QUESTION 5a: Do you agree with the allocation of SN0055, Land east of Spur Road and south of Norwich Road, Barnham Broom, for approximately 15 dwellings on an area of 1.0ha? Please explain your response.

Serves well as an extension to the village without major effect on its character.

- Outside development boundary
- Loss of greenfield site, trees, hedges
- Often flooded with surface water most of winter
- Not sure sewers would cope with extra demand
- Estate would change character of that part of the village
- Spur Rd narrow with no footpath

We have tried to buy this land so find it odd that he wants to sell just to make money.
Outside development boundary
Loss of greenfield site, trees.
Land has always been for Grazing.
Often flooded with surface water in winter on Spur Road
We have personally lost enough by the previous owner selling our garden for infill housing, should we also loose out rear view as well.
Estate would change character of that part of the village
Spur Rd narrow and you have made this road the main entry in to the village so it will make it worse

The village has had enough recent, good, development. However, SN0055 is excessive for a rural village.
The site would need an entrance/exit onto Spur Road, used as a speedy cut through for many large vans and other vehicles. This road is narrow (I have had my wing mirror knocked off) and is in desperate need of improvement in surface but, if this development goes ahead, of widening to allow each way traffic. At present, vehicles often have to halt and pull up on the verges.
I assume access onto the Norwich Rd is dismissed because of the bend as one enters the village. I would object strongly if this was proposed.
In general, as I am not directly adjacent to the SN0055 area, this is not a case of NIMB ! However, the cottages opposite me have very short back gardens and the stable residents presumably moved to and live there as they have some peace at the rear. If I was on that side of the road, I would more strongly object.
I am not in favour of further development in the village.

On behalf of the parish council we do not agree with the proposed allocation of land for approximately 15 dwellings identified as SN0055. Our objections are based upon the following observations:-

The current plan has already identified SN0018SL (1 ha) 15 dwellings and SN4051 (1.44 ha) 40 dwellings within a village of 225 properties and you propose a further 15 properties, which would increase our village size by 32%. Our appraisal is that this is too much for our current support services including highways, water and sewerage infrastructure. We have previously raised our concerns under 2023/0863 which you have accepted and refused.
The proposed site SN0055 is completely outside the village outside the parish development line and we do not believe that your proposal enhances the surrounding existing dwellings or the landscape sufficiently to warrant support.
The site was previously proposed as a build for 25 dwellings and realistically any developer will seek to maximise their investment, hence our scepticism over this proposal and the numbers you advance. We evidence your decision 2021/2523 which is a relatively small plot of land backing onto Spur Road that you have approved for 5 properties, against our views.
There is also an existing 3 build on an adjoining piece of land 2022/3086, which we have supported and appears to only awaiting neutrality agreement
There are strong local concerns regarding this proposal, which if approved at this stage will meet with opposition at planning.
The parish council believes that there are alternative sites within the parish that would be more acceptable.

Spur Rd is not a well maintained road. Floods are frequent. The land proposed is meadow land and is important as although it is grazed, it is not farmed, nor is it built on, making it unique in the village. We need spaces such as this to ensure wildlife and flooding is mitigated. Too many properties have already been built in the village that have resulted in either ditches being filled in and ponds destroyed.The outcome of this was starkly seen when all the houses on Spur Rd opposite this specific field had their driveways and gardens flooded and some buildings were at risk of flooding in Oct 23. Having been a resident for over 30 years I have seen the floods increase in frequency at an alarming rate over the last 10 years.

- Additional loss of land currently used for agricultural purposes (e.g grazing sheep)
- Site outside the existing village boundary
- Frequency of flooding evident on Spur Road
- Blind corner on entering village - increased traffic exiting a probable issue - Spur Road does not cope with 2 way traffic now
- Additional strain of development upon basic infrastructure (e.g drainage, sewage)
- Concern at scale of developments across the whole village - proposals are not consistent with a coherent plan for the village but appear to be random in nature
- Lack of awareness of residents to proposals

See attachment for full representation.

See attachments for full representation.

