QUESTION 127: Do you think

Comment

Representation ID: 6

Received: 07/06/2021

Respondent: Mr Juha Kaapa

The infrastructure in the village cannot take any more traffic, i.e more housing cannot be created without addressing all of the road infrastructure. Current traffic and speeding is already dangerous for walkers (only a short pavement near school) and bicycles.

Object

Representation ID: 171

Received: 22/06/2021

Respondent: Mrs Karin Rundle

Agree no sites suitable

Support

Representation ID: 507

Received: 21/07/2021

Respondent: Mrs Patricia Scowen

totally support these decisions - they recognise Surlingham's character and traditional pattern of development as well as the extensive flood risk area surrounding the village. Rejection of SN2045SL also recognises that this development would extend the village well beyond its existing boundary towards the neighbouring village of Rockland, pushing further into the existing countryside, and the impact the development would have on existing views from Wherryman's Way long distance path.

Comment

Representation ID: 531

Received: 22/07/2021

Respondent: Surlingham Parish Council

Surlingham Parish Council would consider planning applications for sites - SN2010REV and SN2016SL. The Parish Council supports SNDC's decision to reject all 4 remaining sites.

Comment

Representation ID: 684

Received: 27/07/2021

Respondent: Ms Catherine Bevington

SN2010REV and SN2045SL are highly suitable for small development and a natural extension to existing housing on Mill Road. A precedent exists here for linear pattern development which would not have a major impact on the countryside. Surlingham Primary school is half full and needs more children to ensure its future. Surlingham has had no development in the past 20 years but has a school, a shop, transport and other facilities that are key factors in assessing sites. The sites is ideal for starter homes/ smaller retirement properties where people wish to remain in the village but need to downsize.

Support

Representation ID: 959

Received: 30/07/2021

Respondent: E H Mack & Son

In summary, we feel that we have addressed all of the objections including loss of mature trees and impact on landscape to this sight as detailed in the representation above. We would like to point out that we are open to finding solutions to the surface water flooding on Mill Road and making a biodiversity net gain with the development.

Support

Representation ID: 961

Received: 30/07/2021

Respondent: E H Mack & Son

SN2016SL Land West of the Covey
As far as we are concerned this is a sight which is purely infilling between long standing residences. As far as the flooding risk is concerned this sight is only at risk from surface water and this could be easily rectified by ditches and putting in infrastructure.

Comment

Representation ID: 1472

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Mrs Sarah Lucas

SN2010REV should be preferred for allocation. The proposed allocation would follow the liner pattern of development without significant extension into the countryside. There are houses opposite part of the site already and as such their would be limited impact on the landscape. There are some trees along the road, however a viable access solution is likely to be available to address this.

Comment

Representation ID: 1978

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Water Management Alliance

See attachment for full response.
Part of the Parishes are located within the Broads IDD.
The Board’s byelaws apply to any new developments within the IDD.