflicts with Government and Norfolk policies that promote walking and cycling to improve heath, and is environmentally unacceptable. There are insufficient facilities. The plan would create adverse affects on mental health and welfare. The plan fails in a duty to cooperate as the timescale between its announcement and deadline for objections is far too short.

Object

Representation ID: 2496

Received: 27/02/2023

Respondent: Collins & Coward Limited

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Bawburgh is not part of a village cluster

Object

Representation ID: 2502

Received: 27/02/2023

Respondent: Mrs Ruth Tait

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The village character would be destroyed. The plan contains incorrect information, is not appropriate as Bawburgh is not in a cluster, it conflicts with government and Norfolk policies to promote walking and cycling to improve health, and is environmentally unfriendly. The village would see no benefits and the road network safety would be totally unacceptable. There are insufficient facilities. There would be adverse affects on mental health and wellbeing. The plan fails to comply with a duty to cooperate as the time between its announcement and the deadline for objections is too short.

Object

Representation ID: 2559

Received: 28/02/2023

Respondent: Mrs Susan Williams

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Too high a density of houses for this small village
Stocks Hill is narrow road with 2 bad pinch points; already used as a rat run: cars turning onto the brow of the hill dangerous; already one fatality last year. Bus service to Wymondham runs once a week (not as stated in your plan)
Few services - school oversubscribed, no shops, doctor, etc. Pavements are sparse, necessitating car use - doesn't comply with the national plan for more walking/ cycling.
Sewage system frequently breaks down
Flood risk - very real problem in Bawburgh

Object

Representation ID: 2707

Received: 05/03/2023

Respondent: Miss Nicola Cheal

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

In order for an increase in housing in Bawburgh there needs to be:-
1. Better footpaths and more of them.
2. Regular bus routes every day.
3. More school places and a surgery to allow daily GP appointments.
4. A shop
5. Speed restrictions as Stocks Hill is a rat run.
6. Better lighting
7. Safe vision along Stocks Hill because it’s narrow and cars exceed the speed limits.
8. Improved sewage and drainage for properties to prevent call outs each year.
9. Better and improved Broadband facilities.
10. Protection of the Gas Mains if affected from this plan.

Object

Representation ID: 2708

Received: 05/03/2023

Respondent: Miss Brooklyn Cheal-Ferris

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

I don’t believe these houses should be built for the following reasons;
- not enough schools, doctors, shops, bus routes, footpaths, street lighting
- already issues with speeding
- would need to improve sewage and drainage
- issues with broadband