The suggested area is outside the settlement limit. Unclear why this land has been identified outside the settlement limit for development when other land in the village without housing is in the settlement limit and not planned for development (Norwich Road, opposite woodland)
SNDC notes in consultation document, “there is a limited bus service to Norwich and Wymondham”. The housing development will increase the number of cars in the village, given the lack of public transport. In the 2021 Census, every house within the output area this development would fall into (E00137062) had at least one car and over 70% had two cars.
Spur Road is a small lane which cannot cope with the number of cars which currently use this road, this development would increase the number of cars and degradation of the road.
Access via Norwich Road is on a blind bend. Many cars do not currently obey the speed limit on this stretch of road.
Field proposed for development frequently floods, even with a small amount of rain. The amount of flooding has increased over the last 35 years.
The field is used daily by birds of prey for hunting (sparrowhawks, red kites, buzzards, owls, kestrel – some of which are on the British Trust for Ornithology Birds of Conservation Concern Amber List. The hedgerow along Spur Road and the hedges of houses bordering the field are also used by many garden birds including those on the BTO Red List and small mammals. Development of this field is likely to contribute to a decline in the number of birds and mammals using this area of the village.
Field is also used by bats.
Current footpath does not extend to this part of the village.
New houses would overlook existing housing along Spur Road and Norwich Road possibly with a direct line of site into existing houses and gardens.

Poor access to/from already narrow Spur Road whilst Norwich Road has limited visibility.
Better footpaths would be required along Norwich Road & Spur Road.
Adjacent properties will be affected by any development.
Spur Road has suffered from flooding due to run-off from adjacent fields.
Infra-structure, especially for wastewater, is already struggling.
Development is not in keeping with the village’s general layout.
Limited awareness of this and other potential development sites.
A village should not be allowed to expand significantly without serious consideration being given to the overall effect to those who live here because it is just that, a village.

Outside development boundary.
Loss of natural habitat for wildlife.
Spur Road too narrow to cope with extra traffic, making it dangerous for walkers and cyclists.
The road is poorly maintained, regularly wet with surface water and frequently floods.
Drainage and sewers struggle to cope at the moment so would not support another 15 houses.
The new build houses would overlook existing properties.

See attachment for full representation.

Spur Road floods regularly at the North end and the proposed field site is waterlogged for long periods after rain.
Sewerage system could struggle, never intended to accommodate the extra housing already in the village.
Spur road is too narrow for two way traffic. Extra vehicles will compound the problem.
Loss of a green field site and hedging for wildlife.
Approaching the village along Norwich Road there is a blind bend just before the proposed site entrance.
There is not an existing footpath in Spur Road or along Norwich Road directly to site entrance.

See attachment for full representation.

We object on the grounds of the extra traffic onto both Norwich Rd and Spur Rd would be dangerous at this junction. Regular flooding occurs on Spur Rd and the drainage in this area of Norwich Rd regularly smells indicating the drainage is not adequate for extra housing.

I do not agree with further dwellings in Barnham Broom. There is not sufficient infrastructure to support this development, the area is prone to flooding and would put further pressure on the already stretched services. For example, GP surgeries and dental services are over prescribed and already cannot meet demand. I know this from experience from working in a GP Surgery locally.

I disagree with more dwellings being added to our local community as it currently struggles with the capacity we currently have.

Working as an emergency Paramedic, I understand Local healthcare infrastructure of GP surgeries, hospitals and dentistry are already struggling within Norfolk and there is little evidence of property development supporting this infrastructure after promise of new surgeries etc.

Furthermore the location is poor, Spur Road has flooded last year causing great distress to the residents on this road. The adjacent Norwich Road has also experienced flooding multiple times in the past couple of months with minimal rain fall

1. Drainage/sewerage on Spur Road is inadequate with regular blockages.
2. Spur Road is an extremely busy road with cars driving at excessive speeds, and no pavement. This makes it already an unsafe area for young children and families to walk. Adding further traffic will exacerbate this already unsafe road.
3. Our property suffered flooding recently with damage to belongings, due to inadequate maintenance of drainage.
4. Power cuts on an often weekly basis with the outages being lengthy - the infrastructure is clearly not adequate.
5. Damage to already limited wildlife will be extensive.
6. UNSPECIFIED amount of houses?

After discussion of the proposal for our neighbouring parishes we would support the view taken by the directly affected Parish Council., in this case Barnham Broom. This is subject to clarification of the specific points mentioned under point 5b that would directly impact our residents.

Approximately one third of the sites that have been selected for Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan - Alternative Sites & Focused Changes (Reg. 18) are within my Wicklewood Ward. You may not be surprised that I have received considerable enquiries and concerns from residents in the three villages of Barford, Barnham Broom and Wicklewood, which I will attempt to reflect in this response.

