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.

As Bawburgh residents we are writing with objections to the development of 35 houses in the village of Bawburgh ( Ref Bawburgh VC BAWI REV ) on the basis that this proposal is unsound and it is inappropriate that it is included in the Village Cluster Proposal.

The major political changes since the pervious Regulation 19 submission in Spring 2023, is that both the Prime Minister and Michael Gove have altered and down played the use of green field sites and have emphasised the need to listen to the views of the local neighbourhood which in this case has had a major overwhelming negative reaction. In December 2023 the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was submitted and supports many of these issues.

The Regulation 19 document (submitted 2023), which was submitted to the Inspectorate, contained inaccuracies. [Place Shaping Manager] at the South Norfolk (SN)/ Parish Council (PC) meeting in December 2023, said a second corrected version was not going to be submitted; therefore the previous errors would be perpetuated. These major errors were; (1) that the village does not have “ a range of facilities, including the school , hall, and pub “. It only has these three facilities. (2), it does not have a daily bus service. The Inspectorate will therefore be mislead by inaccuracies into thinking that the Village is well appointed, and capable of absorbing the extra 35 houses and their occupants and vehicles.

By South Norfolk’s own admission, Bawburgh and the site are totally within the Southern Bypass Protection Zone and the documentation says that it is a sensitive green field site, and therefore it is totally inappropriate for a housing development. The SN Council acknowledge that there will be mitigating circumstances, but make no address as to what they will be. Therefore ignoring their own observations and those of the villagers. In the December 2023 SNVCHAP Reg 18 “ Alternative sites…..” Document , the final sentence in Section 4.6 says “ This would give scope for future proposals to address the village location adjoining the Conservation area and the Yare River Valley landscape in a more sympathetic way “, this clearly implies that the Council have already decided that further housing development will be allocated , and the 35 houses is “ just for starters “.

As residents of Bawburgh for over 50 years we wholly object to this development on the grounds that the SN Council have ignored many of the features of this greenfield site in a sensitive area of the Yare Valley and have disregarded normal planning assessment ( which have frequently resulted in residents being denied building permission to build and therefore remain in the village “, whereas South Norfolk will be advocating that outsiders will be encouraged to add significant numbers of people to the village simply because a land owner offers land for building, without the Council assessment that this is the most appropriate site in the area. It appears that guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework ( NPPF ) December 2023 has been ignored in several Aspects of this Development Scheme. Furthermore, the SN Council have falsely added the village to a project that extols the value of a building program under the banner of clustering under-facilitated villages together for their future benefits. No future facilities or benefits have been suggested for Bawburgh. SN Council knows ( Page 82 of the Statement of Consultation ) that Bawburgh is not part of a * Cluster “. Therefore the under-lying premise for Bawburgh in this SNVCHAP is false and unsound.

Therefore, SN should remove this site from the current development scheme as there are more appropriate sites within 1-2 miles of the unsuitable site in Bawburgh. At a recent meeting in January 18th 2024, in front of the village, Crocus ( the nominal developers of this site ) made the statement that…. “regardless of the objections raised (by the Neighbourhood) there would be 35 houses built on this site. This implies regardless of Regulation 18 , Regulation 19. Inspectorate ruling or planning application an assurance has already been given by SN that all these processes will be bypassed. This surely cannot be the case ? It would imply that due process has not / will not have been applied, as the Council has already assured the developers of agreement.

We urge the SN Council to remove Bawburgh from the SNVCAHP because the Village does not fulfil the criteria for inclusion and that due process has not been followed by SN in the case of the Village of Bawburgh,

The reduction of the housing density is fine but it does not support the 35+ cars that would need to access the road area on a daily basis. The would be more cars that that required and the roads can not cope with the influx of traffic. The school is overpopulated and these new homes would make if difficult for the school to accommodate the needs of the children locally. This is against the green eco credentials of the council. The area does not have gas so each house would need an alternative fuel

