QUESTION 84: Do you think

Object

Representation ID: 20

Received: 07/06/2021

Respondent: Mrs Vanessa Knell

All of the short listed sites in Little Melton should be rejected as there are already major developments planned for Hethersett which has put a massive increase of traffic and demand on the very few services in place such as GP, dental and schools. The open spaces of Norfolk are slowly being swallowed up by greedy housing developers.

Comment

Representation ID: 362

Received: 11/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Martyn Brown

There should be no further developement in the Little Melton area. The village is losing it's community and wildlife to more and more concrete

Support

Representation ID: 363

Received: 11/07/2021

Respondent: Dr Fiona Doonan

this question is ambiguous!! I think the sites should be rejected, so do I SUPPORT or OBJECT?!!!
The whole character of Little Melton is being spoiled by the chavalier attitude of South Norfolk Planning team, who seem to care nothing for the value of life in smaller communities.

Object

Representation ID: 370

Received: 11/07/2021

Respondent: Mrs Philippa Gunn

SN0488 - this area is so closer to the A47 that a reasonable quality of living, especially with regards to noise levels, cannot be expected. Access is extremely problematic, as this part of School Lane is a dead-end, used for recreational use (children playing, riding their bikes etc.) and has no footpaths. Most facilities (school and particularly village hall, playground etc) are just too far to walk, resulting in even more traffic to the village and School Lane, which already has a huge traffic problem. There is also extreme flood risk with water problems already existing without a solution.

Comment

Representation ID: 376

Received: 12/07/2021

Respondent: Mrs Elizabeth Brooks

I would like you to reject all proposed sites in the village of Little Melton at present, and only consider ones in the future when all other options have been explored. We have already seen developments over and above our allocation and I sincerely doubt that the same can be said for every other village in the county, why not spread development across all villages but in less disruptive way?

Object

Representation ID: 387

Received: 13/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Keith Woods

• My objections above under Q82 to, also apply to SN0488.
• The topology would also mean existing properties would be severely overlooked.

Object

Representation ID: 388

Received: 13/07/2021

Respondent: Mrs Demelza Fincham

The local area can’t cope with more housing, the schools are full, dentist in or around the area are full as are the doctors. The extra traffic created would make it even more unsafe for the children that already have to walk/bike to school along the road side.

Object

Representation ID: 409

Received: 14/07/2021

Respondent: Mrs Kellie Thomas

Both shortlisted sites (SN0488 and SN2044) should be rejected as well as any future or further development. SN0488 falls within the Landscape Protection Zone. Both SN0488 and SN2044 are outside of the existing settlement boundary. Little Melton is a small village with no amenities. Traffic volumes are already too high and local health services overstretched.

Comment

Representation ID: 432

Received: 16/07/2021

Respondent: Prof Mervyn Bibb

Yes. We object to the wholesale development of both SN0488 and SN2044 for the reasons given in response to Question 83. Limited development of SN0488 with a single layer of housing along the north side of School Lane might be acceptable to “fill the gap”, but no more than that.

Object

Representation ID: 470

Received: 19/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Keith Grant

All of these sites should be rejected, 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: 535

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: 561

Received: 22/07/2021

Respondent: Mrs Tracey Plane

I think the shortlisted sites should be objected as we have already had a lot of new housing in the village in the last few years which has caused problems with a lot of extra traffic in the village also our local doctors surgery are already at breaking point, this has been reported in the local newspaper the Eastern Daily Press. Also it takes away more habitat for the wildlife, at have had deers, foxes and badgers in our garden in recent months and these poor animals will be driven out if more houses keep on getting built.

Comment

Representation ID: 563

Received: 22/07/2021

Respondent: Mrs Tracey Plane

I think the 2 shortlisted sites should be rejected, these are SN2044 and SN0488, We already have lots of new dwellings in the village and surrounding villages which has caused a dramatic increase in the traffic, also it has put a lot of pressure on our local doctors surgery which is apparently at breaking point. On top of this it drives out the wildlife.

Object

Representation ID: 668

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 all my patients 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: 725

Received: 28/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Trevor CRASKE

The recently increased housing in the limited facilities of Little Melton and vast new estates in adjacent Hethersett has resulted in a substantial amount of extra vehicle traffic causing difficulties for walkers and cyclists in the village roads.

Already approved housing development will further increase that problem.

Top of my list for inappropriate sites are SN0488, SN4052 and SN1046REV

Comment

Representation ID: 828

Received: 29/07/2021

Respondent: Mrs Kate Weeks

Site SN2044 should be rejected. This site includes some of the Landscape Protection Zone which is supposed to be kept open. This site also backs straight on to the gardens of several houses which, if built on, could have a severe impact on local Health and Wellbeing. Especially during COVID, rural walks and views have benefitted the population of Little Melton hugely. The Humbleyard GP Practice cannot cope with current demands and residents are on hold for extended amounts of time. The surgery have made public statements about their inability to cope with current demand.

Object

Representation ID: 829

Received: 29/07/2021

Respondent: Mrs Kate Weeks

SN2044 should be rejected.

