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.
Object
Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan - Alternative Sites & Focused Changes (Reg. 18)
Representation ID: 3463
Received: 23/01/2024
Respondent: Ms Pamela Ross
The planning proposal for Cluster Housing is now outdated. The Secretary of State has announced that this development can be prevented because 'it would significantly alter the character of the village'. It would impinge on the Green Belt and greenfield Category 3 Agricultural land.
The development would infringe the protected status of the land (Southern Bypass Protection Zone).
The Council had paid no attention to many prior objections, e.g. lack of amenities; overcrowded, full school; highway dangers; increased traffic over an ill-maintained, over-used, one-lane bridge.
I strongly object to the above Bawburgh housing plan because:
1) The planning proposal for Cluster Housing is now outdated. The Secretary of State has announced that this development can be prevented because 'it would significantly alter the character of the village'. And it would impinge on the Green Belt and involve a greenfield site Category 3 Agricultural land.
2) The development would infringe the protected status of the land (Southern Bypass Protection Zone).
3) The Council had paid no attention to many prior objections, e.g. lack of amenities; overcrowded, full school; highway dangers; increased traffic over an ill-maintained, over-used, one-lane bridge.
4) We have lived in this unique village for over 30 years; we are appalled at this threat, as are most of the villagers, to the beauty and sense of community.
Support
Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan - Alternative Sites & Focused Changes (Reg. 18)
Representation ID: 3464
Received: 23/01/2024
Respondent: Poppyfields (Norfolk) Ltd
The enlarged site area aims to:
- lower density
- offer a range of housing
- provide a good level of green space
- enable a focus viewpoint towards the City
Further to the preliminary engineering and landscape studies etc. supporting the principal, more detailed studies have been undertaken and continue to establish that the above key points are achievable. These are being progressed accordingly.
There is little doubt that the land will meet the SNC Village Clusters Housing Allocation Local Plan policies with early delivery envisaged.
I write with regards to the current consultation regarding the continued proposal to allocate land here for 35 homes but now on an enlarged site area. With the aims to:
- lower density
- offer a range of housing
- provide a good level of green space
- enable a focus viewpoint towards the City (acknowledging local plan landscape strategy and the underlain landscape character assessment)
I’m pleased to say, further to the preliminary engineering and landscape studies et cetera supporting the principal, more detailed studies have been undertaken and continue; together with early sketch layouts – which establish that the above key points are achievable. These are being progressed by a local quality housebuilder with a social ethos, who have recently entered into a legal agreement to purchase the land subject to their achieving planning permission accordingly.
It therefore leaves little doubt that the land will meet the SNC Village Clusters Housing Allocation Local Plan policies, and having a robust experienced housebuilder taking matters forward as we speak, with early delivery envisaged.
Object
Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan - Alternative Sites & Focused Changes (Reg. 18)
Representation ID: 3465
Received: 26/01/2024
Respondent: Mr Rob Ratcliff
The local primary school is oversubscribed and already some families leave village for schooling. Some current school places are taken by children from outside the village. Must be aware of damage done to young children’s education and emotional development by recent lengthy school closures due to Covid and industrial action.
35 new houses would bring about estimated 35 additional cars as well as delivery vehicles etc using a busy narrow road which becomes a single track as it crosses the ancient bridge over the river. Used by pedestrians and cyclists and the occasional horse rider as well as cars, vans, lorries and buses. Already, the traffic requires more robust control of excessive speed. What is to be done about this?
Yare valley is designated as a Greenfield Site within the Southern Bypass Protection Zone. It overlooks a conservation area. Local residents view that the whole ambience of the village would be adversely affected by this proposed development. Both the Prime Minister and Housing and Communities Minister have clearly stated that the wishes of the neighbourhood should be taken into account with planning matters.
a) Although the village benefits from a local primary school the school is oversubscribed and already some families are obliged to take their children to other villages and towns. Some current school places are taken by children from outside the village, but obviously these children and future siblings of school age cannot be summarily removed.
Admission arrangements are determined by Norfolk County Council who I am sure are aware of the damage done to young children’s education and emotional development by recent lengthy school closures due to Covid and industrial action.
So there are no immediate school places for incomers and there is no clear view as to when the situation might change.
b) 35 new houses on Stocks Hill would bring about a significant increase in traffic. At a conservative estimate there would be 35 additional cars as well as delivery vehicles etc using a busy narrow road which becomes a single track as it crosses the ancient bridge over the river.
This single track is used by pedestrians (including dog walkers and children), cyclists and the occasional horse rider as well as cars, vans, lorries and buses.
Already, the traffic through the village requires more robust control of excessive speed. What procedures, if any, are envisaged to be part of the proposal to build these additional houses?
c) This proposed site in the Yare valley is designated as a Greenfield Site within the Southern Bypass Protection Zone. It overlooks a conservation area with a range of rare and beautiful local buildings.
