QUESTION 14a: Do you agree with the proposed allocation VC WIC1 REV, Land to the south of Wicklewood Primary School, to accommodate up to 40 dwellings on 2.97ha? Please explain your response.

I object to this development.

Size
The original Jan 2023 Reg 19 stated an allocation of 30 dwellings on 1.63 ha. The latest revision of Jan 2023 Reg 19 incorrectly states an allocation of 30 dwellings on 2.5ha. This proposition further increases this to an allocation of 40 dwellings on 2.97 ha. This is almost a doubling of the initial contested proposed development area!
Wicklewood now has three areas of recent and proposed development.
• Completion of twelve plus homes with affordable housing on High St.
• Pending application (ref 2022/0899) for six new dwellings on the nursery site off High Street
The SNVCH allocation plan document seeks to allocate 12-25 dwellings to settlements of Wicklewood’s size. This requirement has already been met with the two allocations listed above. The addition of VC WIC1 REV exceeds SNDC’s own limit of 50 additional dwellings for a settlement of Wicklewood’s size (407 dwellings).

Traffic
The junction between the Green and Hackford Road already suffers from high traffic throughput at peak times and is especially busy with small children walking during primary school drop-off and pick-up times. The additional proposed dwellings will compound this issue and cause additional danger to these pedestrians.
The rural single-track roads (the Green, Top road, Milestone lane, high oak lane, etc.) that lead south of Wicklewood towards Wymondham College and the A11 are already over capacity. This issue will be further compounded by additional dwellings at the proposed site.

Village impact
The proposed development greatly degrades the rural charm of the village with its open vista of the countryside. Previous consultation documents have identified the proposed site as not being connected to the village settlement. Instead of enhancing the village characteristics the proposed development would sit alone, unintegrated, tarnishing the village countryside.
The proposed landscaping will not compensate for the destruction of Wicklewood’s countryside. Young tree saplings ‘hiding’ the proposed housing development will be a poor substitute for open agricultural fields.
The proposed development will become an anchor point for future developments. This has already been demonstrated by the proposed expansion of VC WIC1 REV. This development will only encourage future developments until the charm and character of Wicklewood is lost. This has been seen locally in Great Ellingham where numerous developments (all stemming from one initial anchor location) has all but destroyed the charm and character of the village.

Amenities
Wicklewood primary school is currently operating near capacity. Further investment and expansion of the school will be required if the population of Wicklewood continues to grow. The proposed development site borders with the primary school and hence limits the available land the school could expand into.
Wicklewood has limited public amenities: a primary school, village hall, and pub. The village is not able to support its current population let alone the proposed additional dwellings.

Flooding
The proposed site and village are already susceptible to flooding and surface drainage issues. Additional development will compound this issue.

I object to further development that is on the same side of Hackford Road as the school. No development should be along The Green/Hackford Road. It will make it infinitely more dangerous for the children. Hackford Road is winding and busy now.

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

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

Flooding

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

Scale, Density and Protecting the Rural Lanscape

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

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

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

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

Flooding

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

Scale, Density and Protecting the Rural Lanscape

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

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

See attachment for full representation.

See attachment for full representations.