QUESTION 4a: Do you agree with the allocation of SN0552REVC, Land north of Watton Road, Barford, as an extension to VC BAR1, for up to 20 additional dwellings on an area of 0.73ha? Please explain your response.

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.

We suffer flooding in Barford and this proposal will only add more risk to current dwellings not effected andwill worsen the dwellings already hit by flooding. Adding additional drainage to flow into existing ditches is not the answer as they can not cope with the current situation.
Speeding traffic through the village will increase and will potentially raise the risk of an accident and noise nuisance

If we have to have the extra housing it should be within the main area of Barford where the village hall is

- Access to the site is on a traffic hot spot / bend on the main road - extremely dangerous
- Back lane is an existing one lane road which is not wide enough for additional traffic, home owners would use this for access
- Flood risk as covered in previous comments on other Barford sites - unable to cope with additional drainage and sewage with existing infrastructure
- Impact on local services - schools etc
- over development

There is Historical precedent for refusing this application in that the land owner has been refused permission before.
We live in the Grade 2 listed farmhouse and we object on the grounds of adverse effect on our building.
The road is highly dangerous already the objection is on the grounds of road safety for all, but particularly the residents of houses on Watton road( opposite the proposed development)
The current environment attracts a wide variety of wild life . We regularly see birds and bats. This development could adversely effect this .
If this development was approved the period of building would severely effect our quality of life for safety, noise ,pollution and air quality.
When it rains heavily water flows past out home , this development could add o that problem causing issues for others in the village

I strongly object to this proposal for the following reasons:

Highways issues: The junction from Back Lane on to the Watton Road is on a blind bend and highly dangerous. Even if the junction were splayed the pub still makes the junction blind and dangerous. There is no way of making it safe, and to put 20 houses on this bend would be irresponsible.
Back lane is a single-track road on which you cannot pass two cars, which would be a disaster given the increase in traffic – no one would be able to get in or out!
It would be far more sensible, if the garage development were to go ahead, to make back lane up to Greenacre House pedestrianised and close it to through traffic. This would also increase recreational value for local residents as they could walk through the garage development on to Back Lane safely and up to the church.

Flooding: The village already floods - only last month were residents’ knee deep in sewage in their gardens. Increasing surface runoff to the village would only exacerbate the issue effecting many residents.

Visual Impacts: This new development would significantly negatively impact the visual and social character of the village. The view down in to the valley from Barnham Broom Road, the church, and listed Sadler's Farm would be spoilt. It would also visually impact those whose gardens back on to Back Lane. 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.

New country park: This proposal is impractical. Villagers would have to cross the dangerous Watton road to get to it. The fields specified are also in the flood plain so the ‘park’ would be unusable for the majority of the year.

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.

My home is opposite the proposed areas, My primary objections are the Adverse effect on our Grade2 listed building and Visual Intrusion. The proposed houses would be able to see into all the rooms at the front of our house.
Road Safety is already a big issue for us with 2 children needing to cross the road daily for school. This proposal would make the situation worse.
We have a large range of habitat in our garden, this includes birds , insects , snakes , newts. On one occasion last summer a deceased pole cat was found outside our house. This would be be greatly impacted.
When it rains hard water can be seen running past our house so flooding is another risk.

Similar as for 3a, plus:
Access to this site cannot be made safe, either via B1108, or via Back Lane, which is an extremely narrow road. There is already a dangerous turning for cars from Watton Road onto Cock Lane and this development will make it more dangerous. Area is extremely dangerous for pedestrians as there is no footpath.
SN0552REVC cannot be conjoined with VC BAR1 which comprises a thriving garage, MOT Centre, used car sales business and two other small businesses. The landowner where garage is has not given consent and these services are well used in the village.

See attachment for full representation.

No, Barford and Wramplingham Parish Council OBJECT to this allocation, which is outside the development area, adjacent to a dangerous winding road (B1108), and a significant distance from the centre of the village. Furthermore, the water management approach and claims of nutrient neutrality are confusing. Neither do we agree to the earlier decision to make VC BAR1 a preferred site, since we understand that the landowner is not intending to develop the site. Also, it would lose several businesses employing people in the area which you give as a reason for clustering.

Building on this plot will adversely affect the Barford village landscape. Currently as you enter Barford there is a 13th century church to your left across an agricultural field, to the front a row of trees along back lane and further down on the right a 17th century farmhouse.
A housing development will negatively impact the wildlife that live and hunt on the fields.
The B1108 is a dangerous road due to speeding vehicles which create a treacherous junction at Back Lane.
Barford’s infrastructure will not support this increase in population and lack of local services.

