QUESTION 89: Do you support

Object

Representation ID: 76

Received: 13/06/2021

Respondent: Ms Amy Aungier Peirce

SN2038, South of Rectory Lane, Mulbarton objection.

Firstly, this would mean more development to the south of the village, further development should aim to address the imbalance and put the common at the centre of the village again.
Secondly, the naming of the proposal is misleading. This development would be better named north of The Rosery, as it will not attach to Rectory Lane.
Thirdly, the field and footpath around the field is used by many, including local walking groups, development would prevent use of the whole path.
Finally, Bluebell Road is poorly lit for further traffic.

Object

Representation ID: 169

Received: 22/06/2021

Respondent: Anne Rayner

Outside the settlement boundary.
Access from Bluebell Road is directly on to Long Lane which is absolute chaos and extremely dangerous on any school day,.
Doctors can't cope with their existing residents, let alone any more - see statement on their social media page.

Object

Representation ID: 448

Received: 17/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Andrew Wright

This development area is poorly accessible, out of keeping with the area and on land already prone to flooding.
The local services are already at capacity and the Bluebell road is often already obstructed by parked traffic causing hazards.
The local wildlife and flora would be severly disrupted.
As SN0315 has already been excluded as suitable, how can this small part of SN0315 be annexed off it and classed as viable? This just sounds like some underhanded scheme and the thin end of the wedge to force poorly planned devlopments forward.

Object

Representation ID: 1523

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Humphrey Berney

Agent: La Ronde Wright Ltd

Providing the necessary access and associated pavement infrastructure, visibility splays, etc, would require removal of hedgerow and probably tree(s) that form important habitat and edge-of-village landscape feature. This is a constraint that needs to be considered with regard to the viability and deliverability of this site, as well as its acceptability in material planning terms. Further, the development outlined would represent a form and density of development that is not in-character with that along The Rosery. These concerns are further to any concern regarding impact on the highway network in the locality.

Object

Representation ID: 1679

Received: 31/07/2021

Respondent: Mulbarton Parish Council

Where will the children from the new houses on this preferred site go to school? Where will the families access medical facilities? Development on this site will simply add to the cumulative impacts on the village of Mulbarton, already unacceptable.
Having drawn the settlement boundary, why is this proposed development outside of it?
• The site extends into the countryside, outside the built area, adding yet more cumulative impact onto the fast disappearing but highly valued rural area surrounding Mulbarton.
• It is contrary to the adopted Mulbarton Neighbourhood Plan
- not well located in terms of access to services and facilities. Access would be via a narrow road through an existing estate
Extra traffic generated would need to exit the site through the existing estate onto Long Lane, and joining the 20mph restricted zone around the primary school.
There is already a deficit of amenity land on the Bluebell Road estate. The proposed housing density of 23 units per hectare would not reduce the overall density of the estate.
The design of the site should be laid out to prevent any further expansion eastward.
Mulbarton School is FULL
The local secondary school at Hethersett is at present oversubscribed
Medical facilities with the village are already overwhelmed
traffic pressures on B1113

Comment

Representation ID: 1793

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Hopkins Homes

Part of the site has subsequently been identified in the Emerging Plan as a preferred allocation, for 35 dwellings (Ref: SN2038).
Whilst we support the proposed allocation and welcome the fact the Council has recognised that this site is suitable for development, we nevertheless object to the limited level of growth in Mulbarton, given that this is a sustainable location where additional development should be located. 7. The extent of the site area proposed for up to 200 dwellings.

Mulbarton is wholly sustainable as a location for new development. It has a population in excess of 3,500 residents and approaching 1,500 dwellings. The village is well served by local education, sports and community facilities with good transport links to the nearby city of Norwich, approximately 7 miles to the north-east.
There are no drainage or physical infrastructure issues which cannot be overcome by standard engineering solutions, thus the site is demonstrably deliverable in a sustainable and technically appropriate manner.
In conclusion, Hopkins Homes Ltd therefore requests that the level of growth in Mulbarton is increased to at least 200 and in turn, the residential allocation boundary is amended to accord with the site plan below, with the settlement limit for the village extended to likewise encompass the totality of this site.

Comment

Representation ID: 1959

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Water Management Alliance

See attachment for full response.
SN2038 – South of Rectory Lane, Mulbarton
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: 2149

Received: 14/07/2021

Respondent: Norfolk County Council - LLFA

SN2038
See attachment for full comments
Few or no constraints.
Standard information required at a planning stage. "1.] At risk of surface water flooding?: No
* 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]: No flooding present
* 0.1% AEP Event [Depth]: No flooding present.
2.] Internal & external flooding?:
* On-site: No
* Within proximity to site (~500.00m): Yes - Internal Flooding|Yes - External Flooding
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: Yes
* Within proximity to site (~100.00m): Yes
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."
Assessment: Green

Comment

Representation ID: 2199

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 on the edge of the village. Hedges are a priority habitat so losses should be avoided, minimised and as a last resort, compensated for. No other priority habitats are 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.