QUESTION 3a: Do you agree with the allocation of SN6000, Land north of Chapel Street, Barford? Please explain your response.

I DISAGREE with the allocation of this land for ANY additional development
As a resident of the village for 21 years I have several concerns regarding the development of the land that currently forms the village Playing field. I am aware that this land is subject to a lease but, indeed, there are still 39 years remaining
My concern is in relation to the potential impact of the development on my property and those of my immediate neighbours and indeed the existing greater village development. Over the past 20 years we have experienced severe problems with surface water run off from the playing field on several occasions. I have several photographs of these problems, taken over the years, the most recent being taken on 10/12/2023, for your information if required.
The extent of these problems was highlighted in the Barford Surface Water Drainage Investigation Consultation Report undertaken by Bingham Hall Associates, commissioned by Shirley Bishop, the Flood Defence Officer, Regulatory Services for South Norfolk Council and the report was dated 17/9/2008. I have a copy of this report for your information if required although this should be in your records.
In this report (Page11, point 5.6 General) it states that the past development has increased the impermeable area, and restricted the capacity of the floodplain to absorb floodwater, hence increasing the flood risk to properties in the area
The Report continues (Page 13, point 7 Options for remedial works) and says Run off from the fields and the playing field to the north of Chapel Street is obstructed by development on Chapel Street and with no direct drainage route for this run off to the River Tiffey.
Simply put, increased impermeable areas will only add to the surface water run off problems in the immediate area and beyond
In turn I have concerns about the ‘downstream, impact upon my fellow villagers at Eastleigh Gardens and beyond and also question the capacity of the existing sewer arrangements to cope with what must be in the order of a 15% increase in flow/demand.
I note and understand the attraction of securing, for the village, a new village hall and facilities for an extended period of time but this strategy should not be to the detriment of existing villagers nor should the expiring lease be used as a lever to achieve what the proposers obviously seek, which is financial gain. Unfortunately I should imagine that those who do not experience these regular problems and who have no regard for their fellow villagers (if indeed they live in the village) will see the ‘carrot’ of a new village hall/lease as a good reason to support these proposals – another concern.
I am grateful for this opportunity to raise my concerns.

Barford is set in a valley and any new building, for example on the playing field or on land north of Watton Road would with out doubt impose massive problems in the village due to surface water displacement .
The playing field over the past days has been saturated with water and has over the years impacted properties who have experienced severe flooding problems . With heavy rain and it's inability to drain away quickly enough and therefore resulting in finding an escape route through properties . This has never totally been rectified .To cover this vast area of playing field with concrete will enhance this problem further and simply ruin peoples lives .
Further concerns are sewage problems which have impacted and created untold misery to residents in Barford and this is without further houses being built .
The extra volume of cars exiting and returning to the playing field area . Driving through the village or heading for the Watton Road via Cock Street will be an accident waiting to happen .
The proposal for extra housing will destroy the fabric of the village .

Parts of Barford village are still suffering from flooding issues and the proposed development of the village playing field will only add to the problems we already have. The playing field still floods after heavy rainfall as witnessed again this week. Rainwater still enters the sewage system-we suffer directly after heavy rainfall and often find we can't flush toilets or use our shower / bath as the wastewater has nowhere to go. We are not against all proposed housing development in Barford, however we are against the proposal to develop the village playing field.

I strongly disagree with the allocation of land north of Chapel St for housing. Houses backing onto the playing fields are already experiencing water flowing into gardens and even outbuildings. I live in Chapel St further down the village and experience flooding outside the house, worryingly close to the front door. The village simply does not have the drainage capacity for the current housing stock let alone additional ones. A 'sweetener' from the developer of a new village hall pales into insignificance alongside the problems the development would cause.

There was recently a presentation at Barford Parish council re extra sites for the cluster areas.
One of the new sites is the playing field north of Chapel Street. VH – SN6000

I have wide knowledge of this area. I became district councillor for the area in 1991 and although the boundaries have changed, and it is no longer in my Ward, I became NCC councillor for the area in 2013. I have served on both the Parish Council in the 1980s and on the village hall committee for many years although too busy to be part of that at the moment.