See attachment for full representation.

There is no way of developing this site such that the rural character of Barford surrounding landscape can be maintained. It is an exposed site on the hill, fully visible on the way into the village on the busy B1108. No other villages on the road between Norwich and Hingham have such prominent new developments - it would be an outlier affecting residents and visitors alike. Properties on Cock Street are downhill from the site and at risk of flooding from water run off already - this risk increasing hugely if that field is built on.

a)inadequate infrastructure to support such a development
b)the garage is a single village asset providing this service
c) the need for a cut-through into Cock Street will have a big negative impact on the social fabric and coheasion of the village community.
d) the proposal sits on what is an already high road traffic hazardous area - this development can only make it worse.

I do not understand the premise of VC BAR1 , let alone an extension. It removes jobs and services from the village cluster and would add 20-40 residential properties onto a double blind-bend on a busy arterial road into Norwich. More details supplied. Turning right from the B1108 onto Cock Street already feels dangerous and some people try and avoid it by using back roads. The road here already leads to surface water flooding of properties in Style Loke and "Suttons Loke"
1. "there are several specialty (speciality??) shops across the cluster's settlements." I only know of a beauty salon, three pubs (two currently closed) and the garage on the Watton road (described to me as "a life saver on many occasions" by a friend in Colton) that you are planning to knock down for VC BAR 1
2. "There are several industrial and commercial units located within the centre of the village, which provide local employment opportunities." You are proposing to remove around three of these to develop VC BAR 1
3. This scheme would lead to an increased number of vehicle movements crossing the carriageway of the B1108 as they attempt to turn right into the village at Cock Street from a double blind bend. Unfortunately it is a very gentle bend that does not slow the traffic down. Many vehicles do not obey the 40mph and tend to continue travelling at the national speed limit.
4. NCC Highways already investigating flooding downhill of the bends/hill.

I do NOT agree with this proposed allocation. Back Lane (the road next to the field) is very narrow lane where 2 cars cannot pass each other. It leads to an almost blind junction with Watton Road, where you cannot see if it is safe to pull or not. This junction is worse in the summer when the crops and headrows around the junction are taller still.

Contrary to the submitted “plans”, any new junction would require a significant chunk of VCBAR1 field to be ‘opened up’ - which the land owner is vehemently opposed to - and would reduce the number of houses that the development of VCBAR1 could sustain.

This plot of land is outside the development area and has been rejected for planning historically. The previous application was for ~160 houses - which gives further insight into the motivations of the land owner - and that this may be a ‘foot in the door’ exercise.

Planning permission for other houses in the immediate area to SN0552REVC has also been rejected, despite those locations actually being more hidden and less visible from the surrounding areas. In recent years, even existing houses in the immediate area, seeking to add a second storey to their property have been rejected on the grounds of being ‘too imposing’ for the landscape. Given the exposed area of this suggested development site, which is also 2-3 feet higher than surrounding field — it would certainly significantly and negatively impact the character and landscape of the village.

Planning permission should be entirely consistent, unbiased and fair - it is precedent that should be followed.

Such is the sheer size of the field, the views go on for miles - this means that noise and light pollution from the site would have significant impacts on the surrounding population. Not just the humans, but the nesting birds of prey, reptiles (including newts), bats and other rare animals - including a polecat that was hit by a car on that very junction last summer.

Barford as a village is prone to regular flooding and this site is on higher ground, and ‘up stream’ from the main danger areas. Covering the surfaces with non-porous materials (eg. Tarmac) will result in further strain being put on the overwhelmed drainage/sewage systems and more water being added to already flooded areas down stream.

Barford has no shop, no real facilities, regular issues with power failure, just one bus stop and a reliance on doctor facilities in Hethersett and Cringleford - that are already overwhelmed.

See attachment for full representation.

Allocation of SN0552REVC disputed. It is not an extension of BAR1, it's a separate and unsound one. Need for the allocation questioned, as it is not related to local housing demand or the VCHAP policy of the GNLP. Location unsuitable; beyond the proposed settlement limit and not well connected to the existing village structure. Suggest dropping these 20 houses from the plan. The expected density of SN0552REVC would provide an urbanised entry to Barford from the west before you enter the village. This is not desirable in the context of approaching the settlement and of the settlement structure.

