QUESTION 83: Do you think

Object

Representation ID: 19

Received: 07/06/2021

Respondent: Mrs Vanessa Knell

None of the sites in Little Melton should be considered as the village cannot cope with the current volume of traffic and demands on it’s infrastructure!

Comment

Representation ID: 361

Received: 11/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Martyn Brown

More residential building in Little Melton will destroy local wildlife and the community.

Object

Representation ID: 364

Received: 11/07/2021

Respondent: Dr Fiona Doonan

it is the proposal to the north of Braymeadow Lane that I would particularly object to. Spreading housing outside of the perimeter of the existing village is completely unacceptible. Braymeadow Lane has frequently been used as a diversion route when either the Watton Road or Hethersett Lane have been closed due to accidents or roadworks. Having buses, lorries, emergency vehicles and large numbers of cars along a single track road is dangerous.

Comment

Representation ID: 375

Received: 12/07/2021

Respondent: Mrs Elizabeth Brooks

I do not think that any sites should be allocated to Little Melton at this time, the local GP surgery cannot cope with their current patient list let alone any more, the roads are not up to supporting extra load and neither is the drainage system. The village is already used as a rat run and when there are roadworks in the surrounding area it becomes ridiculous with buses and lorries using Braymeadow as a cut through, when it is only really a single track road with passing places. I am disappointed that you are even considering it.

Object

Representation ID: 386

Received: 13/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Keith Woods

• None of the shortlisted alternatives are suitable, given the objections to Q80.

Object

Representation ID: 399

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: 408

Received: 14/07/2021

Respondent: Mrs Kellie Thomas

No sites whatsoever should be allocated instead of, or in addition to, the preferred site. Development of SN0488 is completely unacceptable as this is within the Landscape Protection Zone. Furthermore, SN0488 and SN2044 are both outside of the existing settlement limit. Little Melton is already over populated. Many residents do not currently have a GP or dentist and other supporting services are already overstretched.

Comment

Representation ID: 431

Received: 16/07/2021

Respondent: Prof Mervyn Bibb

No. The village does not have the infrastructure to cope with significant further development. We moved here 16 years ago and with each significant development we have noticed a detrimental effect on the village’s character and quality of life, notably through increased traffic and flooding. The village school is over-subscribed, as are the nearest medical and dental facilities in neighbouring and much larger Hethersett.

Object

Representation ID: 469

Received: 19/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Keith Grant

None of the sites should be shortlisted, all should be rejected. The the extent of the Settlement Limit should not be changed. More than the proposed 10-20 dwellings have already been built. The area cannot cope with more housing, the additional traffic would further reduce safety and there are insufficient services to support the existing population without increasing it further.

Object

Representation ID: 533

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: 720

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: 846

Received: 29/07/2021

Respondent: Mrs Joanne Hart

SN0488 and SN2044 should not be allocated instead. Need to adhere to local planning policy of 10-20 dwellings, retain visual amenity, conserve nature eg trees and hedgerows, avoid traffic generation and reduce noise and disturbance from lorries and traffic rather than adding to it. Surgery oversubscribed therefore there are service constraints.

Object

Representation ID: 862

Received: 29/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Andrew Gilbertson

SN0488, development of 25 houses is not in keeping with existing single row of houses which would be infilled. The land is clay and during high rainfall ( now a regular event) the large water catchment pours off the slope, flooding the front garden / field (picture attached from yesterdays limited rainfall). Land is currently part of Landscape Protection zone, determined by democratic process. Should remain as such and sites chosen should be brown field site.

Comment

Representation ID: 1071

Received: 31/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Russell Cole

If any development is to happen in the village, it should be in line with previous considerations. No development should take place if sites are deemed to be within the Landscape Protection Zone or the outside the Settlement Boundary (red line on the map)
https://south-norfolk.oc2.uk/docfiles/2/Map%20Booklet%20for%20Little%20Melton%20&%20Great%20Melton.pdf
These zones have been created for a reason and therefore the reasons to restrict development should be adhered to.

Comment

Representation ID: 1080

Received: 31/07/2021

Respondent: Dr Patrick Anstey

I fully agree with all points made in the submission by Little Melton Parish Council, and am against any significant further building of dwellings in or around Little Melton.
1. Recent building has seen far more new houses than anticipated in the last Local Plan. Some infill fronting existing roads might be acceptable, but using any of the identified sites as proposed would serve to change our small village feel.
2. Traffic passing through Little Melton already quite heavy - will increase as the nearby estates in Hethersett continue to grow. Generating even more traffic will make bad situation worse.

Object

Representation ID: 1105

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Mrs Rebecca Heaser

Little Melton has already had more development than the local facilities can cope with. There have been 1200 houses built at Hethersett within a kilometre of Little Melton without any more facilities apart from disjointed cycle paths. The Doctors surgery cannot cope with the numbers already and any more houses in Little Melton would just make this worse. The traffic from Hethersett is already making the roads in Little Melton busier. Little Melton shop has been up for sale for some time and may not be open much longer.

Comment

Representation ID: 1137

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Mr John Heaser

There would be some logic in using part of SN0488 to continue the line of existing houses with sympathetic development. However the site suffers even worse noise and air pollution than SN4052. Both sites suffer the same problems with drainage and road junction.
SN2044 is at least outside the Landscape Protection zone and development there would not set such a dangerous precedent for further development. However an estate of 25 houses would be overdevelopment and out of character with the neighbouring buildings. Development of SN2044 should require provision of a cycle path to connect to the Hethersett Lane path.