It is the view of many local residents, expressed in local meetings, that the whole ambience of the village would be adversely affected by this proposed development. Both the Prime Minister and Housing and Communities Minister have clearly stated that the wishes of the neighbourhood should be taken into account with planning matters.
Object
Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan - Alternative Sites & Focused Changes (Reg. 18)
Representation ID: 3468
Received: 26/01/2024
Respondent: Collins & Coward Limited
A number of planning considerations would indicate that planning permission for this site would not be granted.
Council accepts that Bawburgh is not part of a 'Cluster' but has been selected due to its primary school. Sustainability is more than education however. Principle is therefore flawed due to lack of other services. Contrary to NPPF. Despite this still one of largest allocations when this suggests it should be lower. Smaller sites can be delivered more quickly.
Highways not considered safety implications on narrow bridge with no alternative.
Council has not calculated what is 'modest' growth. 35 units represents an increase of 15% which is not considered modest.
1.9ha is more akin to urban development than smaller rural development.
Council accepts that while there is conflict, overall the VCHAP present balanced portfolio of development.
25 dwellings per hectare is wholly inappropriate for rural village. Nearby permission (2018/1550) has a density of 9 per hectare. New density is still twice this with no justification.
NPPF 112 states that density should be optimised where sites are well served by public transport, which Bawburgh is not. NPPF 130 states that increases are inappropriate where it would be wholly out of character.
50 units is not small and wholly unacceptable in rural locations.
No highways or footpath improvements been recommended.
Landscape impact not fully considered despite policy requirement for LVA. Should be carried out as part of site assessment. Need to consider loss of views of Yare Valley.
No consideration of Southern Bypass Landscape Protection Zone or the site being Grade 3 Agricultural land.
Primary school is oversubscribed with out of catchment pupils. It would take a number of years to accommodate 10 new pupils generated.
Not health facilities in village and others oversubscribed.
See attachment for full representation.
Object
Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan - Alternative Sites & Focused Changes (Reg. 18)
Representation ID: 3477
Received: 29/01/2024
Respondent: Dr Ian Tait
NPPF Dec23 changed so 1200 units not needed.
Larger area significantly changes village character as more of Yare Valley view removed and as density is highest in village*. More Cat 3a greenbelt land lost needlessly, and is within NSBLPZ but other places in District more suitable*. Council is supposed to be "working for you" but village overwhelming against the development and no benefits to the village*.
*- Gove said these discount building.
Village not part of cluster - no facilities and all homes would need cars so remove.
Extra cars on uncontrolled narrow bridge and blind development entrance not acceptable.
NPPF Dec23 changed so 1200 units not needed.
Larger area significantly changes village character as more of Yare Valley view removed and as density is highest in village*. More Cat 3a greenbelt land lost needlessly, and is within NSBLPZ but other places in District more suitable*. Council is supposed to be "working for you" but village overwhelming against the development and no benefits to the village*.
*- Gove said these discount building.
Village not part of cluster - no facilities and all homes would need cars so remove.
Extra cars on uncontrolled narrow bridge and blind development entrance not acceptable.
Object
Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan - Alternative Sites & Focused Changes (Reg. 18)
Representation ID: 3479
Received: 29/01/2024
Respondent: Mrs Ruth Tait
NPPF Dec23 changed so 1200 units not needed.
Larger area significantly changes village character as more of Yare Valley view removed and also density is highest in village*. More Cat 3a greenbelt land needlessly lost, and is within NSBLPZ but other more suitable places in District*. Council is supposed to be "working for you" but no benefits to village which is overwhelming against the development*.
*- Gove said these discount building.
Village not part of cluster - no facilities and all homes would need cars so remove.
Extra cars on uncontrolled narrow bridge and blind development entrance not acceptable.
NPPF Dec23 changed so 1200 units not needed.
Larger area significantly changes village character as more of Yare Valley view removed and also density is highest in village*. More Cat 3a greenbelt land needlessly lost, and is within NSBLPZ but other more suitable places in District*. Council is supposed to be "working for you" but no benefits to village which is overwhelming against the development*.
*- Gove said these discount building.
Village not part of cluster - no facilities and all homes would need cars so remove.
Extra cars on uncontrolled narrow bridge and blind development entrance not acceptable.
Object
Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan - Alternative Sites & Focused Changes (Reg. 18)
Representation ID: 3491
Received: 25/01/2024
Respondent: Mrs Julie Tudor
Nowhere does it state that Bawburgh is part of a 'Cluster'. It is far removed form any Cluster.
Bawburgh is protected by the Southern Bypass Protection Zone and is exempt from such developments.
The site would ruin the characteristics if the village for good.
The site is Grade 3 Agricultural land, adjoining a Conservation Area.
The village has flooded 3 times in the last month due to excessive stormwater run-off. This water is due to be dumped into the Yare River, lifting or adding to nutrient loads.
The village has no amenities, forcing residents into their cars adding another 400 traffic movements per day onto a road that saw a fatal accident last year.
