QUESTION 57: Do you support

Object

Representation ID: 416

Received: 15/07/2021

Respondent: Mr STEVEN Harrod

Since the recent development off Kells Way we have already had several problems with sewage/drainage. What ADDITIONAL infrastructure will be included.

Object

Representation ID: 544

Received: 22/07/2021

Respondent: Mrs ruth edmunds

look at the access to site ,it has to go though a single track road ,people along kells way some have not got off street parking, the road is busy now with all the traffic from Kells meadow .the infrastructure can not cope with more homes, if you put up the homes in will need to expand all the schools and they is no places at dentists, cannot see a doctor as they have not got enough doctors

Object

Representation ID: 703

Received: 27/07/2021

Respondent: Mrs Shirin Salt

Access is through Kell's Way where residents need to park on the street. Additional vehicles would cause issues both in traffic volume and pedestrian safety as well as the safety of children playing in the area.
Insufficient infrastructure exists in the village and surrounding area. Schools, GP's and dentists are already over-subscribed. The 'local' facilities referred to are services on the main road for passing vehicular traffic not village trade.
No mention of upgrading waste water management despite devastating flooding in December 2020.
The 'regularly bus service is wholly inadequate and will force residents to use their cars.

Object

Representation ID: 860

Received: 29/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Andrew Wade

The topography presents land drainage problems, flooded garden/patio several times. The development of more properties density "twenty" will only increase the problems, displacement of water over a wider area.
The traffic flow in the village needs better traffic management. There is poor visibility, unsafe hedge heights, further issues include flooded roads, potholes and poor land drainage.
The existing Kells Way development is not suitable for an increased traffic flow.
If developed the number of properties should be reduced from the desktop assessment of twenty, down to five. They should be bungalows to mitigate against overlooking and landscape design issues.

Object

Representation ID: 883

Received: 29/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Graham Ginn

We object to further housing being created without a new access road, as a resident of Kells Way we have already seen the amount of traffic on our road increase hugely since the creation of the last development and we feel that another 20 houses, potentially another 40 cars would be too much. If the development were to go ahead we would like to see a new access via Old Yarmouth road, this would ease the traffic on Kells Way and make it a bit safer.

Object

Representation ID: 885

Received: 30/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Graham Ginn

We could potentially support the proposed development if there was plans to access the site via Old Yarmouth Road, a reduction in the number of houses proposed and a new speed limit introduced for the safety of our beautiful quiet village.

Object

Representation ID: 909

Received: 30/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Tom Frost

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

Comment

Representation ID: 965

Received: 30/07/2021

Respondent: Mrs Jane Davis

Site no SN0437 - land off Kelly’s Way, Geldeston

Concerns about the impact of additional housing on existing drainage infrastructure (operated by Anglian Water) because of numerous previous incidents of effluent discharge affecting our and neighbouring properties in Station Road. Will there be any assessment of the local pumping stations and drainage system to ensure they will be sufficiently robust to cope with increased sewage and surface water from run off?

Object

Representation ID: 1043

Received: 31/07/2021

Respondent: Mrs Jackie Shave

Over development in a small village - increase in traffic a real hazard and danger to pedestrians as public footpaths limited. Environmental factors - loss of green space / natural soak always could increase flooding risks.

Object

Representation ID: 1104

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Alan Hone

Objection: While the site (SN0437) will be good for (some) residential development, 20 houses is far too many for that particular location. With only one entry to the site it will be too busy and congested along Kells Way, and unsafe for children. It almost is already. 20 dwellings is also a far higher density than elsewhere nearby. With minimal public transport, this could be expected to introduce 40+ more vehicles to the road, with nowhere to park. The large extra influx will also adversely affect the feel and ambiance of the village, making it just another dormitory suburb.

Object

Representation ID: 1200

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Andrew Wade

The topography presents land drainage problems, flooded garden/patio several times. The development of more properties density "twenty" will only increase the problems, displacement of water over a wider area.
The traffic flow in the village needs better traffic management. There is poor visibility, unsafe hedge heights, further issues include flooded roads, potholes and poor land drainage.
The existing Kells Way development is not suitable for an increased traffic flow.
If developed the number of properties should be reduced from the desktop assessment of twenty, down to five. They should be bungalows to mitigate against overlooking and landscape design issues.

Object

Representation ID: 1318

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Mr David Adams

I object to proposals to build 20 homes on site SN0437 because the site does not have an adequate infrastructure to accommodate the proposed additional dwellings. The existing Anglian Water sewerage pumping station struggles to meet demand from the current properties, a pumping vehicle had to be used to take raw sewerage away by road in 2020/21. The road access to the proposed development is not adequately sized to safely accommodate additional vehicles: this problem is compounded by on-road parking on Kells Way which limits the highway to a single lane making the road unsafe.

