QUESTION 81: Do you support

Object

Representation ID: 17

Received: 07/06/2021

Respondent: Mrs Vanessa Knell

The same reasons as explained in question 80. The village of Little Melton will no longer be a village as it’s already virtually joining Hethersett with the planned development by the new school. It’s such a shame that all of the open space is being taken up by housing development, greedy developers who build cheap and fast offering poor quality houses! It’s soon going to become a city living on top of each other!

Object

Representation ID: 44

Received: 08/06/2021

Respondent: Mr Ricky Wallsworth

The proposal suggests compulsory purchase of my garden which I will fight until I am bankrupt.

Object

Representation ID: 46

Received: 08/06/2021

Respondent: Mrs Lisa Dunton

Small piece of pasture land surrounded by houses with no current access.Proposed access created would be dangerous onto a narrow small lane hard to pass two cars with no footpath and lots of dog walkers/ cyclists/horse riders reguarly up and down walking in the lane . Massivley over subscribed amenities and already increased traffic by large developments close by at hethersett almost joining the village. Proposal includes part of current houses mature gardens with mature orchards, allotments and outbuildings owned by people who will refuse to sell so is absolutley not acceptable to force them!!

Object

Representation ID: 58

Received: 10/06/2021

Respondent: Mrs Melanie Sutton

The village is already over developed.
There’s no access to this site and I find it appalling that other property owners or their agents can include part of my garden in the proposed area without my permission to give the impression there is access. There is no way I’m selling my garden for access to develop a green field site. Enough damage has been done to the environment in this area already by building The Limes and extending Ringwood Close.
The facilities in the area are already overstretched this and the other proposed developments will only things worse.

Object

Representation ID: 365

Received: 11/07/2021

Respondent: Dr Fiona Doonan

Great Melton road is of insufficient width to withstand any additional traffic. The mini roundabout at the junction of GM Rd, School Lane, Mill road and Burnthouse Lane is very dangerous with limited visibilty. No More traffic should be encouraged on this junction. Great Melton Road is popular with locals for walking, but is becoming too dangerous for inexperienced dog walkers, child cyclists.

Object

Representation ID: 369

Received: 11/07/2021

Respondent: Mrs Philippa Gunn

This site provides a welcome visible green space for the houses around. Access is very questionable and would mean the demolishing of an existing building, as well as much increased traffic on a narrow country lane with no current footpaths etc. The awkward shape of the site would make a development inefficient and cramped, as well as significantly and negatively affecting the properties around and their inhabitants quality of life. If this land is included in the settlement boundary then settlement in the future is likely, and this should not be supported.

Object

Representation ID: 384

Received: 13/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Keith Woods

• The access issues are well identified by Little Melton PC.

Object

Representation ID: 397

Received: 14/07/2021

Respondent: None

LMC 'Chair' John Heaser has submitted concise objections to the proposed development buildings to our village. I fully agree with his statement. Little Melton is a village and should remain so! We do NOT have the infrastructure for more houses!
1. Very limited bus service.
2. School over capacity.
3. Hethersett surgery the same.
4. Garage the same.
5. Village shop will close due to retirement.
6. Constant flooding on ALL roads.
7. Limited footpaths.
8. Narrow roads and widening will only encourage speeding.
9. Already surpassed the amount agreed upon.
10. Destruction of wildlife and hedgerows.

Object

Representation ID: 406

Received: 14/07/2021

Respondent: Mrs Kellie Thomas

If this land is included in the settlement boundary then future development will be more likely and this should be discouraged. There is already too much traffic in the village using small arrow lanes. Access is limited and pedestrian and cyclist safety is a concern.

Comment

Representation ID: 429

Received: 16/07/2021

Respondent: Prof Mervyn Bibb

Given that the site is already surrounded by housing, it seems logical to include it in the Settlement Limit. Development would provide only a limited number of new residences with potential issues surrounding access and oversight from existing homes that would need to be addressed.

Comment

Representation ID: 446

Received: 17/07/2021

Respondent: Prof Mervyn Bibb

Surely the shaded area shown for SN1046REV in the plan is incorrect and should not include parts of the gardens of three adjoining properties!

Object

Representation ID: 672

Received: 26/07/2021

Respondent: Julian Bailey

1) When we brought in December 2017 to retire near younger family members we understood the Limes Estate would fit in well enough with Little Melton, and it seemed the green space and Estate layout were well and sensitively planned.
2) There was some concern expressed by those in authority about the ditch running along the rear of 8-10-12 Lime Close and we refer to the new plumping station etc. and disposal of any flood water. Care would have to be taken that random 'infilling' did not adversely affect any flood water situation in the ditch.
3) infilling endlessly until eventually the character of any village is adversely affected. Little Melton must be at that point. If everything on the plan is blue, green etc is built upon a featureless suburb will be built and may be that is desired.
4) There is within about a mile of Little Melton what appears to be a vast housing estate of many hundreds of houses.
5) SN1046 REV is a pleasant area of grass - a horse lived there and an old 'country' hedge of trees etc gives habitat to various birds and wildlife. All that contributed in its way to making a small area of Little Melton pleasant. One point of villages is that they are not towns nor suburbs.
6) I am not sure exactly where the 'Settlement Boundary' goes. Presumably wherever a Government Inspector wishes.
7) In conclusion we are not in favour of 'infilling' SN1046REV to our detriment in enjoyment of our property.