The four sites in question are: SN600, Land north of Chapel Street, Barford, SN0552REVC, Land at Watton Road, Barford, SN0055, Land east of Spur Road and south of Norwich Road, Barnham Broom, and VC WIC1 REV, Land to the south of Wicklewood Primary School. There are some common concerns that apply to these sites which I list in no particular priority order.

Flooding

In each of these villages surface water flooding is a major concern and indeed discussion with stakeholders over mitigation in all these villages has been ongoing, in the case of Barford and Wicklewood for a considerable time. I want to ensure that in your deliberations the existing problems of surface water flooding and the potential for making things worse has been properly considered. Any doubts over the impact that further large scale development in these villages will have on surface water flooding should rule out these sites as credible for additional development of the scale proposed. In my opinion it is no coincidence that large scale development in North Wymondham has had an adverse effect on the River Tiffey, causing devasting damage to homes during periods of heavy rainfall on communities downstream in Barford and Wramplingham.

Scale, Density and Protecting the Rural Lanscape

I must stress that I am not in any way against some appropriate development in rural villages. When the village clusters scheme was first introduced I supported the idea of small scale developments as a way of ensuring our rural villages remain sustainable in the future. However, increasing housing in a concentration of relatively small villages north of Wymondham over a relatively short time, will in my view have the potential to damage the rural character, important landscapes and bucolic nature of these communities. This is made more serious when the necessary infrastructure (health care, education, retail, transport) to support this growth either lags behind construction or simply does not feature.

SNVC objective 3 states – ‘Ensure that the scale, location and density of housing is well related to the form and character of existing villages, protects the historic environment, including protected landscapes, and ensures appropriate landscaping measures are delivered as part of new development.’ Increasing the development boundaries into new green field sites, which are detached from existing historic development, will inevitably change the character of these villages and will fail to protect much cherished and special landscapes. No amount of sensitive landscaping can replace a landscape that has been identified as needing protection as is the case in Wicklewood.

Approximately one third of the sites that have been selected for Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan - Alternative Sites & Focused Changes (Reg. 18) are within my Wicklewood Ward. You may not be surprised that I have received considerable enquiries and concerns from residents in the three villages of Barford, Barnham Broom and Wicklewood, which I will attempt to reflect in this response.

The four sites in question are: SN600, Land north of Chapel Street, Barford, SN0552REVC, Land at Watton Road, Barford, SN0055, Land east of Spur Road and south of Norwich Road, Barnham Broom, and VC WIC1 REV, Land to the south of Wicklewood Primary School. There are some common concerns that apply to these sites which I list in no particular priority order.

Flooding

In each of these villages surface water flooding is a major concern and indeed discussion with stakeholders over mitigation in all these villages has been ongoing, in the case of Barford and Wicklewood for a considerable time. I want to ensure that in your deliberations the existing problems of surface water flooding and the potential for making things worse has been properly considered. Any doubts over the impact that further large scale development in these villages will have on surface water flooding should rule out these sites as credible for additional development of the scale proposed. In my opinion it is no coincidence that large scale development in North Wymondham has had an adverse effect on the River Tiffey, causing devasting damage to homes during periods of heavy rainfall on communities downstream in Barford and Wramplingham.

Scale, Density and Protecting the Rural Lanscape

I must stress that I am not in any way against some appropriate development in rural villages. When the village clusters scheme was first introduced I supported the idea of small scale developments as a way of ensuring our rural villages remain sustainable in the future. However, increasing housing in a concentration of relatively small villages north of Wymondham over a relatively short time, will in my view have the potential to damage the rural character, important landscapes and bucolic nature of these communities. This is made more serious when the necessary infrastructure (health care, education, retail, transport) to support this growth either lags behind construction or simply does not feature.

SNVC objective 3 states – ‘Ensure that the scale, location and density of housing is well related to the form and character of existing villages, protects the historic environment, including protected landscapes, and ensures appropriate landscaping measures are delivered as part of new development.’ Increasing the development boundaries into new green field sites, which are detached from existing historic development, will inevitably change the character of these villages and will fail to protect much cherished and special landscapes. No amount of sensitive landscaping can replace a landscape that has been identified as needing protection as is the case in Wicklewood.