I feel compelled to write to you to object to the proposed development of 35 houses in our beautiful tiny village. The reasons for my objection are listed below:
Nowhere in any document relating to the Village Clusters does it state that Bawburgh is part of a 'Cluster'. It is in fact as far removed form any Cluster that I can think of!
Bawburgh is protected by the Southern Bypass Protection Zone and within this legal document is exempt from such developments.
The site is completely out of kilter with the village and 35 modern boxes would ruin the characteristics if the village for good.
The site is Grade 3 Agricultural land, adjoining a Conservation Area.
The village has flooded 3 times in the last month due to excessive stormwater run-off. This water is due to be dumped into the Yare River, lifting or adding to nutrient loads.
The village has no amenities, forcing residents (Even with children to go to school) into their cars adding another 400 traffic movements per day onto our tiny but dangerous road that has seen a fatal accident last year.
PLEASE STOP THIS NONSENSE. SEE SENSE.
Object
Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan - Alternative Sites & Focused Changes (Reg. 18)
Representation ID: 3516
Received: 29/01/2024
Respondent: Ms Karen Gallant
Michael Gove said new development can be prevented if it would significantly alter the character of an area. The increased development would further irreversibly damage the character of the village with loss of views and reduced visual break.
Mr Gove also said a development could be prevented if it impinged on the green belt. The increased area would remove greenfield Category 3 agricultural land which threatens UK food supply.
Mr Gove also said that the local communities would have more of a say about new developments. You have received more objections from Bawburgh than any other village yet the proposal has not been dropped.
The number of proposed houses plus the larger area could mean greater water run off and exacerbate existing flooding problems and more nutrient discharge.
Bawburgh and the proposed building site are completely within the Southern Bypass Protection Zone.
I cannot see how to respond via your website so have shown my comments below.
These are my objections to the proposed development:
Michael Gove said a new development can be prevented if it would significantly alter the character of an area. The increased development would further irreversibly damage the character of the village, with a significant loss of views across the river valley and a reduced visual break in the clear and distinctive pattern of village development.
Mr Gove also said a development could be prevented if it impinged on the green belt. The increased area would irreversibly remove even more of a greenfield site which is Category 3 agricultural land.
Mr Gove also said that the local communities would have more of a say about new developments and South Norfolk Council`s mission is "Working with you, working for you". I understand the Council has received more objections from Bawburgh than any other village yet the proposal and has yet been dropped.
The number of proposed houses plus the larger amenity area could mean greater water run off, more water flow into the river and so exacerbate the existing flooding problems. The larger area of groundwork may contribute to more nutrient discharge.
Bawburgh and the proposed building site are completely within the Southern Bypass Protection Zone and so the development should not go ahead.
The constant incremental and irreversible loss of Category 3 agricultural land on the UK`s food supply needs to be considered.
Object
Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan - Alternative Sites & Focused Changes (Reg. 18)
Representation ID: 3518
Received: 31/01/2024
Respondent: Ms Mary Wilkinson
Still does not comply with the Government’s Plan for Housing e.g. green belt protection, communities having a say, community infrastructure and green space, matching local character, respecting the local environment.
It is on a greenfield Category 3 agricultural land, within the Southern Bypass Protection Zone. The proposed ‘buffer’ of trees does not address this problem.
Out of proportion in relation to the size of the village. Recent developments have in total only 15 single-storey dwellings.
Remove view of open countryside and completely changing the character of the village. The site would impinge on Conservation Area.
Few employment opportunities or facilities in the village, no dentist, doctor or shop, no public transport except the once-weekly bus to Wymondham. Cycling, or walking, is dangerous. Would considerably increase the number of cars in the village.
Highways assessment is inadequate, failing to take into account the volume and speed of traffic. The entrance is on the brow of the hill, opposite entrances to the village hall, St. Walstan’s Meadow, and The Warren; cars are parked on the road.
The ancient bridge would be at a greater risk.
Local councils obviously have a duty to provide housing and a duty to protect the countryside, and retain the character. Development on this site would irrevocably change Bawburgh.
OBJECT
Extending the site of the proposed development from 1.4 to 1.9 hectares fails to address the following issues:
• It still does not comply with the Government’s Long Term Plan for Housing e.g. green belt protection, communities having a say in how and where homes are built, accompanied by the right community infrastructure and green space, matching local character, respecting the local environment.
• It is on a greenfield site (Category 3 agricultural land), within the Southern Bypass Protection Zone. The proposed ‘buffer’ of trees does not address this problem.
• The size of the development is out of proportion in relation to the size of the village. Recent developments (St. Walstan’s Meadow and The Warren) have in total only 15 dwellings, all single-storey.
• Instead of a view of open countryside, there would be an estate of 35 two-storey houses, completely changing the character of the village. The site, being adjacent to the Conservation Area, would impinge on it.
• There are very few employment opportunities or facilities in the village, no dentist, doctor or shop, no public transport except the once-weekly bus to Wymondham. Cycling, or walking, is dangerous on a narrow country road such as Stocks Hill. Cars are essential to access services so the development would considerably increase the number of cars in the village.