Support

Representation ID: 1722

Received: 17/08/2021

Respondent: Brown & Co

Agent: Brown & Co

From the initial Call for Sites the proposals have been amended to increase the number of properties to 20 dwellings. We believe the site is capable of providing a range of house types including smaller two and three bedroomed properties and bungalows. Provided the layout is appropriately designed, the total number of dwellings could flex according to local housing demand and need. The site would also appear as a natural extension to the recently developed site to the south and sit neatly into an extended settlement boundary for the village.
Access and Utilities - we don’t believe that there is any technical objection
Benefits/Impact - good access to services and facilities
There are no heritage assets that are affected by these proposals
The landscape generally consists of large open arable fields defined by countryside hedging with belts and areas of woodland.
The site falls entirely within Flood Risk Zone 1.
Site is deliverable

Object

Representation ID: 1726

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Ms Catherine Bickmore

Allocation of the site 0437 for upto 20 dwellings is unacceptable on account of the effects arising from the social effects of increased population on small village, safe access, the visual and amenity effects on the Conservation Area, play area and wider Waveney Valley and should be rejected. The site assessment provided is misleading.

Comment

Representation ID: 1796

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Geldeston Parish Council

Residents of Geldeston and its Parish Council have reservations about the site for further building preferred by South Norfolk Council, “Site No. SN0437, Land off Kells Way”. Based on their concerns (see below, “Detail and Argument”) The Parish Council wishes to put forward the following requirements:
[1] NO HOUSES should be built on the preferred site until the Anglian Water pumping station below the Kells Estate has been replaced or upgraded;
[2] after requirement 1. is met, up to five -- certainly no more than 10 -- houses might be built on site No. SN0437, but only if effective measures are taken to reduce the hazards to all residents from AN INCREASED NUMBER OF MOTOR VEHICLES passing through Kells Meadow and along Kells Way;
[3] similar proposals for densely built-up housing were made under the Local Development Framework in 2003. Our concerns at the time about THE IMPACT ON PARISH INFRASTRUCTURE of any expansion in housing were not answered.
We shall therefore send a copy of this submission to all appropriate bodies, e.g., Anglian Water (Waveney district) in Peterborough, and the Highways Department at County Hall in Norwich.

Comment

Representation ID: 1944

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Water Management Alliance

See attachment for full response.
SN0437 – Land off Kells Way, Geldeston
Site is immediately adjacent to the Waveney, Lower Yare and Lothingland IDD.
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: 2039

Received: 21/07/2021

Respondent: Historic England

Please see attachments for full response.
Site: SN0437, Land off Kells Way, Geldeston
There are no designated heritage assets on site. However, the site is adjacent to the Gedleston Conservation Area. There is also a pair of grade II listed cottages to the west of the site at West End. Any development of the site has the potential to impact on the significance of these designated heritage assets.
A heritage impact assessment of the site should be undertaken to assess the impact of the proposed development on the listed building and conservation area and determine if allocation of this site is appropriate, and if it is what mitigation may be required. The findings of the HIA should inform whether the site is allocated and if it is, the policy criterion including any mitigation and enhancement.
Complete an HIA to inform the allocation of the site including any mitigation, enhancement and policy wording.

Comment

Representation ID: 2117

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?: No
* 3.33% AEP Event [Extent]: No flooding present
* 3.33% AEP Event [Depth]: No flooding present.
* 1.0% AEP Event [Extent]: No flooding present
* 1.0% AEP Event [Depth]: No flooding present.
* 0.1% AEP Event [Extent]: No flooding present
* 0.1% AEP Event [Depth]: No flooding present.
2.] Internal & external flooding?:
* On-site: No
* Within proximity to site (~500.00m): Yes - Internal 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 SAND. Comments on infiltration potential are dependent on a complete geotechnical investigation, including BRE365 Soakaway Testing. Where possible, surface water infiltration should be utilised."
Assessment: Green

Comment

Representation ID: 2251

Received: 28/09/2021

Respondent: Norfolk County Council - Senior Ecologist

Rating: Green no major ecological constraints identified from desk-top search. Surveys, and biodiversity enhancement in accordance with policy required.
Rough grassland bounded along northern and western edge by hedges (priority habitat). No other priority habitats identified (see MAGIC). Site within amber habitat zones for great crested newts, and SSSI IRZ but unlikely to require consultation with Natural England (residential development >50 units) Applications for planning consent should be accompanied by a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal/Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) which, together with the mitigation hierarchy should inform the design. Consideration should be given to delivering Biodiversity Net Gain.