QUESTION 84: Do you think

Comment

Representation ID: 1464

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Sequence (UK) Ltd

Sequence has no particular comment to make regarding the shortlisted sites other than to repeat the responses to questions 81-83 that land being promoted by Sequence at School Lane outperforms both the proposed allocations and shortlisted sites against the Council’s site assessment criteria. Accordingly we would politely suggest that the Sequence sites should be proposed for allocation. This would see the current allocations ‘relegated’ to become shortlisted sites (although we do have significant reservations about the suitability and viability in particular of the Glenhaven site). Therefore, at least one if not both of the current shortlisted sites should be rejected.

Object

Representation ID: 1621

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: 1624

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.

Comment

Representation ID: 1634

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?

Object

Representation ID: 1658

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.

Object

Representation ID: 1666

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.

Object

Representation ID: 1690

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: 1694

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: 1698

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: 1710

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: 1743

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: 1772

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Little Melton Parish Council

Poor visibility at the junction with Green Lane has been identified as a factor that affects SN0488 - the same
problems apply to SN4052! The junction is at a sharp angle and traffic coming from Green Lane is mostly
over the centre of the road when entering the dead end section of School Lane. When leaving the T junction
there is very limited visibility to the right (north) and drivers have to pull onto the main road to see round the
fence on the corner. Visibility to the left is also poor and traffic is frequently speeding down the hill. There is
already extensive traffic from the recently extended office block at the end of School Lane - especially at rush
hours.
LM has very few public footpaths - many of the paths currently used are not public rights of way.

Object

Representation ID: 1773

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Little Melton Parish Council

This site is adjacent to existing development at a density of about 17 houses to the Hectare, 25 houses on this
site would be too high a density and not in keeping with the existing houses.
The road to the east is narrow and has no footpath. If development is permitted here then there should be a
cycle path connection to the path alongside Hethersett Lane, this would provide a much needed safe route
for children cycling to school and for people cycling to work at the NRP, Hospital etc.
It should be noted that when there are roadworks on Hethersett Lane that Braymeadow becomes an alternate
route - even for buses!

Object

Representation ID: 1781

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.