We object because: -
It would provide additional risks to an already dangerous road
It would mean building on a greenfield site
Proposed site is outside the core village
No opportunity for pavements on the main road
Existing flooding problems would only be made worse
Loss of essential businesses to the village
Local health facilities are already overwhelmed

I object to the allocation of SN0552REVC for its questionable relationship to BAR1, the lack of local relevance, and concerns about its need. I dispute the extension status of BAR1 and SN0552REVC, due to their physical separation, rendering them distinct allocations. The justification for SN0552REVC based on housing shortages in Tasburgh and Rockland St. Mary, both significantly distant from Barford, is unsound. I question the appropriateness of allocating SN0552REVC beyond the proposed settlement limit, with doubts about the deliverability of BAR1. Concerned by potential cascading effect on further development and the landowner's motives, suggest reconsideration of the proposed allocation.

I object this development for the following reasons:
• Recent flooding in the area has been significant. We have seen dwellings affected with the local community by flooding from the river but also flooding from excess surface water from poor drainage off local farm-land. The proposed area of development would impact on this further and is likely to have a detrimental impact on other properties within the village. Flood water running down the Watton Road again and into properties on Cock Street and Style Loke is a significant concern.
• Our village is a small rural community within the open countryside of Norfolk. Those people who have chosen to live in a rural village with no local amenities, would be unlikely to chose to move into a village which is “significantly bigger” as it would be with the proposed development. Any large increase in the number of houses is likely to negatively impact on the community and the surrounding rural landscape, particularly when entering the village from the Watton direction.
• Traffic within the village is of great concern, and any increase of this is likely to have a significant impact on the local community. Back Lane is a single track lane, not a road that should be used regularly or by large volumes of traffic. The junctions onto the Watton Road are dangerous at best and any increase in volume of cars entering from the Barford direction is going to increase the risk of these junctions.
• The allocated number of houses is disproportionate to the current size of the village. We have limited resources of a hairdresser and garage, with a small village school. There is no shop or other necessary amenities and therefore by growing the size of the village, this would cause a significant increase in vehicle use of the local roads, negatively impacting both the local community and the environment.
• Our essential local resources are strained, at best, currently with the local GP practice unable to provide adequate healthcare to the current population, let alone a large number of new residents.
• Our school is a fantastic local primary school that every child within our village should be able to access. By hugely increasing the village population, it is likely that if a large number of families with young children were to move into the village, that not all children within the village could attend the village school. Each year size is limited to 15 per year to allow for the doubling up of years within each class. This would significantly impact on children within the local area.

See attachment for full representation.

The proposed site lies outside the development area and will significantly impact on the landscape and visual amenity of the village viewed from all directions, particularly the West and North. It is located on a hazardous bend of the B1108 and would be dangerous for pedestrians wishing to use the bus stop. It is close to listed buildings opposite. Water runoff is likely to increase the risk of flooding to properties in Barford and Wramplingham. Barford already suffers from sewage pollution. There are no shops or surgeries in the cluster for sustainable access by walking or bicycle.

Surely the reasons behind turning down the earlier proposals for developing this area of land still stand? This proposed development would completely alter the visual appearance of the village when approaching from the Hingham direction.

Additional residential traffic joining Watton Road from Back Lane from this development would mean collisions waiting to happen.

This development, alongside VCBAR1, would significantly reduce local employment in the village and reduce services available to residents.

I understand the owner of the VCBAR1 site has no intention of selling the land for development. How is this area even still being considered?

Far too dangerous so close to a very busy arterial road. Our local garage would go, one of the few facilities left in the village and vital to us as we need cars and somewhere to have then serviced, MOTed, and repaired etc.

We pray in aid and adopt the objections made by Louise Thomas and Hannah Pintile and see no utility in repeating them here.

The field is elevated 2.5-3 ft above back lane.

Firstly, significant volumes of water draining off the field and down our drive will be exacerbated by this development. Secondly, we will be looking up at it from the rear of our house as it towers over us and our neighbours.

Back Lane will inevitably become busier to accommodate new residents need to access their homes.

If development proceeds we fear future "mission creep" expansion across the field.

-dangerous to increase traffic volumes on already small roads a very dangerous blind bend
-exacerbating existing flooding issues within the village
-impact on landscape
-no amenities to support the additional population

Dangerous increase in traffic due to size of road and poor visibility from junction.

The B1108 is a very busy road and adding a new estate where more cars will be turning off the main road or trying to join will cause even more issues. There would be more traffic trying to use Back lane which is too small to support that. It would no longer be safe to use the post box on Cock Street. Losing the well used businesses in the village would have a negative impact on the village as jobs would be lost and businesses taken way from the area. Flooding and drainage would still be an issue.

Is this a joke?
Losing jobs and businesses from the village and adding 20-40 houses onto a blind bend for a busy road into the city. The B1108 is a very dangerous road, especially turning right to go down Cock Street. The development would significantly impact the landscape with an increase on noise pollution, as well as harm local wildlife.