QUESTION 81: Do you support

Object

Representation ID: 1692

Received: 31/07/2021

Respondent: Jean 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 - Protect the character of villages and their settings.
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.
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 in the village of Little Melton are already too high giving rise to issues such as 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.

Object

Representation ID: 1695

Received: 31/08/2021

Respondent: Matt 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 - Protect the character of villages and their settings.

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.
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 in the village of Little Melton are already too high giving rise to issues such as 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.

Object

Representation ID: 1700

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Anthony Procter

OBJECT in the strongest possible terms to any further large scale housing development in Little Melton as the village simply doesn't have the infrastructure to cope with any further such development.
The Doctors and Dentist surgeries are already at full capacity. Road Safety for pedestrians, cyclists and other road users is already of concern given the narrow carriageways and increased traffic from development would exacerbate this. Prevalence of flooding, lack of public transport and services and a small school with no room for expansion are raised.
Concern is highlighted for land dedicated for 'Landscape Protection' being included and not maintaining a strategic gap between Little Melton and Hethersett. Also the loss of land to building which has been a valuable resource for health and well being during the Covid lock downs.

Object

Representation ID: 1708

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Mrs Kate Weeks

I am writing to ask you to seriously consider the negative impact of housing developments in Little Melton. We are extremely concerned about the use of landscape protected sites; these sites are protected for a reason and allowing them to be built upon not only opens the floodgates to much more housing but more importantly it has a severe impact on local health and well-being. Especially during covid, people have taken great mental strength from the green space that surrounds our village and losing this (particularly space SN2044) would be devastating.

I also want to point out that the shop is unlikely to continue when the current owners retire as it has been for sale for a while and we will therefore no longer be a service village. Moreover, the Humbleyard Practice are extremely stretched and have made public statements about their inability to cope with current demand.

I would ask you to seriously consider if Little Melton is the right place in South Norfolk for further housing. It is obvious that new houses are necessary but using small, rural villages has such negative impacts that other options should be sought. Larger towns have much more infrastructure to cope.

Support

Representation ID: 1742

Received: 30/07/2021

Respondent: Ms Dorothy Alborough

Agent: Mr C. F. Farrow

Main drainage service adjacent to this site into which any housing drainage could be easily connected.
The electricity supply is easily accessible for development on the land.
There are no flooding or surface water difficulties attaching to the site.
There are no arboricultural issues with trees or plans to be protected.
There are no greater school distance problems with SN106REV than any of the other proposals made.
The issue of a lack of footpath access (common to other proposals) can be overcome.
Provision for affordable houses could be included.
There is no greater access problem than there was for the houses adjoining the site.
This is not a high density proposal, and therefore in keeping with surrounding houses.
No issues with interrupted vistas.

Comment

Representation ID: 1955

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Water Management Alliance

See attachment for full response.
SN1046REV – Glenhaven, Great Melton Road, Little Melton
Outside the IDD boundary, within the Norfolk Rivers IDB watershed catchment.
Minor development - No further comments

Comment

Representation ID: 2134

Received: 14/07/2021

Respondent: Norfolk County Council - LLFA

See attachments for full response.
Few or no constraints. Standard 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]: Minor flooding
* 0.1% AEP Event [Depth]: 0.00- 0.30cm.
2.] Internal & external flooding?:
* On-site: No
* Within proximity to site (~500.00m): Yes - Internal Flooding|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 DIAMICTON. Comments on infiltration potential are dependent on a complete geotechnical investigation, including BRE365 Soakaway Testing. Where possible, surface water infiltration should be utilised."
Assessment: Green

Comment

Representation ID: 2174

Received: 13/09/2021

Respondent: Norfolk County Council

Little Melton - SN1046REV
The Highway Authority does not object to inclusion of SN1046REV within the settlement limit, but should highlight that it would not be able to support an application that included highway access to the site from Great Melton Road. Alternative access would need to be considered.

It does not seem feasible to provide at Great Melton Road, required carriageway widening and new footway, to ensure it could safely accommodate development traffic.

Comment

Representation ID: 2260

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 an area of rough grassland bounded on all sides by hedges. Hedges 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 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.