QUESTION 58: Do you support

Object

Representation ID: 263

Received: 02/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Andre Roberts

1. Surface water drainage has already become an issue to my property over the past winter from Hopkins existing site, further building to SN4078 will only exacerbate this problem to the point of flooding, the current surface water drainage system cannot cope with further hard surfaces being added with direct feeds to the eastern drainage ditch which then flows through my property. 2. The blind double S bends on that part of the street are already a major traffic hazard and we can expect at least a further 40-50 vehicles from Hopkins existing site, the street cannot take further traffic.

Object

Representation ID: 277

Received: 04/07/2021

Respondent: Mr nigel purdy

We object to the proposed site for the reasons that we gave from the existing site that was put forward in 2019, in that the area utilities will NOT be able to cope! The Street has already seen an increase in traffic (from lorries delivering to the existing site!) The sewers have overflowed on 2 seperate occasions in the 26 years that we have been here. The school is at full capacity and it is virtually impossible to get a doctors appointment at the moment. We have no parking and extra housing would worsen an already strained situation.

Object

Representation ID: 349

Received: 06/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Chris Pazarlis

I have the following concerns:

Flooding – since the new development has been in place the field directly opposite my house on The Street has pooling in the middle during large rainfall.
Road Traffic – this is a big enough problem already due to parked cars.
School Traffic – several parents have no choice but to drive into the village. School parking for the school is non existent and they do not have space to improve on this.
School places – school is at full capacity and although extended in recent years they are not able to extend any further due to planning restrictions.
Doctors - Beccles Medical centre has the 3rd highest number of patients to GP ratio for the entire area.
Noise & light pollution - this will get worse.
School Pond – with the proposed development, the school pond will be boxed in therefore blocking wildlife in and out of the site.
Whilst I am aware of the need for more housing these houses are not for first time buyers – they are being priced out of the market.

Object

Representation ID: 350

Received: 06/07/2021

Respondent: Vanessa Pazarlis

Firstly we have not yet seen the affects of the current new development on any of the previously raised concerns – flooding, additional traffic and school etc. It is yet to be seen how the development will effect the village once occupied.

As previously raised with the initial site I have the following concerns:

Flooding – since the new development has been in place the field directly opposite my house (94 the street) has instead of pooling rainwater on the corner pedestrian entrance to the field it is now pooling in the middle of the field during large rainfall – closer to my house and also the new development. The reservoir being dug out currently does not look big enough to cope and the drainage in the ditches rely on the farmer clearing them annually which in history has not taken place.

Road Traffic – this is a big enough problem already with The Street being congested with parked cars effectively causing the main road in and out of the village to be a single carriageway. I do not think the widening of the road has been sufficient.
School Traffic – reliance on car use for those who travel in from surrounding areas, the parking for the school is non existent and they do not have space to improve on this. The road at school times is absolute chaos and with additional families yet to move into the area this is bound to increase. The local resident’s of the school already complain often to the school but the school have no alternative for the parents hence making a very unsafe predicament of double parking and blocking driveways, the road is often parked on all the way up to the new development.

School places – Currently the school is at full capacity and although they have had an extension in recent years they are not able to extend any further due to planning restrictions. This means the chance of increasing the current amount of children in the school would not be possible. Local schools in Beccles are also at full capacity.

Doctors – Beccles Medical centre has the 3rd highest number of patients to GP ratio for the entire area. The waiting time to see a GP is already incredible long – that is if you can get through in the first place. They are stretched beyond there means and this will not improve if we continue to allow more developments in the area with funding to expand local heath care provision.

Noise and light pollution – This is a concern not only from the current new development but also from the new development at Gillingham services. The further dwellings will increase this issue further.

‘Boxing in of school Pond!’ – with the proposed new dwellings we will find the school pond being boxed in therefore not allowing local wildlife in and out of the site. The area will loose local species that are vital to our environmental balance.

As above I have many concerns over the proposed development and whilst I am aware of the need for more housing these houses are not for first time buyers – they are being priced out of the market and these houses are overpriced. I am aware of the shared ownership housing – this scheme only suits a select few and even then it is not an affordable proposition for many. Most cannot afford the rent on top of the mortgage and unless they are in receipt of benefits to help with the rent portion it is not economically viable. Unless you have a large deposit or very high earnings it would be near impossible for young families or first time buyer to purchase these properties.