• The Highways assessment is inadequate, particularly in relation to road safety, failing to take into account the volume and speed of traffic; Stocks Hill is a rat-run; drivers ignore the speed limits; the entrance to the site is on the brow of the hill, opposite entrances to the village hall, St. Walstan’s Meadow, and The Warren; the hall is frequently used for events e.g. the twice-weekly bridge club when the car park is full, and cars are parked on the road.
• The ancient bridge would be at a greater risk than it is already from the increased volume of traffic, as would pedestrians attempting to cross it.
• Local councils obviously have a duty to provide housing, but at the same time, they also have a duty to protect the countryside, and retain the character of small villages which are part of our heritage. A development on this site would affect not only current residents, but irrevocably change Bawburgh - a huge loss for Norfolk and for future generations.
Object
Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan - Alternative Sites & Focused Changes (Reg. 18)
Representation ID: 3534
Received: 31/01/2024
Respondent: Historic England
Whilst there are no designated heritage assets within this site, the site lies immediately to the south of the boundary of the Bawburgh Conservation Area. Any development of this site therefore has the potential to affect the Conservation area and its setting including views into and out of the Conservation area.
We note that the revised allocation boundary has been extended to enable a lower density of development. We broadly welcome this approach.
We reiterate our previous comments in relation to archaeological investigation for this site.
Bullet point 3 states that the HER should be consulted to determine the need for any archaeological surveys prior to development. However, this is different to the recommendation in the HIA which states that ‘Require investigation on the proposed site prior to development commencing to identify and further historic activity’.
In our view, some assessment is needed to inform any planning application.
We therefore advise that bullet point 3 should be amended to read, ‘Planning applications should be supported by archaeological assessment including the results of field evaluation where appropriate.’
See attachment for full representation.
Object
Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan - Alternative Sites & Focused Changes (Reg. 18)
Representation ID: 3553
Received: 30/01/2024
Respondent: Dr Kenneth Webb
Further development in Bawburgh is unsustainable. The current infrastructure, in regards to sewerage disposal, is already inadequate - I have video evidence of sewerage discharge into the river during the last flooding event.
The village is one of the few in Norfolk to be deemed attractive. It is nestled in the Yare Valley and attracts many visitors to enjoy its riverside setting in the summer. Overdevelopment will inevitably destroy the character of this unique community to the detriment of not only the residents, but also the visiting public at large.
Further development in Bawburgh is unsustainable. The current infrastructure, in regards to sewerage disposal, is already inadequate - I have video evidence of sewerage discharge into the river during the last flooding event.
The village is one of the few in Norfolk to be deemed attractive. It is nestled in the Yare Valley and attracts many visitors to enjoy its riverside setting in the summer. Overdevelopment will inevitably destroy the character of this unique community to the detriment of not only the residents, but also the visiting public at large.
Object
Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan - Alternative Sites & Focused Changes (Reg. 18)
Representation ID: 3554
Received: 30/01/2024
Respondent: Mrs Ruth Walford
Secretary of State said recently that new developments could be prevented if it would significantly alter the character of an area. Bawburgh is a conservation village and introducing 35 new homes changes the scale and character of this village.
Flooding and sewerage in the village will be made worse with proposed new houses.
The school is always oversubscribed.
Traffic through the village has increased substantially. 35 houses with potentially two cars per house will further increase road traffic and pollution.
Inevitable that the land would extend eventually further to more houses and then we would be in a huge estate not a conservation village.
Inevitable that the land would extend eventually further to more houses.
Really do not want these 35 houses to be the beginning of such a housing estate and this is what I fear.
There are no local amenities in Bawburgh, no shops or doctors.
1. Mr Michael Gove, the Secretary of State said recently that new developments could be prevented if it would significantly alter the character of an area. There is no question that the intended 35 houses would definitely change the character of our conservation village.
2. Bawburgh is a conservation village and introducing 35 new homes changes the scale and character of this village.
3. Flooding and sewerage in the village has been a problem and can only be made worse with proposed new houses.
4. The school is always oversubscribed and 35 new homes would impact greatly on this delightful village school.
5. Traffic through the village has increased substantially and is used as a rat run form the Watton Road through to the Dereham Road, hence we have had to install speed cameras. Therefore, 35 houses with potentially two cars per house will further increase road traffic and pollution.
6. If 35 houses are allowed to be built then it would be inevitable that the land would extend eventually further to more houses and then we would be in a huge estate not a conservation village.
7. If I had wanted to live in a housing estate I would have moved into one. I really do not want these 35 houses to be the beginning of such a housing estate and this is what I fear - the loss of a conservation village.
8. There are no local amenities in Bawburgh just one pub. No regular buses into Norwich each day, no shops. Doctors are completely overloaded and it's impossible to get an appointment.
Object
Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan - Alternative Sites & Focused Changes (Reg. 18)
Representation ID: 3555
Received: 30/01/2024
Respondent: Mrs Sandra Gunning
Flooding and sewerage in the village will be made worse with proposed new houses.
