QUESTION 56: Do you agree

Showing comments and forms 1 to 15 of 15

Object

South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 18 Draft)

Representation ID: 620

Received: 25/07/2021

Respondent: Mrs Lydia Keep

Representation Summary:

Already too many cars for the size of village, anymore would just be completely hazardous and would lead to bottle neck situations. The Old Yarmouth Road already has a dangerous speed limit. Not enough facilities to support the amount of residents e.g schools, dentistry, doctors. Other problems include ruining green areas of natural beauty and habitat, not environmentally friendly, the houses are out of keeping in terms of modern architecture in amongst this beautiful village. I don’t want to swap nature for another toy town development.

Object

South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 18 Draft)

Representation ID: 702

Received: 27/07/2021

Respondent: Mrs Shirin Salt

Representation Summary:

The village roads cannot cope with additional levels of traffic. We are a rural community with horses, people and other animals sharing the roads. We do not need street lights and pavements as a rural community we should be allowed to remain rural.
The addition of 20 properties plus 40 vehicles will destroy the rural nature of the community.
As an historic village the nature of that history will be destroyed with another modern, unimaginative development of property which would be better suited to a suburban setting.
Local flora and fauna would be devastated by additional people, development and vehicles.

Object

South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 18 Draft)

Representation ID: 717

Received: 28/07/2021

Respondent: Miss Katrina Berey

Representation Summary:

The more housing that is being built on the fields surrounding our homes, is making the risk of flooding even higher.

Object

South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 18 Draft)

Representation ID: 908

Received: 30/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Tom Frost

Representation Summary:

1. Roads, traffic and safety
2. The environment and nature
3. Pressures on local resources
4. Flooding and safety

Object

South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 18 Draft)

Representation ID: 918

Received: 30/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Matthew Thompson

Representation Summary:

I object to the size of the development due to the increase in the volume of traffic it will bring.

Support

South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 18 Draft)

Representation ID: 932

Received: 30/07/2021

Respondent: Landmark Associates

Representation Summary:

In relation to Gillingham, it is considered that the line defining the settlement limit is appropriate.

Object

South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 18 Draft)

Representation ID: 1232

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Ms Tamsin Watt

Representation Summary:

Gillingham Settlement Units allocated are greater than 1 hectare, with one site being twice this size. This is not in line with the objectives of the NPPF.
The plan states that the existing primary school at Gillingham is operating at capacity. However, the village clusters are defined on the basis of catchment areas to primary schools. Therefore, it is unclear how the limits of this Settlement Until have been defined and justified.
The FRA relied upon for the development at GIL 1, 2019/1013 needs to be updated in line with EA guidance to support the allocation of these sites.

Object

South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 18 Draft)

Representation ID: 1243

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Sid Anverali

Representation Summary:

Gillingham Settlement Units allocated are greater than 1 hectare, with one site being twice this size. This is not in line with the objectives of the NPPF.
The plan states that the existing primary school at Gillingham is operating at capacity. However, the village clusters are defined on the basis of catchment areas to primary schools. Therefore, it is unclear how the limits of this Settlement Until have been defined and justified.
The FRA relied upon for the development at GIL 1, 2019/1013 needs to be updated in line with EA guidance to support the allocation of these sites.

Object

South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 18 Draft)

Representation ID: 1313

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Mrs Holly Frost

Representation Summary:

1. Roads, traffic and safety
2. The environment and nature
3. Pressures on local resources
4. Flooding and safety

Object

South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 18 Draft)

Representation ID: 1317

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Mr David Adams

Representation Summary:

I object to proposals to extend the development zones in Geldeston and Gillingham due to the limitations of the current road infrastructure. Access to the villages of Geldeston and Gillingham is very poor and proposals to increase the number of dwellings will undoubtably make matters worse. Road safety is a major concern due to on-road parking on The Street at Gillingham and at Kells Way in Geldeston; in both locations road widths are reduced to a single lane as current dwellings do not have off-road parking.

Comment

South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 18 Draft)

Representation ID: 1416

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: East Suffolk Council

Representation Summary:

No comment on specific site but please consider infrastructure implications in East Suffolk.

Comment

South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 18 Draft)

Representation ID: 1608

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Geldeston Parish Council

Representation Summary:

Geldeston is a small compact village (pop. 397, 2011 census) and as the representative of its residents the Parish Council is glad to see that no changes to the Settlement Limit are proposed. Geldeston’s present population and spatial organisation enable it to preserve a strong sense of community that is much valued by old residents and newcomers alike.
[This is part of the Geldeston Parish Council's collective response to preferred site SN0437]

Support

South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 18 Draft)

Representation ID: 1725

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Ms Catherine Bickmore

Representation Summary:

Agree with existing settlement limit for village of Geldeston . It should not be extended.

Comment

South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 18 Draft)

Representation ID: 1795

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Geldeston Parish Council

Representation Summary:

Geldeston is a small compact village (pop. 397, 2011 census) and as the representative of its residents the Parish Council is glad to see that no changes to the Settlement Limit are proposed. Geldeston’s present population and spatial organisation enable it to preserve a strong sense of community that is much valued by old residents and newcomers alike.

Attachments:

Comment

South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 18 Draft)

Representation ID: 1822

Received: 16/07/2021

Respondent: Broads Authority

Representation Summary:

'with a further cluster of development at west Kings Dam’ – do you mean along Kings Dam to the west? As written, it does not seem to read well.
• It is not clear if a settlement limit alteration is made for Gillingham. There is a question asking for views, but the text is not clear and a dashed red line is not obvious on the map. It does not say ‘no alteration to the settlement limit is made’ like in other places

Attachments: