QUESTION 12a: Do you agree with the proposed allocation VC SPO1 REV, Land west of Bunwell Road, Spooner Row, for approximately 35 dwellings on 2.34ha? Please explain your response.

Object

Representation ID: 3268

Received: 12/12/2023

Respondent: Mr Richard Forman

Having had our house flooded twice in the last three years, I am opposing any further development due to poor drainage in the village. This includes road drains, ditches, flood plains, becks and ponds. The village cannot cope as it is and there has been no improvements in the drainage systems with the existing development that the village has seen to date. It is ludicrous to propose more development at this time.

Object

Representation ID: 3275

Received: 13/12/2023

Respondent: Mr Marcus Rayner

I have no idea why green field sites are built on when every town has many brown field sites. People move to a village for different reasons.

Whilst you continue to fund local council budgets through housing growth they are all self interested and therefore wish for as much building as possible with little interest to their existing residents.

In Spooner Row housing is proposed to the land past the school on on the left, the land past the railway line heading towards the Boars ,the land opposite the ex council properties heading towards Wymondham and a half finished estate opposite where you are proposing a new estate making absolutely zero sense to me.

As a resident it feels like you don’t have a plan at all you just look for sites with the point of least resistance which is why people are so sceptical.

My proposal would be as a resident and if you really wanted to engage me give me three proposed sites in my village with outlined plans and number of houses proposed and let democracy have its way, we all accept that we need a reasonable increase in housing stock but no one likes being done to.

Comment

Representation ID: 3365

Received: 19/01/2024

Respondent: Water Management Alliance

Outside the IDD boundary, within the Norfolk Rivers IDB watershed catchment.

Major development - If surface water discharges within the watershed catchment of the Board's IDD, we request that this discharge is facilitated in line with the Non-statutory technical standards for sustainable drainage systems (SuDS).

Comment

Representation ID: 3402

Received: 24/01/2024

Respondent: Norfolk County Council - Historic Environment

Amber - archaeological mitigation will probably be necessary but is unlikely to prevent development.

Comment

Representation ID: 3415

Received: 24/01/2024

Respondent: Norfolk County Council

The Highway Authority does not object to the revised allocation.

Comment

Representation ID: 3431

Received: 24/01/2024

Respondent: Norfolk County Council - Natural Environment Team

Landscape/Townscape impacts would need to be considered, as the site has the potential to drastically change the landscape context of the village. It could give rise to further infill development resulting in no clear green spaces between residential areas.

Design of the site needs to be sensitively planned to ensure open space is retained, landscape led approach would be best. Retention of existing hedgerow on south-eastern boundary of site, adjacent to Bunwell Road, and retention of existing tree on north-west boundary of site, connecting Bunwell Rd to Queen’s Street.

Object

Representation ID: 3445

Received: 24/01/2024

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: James Bailey Planning Ltd

Question whether the Council have fully explored the benefits of maximising the full extent of field parcels. The Sustainability Appraisal highlights the need to ensure that benefits are maximised with ongoing scrutiny of the appropriate growth quantum.

Sustainability Appraisal also raises the possibility of expanding SPO2. It is noted that this could be of a strategic nature and at odds with the Plan, however it raises the question why this site has not been explored over SPO1 due to its sustainable nature and location close to the train station?

Now 4 sites in Spooner Row. Are the Council satisfied with allocating 4 smaller sites, as opposed to fewer larger sites, as being appropriate?

It is appreciated that the intention is to allocate less that strategic sites, when a settlement is taking 80 new dwellings is the Council satisfied that this total meets the Objectives of the Plan?

Comment

Representation ID: 3458

Received: 24/01/2024

Respondent: Norfolk County Council Childrens Services

Overall allocation in this area could add approximately 22 children into the area, this would support increasing catchment numbers which appear stable but below capacity of the school. Additional pressure could be added to the school building capacity, school has a confined site within menial class bases available and is likely to mean some children having to travel to the next nearest school as a result. To encourage sustainable and safe travel improvements to walking and cycling routes may need to be considered.

Object

Representation ID: 3538

Received: 01/02/2024

Respondent: Mrs Janet Major

Unsafe roads currently, vehicles parked along from Boars through the day, large heavy lorries from Lorry Park on Bunwell Road (RM?) also Newall Bunwell Road ( leading to Besthorpe Church) depot. Here, arrow says they must turn right and hence access A11 via Spooner Row. Traffic from Carleton Rode and Bunwell use Spooner Row to access A11. Already heavy large traffic and an accident waiting to happen. Adding 40 more cars joining more unsafe.. No shop, public transport , residents need to use their cars more than average. Primary school and station add to traffic problems. Flooding issues too frequent.

Comment

Representation ID: 3546

Received: 31/01/2024

Respondent: Historic England

We re-iterate our previous response in relation to the smaller site. Whilst there are no designated heritage assets within the site, the site lies immediately to the north east of the grade II listed property, The Orchards. Therefore, any development of this site has the potential to impact upon the significance of this heritage asset. We appreciate that the property is well screened by existing landscaping.

We welcome the preparation of the HIA. We welcome paragraph 34.8 and the second bullet point of the policy in relation to strengthening boundary vegetation.

Object

Representation ID: 3657

Received: 03/02/2024

Respondent: Mrs Janis Raynsford

Object to the initial proposal and also to adding a further 20 houses to this greenfield site.

Object

Representation ID: 3804

Received: 05/02/2024

Respondent: Mrs Janis Raynsford

I wish to further comment on the inadequacy of Suton Lane with, say, a further 40plus cars using this lane. Many cars are not aware of the necessity to pull in when two cars cannot pass each other adequately and further traffic will only exacerbate this problem. I am alarmed at Taylor Wimpey's wish for maximising the full extent of field parcels in the name of "ongoing scrutiny of the appropriate growth quantum". Larger sites will only overwhelm the village.

Support

Representation ID: 3840

Received: 05/02/2024

Respondent: KCS Development Ltd

Agent: Barton Willmore

Support allocation and have engaged with Council through pre-application service. Fully support increase in dwelling numbers, however site could accommodate 45 dwellings which could deliver wider benefits such as open space, more affordable housing, further highways improvements and improvement to existing watercourse.

Evidence shows sustainability. Nutrient Neutrality not an issue.

Mitigation for 'Amber' site assessment results are proportionate and deliverable.

Access has been agreed in principle and hedgerow loss will be minimised. New footways along Bunwell Road. Dedicated foul sewerage can be delivered. Flood Zones 2 and 3 outside main development areas and could improve existing watercourse. Landscape led approach being taken to site. Open space to be provided. HIA to be submitted with application.

Draft policy would result in inefficient use of land, should be revised to 45. Would not require additional land. Would help meet local needs.