Bawburgh is a conservation village and introducing 35 new homes changes the scale and character of this village.
The school is always oversubscribed.
Inevitable that the land would extend eventually further to more houses and then we would be in a huge estate not a conservation village.
Traffic through the village has increased substantially. 35 houses with potentially two cars per house will further increase road traffic and pollution.
There are no local amenities in Bawburgh, no shops or doctors.
Really do not want these 35 houses to be the beginning of such a housing estate and this is what I fear.
Secretary of State said recently that new developments could be prevented if it would significantly alter the character of an area.
1. Flooding and sewerage in the village over the 30 years I have lived here has been a problem and can only be made worse with proposed new houses.
2. Bawburgh is a conservation village and introducing 35 new homes changes the scale and character of this village.
3. 35 new homes would impact greatly on the little village school which is always oversubscribed.
4. If 35 houses are allowed to be built then it would be inevitable that the land would extend eventually further to more houses and then we would be in a huge estate not a conservation village.
5. Traffic through the village has increased substantially and is used as a rat run form the Watton Road through to the Dereham Road, hence we have had to install speed cameras. Therefore, 35 houses with potentially two cars per house will further increase road traffic and pollution.
6. There are no local amenities in Bawburgh just one pub. No regular buses into Norwich each day, no shops. Doctors are completely overloaded and it's impossible to get an appointment.
7. I moved form Kent to this conservation village to retire and if I had wanted to live in a housing estate I would have moved into one. I really do not want these 35 houses to be the beginning of such a housing estate and this is what I fear.
8. Mr Michael Gove, the Secretary of State said recently that new developments could be prevented if it would significantly alter the character of an area. There is no question that the intended 35 houses would definitely change the character of our conservation village.
Object
Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan - Alternative Sites & Focused Changes (Reg. 18)
Representation ID: 3556
Received: 01/02/2024
Respondent: Prof Roger Thompson
Appalled by the prospect of 35 houses being plonked on a good agricultural land.
This development would completely destroy the appearance of the Stocks Hill view down to the bridge.
Stocks Hill is already a very dangerous road and the addition of up to 70 new cars, entering at a hazardous stretch with steep hill and blind bend.
Lack of amenities like shops, post office, health centre and public transport, safe entrance paths for pedestrians and shortage of public parking.
I am appalled by the prospect of 35 houses being plonked on a good agricultural land in the heart of Bawburgh.
I have lived here in the Mill for over 30 years and love this beautiful village. This development would completely destroy the appearance of the Stocks Hill view down to the bridge, and would in my view be an act of cultural barbarism.
Stocks Hill is already a very dangerous road and the addition of up to 70 new cars, entering at a hazardous stretch with steep hill and blind bend is bad planning.
Others will have mentioned the lack of amenities like shops, P.O., health centre and public transport, safe entrance paths for pedestrians and shortage of public parking, especially in the summer when the village is overwhelmed by day trippers to Costa Bawburgh.
I base my case on the need to preserve the beauty of traditional villages, their ambiance, their valley views, their protected status and their ecology.
Object
Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan - Alternative Sites & Focused Changes (Reg. 18)
Representation ID: 3557
Received: 30/01/2024
Respondent: Mr George Gunning
Unreasonable and unsound.
Will significantly alter the character of the area and destroy views across river valley. Will go against Government proposal to protect character.
Increased area would remove greenfield site and Category 3 Agricultural Land.
Potential for further land to be developed and village swallowed up by creeping 'urbanisation'.
Completely within Southern Bypass Protection Zone.
Cause greater water run off and more flow into river. Exacerbate flood problems and more nutrient discharge.
Increase number of cars from school traffic and new residents. Access to site is dangerous, Increased environmental damage from traffic. Additional traffic calming would not work due to recent fatal accident.
Current traffic and increase do not appear to have been modelled and therefore impacts cannot be sound. traffic infrastructure at Watton Road and Costessey Park have not been mentioned.
Marlingford and Roundwell travellers sites nearby.
No local amenities, shops or doctors. Limited public transport. This has not been modelled in.
No capacity at primary school.
No walkways or cycleways.
Conservation bridge is vulnerable and dangerous.
Flooding and sewerage is already an issue. Has Anglian Water been approached?
Nearly all traffic comes form outside village, including heavy vehicles.
Environmental pollution evidenced at park and ride site.
See attachment for full representation.
Object
Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan - Alternative Sites & Focused Changes (Reg. 18)
Representation ID: 3560
Received: 01/02/2024
Respondent: Mr Peter Briggs
1. Proposed development would significantly and adversely affect the character of the village (10% increase in size).
2. Stocks Hill and narrow single lane bridge would be overloaded and dangerous as a result of extra traffic.
3. Bawburgh school is already oversubscribed with existing supply of children.
4. Village of Bawburgh is within the existing 'Southern Bypass Protection Zone' and green belt and further major development of 35 houses should NOT be permitted.
