QUESTION 82: Do you support

Object

Representation ID: 18

Received: 07/06/2021

Respondent: Mrs Vanessa Knell

Can you stop developing our village full stop! Too many houses already has changed Little Melton dramatically. The roads have become extremely busy, traffic travels too fast as the village is used as a rat run. There is not enough GP, dental or facilities to support the current level of houses let alone if more houses are built.

Object

Representation ID: 360

Received: 11/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Martyn Brown

The Village is dissapearing with all the recent buildings. Enough us enough.

Object

Representation ID: 374

Received: 12/07/2021

Respondent: Mrs Elizabeth Brooks

The proposed site falls outside of the existing settlement boundary and, given that we have already had over 80 new homes built in the village recently with another 30 to follow, it just feels as though this is an economic exercise rather than a planning one. Little Melton is attractive as an option for developers as property prices here are high but that does not justify adding more houses to the village.

Object

Representation ID: 385

Received: 13/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Keith Woods

• I object to the proposed development SN4052.
• The proposed site is not adjacent to the existing Settlement Boundary.
• The Landscape Protection Zone was well established and should not be broken.
• The topology of the site, on rising land, will break the skyline.
• The topology of the site, on rising land, will exacerbate the well documented drainage problems. These cannot be properly mitigated, given their complexity and proximity of the ‘dam’ of the A47.

Object

Representation ID: 398

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: 407

Received: 14/07/2021

Respondent: Mrs Kellie Thomas

Absolutely no development should take place on SN4052 as this falls within the Landscape Protection Zone. The site is also outside of the existing settlement limit. Further concerns include flooding from surface water, traffic management, pedestrian safety and local wildlife.

Comment

Representation ID: 430

Received: 16/07/2021

Respondent: Prof Mervyn Bibb

We fully endorse all of the comments made by John Heaser, Clerk of Little Melton Parish Council. This potential development falls within the Landscape Protection Zone, which begs the question of whether the latter has any real value. While small scale developments might be reasonably accommodated, ones such as this (with more to come once the precedent is set) are not. Limited development of SN0488 with housing along the north side of School Lane might be acceptable (to “fill the gap”), but no more than that.

Object

Representation ID: 449

Received: 18/07/2021

Respondent: N/A

Question 82 should be read in conjunction with Question 83 because once School Lane has been "improved" to permit the residential development of one site there would be nothing to prevent further developments along School Lane.
The Landscape Protection Zone does not seem to provide any landscape protection.
More houses in School Lane would cause more noise and pollution.
The open pedestrian access to the A47 would have to be reviewed.
The arguments used to reject other sites in the village could also be used to reject the sites in School Lane
Wendy and Warren Purdy

Object

Representation ID: 468

Received: 19/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Keith Grant

The area cannot cope with more housing, the additional traffic would further reduce safety and there are insufficient access and services.

Object

Representation ID: 534

Received: 22/07/2021

Respondent: Miss Alison Swift

I am a resident of Little Melton and writing to South Norfolk Council and the councillors concerned about the proposals for more housing in Little Melton, and to add my support to the response from Little Melton Parish Council.

The Joint Core Strategy states small-scale housing growth in Little Melton, which has already been exceeded. South Norfolk Council is neither protecting the character of this village or it’s setting, which it claims is one of its objectives. If this plan is allowed to go ahead it will give carte blanche to full-scale development because the Joint Core Strategy will have been rendered utterly meaningless. What is the point of having a Joint Core Strategy if it is then ignored. The Landscape Protection Zone is also being ignored and has already been extensively encroached upon in other areas. Two of the proposed sites in Little Melton are within this - alleged - protected zone. Why designate these areas as protected only to allow them to be be densely built on. The Council is not only not protecting the landscape, and therefore the people and the environment in which they live, but contradicting itself. These actions completely erode trust in our elected Council and it’s Councillors because of the disparity between what it claims and lays down are it’s aims and objectives, and what it then actually does.

If these proposals go ahead, coupled with the large scale development at Hethersett, Little Melton and Hethersett will soon be one ill-considered, urban housing sprawl, with few green spaces, an inadequate infrastructure, and unable to cope with a changing climate. Where little thought has been given to the long term effects on the people living there, their needs and the quality of the environment in which they are expected to live. Do you not think people deserve better? Do you ever consider the legacy the council and its councillors are leaving future generations?

