QUESTION 82: Do you support

Object

Representation ID: 1180

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Mrs Andrea Lovick

I object to permission to build on SN4052, within the Landscape Protection Zone. Access from Green Lane is dangerous, and the bus services are poor or non-existent evenings and weekends. Many of the homes will have 2 cars, increasing the traffic through the village. I object to the reduction in the strategic gap between Hethersett and Little Melton.
The Humbleyard Surgery has stated in local media that they are unable to cope with the increase of housing as they service Mulbarton Hethersett and Cringleford all of which have seen substantial building projects suggesting there is no shortage of housing locally.

Object

Representation ID: 1247

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Councillor

I’m a South Norfolk Councillor for Hethersett Ward which includes Little Melton.

This site is on undeveloped land and would ruin landscape views for this living north of School Lane. It’s a protected area too. Developing in this open area would cause adverse harm.

I object to new housing in Little Melton and Bawburgh as the doctors surgery is in crisis now without adding new housing to the problem.

Object

Representation ID: 1258

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Mr. Steve Sophocleous

I object to applications SN4052 & SN0488 on the basis they both fall within the Landscape Protection Zone. These zones are designed to be kept free from development and will have a long lasting effect on Little Melton if allowed to be developed. It will also set a precedent for other applications to be made on other larger sites within the village. Since the previous Greater Norwich Local Plan identified a shortfall in housing supply, Little Melton has had 110 new properties built - with a further 30 planned. This should exempt the village from any further housing development needs.

Object

Representation ID: 1299

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Mr. Steve Sophocleous

I object to applications SN4052 & SN0488 on the basis they both fall within the Landscape Protection Zone. These zones are designed to be kept free from development and will have a long lasting effect on Little Melton if allowed to be developed. It will also set a precedent for other applications to be made on other larger sites within the village. Since the previous Greater Norwich Local Plan identified a shortfall in housing supply, Little Melton has had 81 new properties built - with a further 30 planned. This should exempt the village from any further housing development needs.

Support

Representation ID: 1384

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Phill Tracy

I strongly support this development area, it would add more development to an area that is out of the way and could easily support some expansion without major village disruption. Both of the areas marked could be expanded into with minimal harm to the village look and feel.

Support

Representation ID: 1407

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Mrs Traci Tracy

I support development on site SN4052. It is close to major routes which should limit the traffic needing to travel through the village and not impact on the character and feel of the village.

Object

Representation ID: 1462

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Sequence (UK) Ltd

Sequence objects to the allocation of the preferred site as land that is being promoted by Sequence at 32 School Lane, Little Melton, performs better when considered against the South Norfolk Site Assessment criteria, and would bring a range of community benefits in comparison to the allocation for housing only.

Land at 32 School Lane is in a more sustainable location at the heart of the village with excellent opportunities for walking and cycling. It will comprise infill development with a very limited landscape impact in comparison to the more peripheral currently proposed allocation which has unresolved highways issues.

Object

Representation ID: 1615

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: South Norfolk Council

I fully support the views of Little Melton PC in opposing any (including questions 82,83 and 84) clusters development in the village. In recent years there have effectively already been significant ‘clusters’ built, well in excess of previous local plans.
Local services, including doctors and the pharmacy cannot cope and there is huge development in progress in nearby Hethersett. More housing will simply add to the problems and risk spoiling the village.

Object

Representation ID: 1623

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: 1642

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: 1644

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: 1646

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: 1657

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.

Support

Representation ID: 1669

Received: 29/07/2021

Respondent: Harriet and Nigel Rich

Number of people: 2

If Little Melton does have to be the subject of further development then it would be preferable to have a site with a small number of houses 25 or below rather than a massive development such as at Hethersett and Cringleford

As stated earlier if any development does have to be done in Little Melton despite the number of houses already being built is over the agreed number already then our preferred sites would be SN0488, SN4052 and SN3007SL provided the number of houses was kept to 25 and below on each site. Urgent action needs to be taken with regard to the infrastructure in order for these small sites to proceed ie Medical practice, traffic calming, drains etc

Object

Representation ID: 1689

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.

Object

Representation ID: 1691

Received: 31/07/2021

Respondent: Mrs Tracey Plane

I've recently received some information stating that there are 3 sites in Little Melton which are considered to be suitable for 25 new houses on each site, these are the preferred site (SN4052) and two shortlisted sites (SN0488 and SN2044). Over the last few years we have already had a lot of new houses built in the village with more to soon be built opposite the school, also there are 1200 now being built at Hethersett. Already this is causing problems with the large amount of traffic that now comes through our narrow village roads, it has also put a heavy strain on our local Doctors surgery with them stating that they are at breaking point. Added to this there seems to be a lot more flooding along Mill Road these days which is also close to where a lot of the new house have been built so i am totally against any more new houses being built in Little Melton until we at least have the infrastructure to cope with them.

Object

Representation ID: 1693

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: 1697

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: 1701

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: 1709

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.

Object

Representation ID: 1744

Received: 30/07/2021

Respondent: Ms Dorothy Alborough

Agent: Mr C. F. Farrow

My client wishes to object to the other proposals referred to as shortlisted/preferred sites.
These proposals are at an unacceptable density.
They are within the landscape protection zone and would be harmful to character.
There are dangerous access problems for proposed site on Braymeadow Lane and sites either side of School Lane.
Additional pressure on services, incl. doctors surgery in Hethersett, together with diminishing water supply.
Drainage and surface water problems are a big issue locally.
Concerns of Little Melton Council are supported by my client, particularly concerns at scale/density of proposals.
Concern that additional development has overridden previously agreed housing numbers.

