QUESTION 39: Do you support

Comment

Representation ID: 943

Received: 30/07/2021

Respondent: Bunwell Parish Council

Site SN0537 – North of Bunwell Street.
We only support this site if it is solely for housing and not to include any light industrial, as appeared on the ‘Suitability Assessment’. Otherwise we strongly object. Also, we object to the boundary of this site extending beyond the rear boundary of the adjacent site BUN1. The eastern boundary is directly adjacent to a popular footpath and the offending boundary impacts on the footpath and wellbeing of users. Such a deep site of houses would detract from the approach into the village centre and present an unsightly imbalance with the bungalows opposite.

Comment

Representation ID: 970

Received: 30/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Phil Gledhill

Answer: Site SN0537 – Land to the north of Bunwell Street.
I would not support this as a Preferred Site if it was to include 'Light Industrial' as stated in an Assessment Paper. For me that would be totally inappropriate for the location. Also, I do not agree the current rear boundary line which stretches too far back and would present too large an estate appearance when entering the centre of the village and would not match the Greenways estate opposite. The rear boundary should go back no further than the adjacent site currently being built.

Object

Representation ID: 995

Received: 30/07/2021

Respondent: Mrs nikki garner

2 other sites exist which are more appropriate for development. They have been assessed by both Bunwell-PC and Bunwell-Development-Housing-Group (a group representing village residents) and assigned HELAA green-ratings. This objective assessment was submitted to SNC with two-preferred sites recommended (SN2126-&-SN0538REV)

Current border access rights are being discussed with NCC-Highways (RW) and Senior Planning-Officers at SNC (GB & PK). As other preferred sites exist, this site (SN0537) shouldn't be considered as development would exacerbate the current boundary problems, which to date remain unsolved

SN0537 was previously rejected by SNC (GB Autumn-2020) and the request for permission was advised to be withdrawn.

Object

Representation ID: 1056

Received: 31/07/2021

Respondent: Mrs Joanne Binks

We object to the preferred site opposite us as it makes more sense to infill the village. We are currently having to put up with building work opposite us, which is very noisy and affecting my mental health. Over the last few years we have to put up with constant road closures, traffic lights building works with houses up road.
The other site fills in the village whereas the preferred site just makes the village even bigger and let’s face it the other site will be filled with houses in the end anyway. School is still walkable.

Comment

Representation ID: 1058

Received: 31/07/2021

Respondent: Mrs Joanne Binks

Our public transport is pathetic at best. We have no street lighting. There is one small shop and one small school and you want to build more and more houses. We all have to drive (as rubbish bus service) into local towns(attleborough or Wymondham) for doctors and vets, shopping etc which are already under strain due to building work there!! We moved here in a house that was already here, as didn’t want to live on housing estate, you are turning Bunwell into one.
This is not for local businesses, this is more money for the council and property developers.

Object

Representation ID: 1347

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Stuart Garner

1 Two other suitable sites exist in the village which are more appropriate for development. The sites are SN2126 and SN0538REV

2 Current issues regarding ditch maintenance are being discussed with land owner/s, neighbouring residents, NCC Highways (RW) and Senior Planning Officers at SNC (GB and PK). As other preferred sites exist, this site (SN0537) should not be considered a preferred site by SNC as development on this site would exacerbate the problems already being experienced on the related boundaries, with flooding also an issue.

3 Site SN0537 has previously been rejected by SNC planning (GB Autumn 2020). Requested to-be-withdrawn.

Support

Representation ID: 1428

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Mrs Kate Jones

We would like to offer our support of preferred site SN0537. We understand the greater need for housing and that Bunwell offers an attractive option for development. We believe that site SN0537 currently offers the best option in terms of maintaining the current linear design of the village. It would mirror the existing line of housing on the opposite side of the road and with the open farm land/fields adjacent to this site on both sides of the road it will have less impact on existing properties and will ensure the open feel is protected through the village.