1. Proposed development would significantly and adversely affect the character of the village (10% increase in size).
2. Stocks Hill and narrow single lane bridge would be overloaded and dangerous as a result of extra traffic.
3. Bawburgh school is already oversubscribed with existing supply of children.
4. Village of Bawburgh is within the existing 'Southern Bypass Protection Zone' and green belt and further major development of 35 houses should NOT be permitted.
Object
Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan - Alternative Sites & Focused Changes (Reg. 18)
Representation ID: 3561
Received: 01/02/2024
Respondent: Mr Mark Tudor
Agent: Collins & Coward Limited
Objection based on sites ability to mitigate flooding and ability to improve existing drainage deficiencies.
NPPF Chapter 14 sets out response to effects of climate change. The site is within Flood Zone 1 but suffers from run-off. Recent developments include swales which have failed to accommodate recent storms (photos included in attachment). This led to Stocks Hill drainage being overwhelmed and road being flooded.
Some properties on Stocks Hill and Harts Lane flooded. Large parts of New Road impassable.
Would pass a Flood Risk Assessment sequential test for river flooding. However the evidence provided shows it would potentially add to storm run-off even if mitigation is included.
Evidence of wider flooding in Bawburgh included in attachment.
See attachment for full representation.
Object
Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan - Alternative Sites & Focused Changes (Reg. 18)
Representation ID: 3579
Received: 01/02/2024
Respondent: Mr Colin Clark
Bawburgh is a small rural village and 35 dwellings is too much. classified as 'other village' by planning authorities only suitable for 'small' developments. 35 is not 'small'.
Michael Gove states that development should not significantly alter character or impinge on green belt. Proposal will do both.
Bawburgh doe snot have amenities. the pub is not a village pub but a gastro-pub, primary school is oversubscribed.
No bus service. Rely on carts for other services. Adds 2 cars/6 trips per day per new household which is against government goals.
'Make Norfolk Healthier' promotes walking and cycling. Bawburgh has no pavements that lead anywhere. Roads are narrow and unsafe.
Site is on brow of a hill and opposite village hall that already overspills. Extra traffic will make this more dangerous.
Development will have an impact on Conservation Area, such as views into Yare Valley.
Village already floods and proposal would increase run-off and flow into rivers.
Site is opposite village hall and play area, increase in traffic would only add danger.
Within Southern Bypass Protection Zone.
Original proposal was inconsiderate and increasing area has not changed this.
See attachment for full representation.
Comment
Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan - Alternative Sites & Focused Changes (Reg. 18)
Representation ID: 3589
Received: 01/02/2024
Respondent: Anglian Water Services
No objection to this site.
See attachment for full representation.
Object
Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan - Alternative Sites & Focused Changes (Reg. 18)
Representation ID: 3606
Received: 02/02/2024
Respondent: Mr Ian Hancock
The proposed development of 35 is too large and will substantially alter the character of the village and impact on green belt land.
There are no medical facilities or shops in Bawburgh, and the existing primary school is oversubscribed.
Poor public transport links would lead to more car trips. Roads are already narrow with no footpaths or street lighting which will impact pedestrian safety and increase air pollution within the village.
Flooding has worsened recently causing ditches to overflow onto the road in heavy rain. Increasing development will exacerbate this.
The proposed development falls within Southern Bypass Protection Zone.
The proposed development of 35 is too large and will substantially alter the character of the village and impact on green belt land.
There are no medical facilities or shops in Bawburgh, and the existing primary school is oversubscribed.
Poor public transport links would lead to more car trips. Roads are already narrow with no footpaths or street lighting which will impact pedestrian safety and increase air pollution within the village.
Flooding has worsened recently causing ditches to overflow onto the road in heavy rain. Increasing development will exacerbate this.
The proposed development falls within Southern Bypass Protection Zone.
Object
Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan - Alternative Sites & Focused Changes (Reg. 18)
Representation ID: 3616
Received: 02/02/2024
Respondent: Mrs Gwyneth Boswell
We do not agree either with the original or with the revised allocation proposals. 35 new houses on Stocks Hill requiring vehicle entry and exit onto an already massively busy and noisy road with no pavements, and opposite the village hall and St Walstan's vehicle access, will render that hill even more dangerous than is currently is. There are no transport or shop facilities - only a school, pub and village hall. It will be out of character with the village and an environmental threat to the conservation area. Worryingly, the proposed 'reduced density' does not preclude further development.
We do not agree either with the original or with the revised allocation proposals. 35 new houses on Stocks Hill requiring vehicle entry and exit onto an already massively busy and noisy road with no pavements, and opposite the village hall and St Walstan's vehicle access, will render that hill even more dangerous than is currently is. There are no transport or shop facilities - only a school, pub and village hall. It will be out of character with the village and an environmental threat to the conservation area. Worryingly, the proposed 'reduced density' does not preclude further development.