Object

Representation ID: 592

Received: 24/07/2021

Respondent: Mrs Penelope Watkin

I object to permission to build on SN4052, within the Landscape Protection Zone. Such development would transform a quiet lane into an area of an urban nature. Access from Green Lane is dangerous, bus services poor, non-existent evenings and weekends, so most homes will have 2 cars at least, increasing the traffic.
Hundreds of new houses have been built in Hethersett and Wymondham so no shortage of housing locally. Hethersett surgery has declared itself ‘at breaking point’ by the relentless house building, the longterm future of Little Melton shop is uncertain and infrastructure generally is insufficient to take more houses.

Object

Representation ID: 666

Received: 26/07/2021

Respondent: Dr Alison Dow

Located within Landscape Protection Zone that had previously been protected - why is this now allowed? if this is allowed then there is an apparent free for all development anywhere and everywhere.
I object also strongly to the diminishment to the strategic gap between Hethersett and Little Melton.
Lack of any strategic planning for the increase of services eg GP's. Our local GP surgery. Our local surgery Humbleyard has stated in the local media they are unable to cope much longer.
Benefit to people in terms of their physical and mental wellbeing when they are able to access the outdoors in rural settings. Just as our population has reconnected with nature and outdoor life and we have now clearly been able to see the benefits - South Norfolk appears to be in the process of sabotaging these benefits.

Object

Representation ID: 676

Received: 27/07/2021

Respondent: Dr Jo Mondal

I fully support the comments made by John Heaser, Clerk of Little Melton Parish Council. These sites are in the Landscape Protection zone which has previously protected development. I am worried that the proposed development would set a precedent and remove the protections from other zones.
As well as the destruction to wildlife, other concerns are the lack of infrastructure in the village including oversubscribed local dentists and GP surgery, very limited bus service, limited footpaths, flooding on roads and the village shop looks set to close. The village lacks the services and facilities needed for more housing.

Object

Representation ID: 697

Received: 27/07/2021

Respondent: Mrs Melanie Sutton

Building on land that has been dedicated as landscape protection will open the door to large scale development.
Lack of medical facilities. Humbleyard cannot cope
The already problematic drainage issues in the village -flooding and sewerage.
Loss of wildlife habitat
Lack of infrastructure in village, limited bus services and other amenities. Will add to already increased traffic from Hethersett.
Schools can’t cope with additional children

Object

Representation ID: 719

Received: 28/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Trevor CRASKE

It is within the Landscape protection Zone.
The quiet, narrow, ‘no through’ road is used by walkers and cyclists as a route to the Research area, hospital and Norwich.
Exit from the road to Green Lane is hazardous.

Object

Representation ID: 726

Received: 28/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Roger Bennett

• I support all the comments made by LMPC, which highlights valid social and ecological reasons in its objection.
• LM housing development has contravened JCS Policy 15 by about 6-fold. This precedent has damaged LM rural nature and development within SN4052 would exacerbate further. 25 dwellings within a hectare is high density; not “small scale housing growth”.
• There are centuries old established oak trees on School Lane and an established tree boundary minimising A47 traffic noise to the Manor Farm Barns complex.
• Is housing policy is being driven by social need or landowner / developer greed?

Object

Representation ID: 766

Received: 28/07/2021

Respondent: Mrs Adele Gilbertson

Sited is protected from further development, road is too narrow to support a development and would also become dangerous for daily dog walkers. We already have a flooding problem down the lane. Characteristics of village are disappearing. Local services such as schools and doctors are struggling to serve the community as it is.

Object

Representation ID: 830

Received: 29/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Matthew Wilson

I fully support the objection by LMPC to this proposed site for development. It risks setting a very dangerous precedent. The village already is subject to enough development and the facilities are not sufficient to support more. School Lane enables a number of dog walkers and young families to benefit from a reasonably quiet road. Drainage is not fit for purpose, the road isn’t wide enough and pedestrian safety would become a significant issue. Covid has reinforced the importance of green space. DO NOT BUILD ON A PROTECTION ZONE.

Object

Representation ID: 845

Received: 29/07/2021

Respondent: Mrs Joanne Hart

object as we need to protect openness, retain visual amenity and take into consideration local planning policy, nature conservation, highways safety, servicing constraints, traffic generation, noise and disturbance.

Object

Representation ID: 861

Received: 29/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Andrew Gilbertson

No more homes in Little Melton should be built full stop. The village primary school is already over-subscribed and 2 years ago I was unable to get my child into it, she now attends Bawburgh Primary despite only being 400m away from LMPS. School Lane is a single lane road (no lights / pavement) not safe to take increased traffic load and major concerns with increased traffic at unsafe junction with Green Lane. The land itself is on clay with a huge water catchment. The area floods with the recent rainfall. Finally land is Landscape protection zone, by democratic process.