This is entirely out of scale with the rest of the housing in Bawburgh. Notwithstanding the fact that this allocation should not have been accepted in the first consultation, now proposing to extend it is contrary to many development management policies, eg. having an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the wider street scene, it does not make a positive contribution to local character, it will not maintain the character of the surroundings and will not integrate successfully with its surroundings. The Services and Community Facilities descriptor is inaccurate - there are not a range of facilities, there is simply a small primary school, a village hall and a pub. There is no bus route (except a once week to Wymondham which has now lost most of its banking facilities) there is no shop and there are no safe walking or cycling routes to bus stops or shops. In this respect it therefore cannot provide access by routes and public spaces that meet
different requirements of accessibility (including pedestrians, cyclists and people with mobility or sensory difficulties)
without an unsatisfactory domination of traffic. It cannot support sustainable transport and development objectives, there are no opportunities to integrate with local sustainable transport networks, as there are no sustainable forms of transport appropriate to the location. It is unsustainable in that it does not contribute to the environment, with the loss of even more agricultural land and its biodiversity. The lack of public transport will increase traffic movements with every house needing a car putting pressure on the village's narrow roads, conservation area and bridge which is a protected monument. Increasing the land area to reduce density means more tarmac roads, pavements, longer driveways, and increased run off putting pressure on the already struggling flood plain with the river bursting its banks on several occasions in heavy rain and with more run off it increases the risk of homes in the centre of the village being flooded. All development should respect, conserve and where possible, enhance the landscape character of its immediate and wider environment.
Development proposals that would cause significant adverse impact on the distinctive landscape characteristics of an area will be refused. (policy DM 4.5) This proposal does not enhance the landscape character of Bawburgh. The site is within the Norwich Southern Bypass Landscape Protection Zone due to high levels of visual accessibility to and from the road to a predominantly open rural area that plays an important part in making the landscape setting of Norwich. The Policy was designed to ensure all development within the wider zone of visual influence visible from the transport corridors is designed to reinforce and avoid undermining the rural character experienced when travelling along the Undeveloped Approaches into Norwich. Policy DM4.6 Development which would significantly harm the NSBLPZ or the
landscape setting of the Norwich urban area will not be permitted.

We have no bus service.

We have no shops.

We are having more flooding.

The school is oversubscribed.

The amount of traffic coming down Stocks Hill.

The Parish Council (PC) of Bawburgh objects to the inclusion within the Cluster Village Plan and Development of 35 Houses in a site on the east of Stocks Hill on the grounds that due process and procedure have not been followed.

Background. In March 2023 as part of Regulation 19, Wheatman Planning submitted an objection to the SNCVAP on behalf of the PC. The PC also re-iterated its objection in July 31st 2023 in a letter to [Leader of South Norfolk Council] and [Director of Place] who forwarded the letter to [Place Shaping Manager].

We are again re-emphasising our objection to the Housing Development and this Regulation 18 ‘Alternate Sites and Focused Changes‘-Consultation. SN Council have ignored the overwhelming objections from the Villagers and made the site bigger.

The Government emphasis since the March 2023 Regulation 18 and 19 submissions have changed significantly due to the December 2023 revision of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The housing target is no longer an overall National target but one to be addressed on local needs and assessment based on an advisory starting point. Therefore SNC’s target of 1200 houses is no longer a Government obligation. We believe that there are more appropriate sites within 2 miles which have not been considered.

Both the Prime Minister and Mr Gove have said that the opinion of the Neighbourhood should be considered when undertaking housing developments. The SN Council knows that the greatest number of objections from any village in the Cluster Scheme were from Bawburgh. These objections are still the case and SN Council are ignoring this, solely because one landowner, who does not live in the village, has offered land.

The Government has also placed emphasis on the protection of greenfield sites and this site in Bawburgh is a sensitive greenfield site by SN’s own documents.
The original concept of clustering villages depleted of development was laudable, but Bawburgh is not part of a cluster and therefore is inappropriate in this scheme and should be removed.

Norwich Southern Bypass Protection Zone (NSBPZ). The proposed site, by SN Council’s own documents, is a sensitive greenfield site. This agricultural land is category 3a, which means it is in the “Best” category (ie 1,2,3a). It should not be used for building unless there is no land available of lesser quality in the area. Both Bawburgh and the site are totally within NSBPZ, overlooking the Yare River Valley. The site is also adjacent to the Village Conservation zone.