Object
Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan - Alternative Sites & Focused Changes (Reg. 18)
Representation ID: 3691
Received: 04/02/2024
Respondent: Ms Sylvia Kingman
The proposed development would fundamentally put a strain on the village for the following reasons:
1. Greater water run off - we have lived in Bawburgh for 27 years and have never been so close to flooding as in the past 5 years since additional houses have been built. The bridge at the bottom of Stocks Hill cannot cope with the run off from existing houses let alone 35 more.
2. The character of the village is being irreversibly changed by the encirclement of new housing estates in Easton Little Melton and Costessey. There is little actual green belt left.
The proposed development would fundamentally put a strain on the village for the following reasons:
1. Greater water run off - we have lived in Bawburgh for 27 years and have never been so close to flooding as in the past 5 years since additional houses have been built. The bridge at the bottom of Stocks Hill cannot cope with the run off from existing houses let alone 35 more.
2. The character of the village is being irreversibly changed by the encirclement of new housing estates in Easton Little Melton and Costessey. There is little actual green belt left.
Object
Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan - Alternative Sites & Focused Changes (Reg. 18)
Representation ID: 3692
Received: 04/02/2024
Respondent: Mr David Rowson
I object to this development because:
- it would spoil the character of the village for ever
- there is already of lack of facilities in Bawburgh (public transport, footpaths, medical facilities etc)
- Bawburgh is already a rat-run - this would increase the volume of traffic and increase the safety risk to pedestrians
- more water run-off will increase the risk of flooding which seems to be worsening year on year
- in the summer the village green and river is already jam-packed largely from people outside the village. The development will make things worse (anti-social behaviour, littering etc).
I object to this development because:
- it would spoil the character of the village for ever
- there is already of lack of facilities in Bawburgh (public transport, footpaths, medical facilities etc)
- Bawburgh is already a rat-run - this would increase the volume of traffic and increase the safety risk to pedestrians
- more water run-off will increase the risk of flooding which seems to be worsening year on year
- in the summer the village green and river is already jam-packed largely from people outside the village. The development will make things worse (anti-social behaviour, littering etc).
Object
Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan - Alternative Sites & Focused Changes (Reg. 18)
Representation ID: 3697
Received: 04/02/2024
Respondent: Mrs Caroline Hancock
The proposed development of 35 is too large and will; substantially alter the character of the village, impact on green belt land and overlook a conservation area.
The proposed development falls within Southern Bypass Protection Zone.
No medical facilities or shops in Bawburgh, and the primary school is already oversubscribed.
Bawburgh has no regular bus service, no street lighting, no safe access for cycling and no footpaths for getting to facilities outside of the village, therefore car traffic and pollution would increase.
The capacity of sewers in Bawburgh already struggles, so an increase in houses will exacerbate the issue further.
The proposed development of 35 is too large and will; substantially alter the character of the village, impact on green belt land and overlook a conservation area.
The proposed development falls within Southern Bypass Protection Zone.
No medical facilities or shops in Bawburgh, and the primary school is already oversubscribed.
Bawburgh has no regular bus service, no street lighting, no safe access for cycling and no footpaths for getting to facilities outside of the village, therefore car traffic and pollution would increase.
The capacity of sewers in Bawburgh already struggles, so an increase in houses will exacerbate the issue further.
Object
Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan - Alternative Sites & Focused Changes (Reg. 18)
Representation ID: 3698
Received: 04/02/2024
Respondent: Mr Adrian Quinn
I strongly object to this plan. We have no infrastructure in place, i.e, shops, GP surgery, etc. Local GP surgeries are already at breaking point. Roads are narrow and unsuitable for additional vehicles. The village already has an issue with speeding traffic, despite traffic-calming measures put in place. Development will spoil the beautiful view over Yare Valley. The sewerage system cannot cope with existing housing. Plan has failed to address environmental damage, road safety and need for supporting infrastructure. The plan infringes on established Conservation Area. There is strong local objection towards this, which democratically SNDC must take into consideration.
I strongly object to this plan. We have no infrastructure in place, i.e, shops, GP surgery, etc. Local GP surgeries are already at breaking point. Roads are narrow and unsuitable for additional vehicles. The village already has an issue with speeding traffic, despite traffic-calming measures put in place. Development will spoil the beautiful view over Yare Valley. The sewerage system cannot cope with existing housing. Plan has failed to address environmental damage, road safety and need for supporting infrastructure. The plan infringes on established Conservation Area. There is strong local objection towards this, which democratically SNDC must take into consideration.
Object
Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan - Alternative Sites & Focused Changes (Reg. 18)
Representation ID: 3715
Received: 04/02/2024
Respondent: Mrs Frances Plant
A development of 35 homes is unreasonable in our small village community
The proposed land is a greenfield site
It will ruin the landscape and local environment which is a conservation area
It is within the southern Bypass Protection Zone - why is this being ignored?