I worked with (the Council's former Flood Defence Officer) in the 1990s and we got DEFRA funding for an attenuation pond opposite the village hall/playing field to take surface water coming down the hill and flooding the centre of the village, after we had heavy flooding in Eastleigh Gardens and Park Avenue.

Re the playing field, my husband is a digger driver and helped with many issues here. We are aware that there are land drains under the playing field coming across from the council houses to the left of the village hall to the ditch/pond behind School Farm. There are also drains coming diagonally from the top left hand corner across the field to the bottom corner where flooding has occurred in the field and to the houses backing on to it. There is a pond/pit in the field behind the playing field and to the left of a pathway which has pipes going down to the area containing play equipment, a ditch used to go along beside the property on that end but it was piped and filled in many years ago so that children did not fall in to it.

There have been times when an outlet has been bunged up and water has started spouting up in the middle of the field because the pressure broke the drainpipe.

My concern is that if this field is developed all the drains will be broken, dug up etc and there will be a lot of surface water coming across the area, plus the extra hardstanding around the proposed homes will create more surface water and we will be back to having flooding at the lowest point in the village, ie Eastleigh Gardens and Park Avenue. The water tends to go to the area past the attenuation pond into the field beside it or runs down the road all towards the lowest point. We do not want even more flooding in this area.

I do not think the playing field should be developed because I do not think they will be able to mitigate all the water that runs across that area.

I do not have any objection to the sites that are entered from the B1108, Back Lane junction. VC BAR1 and SN0552REVC.

I am working with NCC Highways at making this area safer for people trying to cross the road here to take young children to school, local park etc. As long as the surface water etc from these sites is directed down to the river beside B1108 and not towards the attenuation pond and the lowest areas in Barford I have no objection to these. There will have to be some mitigation to make the access to the proposed sites and Back Lane junction safer and the B1108 safer for dog walkers etc. A speed camera once caught someone doing over 80mph coming from Hingham, past Back Lane junction and the pub, on a motorbike. We do need to reduce the speed in this area. The Wig-Wag that we put in beside the garage many years ago does not seem to get people to reduce their speed.

This is ridiculous. The plans are almost half the size of the village as it is! Won’t even be a village anymore after this!!! We do not have any shops to facilitate all these houses and we most certainly don’t have the roads for this either, they get ruined enough with the amount of farm land we have nearby. Also, the school cannot handle anymore children, they’re already struggling! I think this is a terrible idea and i think this will ruin the lovely village we have at the moment.

Barford suffers with flooding and will only worsen with this proposal

Vehicle volume will increase and worsen the Speeding through the Village and will increase the potential of accidents and increase noise nuisance

Inadequate/no Street lightning down Cock street

We need to keep some land sacred and not over run. We do not have the resources or big enough roads for these extra houses and flooding is already a concern

- Flood risk - the site is currently in a high risk flood area with surrounding houses already experiencing large volumes of water entering their gardens and properties from the playing field where the proposed development has been suggested. - Currently there is no drainage system in place to cope with additional hardstanding/houses.
- Increased traffic - Chapel street already has large volumes of traffic during school hours with parents parking along the main road at school drop off and pick-up times.
- Loss of green space, community hub.
- light pollution
- over development verses village size

My main objection to this site being used is the risk of flooding. Recently with the heavy rains it has not been possible to use the current playing field. It has been necessary to leave the village to walk the dog elsewhere. I do not believe the proposals made mitigate this risk.
This area is used for the drop off and pick up of children for school. A development would lead to road safety issues and congestion.
A development would greatly impact on the landscape and character of the village, this area being the focal point of the village.