Object

Representation ID: 958

Received: 30/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Paul Simpson

I am concerned about the motivation behind this development decision and whether Little Melton can support further housing given the size of the village, current amenities and the pressure placed on the area by recent large scale development in Hethersett.

The limited facilities within the village and road safety aspects have not been appropriately considered. In addition the impact of large scale development within the Southern Bypass Landscape Protection Zone is likely to significantly increase the risk of surface flooding- mitigation of such risk has not been given sufficient thought.

Object

Representation ID: 964

Received: 30/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Adam Webb

Landscape Protection Zone should be protected. Don’t set a precedent for damage elsewhere.

25 houses will more than double existing density and cars.

Entering-cars can backup to bend. Exiting-difficult due to traffic/visibility.

Car use will increase as local shop closes and health services are full.

Lane floods-converting natural drainage to concrete will augment this.

High-density properties alongside heritage Manor Farm Barns out of character, showing lack of landscape sympathy. Topography results in barns being overlooked.

Long-established wildlife corridor- migratory route for great crested newts/pipistrelle bat roost. Construction could damage biodiversity.

Narrow no-through road primarily used by dog walkers and children.

Object

Representation ID: 978

Received: 30/07/2021

Respondent: NHS

I would like to object on the ground of road safety ,excessive traffic ,flooding risks and noise pollution .It would be damaging ecologically
The proposed development is not in keeping with the character of existing houses
The proposal of keeping open areas at southern bypass will be lost and will be damaging
Dr S S and B Johal

Object

Representation ID: 999

Received: 30/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Ian Galloway

What was the point of developing a Norwich Southern Bypass Landscape Protection Zone only to completely ignore it?
Access is very narrow and although could as suggested be widened, not sufficiently for 2-way vehicle+pedestrian access. Visibility is very poor at the school Lane junction. Leaving the village, Increased traffic (circa 50 additional cars) will cause an already congested junction with the B1108 to become completely unbearable.
Existing amenities are poor and the school oversubscribed.
Hethersett developments already encroach Lt.Melton, why squeeze an additional 25 houses in a less than ideal location? Haven’t touched on the environmental damages and sociological impact.

Object

Representation ID: 1067

Received: 31/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Russell Cole

This site is in the Landscape Protection zone that has previously been protected from development. There is concern that if development there is approved then it opens the doors to major development in the other large areas that have also been offered. There is poor visibility with the junction at School Lane. The road is narrow. That stretch of School Lane is used as a recreational road currently - this would be lost if the development went ahead.

Object

Representation ID: 1077

Received: 31/07/2021

Respondent: Dr Patrick Anstey

I fully agree with all points made in the submission by Little Melton Parish Council.
Particular concerns:
1. Significant quantity of additional housing within the Landscape Protection Zone
2. The road is a currently a quiet cul-de-sac that offers a relaxing semi-countryside place to stroll. If approved, traffic from the additional housing would have a significant negative impact on that, over about half the length of the cul-de-sac.
3. Facilities available for Little Melton residents are already at capacity, and with the estates at Hethersett still growing rapidly, significant additional housing will make that situation still more dire.

Object

Representation ID: 1103

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Mrs Rebecca Heaser

It is not connected to the existing settlement, it's too far from the village hall, the village is already coming close to Hethersett and I don't think it should be extended at the other end too. The last Local Plan suggested the village could cope with 20 more house and 120 will soon have been built. It's in the bypass protection zone and is too high density and inappropriate for the area.

Object

Representation ID: 1126

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Little Melton Parish Council

The site is in the Landscape Protection zone and will suffer air and noise pollution from the A47. The junction with Green Lane has poor visibility. Please read the attached document for multiple other reasons for objection.

Object

Representation ID: 1134

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Mr John Heaser

The Landscape Protection zone should be respected and new houses should not be built within the A47 noise and air pollution zone.

Object

Representation ID: 1152

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Tony Lovick

Narrow road, poor drainage, noise and air pollution from nearby dual carriageway.
Housing in Little Melton has already increased far beyond the existing plan which runs to 2026. Additional numbers will increase urban sprawl and remove the distinctive character of a small and beautiful village which has set it apart from the nearby Hethersett and Cringleford suburbs