QUESTION 62: Do you support

Object

Representation ID: 49

Received: 09/06/2021

Respondent: Mr Spencer Botly

This proposed development will put existing infrastructure under dangerous pressure.
It will ruin the village of Hales and Heckingham and the lives of those residents who moved here for its tranquility and village feel.
All who surround the site bought their houses due to the views, the peace and the countryside. This will destroy their lives.
Let’s not forget about the wildlife also. This agricultural field is home to hundreds of animals who will be homeless!

There is a HIGH risk to life due to the perilous access point on the Yarmouth road.

STOP IT!

Comment

Representation ID: 337

Received: 07/07/2021

Respondent: Shirley Gates

If we have no choice give us a village hall (not the old building with very limited access stuck down a single track road) at least we can build a real community centre. Not just on Facebook. Toddler groups. Health visitor sessions. Coffee mornings, self help groups, fund raising. Free cinema. Children's parties. Community groups, exercise clubs. All with Hales & Heckingham people.

Don't forget the dangers highlighted in HAL1 - poor visibility up and down the hill. Even the people in suits will agree with that (see main comments)

Thank you for your consideration.

Support

Representation ID: 338

Received: 07/07/2021

Respondent: Mr John Grimes

Best place for houses in Hales. This site is an excellent choice for developing. This will help with the climate change emergency, just like building a house in your garden does.
I would think this will definitely be supported by the parish council, unless they have an interest in it not being developed like nimbys.
I don’t live near here but that doesn’t stop the parish council interfering in things that are not their business.

Comment

Representation ID: 340

Received: 07/07/2021

Respondent: Mr John Wells

I only support if a roundabout is placed on Yarmouth rd to provide access. This is a very dangerous bend just to cross to the public footpath.

Comment

Representation ID: 341

Received: 07/07/2021

Respondent: Mrs Gillian Burwood

We strongly object to the building of dwellings off Briar Lane Hales(SN0308)
The properties would be built along the lenght of our garden on land above the height of ours invading our Privacy and probably causing flooding issues.So not less intrusive for us!
Hales already has heavy traffic on Yarmouth Road and however the entrance is designed this will cause an accident hotspot.When housing was planned for Hales Hospital there were concerns about infrastructure, with 20 houses with outline planning this is already too much!We also love the wildlife that comes into our garden which would loose it's habitat.

Object

Representation ID: 342

Received: 07/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Karan Bathh

Resident at Briar Lane Hales. I do not support SN0308 as the access is very poor, the A146 is a busy road that is used as a rat run between Norwich and Lowestoft. The village has no shops or any other convinences.

Support

Representation ID: 743

Received: 28/07/2021

Respondent: FW Properties

We strongly support the draft preferred allocation of this site, the development of which has no specific site constraints and is deliverable. The land will be accessed through the development of the adjoining outline consented site shown as HAL1 which is being progressed by FW Properties – the access to both sites will be off Yarmouth Road. A high quality development will be progressed comprising a range of house types and sizes and will be arranged in order to minimise its impact on the listed former Hales Hospital. FW Properties believe that this development project is a viable proposition.

Comment

Representation ID: 1473

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Mr and Mrs Anthony and Rebecca Bond

Agent: La Ronde Wright Ltd

Whilst not objecting to this site, it is noted that it would effectively form part of a large current housing development located in the largest village in this cluster (a village that has already undergone considerable residential expansion in recent years); it is posited that to truly achieve the stated aims of the Village Clusters Plan, particularly Objective 2, new housing opportunities should consist of deliverable & viable sites found across the cluster, and this site in Hales should therefore not preclude further consideration of other (smaller) sites across the range of settlements in this cluster.

Comment

Representation ID: 1891

Received: 22/07/2021

Respondent: South Norfolk Council

The Environmental Protection Team are not aware of any significant land quality issue with this site or adjacent land. However, having regard to the size of the site and sensitivity of the proposed development it is considered that a Phase One Land Contamination Report (Desk Study) should be required as part of any planning application.

