QUESTION 6: Do you agree with the boundary of revised allocation VC BAW1 REV, Land to the east of Stocks Hill, Bawburgh, to facilitate a reduced density of up to 35 dwellings on an area of 1.9ha? Please explain your response.

Totally out of kilter for the village. A pathetic excuse to deal with the issue of density by increasing the size of the site, how dare you! This site does not tick one box in terms of Michael Gove’s new housing policy. It will severely affect the character of our tiny village, impinges on our green belt and built on class
3 farmland, next to a conservation area. How many reasons do you want to have before someone with half a degree of decency realises that this proposal is flawed in EVERY regard. SNDC motto. Working with you, working for you. NO YOU ARE NOT!

I find it unforgivable that you have taken the term “density” as an excuse to increase the size of the parcel of land to ‘fit’ with what you are trying to achieve. We DON’T want this site at all! This is class 3 farmland, a greenfield site right in the middle of our tiny village, adjoining a conservation area and within the southern by-pass protection zone. It is criminal that you would even consider sticking 35 houses into this parcel of land, destroying the look and feel of our tiny village for ever! This would be vandalism of our countryside beyond imagination. Thank you for listening.

You have taken the liberty to skew the meaning of “density” by further increasing the size of the parcel of land and its unforgivable! . Michael Gove has laid out his new plans. NO to green fields. NO to farmland. NO to changing the look and feel of villages for good. The ‘density’ is not the issue. It’s 35 houses in the middle of a tiny village with NO services or amenities, except an over-subscribed school that is the issue. There is a multitude of alternative brown field sites or in-fills such as Long Stratton by-pass that could easily take the strain.

I thoroughly object to the increase in hectares for this site. You have abused the work “density” as raised by the residents who were prepared to work with you to create a small development of bungalows as we have seen created opposite this site and yet you have chosen to deal with the density question by increasing the size of the land. What an absolute outrage!! How dare you?! This site is a green field, farm land, next to a conservation area in a tiny village with no shops or public transport. What are you trying to do here, break every rule in the book!

This development is not what the neighbourhood wants and that has been confirmed as being important. Traffic is already a huge problem in the village. The school is oversubscribed. We have no public transport, doctor or shop. No pavements or cycle path. The main road is already a ratrun and 35 new houses will add a considerable amount of journeys through the village. The sewers are old and may not cope

To expand this area would be completely obserd! The previous objections have not been listened to at all. We do not have amenities and services to provide for these people, there is a school and a pub.
The new houses would significantly alter the character of the area and cause irreversible damage to the character of the village! It would split the view we currently have of the good category 3 green belt land. This land is in the southern bypass protection zone and a loss of category 3 agricultural land. Flooding is already an issue within the village and has got worse since the other house's have been built. Flooding would be a huge issue.

We do not have amenities and services to provide for these people, there is a school and a pub.
The new houses would significantly alter the character of the area and cause irreversible damage to the character of the village! It would split the view we currently have of the good category 3 green belt land. This land is in the southern bypass protection zone and a loss of category 3 agricultural land. Flooding is already an issue within the village and has got worse since the other house's have been built. Flooding would be a huge issue.

We do not support the expanded site portal due to 'density' concerns for the following reasons:

1. Density has never been a concern before, when shoe-horning multiple new homes into our already crowded village.

2. Mr Michael Gove has made it clear that when new proposals threaten the charm, character and existing aesthetic of an area, they can be denied permission top go ahead. We have already suffered TWO developments that have altered the look, feel, and congestion of our village greatly. The new increased development plan would significantly damage the charm of Bawburgh, by continuing to reduce views across the river valley and by reducing clear visible breaks ion construction phases throughout the village. Also, no houses are selling right now because of the constant new house threat.

3. Gove also stated that developments can be blocked when they impinge on green belt land. The prosed site is directly on a Greenfield site, classed as category 3 agricultural land.

4. The council has already received excessive objections to this proposal, yet not only has it not been dropped, it is being expanded? This is madness and a clear floating of Gove's declaration that local communities would be given more say in new development proposals. We have collectively made it clear that more houses are not welcome or appropriate for our levels of infrastructure, yet the council deems it right to not only ignore us, but INCREASE the latest development.

5. More houses, across a larger development site, will increase water run off and river levels, which are already a critical problem in Bawburgh. We have countless flooding incidents every single year, which close the village off almost entirely. Stocks Hill and New Road are both subject to massive flooding every time we have moderate rainfall and the drain system in Bawburgh is constantly overflowing through our streets, making it unsafe for cyclists and pedestrians, as well as motorists. This is extra concerning given that we have a primary school in situ.