Object

Representation ID: 1771

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Little Melton Parish Council

These sites lie well within the Landscape Protection Zone. LMPC has always opposed development within
this zone and does not wish to see a precedent that would lead to development within the much bigger site
SN0340. The NRP has land designated for expansion that is only 500m from these sites. Great importance
was attached to preserving the much bigger gap between Hethersett and Cringleford - the same principle
should apply here.
SN4052 is not adjacent to the existing settlement boundary - Manor Farm barns were converted from
redundant agricultural buildings and permitted development rights were withdrawn. If SN4052 is permitted then
it will be difficult to argue against development of the extensive land attached to the barns and adjacent
properties
Poor visibility at the junction with Green Lane has been identified as a factor that affects SN0488 - the same
problems apply to SN4052!
Current residents accept these inconveniences in
return for not having much traffic on the lane but new houses should not be built so close to the road - SN4052
is on rising ground and will suffer from even worse noise and air pollution. Parts of these sites would be less
than 200m from the A47, well within the pollution zone

Object

Representation ID: 1780

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Ms Mary Plage

I fully support all the objections raised by the Parish Council in respect of the proposed developments, and in particular to sites SN4052 and SN0488.
Little Melton is a village and does not have the infrastructure to support yet more housing developments.
Hethersett surgery is at full capacity and cannot expand, despite 1200 new houses having been built between here and Hethersett.
This has also significantly increased the traffic flow through the narrow roads in the village.
Flooding occurs on most of the roads now.
The village shop will close due to retirement.
As far as I am aware we do not have a bus service into Norwich now, merely a 2 hourly service to the hospital.
This is more development than was originally proposed, and will destroy the habitat for wildlife and hedgerows - things many people moved to the village for in the first place.

Support

Representation ID: 1804

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Poppyfields (Norfolk) Ltd

Site is well located c.350m to village stores and c.700m to school. Majority existing footway, with addition proposed to connect into School Lane’s junction where further improvements proposed .
Land is relatively level, and is ‘infill’ parcel. There are mature hedges and trees with wider landscaping; A47 traffic is barely intrusive. Heritage potential
of nearby barns and landscape are noted.
Highways proposals, for site access, footway connections (and School Lane junction improvements)
have been considered within attached study.
Flood risk considerations have been assessed in attached document.
Landscape considerations have been considered further in attached study.
Gable Developments can confirm that land is ready and available to be progressed.

Comment

Representation ID: 1956

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Water Management Alliance

See attachment for full response.
SN4052 – Land south of School Lane and east of Manor Farm Barns, Little Melton
Outside the IDD boundary, within the Norfolk Rivers 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: 2016

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Environment Agency (Eastern Region)

Sites SN0412REV, SN4052, SN2065REV and SN4079 are located within 250 metres of an existing landfill that could result in the nearby community being exposed to impacts including odour, noise, dust and pests. The severity of these impacts will depend on the size of the landfill, the nature of the waste it takes and prevailing weather conditions.
Planning policy requirements (paragraph 182 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)) state that new development should integrate effectively with existing businesses and not place unreasonable restrictions upon them. Where the operation of an existing landfill could have significant adverse effects on new development (including changes of use), the applicant should be required to provide suitable mitigation for these effects. Mitigation can be provided through the design of the new development to minimise exposure to the neighbouring landfill and/or through financial contributions to the operator of the landfill to support measures that minimise impacts.
Environmental Permitting Regulations require operators to demonstrate that they have taken all reasonable precautions to mitigate impacts of their operations. This is unlikely to eliminate all emissions and there is likely to be residual impacts. In some cases, these residual impacts may cause local residents concern. There are limits to the measures that the operator can take to prevent impacts to residents. Consequently, it is important that planning decisions take full account of paragraph 182 of the NPPF. When a new development is built near to an existing landfill this does not automatically trigger a review of the permit.

Comment

Representation ID: 2043

Received: 21/07/2021

Respondent: Historic England

See attachments for full response.
Site: SN4052, Land south of School Lane and east of Manor Farm Barns, Little Melton
Whilst there are no designated heritage assets on the site, the Manor House (grade II listed) lies to the south west of the site. Therefore, any development of this site has the potential to impact upon the significance of this heritage asset.
A heritage impact assessment of the site should be undertaken to assess the impact of the proposed development on the listed building and determine if allocation of this site is appropriate, and if it is what mitigation may be required. The findings of the HIA should inform whether the site is allocated and if it is, the policy criterion including any mitigation and enhancement.
Complete an HIA to inform the allocation of the site including any mitigation, enhancement and policy wording.

Comment

Representation ID: 2116

Received: 14/07/2021

Respondent: Norfolk County Council - LLFA

SN4052
See attachment for full details.
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): 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 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." "The on-site flood risk contributes to an off-site flow path. Flow lines indicate this flood water flows east off of the site. We advise this must be considered in the site assessment.

The site is adjacent to a flow path. We advise this must be considered in the site assessment."

Assessment: Green

Comment

Representation ID: 2261

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. 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.