16.2

Showing comments and forms 1 to 6 of 6

Object

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

Representation ID: 2384

Received: 21/02/2023

Respondent: Miss Andrea Dipple

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

Sub-heading 16.2 states that "the parish is well served by the A146 and A143", however access is only via travel along The Street and specifically the blind Z-bends within Gillingham. The Highways Agency have already confirmed (within its response to planning application 2022/1993) that these bends cannot cope with the additional traffic that these proposed developments would bring.
Subheading 16.2 also states that the village is substantially of "rural character". The proposed housing developments and expansion of the service area would substantially change the charachter of the village, turning it into an urbanisation rather than a rural village.

Change suggested by respondent:

The village has developed in a linear form along The Street, which already suffers from severe vehicular traffic congestion especially through the blind z-bends, which is unsuited to further increases of car and van traffic from further development.

Attachments:

Object

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

Representation ID: 2444

Received: 24/02/2023

Respondent: Ms Tamsin Watt

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

The linear layout of the village along The Street means that all traffic has to negotiate the blind bend along The Street. This access can not cope with the additional level of vehicles the new houses would bring. It is noted that the Highways Agency confirmed this within its response to a recent planning application (2022/1993).

Development of this site would harm views out of the two main parts of the village into open countryside to the south and south west, which is still rural in nature and this would impact the rural character of the village and its surrounds.

Change suggested by respondent:

The allocation of VC GIL1 as a preferred site for development is not appropriate and represents over-development of a Service Village, particularly when taken alongside the previous development 2022/1897 at Fieldgate Reach which was completed only in summer 2022, the impacts of which are not yet fully understood, nor assessed within the Village Clusters Plan documentation. It is not clear from the documentation provided how this site has been allocated as preferred when considered alongside other sites within the area. The allocation of VC GIL1 is not in line with the NPPF or the objectives of the Village Clusters Plan and should be reviewed.

Object

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

Representation ID: 2797

Received: 06/03/2023

Respondent: Ms Jane Black

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

Further development will compromise the integrity and rural nature of the village. Development will also potentially cause pollution to the river Waveney and risk of surface water flooding to new and existing properties.

Change suggested by respondent:

Any development must be sensitive to the rural nature of the village and enhance it rather than destroy and degrade it.

Object

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

Representation ID: 2824

Received: 06/03/2023

Respondent: Mr Ian Thurbon

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

The description that the village is served well by the A143 and A146 is misleading as the proposed sites can only be accessed via the Street, which as has been outlined on many occasions is already encountering dangerous levels traffic. The blind bends that lead to single carriage way traffic, due to on street parking, is often a place where cars meet head on. Often they can not reverse which leads to cars mounting the pavement, which is occupied by school children from the local primary school, causing a danger to pedestrians.

Change suggested by respondent:

The plans need to amended or rejected unless a reduction to existing traffic levels is incorporated into the plans. Therefore I object the these plans.

Object

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

Representation ID: 2924

Received: 07/03/2023

Respondent: Ms Julia Johnson

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

Due to the open views to and from the village, and as noted in Natural England's response to the planning consultation for 2202/1993 which is an outline application for 44 houses on this GIL1 site, this development could have potential significant impacts on Broadland Ramsar, Broadland Special Protection Area (SPA), The Broads Special Area of Conservation (SAC), Barnby Broad & Marshes Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), Geldeston Meadows SSSI, Stanley & Alder Carrs, Aldeby SSSI.
It may also affect additional European designated sites scoped into the Norfolk Green Infrastructure and Recreational disturbance Avoidance and Mitigation Strategy (‘GIRAMS’).

Change suggested by respondent:

This site is in a sensitive landscape area and should not be considered as a priority site.

Object

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

Representation ID: 3030

Received: 08/03/2023

Respondent: Mrs Elizabeth Wilson

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

As stated in this sub-section Gillingham is of a rural character. This proposed housing will be another step towards urbanisation and the local habitats will be disrupted and destroyed. The nearby main A roads are good to have but they all have to be accessed via The Street which, as has already been pointed out, is an overused and potentially dangerous road for the many pedestrians, cyclists, dog walkers, joggers that use it on a daily basis.

Change suggested by respondent:

Any in-fill sites should be used rather than block erection of new estates.