QUESTION 98: Do you think

Comment

Representation ID: 74

Received: 13/06/2021

Respondent: Mrs Kirsten Remer

Some development has already been permitted on the other side of the A140 SNO594...the road has to be crossed by bus users to the main part of the village. It may secure access to recreation acorss the river to Smockmill whihc would be a boon to the village as access on foot to Smock Mill is dangerous along Cargate Lane.

Object

Representation ID: 751

Received: 28/07/2021

Respondent: Mrs Hannah Kill

None of the sites seem suitable for this type of development. All seem to have serious issues especially around the A140.

Object

Representation ID: 842

Received: 29/07/2021

Respondent: Mrs Dawn Turnbull

I don't think the shortlisted site behind the village centre should be added to the plan. Church Road, which leads to Grove Road, is narrow, unlit and without pavements. It is already a busy road, with speading cars and a hazard to pedestrians, cyclists and general access. There is no further access to this site. Grove Road is home to many elderly residents who would be adversely affected by additional traffic, and the village centre hosts a playgroup and playground, making it an unsafe propostion. It is also a wild meadow which attracks much wildlife and nature.

Object

Representation ID: 936

Received: 30/07/2021

Respondent: S MASLEN

If you want to build over a site make sure it is a brownfield site. There is precious little on your mind about conserving the countryside for future generations or the need to preserve local wildlife, that is becoming more endangered. There is building going on throughout South Norfolk on green field sites. It feels like during your governance your are intent on concreting everything over. The demand on housing will reduce as the population is decreasing yet the effects of your insistence on building is putting pressure on the environment.

Object

Representation ID: 1054

Received: 31/07/2021

Respondent: Ms Pamela Goodwin

Agent: Emma McMurdock

Lived in the village 46 years and no longer feel safe walking due to current traffic and people parking on the paths. It is an accident waiting to happen. Didn’t agree with the Alan Avenue construction. The roads are too narrow, people park on the path. The words are windy with blind spots because of parking. It’s an accident waiting to happen. Developers make broken promises about improving roads. A140 / Flordon Road junction is dangerous with the added hazard of cars on the streets. There are no facilities in the village.

We don’t need any more houses

Object

Representation ID: 1109

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Miss Georgina Fitchett

We acknowledge we need more homes but this village simply doesn’t have the infrastructure for current capacity. This need in place before plans are agreed

Object

Representation ID: 1583

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: N Sviridov

Village is overdeveloped without the neccessary underlying structure, i.e. post office, school, transport,shops - the roads are packed. It is at a critical level the village is not coping.

Comment

Representation ID: 1654

Received: 30/07/2021

Respondent: Gosford Limited

We consider that Newton Flotman can and should accommodate additional housing to that proposed
under the Preferred Site reference SN4024 and that our client’s site should be allocated for such
provision. Newton Flotman is identified as a Service Village in the adopted Joint Core Strategy for
Broadland, Norwich and South Norfolk (2014), which are noted at paragraph 6.60 of the Core Strategy
as having a good level of services/facilities.
Having regard to the further evidence presented and for the reasons set out above, we consider that
the site is ‘reasonable’ for an allocation. As evidenced by the attached Transport Technical Note,
there are no highway or access constraints to the development of the site and the proposed access
solution would bring highway improvements. There are no other site constraints to development and
the development of the site would have would have a very limited effect on the landscape or visual
amenity beyond the site itself. Furthermore, it would have the benefit of assisting with provision of
pedestrian access through to Smockmill Common.
In addition to the above considerations, we note that both the Preferred Site Reference SN4024 and
Shortlisted Site Refence SN4025 for Newton Flotman are noted as being subject to achieving safe and
suitable access in the Council’s Site Assessment Forms, whereas access to our client’s site is readily
available with an access solution which is considered to be acceptable in principle by the County
Highways Authority.

Comment

Representation ID: 2081

Received: 14/07/2021

Respondent: Norfolk County Council - LLFA

See attachments 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 - 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: 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."

Assessment: Green

Comment

Representation ID: 2204

Received: 28/09/2021

Respondent: Norfolk County Council - Senior Ecologist

Green no major ecological constraints identified from desk-top search. Surveys, and biodiversity enhancement in accordance with policy required.
Site comprises field at edge of Newton Flotman., adjacent to village hall. some hedges around perimeter and a small copse onsite. 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 green habitat zones for great crested newts and within strategic green infrastructure corridor. Site within a SSSI IRZ but residential development not a trigger for Natural England consultation. 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.