We have very little facilities for so many more people - certainly not a range
Traffic is already horrendous on stocks hill, it’s dangerous the number and speed of vehicles
Our sewers already cannot cope when it rains, significantly having worsened since the previous development of houses off stocks hill
Don’t ignore our wishes
A development of 35 homes is unreasonable in our small village community
The proposed land is a greenfield site
It will ruin the landscape and local environment which is a conservation area
It is within the southern Bypass Protection Zone - why is this being ignored?
We have very little facilities for so many more people - certainly not a range
Traffic is already horrendous on stocks hill, it’s dangerous the number and speed of vehicles
Our sewers already cannot cope when it rains, significantly having worsened since the previous development of houses off stocks hill
Don’t ignore our wishes
Object
Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan - Alternative Sites & Focused Changes (Reg. 18)
Representation ID: 3717
Received: 04/02/2024
Respondent: Mr James Plant
This proposed development of 35 houses in Bawburgh will add to the flooding issues already experienced by the village.
It will also mean the loss forever of 1.9 hectares of grade 3 agricultural land.
SNDC also seem to forget that Bawburgh and this proposed site all sit within the southern bypass protection zone.
Speeding, rat running and accidents on Stocks Hill are an ongoing issue that will only get worse with the increased traffic and poorly located site entrance.
The views of the local residents seem to be ignored by SNDC. We dont want this development.
This proposed development of 35 houses in Bawburgh will add to the flooding issues already experienced by the village.
It will also mean the loss forever of 1.9 hectares of grade 3 agricultural land.
SNDC also seem to forget that Bawburgh and this proposed site all sit within the southern bypass protection zone.
Speeding, rat running and accidents on Stocks Hill are an ongoing issue that will only get worse with the increased traffic and poorly located site entrance.
The views of the local residents seem to be ignored by SNDC. We dont want this development.
Object
Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan - Alternative Sites & Focused Changes (Reg. 18)
Representation ID: 3722
Received: 04/02/2024
Respondent: Mr Kevin Underwood
Poor transport links and few local amenities
concerns over water run off
Does not reflect the views of local residents. Rather than empowering it makes the community feel subjugated
Not suitable of 1 in 8 families in the area.
Damages the greenbelt. Development wholly within the Southern Bypass Protection Zone.
There are many aspects of this proposal that do not fit with the Statement by the Secretary of State of 19 December 2023
https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2023-12-19/hcws161
The proposed development is wholly within the Southern Bypass Protection Zone and would remove a significant area of category 3 agricultural land.
The proposal will have a significant and detrimental effect on the village. The transport services are poor with limited access to bus services and no safe footpaths between the village and services and amenities outside the village, e.g. bus routes and shops, which are around 2km away. The lack of transport and safe footpaths will force people to use their cars.
There is already a problem with water run-off in the village and the proposed development will exacerbate the problem. There could be particular concerns with run-off into the school grounds and housing to the north of the development.
South Norfolk and Broadland Council's strategic plan for 2020-2024 states in its vision,
"Supporting individuals and empowering communities
Protecting and improving the natural and built environment, whilst maximising quality of life."
The proposed development does neither of these for the residents of Bawburgh.
The local authority recognises that, "We have large rural areas with 12% of households having no access to a vehicle, creating challenges with
accessing key services e.g. healthcare." So the new development will not be suitable for almost 1 in 8 households .
Object
Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan - Alternative Sites & Focused Changes (Reg. 18)
Representation ID: 3740
Received: 05/02/2024
Respondent: Mr Stephen Brolly
Whilst I agree there is a need for new housing, the addition of 35 houses in Bawburgh, would drastically change the character of the village.
There are no facilities within the village, besides a gastro-pub and the village school and no cohesive transport links, forcing new residents to drive. This would lead to potentially 70 vehicles exiting onto a blind rise increasing the risk of accidents.
The village has no street lighting and minimal footpaths.
The village lies with the Southern Bypass Protection Zone.
The loss of agricultural land would be irreversible and detrimental to the UK food supply chain.
Whilst I agree there is a need for new housing, the addition of 35 houses in Bawburgh, would drastically change the character of the village.
There are no facilities within the village, besides a gastro-pub and the village school and no cohesive transport links, forcing new residents to drive. This would lead to potentially 70 vehicles exiting onto a blind rise increasing the risk of accidents.
The village has no street lighting and minimal footpaths.
The village lies with the Southern Bypass Protection Zone.
The loss of agricultural land would be irreversible and detrimental to the UK food supply chain.
Comment
Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan - Alternative Sites & Focused Changes (Reg. 18)
Representation ID: 3742
Received: 05/02/2024
Respondent: Marlingford & Colton Parish Council
After discussion of the proposal for our neighbouring parishes we would support the view taken by the directly affected Parish Council., in this case Bawburgh. This is subject to clarification of the specific points mentioned under point 6b that would directly impact our residents.
After discussion of the proposal for our neighbouring parishes we would support the view taken by the directly affected Parish Council., in this case Bawburgh. This is subject to clarification of the specific points mentioned under point 6b that would directly impact our residents.