Object

Representation ID: 847

Received: 29/07/2021

Respondent: Mrs Joanne Hart

reject SN0488 and SN2044 as shortlisted sites. Too high density proposed and highway safety concerns. SN2044 loss of trees is concerning re visual amenity and loss of strategic gap between Hethersett and LIttle Melton. SN0488 has flooding concerns and is in Landscape protection zone

Support

Representation ID: 863

Received: 29/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Andrew Gilbertson

SN0488 Should be rejected as it the land flood repeatedly on heavy rain fall, the field slope acts as a huge collector of rain, flooding our land and the field that is proposed to be built on (picture attached from last rain shower). The road is single-lane and would not support the 100 + car journeys created each day, especially during work hours. The junction at Green Lane is currently dangerous but with more cars and accident will soon result. The area is also part of the landscape protection zone, determined by a democratic process, not to be broken.

Object

Representation ID: 1070

Received: 31/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Russell Cole

81 houses have been built in the last few years (The Limes, Ringwood Close, Gibbs Close) and 30 more are to be built this autumn on School lane. With 1200 homes being built in Hethersett less than 1.5 miles away (possibly rising to 1600) we feel that Little Melton has fulfilled it's allocation of housing. Moreover, development SN4052 is within the Landscape Protection Zone which originally carried a recommendation of "no development" within this area.

Object

Representation ID: 1081

Received: 31/07/2021

Respondent: Dr Patrick Anstey

I agree with all points made in the submission by Little Melton Parish Council.
* re.Site SN0488*
Maybe infill fronting School Lane might be accommodated, otherwise site should be rejected because...
1. Significant quantity of additional housing within the Landscape Protection Zone
2. Road is 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.
3. Facilities available for Little Melton residents 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: 1106

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Mrs Rebecca Heaser

Yes all of them should be rejected. The village cannot cope with any more houses given it's proximity to the expansion of Hethersett and lack of facilities particularly foot and cycle paths. The paths which have been built are not being maintained in a usable condition.

Object

Representation ID: 1127

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Little Melton Parish Council

SN0488 is also in the Landscape Protection zone and suffers even more from air and noise pollution than does site SN4052. The junction problems affect both sites equally.
SN2044 is not suitable for a development of 25 houses. Please see attached doc for more detail.

Object

Representation ID: 1153

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

Comment

Representation ID: 1155

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Tony Lovick

LMPC’s carefully considered and detailed comments fully supported

Due care and attention needs to be placed on maintaining distinctive characters of villages and towns in this area.
Simply filling in the gaps between Little Melton, Hethersett and Cringleford will turn the whole area into an amorphous urban sprawl. It would vandalise our natural habitat.

Object

Representation ID: 1213

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Roger Bennett

Site SN0488 should not be considered as it is outside the existing settlement boundary for the village and School Lane, a mostly recreational lane for walkers and dog walkers, would need to be widened. My fear is that if site SN4052 (School Lane) is given permission, even though it is also outside the existing settlement boundary, then site SN0488, further down School Lane will also be considered viable because the road will already have been widened. Once either of these sites starts to be developed, housing will spread over the entire field in future years.

Support

Representation ID: 1284

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Mr. Steve Sophocleous

I support ANY shortlisted site being rejected.
SN0488 falls within the Landscape Protection Zone. These zones are designed to be kept free from development and will have a long lasting effect the village. The junction of School Lane & Green Lane has poor visibility, a fact identified by Highways. Increased traffic along School Lane from any new development will only compound this.
Little Melton should not be developed any further and none of the sites proposed or shortlisted are suitable for developments of up to 25 properties.
It is paramount the character of Norfolk villages and their settings are protected.

Support

Representation ID: 1301

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Mr. Steve Sophocleous

I support ANY shortlisted site being rejected.
SN0488 falls within the Landscape Protection Zone. These zones are designed to be kept free from development and will have a long lasting effect the village. The junction of School Lane & Green Lane has poor visibility, a fact identified by Highways. Increased traffic along School Lane from any new development will only compound this.
Little Melton should not be developed any further and none of the sites proposed or shortlisted are suitable for developments of up to 25 properties.
It is paramount the character of Norfolk villages and their settings are protected.

Support

Representation ID: 1413

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Mrs Traci Tracy

I think the shortlisted site SN2044 should be rejected. This lane is treacherous at the best of times without further vehicle traffic. It also has poorer access to the major routes than the preferred sites. Colney Lane exit is incredibly busy at peaks times already with the extra traffic from the new development. Furthermore, the road is narrow, there is no foot path, street lighting or gas supply. It would spoil the character and feel of the village being one of the few areas in the village that is still left to nature with views across the fields.

Object

Representation ID: 1424

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Phill Tracy

I think SN2044 should be rejected as this opens up development for the whole field, even with this small allocation SN2044 would add to much traffic to a very busy road system that is unable to cope at the moment with all the development. The end of braymeadow lane to colney lane is to small to cope with any meaningful level of traffic as it is. This area is a gateway to the rest of the field development and would ruin one of the last remaining rural farming areas. Hethersett is encroaching to the village also.