QUESTION 156: Do you support

Object

Representation ID: 1315

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Mrs Linda Pitcher

Site SN0577REVA and REVB
I feel that such a development would be detrimental to the ethos of a ‘ Village ‘ . Also , the increase in traffic , 30 houses could quite easily mean at least 60 cars . An increase such as this could hardly be deemed safe next to a school . The traffic on Hackford Road and the speeds being driven , even with a so called speed limit , are ridiculous . Siting such a development so close to a school cannot be a reasonable idea on the grounds of safety, noise and security .

Object

Representation ID: 1321

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Christopher Knights

SN0577REVA/REVB fails objectives to protect the village character and setting. It destroys countryside, views, blocks footpaths, effects wildlife, and increases pollution.
The village 'Gateway' is not enhanced but urbanised.
The site is separated from the village by a busy road, is outside the stated boundary of the village, and cannot be classed as in-fill housing.
Further development of the site would lead to a redefined village size and layout.
30 houses adds a disproportionately dense and high number of homes in a small area.
The proposal exceeds the target of 12-25 houses.
Development blocks any expansion of the school.

Object

Representation ID: 1326

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Ralph Withers

Very poor justification outlined for this proposal. Clearly Wicklewood has not been visited in relation to this proposal by the planning department.
Increased traffic, dangers and light and noise pollution for all residents particularly children, elderly or infirm.
Disproportionate costly re-design of roads and infrastructure.
Degradation of the rural character of Wicklewood by speculative development at the expense of the village natural boundary.
This site would actually extend the development perimeter of the village and create scope and justification for further ribbon development.
Virgin Greenfield site considered above obvious brownfield sites within the Settlement limit.

Object

Representation ID: 1422

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Simon O'Connor

SN0577REVA
Development of this green field site would cause Increased traffic, light and noise pollution, serious road safety issues not just locally but also to and from local schools and facilities along the busy Hackford road or small surrounding single-track roads which are already heavily used by agricultural vehicles and HGVs.
It contradicts Council indication of no more than 12-25 at any one site
There are issues with privacy, flooding, general services (water, internet, street lighting, sewerage, school & power to name a few) it will constitute sprawl of a village that has already had development (20 homes in 2020).

Object

Representation ID: 1514

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Anthony O'Connor

The development of this green field site will cause an increase in traffic along with light and noise pollution not to mention road safety issues not only around the primary school but locally in general as the Hackford road is very busy at the present along with the surrounding single track roads which are used by HGV and agricultural vehicles already this proposal will only expatiate the existing problem.
The village has already had a development in 2020 of 20 houses and this proposal contradicts the Council indication of no more than 12-25 houses at any one site .

Object

Representation ID: 1520

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Mike Flynn

The proposed site will use the already busy Hackford Road. The site is situated on one of the two double bends and as a result will incur increased traffic volume and potential accident blackspot. Although it is a 30mph limit (20mph during school term) traffic pay little attention to this. The site is very close to the pedestrian gate used by the children and parents, the path is narrow and only on one side. Limited space for parking at the school, means cars are parked on the road, on the green, at the junction and in front of the church.

Object

Representation ID: 1534

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Mrs Heidi O'Connor

This large new estate would seem to be totally at odds with the existing village form. the Hackford road runs to the south of the settlement limit and therefore any development to the south would cause huge issues with road safety, traffic, pollution of light, sound and air. Any development of the south side would also change the entire feel of the village and allow a busy road with dangerous bends to cut it in half with all the associated issues that would bring. The site is adjacent to a single track road that already has winter flooding issues

Object

Representation ID: 1535

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Mrs Janice Plunkett

Safety concerns, especially for the children and the inconsiderate parking of their parents

Object

Representation ID: 1549

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Wicklewood Resident

With the new proposed development there would be increased traffic on the already busy Hackford Rd. and this would present a particular added danger around the bends by Wicklewood Primary School. The single track routes especially the Green but also Milestone would become congested unbefitting of a rural location.

The added light and noise pollution is also of concern.

There is already an issue around inadequate parking for Wicklewood Primary School users and the new proposed developments would inevitably make this worse.

Our existing services would be spread more thinly; for example the broadband provision is already 'patchy and slow'.

Object

Representation ID: 1802

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Richard Everitt

The development next to the field next to the school is a terrible idea.
The description of Wicklewood is way out of date – which puts a shadow of doubt and lack of trust onto the whole consultation process. Please at least have upto date descriptions even if you cant visit.

The primary school is almost full- it has 32 pupils (max) of 4 of its 6 years. Nursery is also oversubscribed.

Please DO NOT give developers permission unless they can offer some civic building to support the village – a shop or small library or café building. It seems all the developments don’t take any have any civic building responsibilities.

Design – Victorian buildings are interesting built to last and have a certain design to them. Modern buildings look cheap and have little design in them. Please ensure any development is something you can be proud of to show your grandchildren around.

Object

Representation ID: 1815

Received: 03/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Nigel Jones

Please see attached file for full response.
1.INCREASED Traffic Light pollution and Noise. REDUCED Road Safety - increased traffic on single track roads, w. no street lighting, accessing services in Wymondham etc.
2. Development would be detached from Village. Access to amenities would be hazardous.
3. Proposal of 30 homes contradicts VCHAP indication of 12-25 homes at any site/s.
4. Disruption to function of school over at least two years while building takes place. Also, privacy of the school (being overlooked) / future expansion of school must be considered.
5. Considerable flooding at School site. Investigations into flooding and sewerage required.
6. Utilities issues in village remain unresolved (e.g. water supply, broadband).
7. Other recent development should partially account for "new" housing allocation.
8. Important local views would disappear.

Comment

Representation ID: 1990

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Water Management Alliance

See attachment for full response.
SN0577REVA and REVB - Land to the south of Wicklewood Primary School
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: 2130

Received: 14/07/2021

Respondent: Norfolk County Council - LLFA

See attachments for full response.
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
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: 2234

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.
Part of agricultural field south of the school. Hedge along northern boundary (with school) (Priority habitat) - no other priority habitats identified onsite (see MAGIC). Site within green habitat zones for great crested newts. Site in SSSI IRZ, but residential development doesn't 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.