Traffic. The current issues of traffic within the village are a grave concern to the residents. Volume of traffic; the speed of the traffic; the poor quality of the four access roads; the narrow ancient bridge which should have a one-way priority system; and the modern use of the roads as a “rat-run” are all concerning when the new development could generate 400 or more extra traffic movements per day.

Facilities: The issue that the facilities already available to the village has been over-represented and /or mis-represented to the Inspectorate already concerns the Parish Council. The village only has a small school, a pub and a village hall and nothing else. There is no daily bus service , no shops , no medical facilities and no safe access by pavement , walkways or trods to shops which are two miles away. This means that residents in affordable houses (a principal objective of the site) will be at a disadvantage.

A recent meeting with Crocus (the designated developers), on January 18th 2024, in front of village people, a Crocus representative made the statement that …. “regardless of the objections raised by the neighbourhood, there would be 35 houses built on this site”. This implies, regardless of Regulation 18, Regulation 19, the Inspectorate’s ruling or planning application that an assurance had already been given by SNC that all these processes will be bypassed. This surely cannot be the case? It would imply that due process has not / will not be applied, as the Council has already assured the developers of an agreement.

There are many examples raised here that clearly show that this proposal is flawed, and that due process and procedure have not been applied to the assessment of the site rather than it was solely proposed by a landowner. Bawburgh Parish Council ask South Norfolk Council to reassess this site and withdraw the site from the SNVCAP. Perhaps SN should remember that their corporate moto is “Working with you, working for you”

1. Even if the extended size of the proposed site meets legal requirements of density, the development would still be disproportionate to the uniquely intimate character of the village.

2. The site's location is adjacent to the conservation area and would result in a significant diminution of its aesthetic and historical appeal.

3. The development would be on a greenfield site within the Southern Bypass Protection Zone.

4. There would be a loss of Grade 3 agricultural land.

5. There are no facilities in the village apart from the Village Hall, a pub and an oversubscribed primary school.

6. There are no bus services to and from the village apart from a once-weekly service to Wymondham. The occupants of the houses would depend on their own car(s), adding to the danger of the 'rat race' nature of Stocks Hill; The 20mph speed limit is almost wholly ignored, and the existing chicanes have no impact on excessive traffic speed at this point. When the Village Hall is frequently used for large scale events, cars are parked along the road opposite the entrance to the new development, dangerously narrowing the carriageway.

7. Children living in the new development would have to cross this hazardous road in order to reach the village playground.

There are no facilities in the village. The school is full. All the local doctors surgeries are oversubscribed. There is no or very little public transport available.

1. Using agricultural Grade 3 land which should not be built on when we may well need every bit of agricultural land to feed our own population and this unsettled world threatens supplies of imports of food from other countries - this is happening in the Red Sea etc.

2. There is already an increase of flooding in the village - so far contained by the water drains, but extra drainage into the river coupled with nutrient drainage could overwhelm this system. Also there are already drainage problems from the recent housing developments on Stocks Hill.

3. Bawburgh is a Conservation Area with Listed Buildings and is part of the Southern Bypass Protection Zone.

4. More and more villages are being overdeveloped by new housing and feel it is important for everyone to keep the character of our country and our village. Currently Bawburgh has no sops or bus services. More cars in the village.

The issue is not just about the density of housing, but the quantity. Adding 35 houses to the village would disproportionally increase the population and all that goes with it.
With no regular public transport or ability to walk to services (other than the 3 listed), all these houses would require 2+ cars, which would not align with the density planning (we don’t want an estate littered and overflowing with cars), or indeed sustainability goals to reduce the requirement for vehicles in new build houses/estates. The village is already a rat run and this additional strain is likely to result in accidents, in particular at areas where there are no footpaths and pedestrians are at greatest risk, in particular at the historic bridge in the village centre and its approaches down narrow roads.
The village is also within the southern bypass protection zone, which does not seem to have been considered. Furthermore, the proposed site seems to contradict the South Norfolk Character Appraisal and Management Guidelines from December 2017, being directly parallel to the conservation area which characterises Bawburgh as “one of the most attractive and relatively unspoilt small villages in South Norfolk” and the requirement to consider “The impact of any new development should be assessed from the wider viewpoint to the north and south of the village.” By merely increasing the size of the plot proposed, this does not align with the careful planning required to maintain the character of this historic village.
This development should be reconsidered properly, to take into account the views of local residents who want to continue living in a rural community, rather than be swallowed up by an oversized new build housing estate.