6. More groundworks will hasten nutrient discharge in the area.

7. As it stands, Bawburgh, including the proposed site, are fully contained within the Southern Bypass Protection Zone. This means that there should not even be an option for this, let alone consultations progressing. The development would be man illegal build.

8. Category 3 agricultural land is at risk throughout the country, with the government supporting its protection, to ensure domestic food security. As a farming county. Norfolk should be leading by example and not swapping viable farming land for unsightly new build developments.

We do not support the expanded site portal due to 'density' concerns for the following reasons:

1. Density has never been a concern before, when shoe-horning multiple new homes into our already crowded village.

2. Mr Michael Gove has made it clear that when new proposals threaten the charm, character and existing aesthetic of an area, they can be denied permission top go ahead. We have already suffered TWO developments that have altered the look, feel, and congestion of our village greatly. The new increased development plan would significantly damage the charm of Bawburgh, by continuing to reduce views across the river valley and by reducing clear visible breaks ion construction phases throughout the village. Also, no houses are selling right now because of the constant new house threat.

3. Gove also stated that developments can be blocked when they impinge on green belt land. The prosed site is directly on a Greenfield site, classed as category 3 agricultural land.

4. The council has already received excessive objections to this proposal, yet not only has it not been dropped, it is being expanded? This is madness and a clear floating of Gove's declaration that local communities would be given more say in new development proposals. We have collectively made it clear that more houses are not welcome or appropriate for our levels of infrastructure, yet the council deems it right to not only ignore us, but INCREASE the latest development.

5. More houses, across a larger development site, will increase water run off and river levels, which are already a critical problem in Bawburgh. We have countless flooding incidents every single year, which close the village off almost entirely. Stocks Hill and New Road are both subject to massive flooding every time we have moderate rainfall and the drain system in Bawburgh is constantly overflowing through our streets, making it unsafe for cyclists and pedestrians, as well as motorists. This is extra concerning given that we have a primary school in situ.

6. More groundworks will hasten nutrient discharge in the area.

7. As it stands, Bawburgh, including the proposed site, are fully contained within the Southern Bypass Protection Zone. This means that there should not even be an option for this, let alone consultations progressing. The development would be man illegal build.

8. Category 3 agricultural land is at risk throughout the country, with the government supporting its protection, to ensure domestic food security. As a farming county. Norfolk should be leading by example and not swapping viable farming land for unsightly new build developments.

Traffic in the village horrendous, used as a rat run already, 35 new houses with no bus service implies 70 more cars in constant use.
Entrance to proposed development on brow of hill quite dangerous.
Historic bridge needs no more traffic
No shop, doctor, bus service, pavements.
Flooding is a huge problem - building over good drainage land will only exarcerbate.
Sewage/drainage system cannot cope now.

The development would irreversibly damage the character of this conservation village by impacting the views across the river valley. The development would also irreversibly remove the area of greenfield which is Category 3 agricultural land. SNDC's mission is to 'work with us, working for us', yet allowing this development would indicate that there is no intention to commit to their mission, disregarding the objections submitted to the plan by the village. The development is within the Southern Bypass Protection Zone and should not therefore go ahead.

Stuart Malone - The development would alter the character of the area by significant loss of the views across the valley. The increased area of the development would irreversibly remove more of the greenfield site which is Category 3 agricultural land. Despite receiving many objections from Bawburgh, the proposal for this development has not been discontinued - there is little evidence of SNDC's mission of 'working with you, working for you' with this scheme. Bawburgh and the proposed building site are completely within the Southern Bypass Protection Zone and therefore the development should not go ahead.

We need our village to remain a safe, clean and happy environment. To allow these unnecessary plans to go ahead would bring absolute devastation to our village. We already suffer with constant flooding in the village and If the plan goes ahead this will only increase the volume of flooding. The village suffers now with the amount of vehicles that pass through, this would increase greatly, when you take into consideration that we have no bus service. There will also be an increased strain on the already over subscribed school.

Having lived at the foot of the bridge in Bawburgh for nearly 40 years, we are extremely concerned at the risk of flooding being exacerbated by the run-off from the proposed development. As a result of the two recent much smaller developments on Stocks Hill, we have witnessed a torrent of water rushing down the hill into an already saturated river system after heavy rain. See attached photographic evidence from October 2023. We have already had sandbags at the ready this year and believe further development may be the tipping point beyond which the river and water meadows can not cope. If the planned development causes our house to be flooded in future, we hope the Council will bear the full responsibility for clear up costs.
The proposed land is also a green field site within the Southern Bypass protection zone and should not be built on at all. We are sure this is the prevailing view of the village, who South Norfolk claim to be working with and for, and whose views should be respected according to Mr Gove.
.