Due to the size of this development and its proximity to existing dwellings, an application to develop this site is likely to attract the recommendation that standard planning condition AM05 Construction Management Plan be attached to any approval. It may be worth highlighting to applicants that to avoid any delay in discharging this condition, they may wish to include a Construction Management Plan with their application. If the submitted Construction Management Plan is adequate, the an alternative condition could be attached to any approval requiring its implementation.

I would offer the following comments in respect of question 28 to Chapter 17 of the VCHAP relating to the Rejected Site in Hales and Heckingham, Langley with Hardley, Carleton St Peter, Claxton, Raveningham and Sisland should it be allocated instead of, or in addition to, the preferred sites as a result of the consultation process.

Comment

Representation ID: 1946

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Water Management Alliance

See attachment for full response.
SN0308 – Land off Briar Lane, Hales
Outside the IDD boundary, within the Waveney, Lower Yare and Lothingland 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: 2040

Received: 21/07/2021

Respondent: Historic England

Please see attachments for full response.
Site: Part of SN0308, Land off Briar Lane, Hales
Whilst there are no designated heritage assets on the site, the former Hales Hospital (grade II listed) lies to the east of the site. Therefore, any development of this site has the potential to impact upon the setting (and significance) of this heritage asset.
A heritage impact assessment of the site should be undertaken to assess the impact of the proposed development on the listed building and determine if allocation of this site is appropriate, and if it is what mitigation may be required. The findings of the HIA should inform whether the site is allocated and if it is, the policy criterion including any mitigation and enhancement.
Complete an HIA to inform the allocation of the site including any mitigation, enhancement and policy wording.

Comment

Representation ID: 2079

Received: 14/07/2021

Respondent: Norfolk County Council - LLFA

See attachments for full response.
Mitigation required for heavy constraints. Significant information required at a planning stage.
"1.] At risk of surface water flooding?: Yes
* 3.33% AEP Event [Extent]: No flooding present
* 3.33% AEP Event [Depth]: No flooding present.
* 1.0% AEP Event [Extent]: No flooding present
* 1.0% AEP Event [Depth]: No flooding present.
* 0.1% AEP Event [Extent]: Moderate flooding
* 0.1% AEP Event [Depth]: 0.00- 0.30cm.
2.] Internal & external flooding?:
* On-site: No
* Within proximity to site (~500.00m): No
3.] Watercourses [Online ordinary watercourses or mains rivers]?:
* On-site: No
* Within proximity to site (~100.00m): Yes|Main river
4.] Surface water sewer systems?:
* On-site: No
* Within proximity to site (~100.00m): No
5.] Source Protection Zone?: No
6.] Internal Drainage Board?: No IDB referenced
7.] The site predominantly has superficial deposits of SAND AND GRAVEL. Comments on infiltration potential are dependent on a complete geotechnical investigation, including BRE365 Soakaway Testing. Where possible, surface water infiltration should be utilised." "The on-site flood risk is a moderate flow path in the 0.1% AEP event, dissecting the site south-north in the west of the site. Flow lines indicate this flood water flows north off of the site, contributing to a larger flow path west and north of the site. We advise this must be considered in the site assessment.
A large area of the site is unaffected by flood risk and has the potential to be developed."
Assessment: Amber

Comment

Representation ID: 2254

Received: 28/09/2021

Respondent: Norfolk County Council - Senior Ecologist

Rating: Green no major ecological constraints identified from desk-top search. Surveys, and biodiversity enhancement in accordance with policy required.
Agricultural field bounded on two sites bounded partly by hedges (priority habitat). No other priority habitats identified (see MAGIC). Site within green habitat zone for great crested newts, and in SSSI IRZ but residential development does trigger consultation with Natural England. Applications for planning consent should be accompanied by a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal/Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) which, together with the mitigation hierarchy, should inform the design. Consideration should be given to delivering Biodiversity Net Gain.