Object

Representation ID: 722

Received: 28/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Trevor CRASKE

This site would cause loss of wildlife area.
Increase the surface water flooding in the immediate area
There will be increased traffic to a narrow road that local population uses as a walking route.

Object

Representation ID: 849

Received: 27/07/2021

Respondent: Sheila Lungley

Number of people: 2

We have lived our house for 31 years and surrounded my lovely fields although our property is the far end of the village close to the southern bypass..and some days the noise is very loud but we have adapted to that over the years our main concern is the inevitable rise in traffic and how it will be managed to get out of road as it’s a very tricky getting out and have witnessed several near collisions at this junction. another concern is would there be paths so it would be safe for walking as there is several cars which already use this small lane for business ,over all if planning is approved we would not disapprove if all the safety measures are in place .

Object

Representation ID: 1069

Received: 31/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Russell Cole

This is an awkward site being "locked". Access onto Great Melton Road would be tricky.

Object

Representation ID: 1151

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Tony Lovick

Site is overlooked on all sides.
Development would likely be much higher density than the character of existing houses on that road.
Providing an access road to the site would take up an existing site, so provision of a single large house behind would do nothing to increase the housing stock.
Neither high nor low density development make sense

Object

Representation ID: 1173

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Mrs Andrea Lovick

It is entirely inappropriate to attempt to develop a piece of land that is inaccessible and to plan to force a purchase of so many other peoples properties to achieve this. The Great Melton Road has no footpaths to allow pedestrian access to the village and the increase of traffic along this road would increase the danger the dog walking and exercise that already takes place. Any families that lived on this site would not be able to walk their children safely to the local school, which would potentially increase the congestion experienced along School Road with more car.

Object

Representation ID: 1209

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Roger Bennett

What is wrong with leaving green space as green space? Why does every field have to be considered for housing? How can this site be considered when it means compulsory purchase of part of three peoples' back gardens? Are we supposed to believe that developing this site will enhance Little Melton as a village? I don't think so. If concerns about the road network have already been raised by Highway Authority, why is this site being pursued? It will mean widening a beautiful country lane, destroying trees and wildlife habitats. NO.

Object

Representation ID: 1248

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Councillor

I object as it’s a protected open area and that whole parcel of land is completely undeveloped currently. The harm of development on the South Side of School Lane would be excessive and ruin landscape views. I would prefer frontage development of the north side of School Lane linking up development as infill.

Object

Representation ID: 1254

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Mr. Steve Sophocleous

I object to the planning application SN1046REV on the basis that it includes existing land owned & occupied by current residents of Little Melton. Although within the Settlement Limit there has already been completed developments of 60 properties at Limes Close and a further 20 properties at Ringwood Close that have provided a more than adequate housing supply in Little Melton that was identified in the previous Greater Norwich Local Plan for service village growth from 2008 - 2026

Object

Representation ID: 1297

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Mr. Steve Sophocleous

I object to the planning application SN1046REV on the basis that it includes existing land owned & occupied by current residents of Little Melton. There would also be access and density issues that would need to be resolved. Although within the Settlement Limit there has already been completed developments of 60 properties at Limes Close and a further 20 properties at Ringwood Close that have provided a more than adequate housing supply in Little Melton that was identified in the previous Greater Norwich Local Plan for service village growth from 2008 - 2026.

Support

Representation ID: 1381

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Phill Tracy

This would make good use of land that is hidden away and wouldn't change the character of the village, if done correctly this could add more housing stock in the heart of the village with minimal impact

Support

Representation ID: 1406

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Mrs Traci Tracy

I support development at this site due to the area already being developed on each side. As such, this does not spoil the nature of the area or the village.

Object

Representation ID: 1432

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Sequence (UK) Ltd

Proposed allocation is contrived and backland development out of keeping with the character of the surround area;
Site is unlikely to be viable given the value of the property being demolished to provide access;
Concerns raised by Local Highway Authority;
Land promoted by Sequence at 32 School Lane is far more suitable for allocation when considered against South Norfolk Council's site assessment criteria - most notably sustainability of location, ability for safe access and appropriateness to setting.