Object

Representation ID: 352

Received: 29/06/2021

Respondent: Ms Danie Riches

1) This land is a flood zone, and I am concerned that development could alter the boundaries of this zone which could affect property insurance. Also winter flooding is an issue around King's Dam and there are concerns around water run-off from the development.
2) Traffic is also a concern. Additional houses will exacerbate existing traffic problems along the Street in Gillingham. Traffic from new development at Geldeston has also exacerbated this recently.
3) The School is already at capacity without the facilities to accommodate the existing 22 houses let alone a further 35. There are also traffic and parking issues here.
4) No additional capacity in local GP/dental surgeries. Beccles and Bungay are also expanding rapidly, placing additional strain on services.
5) Environmental impacts and the effect on the local wildlife and habitats, including additional noise and light pollution.
The development will have a negative impact upon the village as we do not have the infrastructure to support it.

Object

Representation ID: 353

Received: 06/07/2021

Respondent: Lola & Eli Pazarlis

Number of people: 2

Flooding – since the new development has been in place the field directly opposite my house on The Street has pooling in the middle during large rainfall.
Road Traffic – this is a big enough problem already due to parked cars.
School Traffic – several parents have no choice but to drive into the village. School parking for the school is non existent and they do not have space to improve on this.
School places – school is at full capacity and although extended in recent years they are not able to extend any further due to planning restrictions.
Doctors - Beccles Medical centre has the 3rd highest number of patients to GP ratio for the entire area.
Noise & light pollution - this will get worse.
School Pond – with the proposed development, the school pond will be boxed in therefore blocking wildlife in and out of the site.
Whilst I am aware of the need for more housing these houses are not for first time buyers – they are being priced out of the market

Object

Representation ID: 420

Received: 14/07/2021

Respondent: Wendy Harris

site plan SN0478
Dear Sir/Madam
I am writing to put forward my objections to the above proposed development; and I must state that no notification of this has been sent to me.
I have several concerns:
This proposed development for 35 houses will further pressure the problems of traffic along the street, it can be a dangerous road for other road users and pedestrians.
We have no capacity in the Beccles surgery for 35 extra households, this development would add to the difficulties we have when making an appointment with a doctor.
Gillingham St Michael's school has no capacity for any further children, if steps are taken to accommodate more children in the future this will impact on already difficult parking problems.
A proportion of the site is in a flood zone which will impact on homes in Kings Dam and cause flooding in winter of some of the gardens.
These reasons show that the proposed development is not acceptable.

Object

Representation ID: 606

Received: 24/07/2021

Respondent: Resident

Potential 120 extra vehicles using The Street is unreasonable, very congested narrow road with blind bends and residential onroad parking,
also bus route, school collection etc and rat run from surrounding villages into Beccles.
Solution double yellow lines and create large residents parking area on field. rear access to school also through site.
Properties flooded in Dec 2020, water poured off fields into homes. Flood category 3 area, recently moved to property and searches stated area 3.
Not opposed to development although school and infrastructure would need improving greatly to cope with these extra properties.


.

Object

Representation ID: 680

Received: 27/07/2021

Respondent: Paul Fletcher

Number of people: 23

I now enclose another 23 signatures similarly objecting to the proposals for 35 houses on the above preferred site.
We the undersigned object to the above proposals for the following reasons:-
1. The proposed new housing development for 35 houses will exacerbate existing traffic problems along the Street, particularly along the section where residents have to park their vehicles.
2. It is understood that Gillingham St. Michael's School is already full and does not have any spare capacity. The existing parking problems at the school are severe and if steps are taken to accommodate more pupils, this will only make matters worse
3. There is no additional capacity in doctors' surgeries, and any new development will make this situation worse.
4. Part of the site is in Flood Zone 3, with a high probability of flooding. Increasing the amounts of covered surface area in the proposed development will lead to greater water run-off, further overloading existing field ditches, resulting in more field flooding. Increased run-off will also lead to more gardens being flooded at times in Kings Dam , where some properties are approximately 12 feet below the adjacent field at the rear of their properties.
5. Local Plan making Government advice indicates that any proposed development should be located where the risk of flooding is lowest, taking account of climate change.
6. In East Anglia, climate change is indicated to increase river flows by up to 25°/4, which is likely to lead to more flooding. No account appears to have been taken of this.

