QUESTION 76: Do you support

Support

Representation ID: 275

Received: 04/07/2021

Respondent: Mrs Alaina Ratcliffe

This site is the best site out of the three due to having previous new properties built, it wouldn’t restrict or impact on the local village for building purposes however I feel the school would struggle to cope with extra pupils/families.
I understand the need for new housing but it’s a shame it has to be in ellingham/Kirby cane.

Object

Representation ID: 589

Received: 23/07/2021

Respondent: Ms Gail trundle

I feel that this development would cause some major issues in Mill Road. Firstly, that part of the road is the most narrow and dangerous in the village. It is also going to be alongside the entrance to the play area which is partly obstructed by trees and shrubs causing visual obstruction.
With the primary school being only a very short distance further round the corner, with parents and children on a narrow path close to traffic, including busses, this part of the village is a dangerous hot spot. This part of the road is also prone to serious flooding.

Support

Representation ID: 653

Received: 27/07/2021

Respondent: Miss Sarah Hanlan

Sno305 development I support as I feel this is an ideal place for the development.
New homes have recently been built here. There is plenty of room for more, it’s on the edge of the village, close to the school, you would not hinder any views of anyone who already live here, there is plenty more field space for people to see and use.

Comment

Representation ID: 662

Received: 23/07/2021

Respondent: Diana Wadley

Site SNO305, Mill Road, Ellingham. Traffic from this site on exiting the village would have to negotiate a narrow, blind bend, where the road is very prone to flooding and large vehicles are required to mount the pavement to pass.
The present new homes would lose their open aspect and view across fields and The Island could eventually be engulfed.

Object

Representation ID: 665

Received: 27/07/2021

Respondent: Mrs E Moore

We feel that the development of 12 properties will have a large impact on the already over used Mill Road. Reasons being: The junction close to the proposed site entrance regularly floods after heavy rain, sometimes making it impassible. Also the present surface of Mill Road is in very poor condition and needs attention. Further traffic can only add to this problem. This is a main walking route to the school and as busses and large vehicles often have to mount the pavement to pass oncoming cars - a danger to both parents and children.

Comment

Representation ID: 944

Received: 30/07/2021

Respondent: Kirby Cane Parish Council

councillors reluctantly support this site as area along road-side has already been developed. However, strong proviso that existing highways issues must be resolved. Blind corner near school dangerous and part of staggered crossroads, then immediately blind corner alongside play area, road is narrow and has speed limit change 30mph to 60mph (past the very busy entrance to the play area/playground) to 30mph. These issues need to be resolved to make another development along this busy stretch of road safe. If site goes forward, councillors believe there should be provision for affordable housing, including a requirement for access for local people.

Comment

Representation ID: 1064

Received: 31/07/2021

Respondent: Mr William Ansell

SN0305 Mill Road
Between the proposed site and Church Road the road has a bend and narrows making it necessary for a vehicle to mount the footpath should two larger vehicles pass together, this is the footpath used by school children. The area is also prone to flooding. There is likely to be increased traffic as a new car park is being built which will be used by the school and the playground visitors. Mill Road has increased traffic flow and speeding is commonplace.

Support

Representation ID: 1508

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Trustees of the 1997 Martin Smith Settlement

Agent: Ingleton Wood LLP

On behalf of our client, we wish to support SN0305, for allocation for residential development. The site is well related to the existing settlement, providing a logical and sustainable extension to the village.

Our client’s intention is to see the site delivered as soon as possible within the Plan period. Their agents have confirmed that a site of 25 dwellings with current policy level affordable housing would be well received by the local development market.

The site is suitable, available and achievable and, as demonstrated in the attached supporting documents, there are no material planning considerations that would restrict development.

Comment

Representation ID: 1823

Received: 16/07/2021

Respondent: Broads Authority

• Ellingham is near to the Broads – you might want to mention that. See next comments in particular.
• Site: SN0305, Land South of Mill Road, Ellingham
The site would extend the edge of the settlement towards the BA area to approximately 400m from BA boundary. Visual receptors: Footpath leading from centre of village in a south-westerly direction connects to Lane almost on BA boundary. Site may be visible to users of this path. In addition this National Cycle Route 1(NCR1) follows Geldeston Road to the south and Church Road west of the site - 200m at closest point. Due to a lack of screening vegetation the site is clearly visible from the road. There is some intervening vegetation between the site and the BA area but fields to south have little or no vegetation along boundaries. The immediate area is quite flat and open. The site is unlikely to be visible from River Waveney although it should be borne in mind that water based recreation is popular in this character area, due to the existence of Waveney canoe access agreements which permit canoeing upstream of Ellingham Sluice to Diss. The valley here is fairly narrow and the southern side rises relatively high so there may be distant views of the site from the Shipmeadow/Mettingham area.
When writing the policy, please add:
o development of the site needs to included adequate screening
o reference to the proximity and sensitivity of the Broads and NCR1 in the allocation policy.

Comment

Representation ID: 1952

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Water Management Alliance

See attachment for full response.
SN0305 – Land south of Mill Road, Ellingham
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: 2076

Received: 14/07/2021

Respondent: Norfolk County Council - LLFA

See attachment for full response.
Few or no constraints. Standard information required at a planning stage.
"1.] At risk of surface water flooding?: No
* 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]: No flooding present
* 0.1% AEP Event [Depth]: No flooding present.
2.] Internal & external flooding?:
* On-site: No
* Within proximity to site (~500.00m): Yes - External Flooding
3.] Watercourses [Online ordinary watercourses or mains rivers]?:
* On-site: No
* Within proximity to site (~100.00m): No
4.] Surface water sewer systems?:
* On-site: No
* Within proximity to site (~100.00m): No
5.] Source Protection Zone?: Source Protection Zone 3
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 site is adjacent to a flow path. This must be considered in the site assessment.
Assessment: Green

Comment

Representation ID: 2257

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.
Site comprises part of an agricultural field bounded on three sides by hedges which are priority habitat so losses should be minimised (use existing access?), and as a last resort compensated for. No priority habitats identified (see MAGIC). Site within green habitat zones for great crested newts, and in SSSI IRZ but residential development does not 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.