First of all the proposed site for the 35 properties is on a greenfield site which is Category 3 Agricultural land and we need to save as much of this as possible. it is clear that if this proposal were to go ahead it would alter the character of Bawburgh which could never be recovered! It would also go against new government guidelines which state this should not happen. Also the amenities available in Bawburgh woefully inadequate now, Adding another 35 properties would make the situation even worse. there are no shops a very limited bus service, the school is oversubscribed and there are very few footpaths that are safe from the traffic that speeds down Stocks Hill! And most families now have at least 2 cars this could potentially add another 70 vehicles using an already very busy Stocks Hill.

In the last few years Bawburgh has had 3 new housing developments adding at least 19 properties to this small village. I think we've done our bit.

You say your mission is "Working with you, working for you". Now's your chance to prove it.

To start with I am writing to object to the allocation of Bawburgh (Ref: Bawburgh VCBAW1REV). The proposed allocation of Bawburgh in the village cluster at all is inappropriate and contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework. Given that the need for housing targets has been removed the council’s need to supply a minimum number of homes no longer applies and I would say is no longer necessary or correct. A more appropriate starting point is to look at the number of units any given proposed site can accommodate and its appropriateness for residential development. In this regard the proposed allocation at Bawburgh should be removed as the site is not appropriate for development.

The original Regulation 18 consultation deservedly resulted in a considerable number of objections from the residents of Bawburgh and despite this the new proposal is to increase the size of the site without any further consideration of the impacts, which do not appear to have received due consideration initially.

The main issues that are relevant to Bawburgh and render it an inappropriate location and which have lead to my objections are:-

• Bawburgh is not part of any cluster and appears to have been primarily selected because of its school, which is currently over-subscribed.
• There are no shop, health facilities or any employment opportunities in Bawburgh. The travel links are also poor in that there is no bus service or cycle routes. Pedestrian access is also poor in that all of the roads leading out of Bawburgh have no pavements and are often used as rat runs which renders them further inappropriate for foot traffic. As a result of this anyone living in Bawburgh is likely to have to rely on cars for transport which is completely contrary to the sustainability objectives in national policy.
• The proposed site is on the edge of a conservation area with uninterrupted views into the Yare Valley. The original proposed site will forever destroy those views and a larger site is only going to compound that problem.
• Bawburgh suffers from significant flooding during periods of high rainfall, lots of which is contributed to by run-off from the fields. Creating a larger site is not going to assist with that situation, and is likely to compound flooding further downhill in the village, regardless of any mitigation that may be applied as part of the development.
• No considerations seems to have been given to the Norwich Southern Bypass Landscape Protection Zone (NSBLPZ). It seems likely that even if some sort of landscape screening were applied as part of the proposed development it would be detrimental to the landscape. This is again contrary to the National Planning Framework which sets out the importance of landscape character. I also understand the agricultural land quality is Grade 3a which is a high standard of agricultural land which should not be developed unless there is no land in the district of lower quality. Given that there are bound to be sites of lower agricultural value in the greater Norwich area it does not seem that any appropriate assessment has been carried out by the council on this site’s selection.
• Whilst the outlined aims of increasing the size of the site is apparently to decrease the density of the housing to be more in keeping with Bawburgh, it is hard to see how any increase to the current housing stock of that size is likely to do anything but affect the character of the village, whether those houses are more spread out or otherwise. It seems more likely that should this approval be granted then at the planning stage I suspect it highly likely that more houses will be proposed for the site, given the increase in size, which is wholly out of keeping with the area and inappropriate in a village with such limited facilities.

See attachment for full representation.

See attachment for full representation.

This proposed build will affect the character and jar with the village.

These are the very same words used by South Norfolk planners on most self build applications within Bawburgh by the people of Bawburgh that wish to build on their excess of gardens which does not use up agricultural land.

If this goes through someone is obviously lining their pockets. Yes you read that correctly.