Object

Representation ID: 706

Received: 27/07/2021

Respondent: Mrs Shirin Salt

Flooding caused by surface water and poor drainage has already proved to be a problem and is worsening.
Traffic along The Street is already a problem with many residents not having off-street parking. Since the new development in Geldeston and the current Gillingham development site the increased volume of traffic has made this area a major problem and this is before the current development is inhabited.
Over subscribed schools, doctors and dentists.
Destruction of the rural nature of the village and the current way of life as well as destruction of the established flora and fauna.

Object

Representation ID: 777

Received: 28/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Glenn Sharman

Summary; I object for multiple reasons.

Primary objection due to the torrent of misogynistic street harassment my wife has received from JMS contractors employed by the developer. Having lodged complaints with the developer, no obvious action has been taken.

I do not believe Hopkins and Moore have a suitable level of control of their contractors or feel they truly care about the impact they have on the local community.

Please see detailed representation for further information & objections

Object

Representation ID: 855

Received: 29/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Paul Fletcher

1. Gillingham St. Michael’s School is already full and does not have spare capacity for the existing Hopkins development of 22 houses let alone a further increase of children from the proposed 35 houses. The existing parking problems at the school are severe and will be exacerbated if steps are taken to accommodate more pupils in the future.
2. The proposed new housing development for 35 houses will intensify existing traffic problems along the Street, particularly along the section where residents have to park their vehicles. It is also not clear whether the Street at its entrance to the current Hopkins housing development will need further widening.
3. Part of the site is in Flood Zone 3, which therefore has a high probability of flooding.
4. Local Plan making Government advice indicates that any proposed development should be located where the risk of flooding is lowest, taking account of climate change.
5. In East Anglia, climate change is indicated to increase river flows significantly, which was experienced in winter 2020/21, and will lead to more flooding particularly in Flood Plains in the future. This does not appear to have been taken into account.

I have no objections to additional housing in Gillingham, but this and the adjacent land behind Kings Dam are clearly unsuitable for housing development.

Support

Representation ID: 933

Received: 30/07/2021

Respondent: Landmark Associates

On behalf of the owners of the land, the preferred allocation site SN0478 is supported. The Council required that the land should be the subject of a Flood Risk Assessment and a Landscape Impact Assessment. The Flood Risk Assessment shows that it is possible to build on Flood Zone 1 and this provides a constraint on the eastern boundary of the allocation. The findings of the Landscape Impact Assessment are that the development of the land can take place without any ‘material’ harm to the landscape.

Object

Representation ID: 1059

Received: 31/07/2021

Respondent: Mrs June Ward

Our infrastructure cannot support anymore housing, doctors, dentists are full local primary schools are full problems with sewage and drainage over full.
Parking a great issue.
Local transport suffering due to roads being closed for days and weeks at a time.

Object

Representation ID: 1076

Received: 31/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Christopher Black

The infrastructure is not in place to support further development in this area, it is almost impossible to obtain a doctors appointment, dentists are full, and the local schools are full. Without further investment in these areas further housing is unacceptable.
The access/egress to the village is limited and, with additional housing already in construction, this will only get worse. In addition this is already used as a rat-run into/out of Beccles.
Finally, further flooding can already be witnessed as a result of the McDonalds site extension and the new housing. Ditches are not routinely cleared, this will get worse.

Object

Representation ID: 1236

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Ms Tamsin Watt

I understand and support the need for provision of additional sustainable housing developments to support rural communities, however, I must object to the allocation of the preferred site in Gillingham (SN4078) on the grounds of:

Flood Risk
Environmental Impact
Safe Access

It is unclear from the information provided what is actually being proposed in terms of number of dwellings, due to inconsistencies. Further clarity must be provided to ensure communities are able to adequately comment.

Access to SN0478 is assumed possible through GIL 1, 2019/1013. This is not the case, this will be a private road, owned by the residents.

Object

Representation ID: 1244

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Sid Anverali

I understand and support the need for provision of additional sustainable housing developments to support rural communities, however, I must object to the allocation of the preferred site in Gillingham (SN4078) on the grounds of:

Flood Risk
Environmental Impact
Safe Access

It is unclear from the information provided what is actually being proposed in terms of number of dwellings, due to inconsistencies. Further clarity must be provided to ensure communities are able to adequately comment.

Access to SN0478 is assumed possible through GIL 1, 2019/1013. This is not the case, this will be a private road, owned by the residents.

