QUESTION 77: Do you support

Object

Representation ID: 395

Received: 14/07/2021

Respondent: N/A

The Kirby Row site is not suitable for the proposed housing plans it is liable to flooding and regularly has standing water, in recent months residents have experience flooding due to inadequate drainage. The wild life in this area is abundant with a resident Owl, Cuckoo, Deer and many more specifies. We simply don't have the infrastructure to support such a build, the village is inundated with traffic despite the location of the bypass, more housing will only exacerbate the problem and impact on the safety of villagers.

Object

Representation ID: 437

Received: 16/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Richard Barratt

1. The location becomes water logged during wet weather.
2. The part of Old Yarmouth Road on which the site is situated is continually used by large lorries to and from the quarry. The heavy traffic would pose a significant risk to any children and elderly people living in the housing.
3. The owls referred to in a previous objection nest in a box in our garden. Waveney Bird Club who ring the young owls say it is one of the few boxes in the area that regularly produce young. The owls regularly use the proposed location for hunting mice.

Object

Representation ID: 654

Received: 27/07/2021

Respondent: Miss Sarah Hanlan

I object to this site being used, although it is an area of vast fields there is a massive amount of wild life that uses this area.

Comment

Representation ID: 659

Received: 23/07/2021

Respondent: Diana Wadley

SNO348: Yarmouth Road, Kirby Cane. A development here would have a detrimental effect on the bungalows in Yarmouth Road that back onto the site, denying them their open aspect over fields, particularly if two storey house are built. Part of the field is very wet.
The nearby junction with Church Road is blind. The very heavy quarry lorries thunder past often before 7am. Barn owls frequent the field. A linear development along the road edge would be more in keeping with the rest of the village.

Object

Representation ID: 667

Received: 27/07/2021

Respondent: Mrs E Moore

The proposed development of 25 properties is far to large for any entrance coming onto the Yarmouth Road as this is frequently used in working hours by 20 and 30 ton tipper lorry's operating from the quarry nearby. Also in December 2020 7 homes were flooded adjacent to the junction with Church Road. A small group of 8 properties on the building line of the road could possibly be feasible as it carries on the present building line along Yarmouth Road.

Object

Representation ID: 797

Received: 29/07/2021

Respondent: Miss Kerry Osborne

Land South of Yarmouth Road - Expansion of the village into attractive farm land, other sites available in residential areas. Building will block views from houses located near by. Impact on local wildlife which often uses this area of land - Barn Owls etc seen regularly. Increased noise and traffic on small country road used by walkers and cyclists.

Comment

Representation ID: 945

Received: 30/07/2021

Respondent: Kirby Cane Parish Council

Councillors were unable to support this site. Their view is that it is “bolted on” in an inappropriate manner, access onto Old Yarmouth Road would be poor, it is located on the road to the quarry, and the field is subject to regular flooding. It is also a possible site of historical interest, Roman artefacts have been found there and it is also a site of social historical interest concerning the agricultural development of the region.

Object

Representation ID: 1372

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Miss Kirsty Priestley

Extensive wildlife, including bats and slow worms, and the barn owl box that is an established nesting site and has been for a number of years.
Access and safety - Old Yarmouth Road is extensively used by heavy vehicles going to the quarry and the people that live in Kirby Cane, Ellingham, Gillingham and Geldeston.
Services- there have been a number of issues regarding the water, and a number of leaks. There is no mains gas in the village so houses would be reliant on electricity or oil.
No employment, and bad transport links.

Comment

Representation ID: 1388

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Mr James Lally

This site is very wet, there is a blind junction to Church road, there are lorries going to and from the quarry making the environment unfriendly for proposed new home owners. It is expanding the envelope of the village inspite of there being other sites which are suitable, Florence way for example. The site has historic interest as either or both Roman or Viking settlements are onsite. There are Barn Owls that inhabit the area and slow worms have been reported in adjoining gardens. It is a totally unsuitable site.

Support

Representation ID: 1417

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Laurence Carr

From a traffic point of view if we are to have additional housing in the village it would make sense not to have it in the middle of the village. Also this site affords easy access to the A143.

Comment

Representation ID: 1824

Received: 16/07/2021

Respondent: Broads Authority

• Site: SN0348, Land to the South of Old Yarmouth Road, Kirby Row, Kirby Cane
The site is more distant from the BA area with the settlement of Kirby Cane largely intervening. It is at the foot of the northern valley slope (around 5m) and at the north-western end of a small tributary valley which extends down to Geldeston. However, from Geldeston it does not seem possible to view the site. The side valley has a patchwork of small fields with trees along field boundaries which provide screening. There are also blocks of woodland. In potential views from the Broads which are probably very limited and distant, the site has an advantage of a backdrop of the northern valley side which is wooded in this location. There don’t appear to be any sensitive visual receptors in the vicinity. The valley sides, the ridgelines of which lie in the main beyond the Broads area, form prominent skylines to this character area and are relatively undeveloped. However neither of these 2 sites would impact ridge or skylines.
When writing the policy, please add the following (or similar) from the BA landscape character assessment:
o New large scale development within the valley floor or on the valley side needs careful assessment of the potential effects on the local landscape character and adverse landscape effects mitigated.
o Care needs to be taken in relation to development proposals within these areas which form the landscape setting to the Broads. It would help if such requirements were set out in the allocation policy

Comment

Representation ID: 1953

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Water Management Alliance

See attachment for full response.
SN0348 – Land to the South of Old Yarmouth Road, Kirby Row, Kirby Cane
Partly within the Waveney, Lower Yare and Lothingland IDD.
Several riparian watercourses are located to the south of the proposed site which feeds into a Board Adopted Watercourse within the Waveney, Lower Yare and Lothingland IDD.
Byelaw 3 applies to any proposed discharge of surface water from the proposed site.
All other Board Byelaws will also apply to this development.

Comment

Representation ID: 2084

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]: Minor flooding
* 3.33% AEP Event [Depth]: 0.00 - 0.30cm.
* 1.0% AEP Event [Extent]: Minor flooding
* 1.0% AEP Event [Depth]: 0.00 - 0.30cm.
* 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): No
4.] Surface water sewer systems?:
* On-site: No
* Within proximity to site (~100.00m): No
5.] Source Protection Zone?: Source Protection Zone 2
6.] Internal Drainage Board?: Geldeston 1
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 eastern side of the site partially intersects the Geldeston 1 IDB.

Part of the on-site flood risk forms a moderate flow path in the 0.1% AEP event, dissecting the site west-south in the west, southwest and centre of the site. Flow lines indicate this flood water flows south off of the site, contributing to a larger flow path south of the site. The on-site flow path forms a curve shape. 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: 2258

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. No priority habitats identified (see MAGIC) but deciduous woodland to north on opposite side of road. Site within green (edge of amber) 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.