In order to address some of the concerns raised by local residents on the potential development of this land, FW Properties confirm the following;
• With regards to surface water drainage and flooding, the development of this land will provide the opportunity to address the current flooding issues which are occurring on the playing field and in some of the properties around this land. Our drainage engineers have reviewed these issues and the local Flood Alleviation Scheme and have confirmed that these can be addressed and improved by the new development. The landowner of the site has previously worked with the Council in providing a surface water drainage area for this part of the village on his land to the south of Chapel Street which would be enhanced as part of our overall drainage strategy for our site.
• FW Properties are liaising with Anglian Water to ensure that there will be capacity in the foul drainage system for this development.
• With regards to the development of the new village hall, we have held initial design and specification discussions with the Village Hall Committee. It is agreed that the new building would be similar in size to the existing hall and we envisage working up this specification with them in more detail once the planning policy has been further advanced.
• We are using the existing football pitch and playing field as the benchmark standard required for the new facility.
• Our delivery strategy for this project assumes that there will be continuity of operations for the village hall and playing field so that the new facility opens at the point when the existing hall is closed. Our programming therefore assumes that the early phases of the project will include the community related works which will be followed by the completion of the new housing.
• FW Properties have prepared our viability analysis for this project which is based upon the planning policy requirements and current build costs. This appraisal confirms that a development of circa 30 dwellings with a replacement village hall and playing field would be a viable project.

I strongly object to this proposal to build on our village playing field for the following reasons:

Losing our playing field: Losing this precious heritage village amenity would be disastrous for our village community. We would lose the social value for the community of dog walkers who use the field several times a day, and the many families that use the field every single day after school and at weekends. Moving the playing field away from the play area is impractical and dangerous. How are parents supposed to supervise children of a range of ages at the play area and on the field with a road and housing estate running between them? Would the new residents want tens of screaming children walking through their estate every day to get to the field? The location of the new playing field would not be fit for purpose for football, cricket and many other activities that the community uses the field for.

Highways issues: Cock Street is already busy. 30 new homes, would mean probably 50 more cars travelling up and down it each day. I already fear for my children crossing the road to get to the pavement to walk to school. Residents park their cars on Cock Street which impairs visibility, so it would become a dangerous rat run. Several houses on Cock Street have to pull out blind to leave their houses. Somebody would no doubt be badly hurt as a result of this significant increase in traffic.
Also the Watton Road junction at the Cock turning in to Cock street is already dangerous as it is on a blind bend. To increase the amount of traffic using this junction by so many is irresponsible.

Waste of government funding: The council has just spent over £30k repairing the village hall roof - what a waste of tax payers money to now knock it down!

Flooding: The village already floods - only last month were residents’ knee deep in sewage in their gardens. The road opposite the village hall car park also floods. Increasing surface runoff in to these drains would only exacerbate the issue effecting many residents.

Environmental Impacts: This field provides valuable raptor foraging areas, and contains mature trees which provide habitat for birds, mammals and insects. To build so close would cause damaging disturbance to wildlife. It is also likely given the prevalence of great crested newts in the village that they also use this area.

Visual Impacts: This new development would significantly negatively impact the visual and social character of the village. The scale of the proposed developments are also disproportionate to the size of the village (increasing it by a third). People in Barford live here as they wat to live in a village – not a town.

Practical implications: Currently parents use the village hall car park to park when they drop and pick their children up from school. Where would they park if this now became a housing estate? The development please would also be very dangerous with heavy machinery using the school car park.

Inaccurate information in consultation: The village cluster does not contain any shops as indicated in the supporting information. There is also no space at the local school as even children living in the village currently struggle to get in. This level of increased development without any local amenities would only serve to increase car use and carbon emissions.

The allocated space is an area which provides children and adults green space to safely play sports and walk. Over the course of the Covid pandemic, the use of green spaces was important for people's mental health. Removing a safe area, when so many other sites are available is an unnecessary waste.
A development on this site would also damage the biodiversity, where birds of prey are often seen and hedgerow insects and small mammals.

I object on many grounds. Primarily the loss of green space , traffic issues and flooding. I use this area every day for school attendance( using the car park) walking a dog and my children's recreation. Recently I have been unable to use the field due to flooding and that before it is developed further.This area is the heart of the village and would be lost by the proposals.