Comment

Representation ID: 1154

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Tony Lovick

No

Object

Representation ID: 1184

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Mrs Andrea Lovick

LMC 'Chair' John Heaser has submitted concise objections to the proposed development buildings to our village. I fully support his statement. Little Melton is a village and should remain so! We do not have the infrastructure for more houses!
1. Agreed upon development plans being ignored; creating precedence for future development
2. School over capacity.
3. Humbleyard Practice publicly stated overcapacity
4. Garage over capacity
5. Village shop will close due to retirement.
6. Constant flooding on ALL roads.
7. Destruction of hedgerows and habitat
8. Narrow roads and widening will only encourage speeding.
9. Limited bus service

Object

Representation ID: 1216

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Roger Bennett

None of these sites should be considered for housing development. Little Melton has already had its share of new housing in recent years and does not have the infrastructure to support further increases in housing. Increased housing will mean a significant increase in traffic as most houses have at least two cars. New housing sited near to the A47 will be affected by noise and air pollution. Development of Little Melton is solely for the benefit of landowners and developers. I can see no benefit for local residents.

Object

Representation ID: 1275

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Mr. Steve Sophocleous

I object to any of the shortlisted or rejected sited being allocated in place of the preferred site. Since the last Local Plan was issued Little Melton has had 81 new properties built - with a further 30 planned. This represent a 30% increase in the size of the village in under 7 years. Existing services are already stretched to capacity with GP & Dental surgeries in nearby Hethersett already oversubscribed. Limited bus services and increased traffic problems from the new 1200 house development in Hethersett will only be added to if any new applications are approved for development

Object

Representation ID: 1300

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Mr. Steve Sophocleous

I object to any of the shortlisted or rejected sited being allocated in place of the preferred site. Since the last Local Plan was issued Little Melton has had 81 new properties built - with a further 30 planned. This represent a 30% increase in the size of the village in under 7 years. Existing services are already stretched to capacity with GP & Dental surgeries in nearby Hethersett already oversubscribed. Limited bus services and increased traffic problems from the new 1200 house development in Hethersett will only be added to if any new applications are approved for development

Comment

Representation ID: 1402

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Mrs Traci Tracy

I agree that developments need to go ahead, however I do not agree with development of shortlisted site SN2044. This lane is treacherous at the best of times without further vehicle traffic. It also has poorer access to the major routes and has no street lighting or gas supply. It is one of the few areas in the village that is still left to nature with the views across the fields of the farm. Development here would spoil what little countryside there is left.

Object

Representation ID: 1411

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Mrs Traci Tracy

I do not think the shortlisted sites should be allocated. Those that are preferred are SN4052 and SN1046REV for reasons already stated above.

Comment

Representation ID: 1463

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Sequence (UK) Ltd

Sequence do not consider that any of the shortlisted or rejected site should be brought forward for allocation. The responses to questions 81 and in particular 82 above demonstrate that the land that is being promoted by Sequence at 32 School Lane, outperforms all of the sites promoted for development on South Norfolk Council’s site assessment criteria, as well as bringing forward a range of further benefits. Therefore, the Sequence sites should replace the current proposed allocations, as opposed to further consideration of the current shortlisted and rejected sites.

Comment

Representation ID: 1487

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Norwich Diocesan Board of Finance (NDBF)

Agent: Savills

Please refer to attachment for full response.
Our client, who is the owner of site considers that SN0397 could present an option for future growth in Little Melton.
As the assessment notes, the site itself has few constraints and it is considered that an appropriate design could be explored that would reflect this edge of settlement location. There is potential for screening and softening this edge of the village through any development scheme.
In relation to access, investigations are ongoing to establish whether there is an opportunity for an improved route into the site.

Object

Representation ID: 1619

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.

Comment

Representation ID: 1633

Received: 29/07/2021

Respondent: Patricia Porritt

Online responses to questions 83/84/85.
The Little Melton (LM) Parish Council: offers two proposals for additional housing in Little Melton. I support either. With caveats. And accusations directed at me of 'NYBISM'.
At the risk of repeating the views of online responders I feel LM Village is on the precipice of loosing quality of life. Exactly that which 'incomers' are looking for ...
• 'Yes' I feel privileged to be living here.
• 'Yes' I would like to welcome those who want the same experience.
• However, the basic facilities, infrastructure, roads, safe pavements, drains/water supplies, substation, are already under strain.
• Increase in traffic flow: popular village school, roadside parking to take/collect children, inevitably there are peak uses of roads/pathways. Online shopping - increase in delivery vehicles - parcels and food. Often large transport delivery vehicles 'get lost negotiating the narrow lanes' trying to find the Industrial Park. 'Local sport' is 'directing' /watching
Cars: Speeding I 'rat run'. Particularly parents late in delivering/collecting children from school.
And ..... The Environment? Reduction in agricultural land. Higher levels of vehicle fumes?
Summary: Little Melton. Too many properties, fractured infrastructure - now. The future - reduction in quality of life?

Support

Representation ID: 1667

Received: 29/07/2021

Respondent: Harriet and Nigel Rich

Number of people: 2

To date 81 houses have been built in Little Melton and 30 are due to be constructed shortly. This makes a total of 111 well over the agreed range.
We have been informed that the new developments in Hethersett are now only 600m from the houses in Little Melton. Since this development has been started there has been a substantial increase in the traffic through Little Melton.
The noise level of this traffic is noticeable, lorries drive straight through the middle of the village.
Surface water issues
Major concerns with medical assistance.
Humbleyard Practice is already heavily oversubscribed
No thought has been given to the infrastructure that is needed for any developments.
Sewerage flooding concerns.
Any development in Little Melton must protect the character of the village and its setting.
Access concerns

Would be prefer to have a site with a small number of houses 25 or below rather than a massive development.

We would strongly object to the proposed sites at SN0340 and SN0591 and SN2044.

Comment

Representation ID: 1668

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