Object

Representation ID: 1270

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Jason Carter

I can see lots of flooding issues coming to Gillingham if these houses are built.The contractors on the current site GIL1&2019/1013 have already had to do surface water drainage off the site twice into the ditches.Also where SN0274 REV A and REV B shortlisted sites are ,has been flooded recently and a new ditch has had to been put in to get rid of the water and this is summer time.

Object

Representation ID: 1319

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Mr David Adams

I object to proposals to build homes on site SN0478 because the site does not have an adequate infrastructure to accommodate the additional dwellings. 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 The Street Gillingham which limits the highway to a single lane.

Object

Representation ID: 1337

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Gillingham Parish Council

The road into Gillingham Street is narrow with cars parked on one side, there is nowhere to widen this road. The site regularly has excess water on it with more building the run off to the houses on The Street will increase the flooding they already suffer. The local school is at capacity and without serious attention to this and the access to it the already existing problems will be exacerbated.

Object

Representation ID: 1727

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Ms Catherine Bickmore

The proposal would result in over development of this part of the village with consequential dormitory effect.
The development would increase traffic on existing roads where access is notably poor and dangerous.
The visual impact would result in the loss of the patch work of openness in the village including on public rights of way and from Kings Dam. Note existing recent development the roof line of the houses is too high creating visual impact and likely to influence any adjacent development (GIL 1) on the proposed site.
Piece meal over-development and little thought to the overall strategy/form of Gillingham.

Object

Representation ID: 1731

Received: 22/07/2021

Respondent: W. Warman

Number of people: 75

We the undersigned object to the above proposals for the following reasons:-
1. The proposed allocation for 35 houses will exacerbate traffic problems along the Street.
2. Gillingham St. Michael's School is already full and does not have any spare capacity.
3. No additional capacity in doctors' surgeries - allocation will make this situation worse.
4. Part of the site is in Flood Zone 3, with a high probability of flooding.
5. Government advice indicates any proposed development should be located where risk of flooding is lowest.
6. Regionally, climate change is indicated to increase river flows by up to 25% - likely to lead to more flooding. No account appears to have been taken of this.

Object

Representation ID: 1745

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Lorraine Greenwood

We already had our cluster allocation with 22 houses being built on a site that stated only 10 should be built.

3. Flooding: with climate change and loss of agricultural land due to the retail development nearby this is a major issue. Flooding events are happening far more often than predicted and in any event predictions say without intervention Gillingham along with masses of this area will be under water as close as 2030. T

4. The school in Gillingham is at maximum capacity and doctors/dentists are to.

5 Traffic issues. Getting out on my road is already dangerous and there have been several accidents at the junction of Loddon Road, Gillingham and the A146. The proposed site is very near two narrow 90 degree bends.

6. Proportionately this is not a small number of houses. In 2011 there were 294 houses occupied by 676 people.

7. Character of village has already been damaged by a retail area that already detracts from the beauty of the village with a Conservation area, The Broads and the other sites of interest nearby. Further building will constrain the area for wildlife even further.

Comment

Representation ID: 1945

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Water Management Alliance

See attachment for full response.
SN0478 – Land south of GIL 1, Gillingham
Site is adjacent to the Waveney, Lower Yare and Lothingland IDD.
Major development - A riparian watercourse is located to the east of the proposed site which feeds into a Board Adopted Watercourse within the Waveney, Lower Yare and Lothingland IDD. 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: 2019

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Environment Agency (Eastern Region)

Sites SN0274REVA, SN0274REVB, SN4078 and SN2065REV are all located within Flood Zone 3. These sites would all require site specific Flood Risk Assessments to be submitted for at application stage for any proposed development. Further advice can be found here https://www.gov.uk/guidance/flood-risk-assessment-standing-advice.

Comment

Representation ID: 2121

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]: No flooding present
* 1.0% AEP Event [Depth]: No flooding present.
* 0.1% AEP Event [Extent]: Minor flooding
* 0.1% AEP Event [Depth]: 0.00 - 0.60cm.
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): Yes
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."
Assessment: Green

Comment

Representation ID: 2252

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.
Agricultural field to south of existing consented site 2019/1013. Partly bounded along northern edge by hedge (priority habitat). No other priority habitats identified (see MAGIC). Site within amber habitat zones for great crested newts (large pond adjacent to school), and SSSI IRZ will likely require consultation with Natural England (residential development >10 units) if allocated. Applications for planning consent should be accompanied by a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal/Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) which, together with the mitigation hierarchy, and the landscape strategy for 2019/1013, should inform the design. Consideration should be given to delivering Biodiversity Net Gain.