Flooding risk/poor drainage issues. Proposed measures to mitigate flooding/poor drainage unproven. Long term problem of flooding and drainage in the village. Problem exacerbated with each new house built.
Negative impact on scant local services and village infrastructure. Barford lacks a village shop or post office and nearest GP surgeries already over-subscribed.
Increase in cars, traffic and parking.
Overdevelopment: Number of dwellings planned disproportionate to size of village; % increase in households would be nearly 15%.
Negative impact on landscape, local wildlife, rural character and green space that will be lost forever.
Lack of clarity regarding sustainable house design and affordability.

See attachment for full representation.

Barford and Wramplingham Parish Council recognise the long term need to ensure a sustainable village hall and playing field which are currently leased with approximately 37 years remaining (hardly a “relatively short time remaining on the lease” – as claimed in the consultation document). The housing allocation described, however, is too big and MUST ALSO be considered in the light of preferred site VCBar1. Furthermore, many residents object to the proposed development for many reasons.

See attachments for full representation.

Having seen the effect of this winter on the playing field (sodden and running with water) and hearing from villagers affected by flooding, unable to use toilets or showers in the lower parts of the village, it seems entirely out of the question to develop the playing field because of the flood risk to existing properties in the village. I cannot see how access to the playground for children, including disabled children, can be maintained while construction works are underway. Services are inadequate for so many new houses: there are no shops, no doctors nearby, and the school is oversubscribed.

I strongly object to the planning application on the following grounds.

Firstly, the village already experiences flooding during the winter months. The playing field has been severely flooded in the corner on multiple occasions in the last few months alone, leading to an overflow of water into neighbours’ gardens. The drainage system in the village simply cannot cope with an influx of rainwater, the likes of which we are experiencing on an increasingly regular basis. To increase the volume of hard standing in the village will simply serve to exacerbate the issue. Any development should be indemnified to protect against the risk of flooding to all existing properties in the village.

Secondly, I have concerns about road safety and traffic management. During school drop off and pick up times, Barford is far busier than usual. The village hall car park is full and the roads are also congested along much of the main road. As someone who lives on Chapel Street, it is already extremely difficult to exit my property due to the poor visibility and parking. Adding additional housing on this site will only serve to increase traffic along Chapel Street. The pavements are not particularly wide and I have concerns about the safety of the children attending Barford Primary school.

Thirdly, tens of thousands of pounds have just been spent on upgrading the village play area which currently sits alongside the village hall. As someone who lives just two doors down, I can confirm that this is in almost constant use. Parents of multiple children in the villages of Barford and Wramplingham have raised concerns about building on the proposed site, as this will separate the play area from the playing field. This means that during village hall events, children will not be able to play in the play area independently, thus rendering the investment in the play area less meaningful. There is also the added concern of where traffic will enter the new site if it is approved - if the road access is too close to the play area, this will pose additional safety risks.

This is also the only open aspect of the village, and the only easily accessible green space. From morning through to the evening, villagers walk their dogs on this field. There is also an abundance of wildlife on this site, with birds of prey spotted in the airspace above the village hall on a daily basis.

Additionally, the proposed development will have an adverse effect on the residential amenity of neighbours, by reason of noise, disturbance, overlooking and loss of privacy. The houses that back onto the playing field are bungalows, which will be overlooked should any development of two storey houses be permitted. There are no street lights in the village; if street lights are within the proposed new development, this will cause unwarranted light pollution.

Finally, in spite of the developers’ claims, Barford and Wramplingham are not villages with an abundance of amenities. There is no village shop, and no doctors surgeries or dental surgeries within close proximity. Those that are nearby are not navigable on foot, and are already oversubscribed. There are surely villages better suited to development on this basis.

a) It will break-up of the current intrinsic connection between the village hall, playing pitch and childrens play are. A parent can't be in two locations at the same time.
b) Increase in traffic will negatively impact on the village. The access roads Cock Street, Church Lane and Chapel Street are minor roads already struggle to cope with the current traffic levels.
c) The delivery of the materials and removal of excavations, needed to build the houses, will negatively impact on school access.
d) The build will have negative impact the water drainage increasing the already high flood events.