Having lived at the foot of the bridge in Bawburgh for nearly 40 years, we are extremely concerned at the risk of flooding being exacerbated by the run-off from the proposed development. As a result of the two recent much smaller developments on Stocks Hill, we have witnessed a torrent of water rushing down the hill into an already saturated river system after heavy rain. We have already had sandbags at the ready this year and believe further development may be the tipping point beyond which the river and water meadows can not cope. If the planned development causes our house to be flooded in future, we hope the Council will bear the full responsibility for clear up costs.
The proposed land is also a green field site within the Southern Bypass protection zone and should not be built on at all. We are sure this is the prevailing view of the village, who South Norfolk claim to be working with and for, and whose views should be respected according to Mr Gove.

Bawburgh has been subject to two small developments of bungalows in the last eight years.

The proposal of 35 properties is significant in terms of the total number of residents. This could increase the population of the village by more then 10%.

Bawburgh does not have suitable amenities and pretty much zero public transport.

The larger amenity area could mean greater water run off and increased flow into the river. Flooding is already a huge concern.

1) This considerable new proposed development would change the character of the village and would block the existing views.

2)The roads in the village are already very busy and dangerous for those walking, they could not cope well with traffic movements from an additional 35 properties.

3) The road outside the development is already prone to flooding. Arable land will take rainfall for better than any housing development.

4) Waste water may go to Whitlingham but will it be properly disposed of there? Water companies are not averse to releasing untreated water into rivers - stop the potential and leave this land as farmland.

5) Too much is being built on now - keep building to Brownfield sites.

6)The local school is oversubscribed already so no space for additional pupils form these new homes.

7)There is only a pub, village hall and (oversubscribed) primary school - no facilities locally for employment or leisure without using those (already busy) roads.

8)"Work for Us" SNDC and build this development on more suitable sites.

Why destroy a lovely village which has been a picturesque village on the outskirts of Norwich for many, many years where there are numerous Brownfield sites around the area.

Bawburgh is subject to flooding already. Any further development will only ADD to this. We know this!!

People enjoy coming to this lovely village. Why spoil it??

35 dwellings is Not a reduction in density. Bawburgh already has 10 new builds on Stocks Hill so has contributed to a South Norfolk housing shortage. The village roads are unsuitable for increase in traffic. Total lack of "services" would mean home owners reliant on cars. Already over-subscribed Health Centres locally. Detrimental environmental impact of proposed site on picturesque Yare valley. Previous Clover developments are unsightly, high density blots on the landscape.

I am writing to ask you not to grant planning permission for a further 35 houses to be built on Stocks Hill, Bawburgh.

The Bridge - Because of where I live, one of my personal concerns is the three hundred year old, scheduled monument bridge (number 1003926), which is battered by traffic and not coping with the already heavy load of cars and lorries (mostly using the village as a rat run.)

Floods - The attached photographs were taken in 2020, but the floods this year were at least as bad. Two of the photographs are of Stocks Hill, the main road into Bawburgh, and New Road which leads to Bowthorpe. The third photograph is of the bridge, taken before the water became really deep. The house in the background is mine. With the news at the moment dominated by fears of flooding, building more houses on the hill above the village has to be a serious mistake. Two years ago, a police officer knocked at my door and those of neighbours. He asked whether we had anywhere else to go, as the river may soon flood across to us. Thankfully it didn’t happen but roads through the village have flooded this year and just before Christmas a car had to be pulled out of a flood here. If there is even a slight possibility that buildings on the hill cause worse flooding, South Norfolk Council will be responsible.

Facilities - The lack of facilities, including pavements, shops, and buses make the arrival of more people completely unsuitable. We have been told that a bus stop could be put at the top of Stocks Hill, on the Watton Road. The walk to and from the Watton Road to catch a bus would be very dangerous, there is no path or street lights on Stocks Hill, a mile long, winding road.

Agriculture - The planned site is on category 3 agricultural land. Can we really afford to lose more good agricultural land?

Bawburgh is completely within the Southern Bypass Protection Zone.

Bawburgh is a beautiful unspoiled village and conservation area. We are proud of, and must protect its ancient history. I have loved living here for the past 42 years, and hope to carry on living here safely.

I object to the new boundary as the revised allocation of 35 dwellings is still far too high (80% too high). The boundary increase is taking away even more grade 3 agricultural land.

The proposed increase of land which will be built will change the character of the old village even more. The open country space the village of Bawburgh is known for will be lost for ever.