Object

Representation ID: 1476

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Michael Crouch

I would prefer to see 'Infill housing' along Bunwell Street at some of the other shortlisted sites. There have been issues with flooding in this area which have been well documented by nearby residents. Having taken part in discussions concerning the JCS and LDF preferred sites as a Bunwell Parish Councillor a decade ago: I don't understand how we've reached the situation where one of the then preferred sites, the land bordering the preferred site in this consultation to the west, remains undeveloped to this day. I therefore do not understand why more housing is being proposed to the east!

Support

Representation ID: 1527

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Nigel Crouch

Support SN0537 - PR0VIDING that the total number of dwellings is gradual and eventually reached over a period of at least a decade; and includes the 7 properties currently under construction on the adjoining site to the west.
This reiterates the 2005 Bunwell Parish Plan which achieved a response of 78% of all Bunwell households.
316 villagers felt that "any further building development will spoil the Village".
211 villagers stated that "single dwellings in controlled locations would be acceptable".
182 preferred "affordable housing".
149 "no further new building".
I believe that research today would achieve a very similar result.

Comment

Representation ID: 1934

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Water Management Alliance

See attachment for full response.
SN0537 – Land to the north of Bunwell Street
Outside the IDD boundary, within the Norfolk Rivers IDB watershed catchment.
Major development - If surface water discharges within the watershed catchment of the Board's IDD, we request that this discharge is facilitated in line with the Non-statutory technical standards for sustainable drainage systems (SuDS).

Comment

Representation ID: 2009

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Environment Agency (Eastern Region)

Foul Water Capacity
Similar to our response for sites within Barnham Broom above, for sites SN0537, SN1057, SN0538REV, SN0539, SN2126 and SN0602, available information indicates there may be around 120 houses planned here in total. Forncett has some capacity for foul water flows (can accommodate the 'preferred' sites) but does not have capacity for all the houses planned in these developments. Discussions will need to be held with AWS if all development goes ahead, and development must be phased in line with Water Recycling Centre (WRC) treatment capacity being made available.

Comment

Representation ID: 2035

Received: 21/07/2021

Respondent: Historic England

Please see attachments for full response.
Site: SN0537, Land to the north of Bunwell Street
There are no designated heritage assets on site. Green Farmhouse listed at grade II, lies to the east of the site. However, given the distance we consider that the development of the proposed allocation would have limited impact of the setting of the heritage asset.

Comment

Representation ID: 2128

Received: 14/07/2021

Respondent: Norfolk County Council - LLFA

See attachments for full response.
Few or no constraints. Standard information required at a planning stage. "1.] At risk of surface water flooding?: Yes
* 3.33% AEP Event [Extent]: No flooding present
* 3.33% AEP Event [Depth]: No flooding present.
* 1.0% AEP Event [Extent]: Minor flooding
* 1.0% AEP Event [Depth]: 0.00 - 0.15cm.
* 0.1% AEP Event [Extent]: Minor flooding
* 0.1% AEP Event [Depth]: 0.00 - 0.15cm.
2.] Internal & external flooding?:
* On-site: No
* Within proximity to site (~500.00m): Yes - External Flooding
3.] Watercourses [Online ordinary watercourses or mains rivers]?:
* On-site: No
* Within proximity to site (~100.00m): No
4.] Surface water sewer systems?:
* On-site: No
* Within proximity to site (~100.00m): No
5.] Source Protection Zone?: Source Protection Zone 3
6.] Internal Drainage Board?: No IDB referenced
7.] The site predominantly has superficial deposits of DIAMICTON. Comments on infiltration potential are dependent on a complete geotechnical investigation, including BRE365 Soakaway Testing. Where possible, surface water infiltration should be utilised." "The on-site flood risk forms the start of a flow path in the 0.1% AEP event. Flow lines indicate this flood water flows east off of the site, contributing to a major flow path east of the site. We advise this must be considered in the site assessment.

The majority of the site is unaffected by flood risk and has the potential to be developed."
Assessment: Green