Object

Representation ID: 1622

Received: 26/07/2021

Respondent: Mrs Veronica Dawn Addison

I support the Little Melton Parish Councils response.
Having relocated to LM twenty years ago for a quieter more semi rural way of life it saddens me to see more and more valuable countryside and farming land being developed. The dead end section of School Lane has been my, and several friends and various dogs over many years a safe haven for early morning walks. We enjoy magical moments with regular deer sittings. Buzzards and Red Kite overhead including a dearly loved Robin hand fed for years. These ramblings maybe of little significance to someone siting in an office but to me diagnosed with multiple sclerosis thirty years ago these walks are a lifeline for both mental and physical wellbeing.

Object

Representation ID: 1641

Received: 30/07/2021

Respondent: Mrs Sarah Procter

My objections are listed below:
1. Building on valuable farm land which has been dedicated as Landscape Protection.
2. Destruction of countryside and wildlife habitat.
3. Already a massive housing development is underway on the Lt. Melton side of Hethersett, almost doubling the size of the village. This has resulted in the destruction of hedgerows, trees and habitat.
4. More houses and more concreting over of green areas will contribute to the risks of flooding.
5. Schools, doctor’s surgeries, dentists etc. are already over-subscribed. The infrastructure is just not there to cope.
What is proposed will change the character of the village.

Object

Representation ID: 1643

Received: 30/07/2021

Respondent: Ms Jane Lewin

Sad to learn that a proposal has been made to build on land dedicated as LANDSCAPE PROTECTION.
This would affect the Health and Wellbeing of residents who rely on area for access to walks and nature.
There is a great variety of wildlife - please consider the effect of this build on the diverse natural habitat.
Concern at maintenance of the Hethersett and Little Melton strategic gap.
Local infrastructure such as schools and GP cannot cope with increasing population.
Junction from School Lane into Green Lane has become increasingly dangerous due to traffic.
Increasing housing and traffic will add to difficulties faced by walkers, cyclists and young children.

Object

Representation ID: 1645

Received: 30/07/2021

Respondent: Sheila Lewis-Smith

Some of the proposed sites for development are inside the disunited Landscape Protection Zone.
Development in Hethersett is already within 600m of Little Melton houses. This has increased traffic flow. Path system in Little Melton is very limited. Limited visibility out of School Lane . Lack of cycle lanes and routes.
Development in Little Melton since the last Local Plan has increased by 30%.
Suggested density of 25 per/ha is too high for village.
No guarantee that shop will continue when owners retire.
Already huge strains on doctor and dentist surgeries.
Village will also be disrupted by future wind farm infrastructure.

Object

Representation ID: 1656

Received: 30/07/2021

Respondent: Eric Ashley

The current project in School Road, directly opposite the school, has obviously been rubber stamped by someone with limited planning experience, and with scant regard for the safety of the pupils that attend the school.
The modern trend of parents dropping off and collecting children causes chaos along this road, especially when a bus or Lorry is trying to pass.

Lorries exceeding the weight restriction use this road regularly

Once the Houses are built, the entry and exit of vehicles from this development will prove to be an extremely hazardous manoeuvre for Local Residents, School Children, and their Teachers.
We do not want developments of this nature in our village.

Little Melton is a village with extremely limited resources, very soon we will no longer have a village shop.
Villagers have to travel to Hethersett to visit a Doctors surgery, this surgery is full to capacity with patients, that's before all the existing building in the area is completed.
If you require an NHS Dentist you have to travel out of the County, there is no spare places available locally.

Once all the local building projects are completed the village will have contributed 110 houses, this figure is way above the Local Plan requirement of 10- 20.

Object

Representation ID: 1688

Received: 31/07/2021

Respondent: Mrs Kellie Thomas

I do not believe that any of the proposed sites in Little Melton (preferred nor shortlisted) are suitable for development. Such development would be contrary to SNVC Objective 3.

Little Melton is already over populated. Many residents do not currently have a GP or dentist and other supporting services are already overstretched. Little Melton is a small village with no amenities. Traffic volumes are already too high and health and safety is a concern.
My objections are detailed below:
1. Current development
The last local plan stated that Little Melton would be allocated an additional 10 – 20 dwellings, subject to form, character and servicing constraints, during the period 1 April 2008 to 31 March 2026. We are now in 2021 and once the development opposite the school is complete we will already have an additional 110 dwellings. This exceeds the original allocation by 5 – 10 times.
2. Landscape Protection Zone / Settlement Limit
Development of SN0488 and SN4052 are completely unacceptable as they are both within the Landscape Protection Zone.
3. Traffic
Traffic volumes safety, congestion, noise and pollution.
4. Infrastructure – supporting services and amenities
The village does not have the infrastructure to cope with further development.
5. Wildlife and nature
Any development will adversely affect the local wildlife including bats and red kites which are both protected species.
6. Health and Wellbeing
An increased population will dilute community spirit and have a detrimental effect on the village’s character and the quality of life for its residents.
7. Environment
There are already drainage issues in the village which will only be exacerbated with increased development.