Barford already suffers regular flooding- this development location is in the path of field drainage it will increase the flood risk on the already effected areas - Park Avenue, Park Close and Eastleigh Gardens.
The Village Hall is intrinsically connect to the playing fields and the Childrens' play area - physically separating these areas from each other would have a negative impact on their usage and disrupt the social fabric and cohesion of the village and its communities.
The additional traffic both during the build and occupancy will lead to congestion an incrase in traffic safety issues and inadequate parking

See attachment for full representation.

The proposed site is completely out of keeping with the surrounding aesthetic, the site should be reduced to a third of that proposed and extend no further back than the neighbouring developments.

There are major concerns with regards to flooding if additional houses are built in the village.

Q3a SN6000
Mixed feelings as I know how important the future of the Village Hall and Playing Field is to the community, but I live downslope of the site and already have to live with sandbags at the ready and the constant threat of flooding. It used to be that the main route of highways water to the River Tiffey was through our garage. Now it mainly comes up through the AW foul sewer in our back gardens or in the street. Details supplied. Also traffic issues on Chapel Street during school hours need to be identified/solved.
1. The foul water network has not coped during heavy rain since we moved here in 1989. Adding more houses has incrementally made it worse. Anglian Water are still trying to solve the problem. Over the last 15 years, sewage flooding has moved from our neighbours sitting room to our back gardens. Recent mitigations have resulted in sewage in the street and our front garden, which is higher than the front door ... so we need more sandbags.
2. "Much of the central part of Barford forms part of the Barford Flood Alleviation Scheme which helps to control flooding in the village" Correct, but there is insufficient thought, planning given as to how the water exits the scheme to the River Tiffey. There is only one route, through a network of private ditches, not all well maintained. They are privately owned, not accessible by digger and largely have to be hand dug by ageing landowners.
3. Barford is built within the confluence of the Rivers Yare and Tiffey and flood water OR the capacity for flood water backs up from there into the built up area. Immediately downstream are the flood defences for Norwich and their capacity needs to be factored in too.

. Flooding would increase down from the site if developed. Already a huge issue at times of heavy rain accumulation.
Historically and presently there are control problems with sewage and drainage at this end of the village.
. Current volumes of traffic already wreck the small lanes and chew up the ditches alongside. Access to the B1108 is via a dangerous bend.
. Envisage huge disruption on Chapel Street to school drop off and pick up for parents.
. Increased light pollution would impact wildlife plus the loss of habitat.
. What speciality shops? Non-existent
. Loss of green space.

This area is a communal area and the very heart of the village - where dog walkers and villagers often meet, and the community holds events such as sports matches, society meets, fetes, shows and more - it is integral to not just Barford but Wramplingham - whom it is shared with - and would also be negatively impacted by the loss of this valuable local green space.

This area is also seriously prone to flooding, which would be exacerbated further if somehow houses were to be erected here.

See attachment for full representation.

I robustly object this development for multiple reasons:

• Allocating this number of houses to the village is disproportionate to its size. The level of growth that this development, alongside the other proposed sites within the village, would grow the village by almost half again. This would represent a level of unsustainable growth for our village cluster with the resources and infrastructure available.
• The council’s site assessment for this development says, ‘Located within flood zone 1 – low risk of surface water flooding.’ The proposed area is, in fact, subject to surface water flooding, as detailed in the 2008 Barford Surface Water Drainage Consultation Report. Despite subsequent work being completed that was suggested in that report, the problem remains, affecting a lot of the village. This includes directly affecting properties and sewage drainage as recently as January 2024.
• This development would be building on what is defined as ‘open countryside’ in the Council’s site assessment. This would be detrimental to the village as a whole, and its residents. Further to this, in the council’s current environmental strategy the aims are to ‘Reduce carbon emissions from the council's activities and meet our ambitious target of net zero carbon emissions by 2030. Work together to reduce carbon emissions across the district and align to the Government's 2050 target for wider district decarbonisation.’ This seems to be at odds with building on open countryside.
• The council’s site assessment mentions ‘No obvious issues relating to the historic environment.’ For reference, immediately adjacent to the proposed project are several sites which would be affected:
o What in the council’s description of Barford village for the VCHAP is ‘The most sensitive area of the village’. This is described as being ‘situated on either side of Cock Street where the Hall and its grounds on the west side and the popular plantation on the east side, positively contribute to the form and character of the village.’
o The Grade 2 listed School Farmhouse, whose outlook would be affected, which the site assessment mentions but dismisses.
o The Hay Barn and its land, part of the original School Farm and hence of the same vintage and historical importance, neighbours the majority of the eastern border of the proposed project. This important property should be afforded the same level of care with regard to how it, and its outlook, would be affected.
• Traffic is ever increasing in the village, especially with recent local road changes. We also have many people going too fast which has prompted a community speed watch to be set up. The road is often reduced to single-file traffic due to parking and with increased traffic volume this would only worsen congestion.
• The access to the development is not as good as is described on the site assessment. The access from the west (Church Street) is a single carriage country road (national speed limit) which does not have great visibility. Developments here have been denied in the past due to this. The access from the east is only 2-way through the village before it is again a single carriage country road (national speed limit), meant for small volumes of traffic, through Marlingford and Bawburgh. It is described that most traffic would be coming from the South (Cock Street) but inevitably it would also come from the other directions which will cause wider disruption to the local area by overwhelming the existing road system.
• The development does not take into consideration the inter-relationship of the different elements currently present at this site. The proximity of the village hall, car park, field and children’s play park are integral to their success as community resources in the village. Disrupting the connection between these serves to reduce their availability and usability to members of the community. For example, being able to utilise the play park in events at the hall and parents being able to walk dogs whilst supervising children in the park.
• The proposed development would have a considerable effect on the village school and its activities.
o The parking is currently used to facilitate school drop off and pick up. The school parking proposed, would most likely be used by residents of the new houses/visitors etc and hence the road and village would be overwhelmed with the traffic and disruption that goes with the start and end of the school day.
o With the number of houses proposed it would raise the number of children applying to the school and end up in a situation where those from the village are unable to access a place in a school in their own village.
o The increased traffic and congestion (see point below) is on a road which is directly in front of the school and is traversed by parents and children every day and this would compromise their safety.
o The school would not be able to access the facilities available on this site as easily, or safely, with the proposed development.
• General practice within our local area is under immense strain with the current level of population and cannot be subjected to further increases in the population with no increase in resources. Extra houses would only serve to increase waiting times for patients and workload on an already stretched healthcare workforce.
• The land for this proposal is currently under a lease which has 37 years left to run and managed by the Barford and Wramplingham village hall committee. I believe that the landowners/developers are using this short lease to put undue pressure on the village and its residents. In the village hall committee minutes from the 8th October meeting (as quoted on their website) they mention “The Village Hall Committee has as its overriding priority the availability and accessibility of the Village Hall and playing field for its stated, charitable purposes. Even though the Lease still has over 37 years before it expires, the intent of the landowner to want to develop the land on which it now stands makes this availability and accessibility seem somewhat vulnerable and tenuous.”
• There needs to be consideration that residents within the village have chosen to live in a rural, village environment. The proposed development adversely affects the rural landscape and character of the village, leaving no breaks between housing and leaving no rural outlook from the shared village resources.
• This development would not be to the benefit of the current residents for, likely, many years. As an example, those, like me, who have young families would suffer with no or limited access to a village hall, playing field and play park. This would mean Barford, Wramplingham and other local residents could be denied access to benefit from our current, great resources at a time where they would likely utilise them most. I cannot see that any reasonable level of continuity of access can be provided by the developers with the proposed development.
• The development would inevitably worsen light pollution within the village, if any street lighting is proposed. There is currently no street lighting within the village, allowing for a clear night sky to be enjoyed.
• I hope that this and other official objections to this application adequately display the level of opposition that this development has within the local community. We have seen unprecedented attendance levels to local meetings to voice this.