"Mr Gove will allow councils to slash the number of planned homes if development would significantly change the character of an area, according to The Times."

The council has provided misinformation for the Village Cluster Housing Allocations regarding Bawburgh

Services and Community Facilities
4.3." Bawburgh has a range of facilities including the primary school, village hall and public house. There is an infrequent bus service to Wymondham".

Bawburgh ONLY has a primary school, village hall and pub. That's the entire range of facilities. If the proposed cluster is approved the population of Bawburgh will significantly increase without the facilities to cope. Lack of primary school places for example.

"Infrequent bus service" the bus runs Mon, Wed and Fri. People will have to drive to their destination.

See attachment for full representation.

Please see attachment for full representation.

See attachment for full representation.

I would like to see this development happen as I have worked in Bawburgh for 8 years and have never had the opportunity to move closer to where i work as houses for sale are very scarce in the village and unaffordable. Looking at it from local people's point of view if houses are not built in this village residents children are not going to be able to stay in the village.

(N.B. representation was submitted by Jane Ratcliff).

a) My last objections by registered post have not been acknowledged. They were sent by registered mail by the GPO and I have been assured that all respondents should be notified. Thank you and I trust I will receive one following this.

b) The proposed extra land allocation does nothing to contradict the main arguments against the proposed 35 dwellings.

c) The highways have oddly raised no objections ; projecting into the future with a likelihood of at least 50 extra cars servicing these houses, with no daily bus service available this beggars belief. The historic bridge, already in need of repair, providing a main crossing of the yare river through the village , will not be able to cope with this increase in traffic ,without it being damaged further and then needing to be entirely rebuilt, jeopardising the picturesque feel of this period construction. Incidents already on this bridge occur regularly. Cars careering into the opposite houses, cars ending up on the river bank, disputes between pedestrians and drivers, between drivers. The highways need to consider the annual number of accidents already happening, take note and then take stock of a future scenario.

d) Bawburgh Primary school is already over proscribed with villagers currently having to take their children out of the village for schooling. This will only be increased with these houses allowed to be built and add to the traffic flow.

e) The proposed site is a greenfield site grade 3 agricultural land, which Mr Gove MP has stated categorically should not be sacrificed to fulfil local housing needs and indeed it falls within the Southern Bypass Protection Zone. Why are you the SNDC ignoring these most important points, when your very own motto is “Working with you, working for you”

f) The SNDC has misinterpreted our “Services and Community Facilities “ by stating that Bawburgh “has a range of facilities including the primary school, village hall and public house”. Please note this is a misrepresentation. These are the ONLY facilities within the village.There are no shops, chemist, doctors or dentists. Indeed as far away as Hethersett and Wymondham where incomers to the village over the last 30 years have sought doctors and dentists are now at full capacity and newcomers over the last 3 years are forced on to waiting lists.

g) Do you value the opinion of Bawburgh Villagers as the Prime Minister Rishi Sunak would encourage you to do , taking into account our wishes? Please do so and put into practice your very own motto .

If the answer to the above is “No”, then please have the decency as part of the democratic decision making process to come and address the Villagers as part of a public meeting to offer an explanation.

(N.B. This representation was submitted by Mr Stanley Fisk).

This site, at whatever size is totally unsuitable for such a tiny village. The character of the village will change and be destroyed for good. regardless of density the site is totally out of kilter. Here's why:

It's Greenfield.

It adjoins a Conservation Area.

it will totally destroy the beautiful, unspoilt views of the Yare Valley.

The river at the bottom of this site has flooded and broken its banks three times in three months, closing roads and flooding homes.

We have no bus route, forcing people into cars.

We have no shops, forcing people into cars.

Our school is at full capacity.

The site is within the legally binding Southern Bypass Protection Zone.

The site is on the crest of a steep hill and on a blind bend on a road that saw a fatal accident last year.

Please see common sense here. Bawburgh is a longstanding quintessential Norfolk village with 2 ancient monuments at risk of being washed away by flood water exacerbated by storm water run-off. Please don't destroy our village.

See attachments for full representation.

As per Government changes to planning, this development would significantly alter the character of the area as there are no existing developments of this size. It would irreversibly damage the village character which is a conservation village.

The site is completely within the Southern Bypass Protection Zone, impinging on the Green Belt and remove a greenfield site which is Cat. 3 agricultural land the loss of which should be considered in relation to the future food security of the country.

Stocks Hill already suffers with water run-off from surrounding fields, this will make the flooding issues in the village significantly worse.

The Councils mission statements is "working with you, working for you" - not in this case it isn't. There are no facilities in the village which means more car journeys and traffic pollution for villagers.