QUESTION 157: Do you support

Object

Representation ID: 1516

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: 1537

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Mrs Heidi O'Connor

This development would be at odds with the existing village form. The Hackford road runs to the south of the settlement limit and main village. Any development to the south would cause huge issues with road safety, traffic, pollution of light, sound and air. A development to 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 surrounding lanes are single track and unsuitable for this size of development.

Object

Representation ID: 1552

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Wicklewood Resident

I am very concerned that the proposed access and egress from this development is directly opposite our driveway and will inevitably cause issues around road safety on the Hackford Rd on what is already a fast double bend on which road regulations are abused by a high proportion of drivers.

As a resident living directly opposite to this proposed development, I am concerned about the extra noise, light and air pollution in our existing rural area. Personally speaking, it will severely interrupt the rural view, a reason why we chose this location, and impact both my physical and mental wellbeing.

Support

Representation ID: 1803

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Richard Everitt

Of the 2 proposed sites in Wicklewood I would prefer the smaller 12 house infill one.
In addition.

The description of Wicklewood is way out of date – which puts a shadow of doubt and lack of trust onto the whole consultation process.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: 1816

Received: 03/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Nigel Jones

Please see attached for full response.
• Access will Only be available on to Hackford Road adjacent to the school. Adding further danger to all road users particularly at school start and finish times.
• Access will add to traffic entering leaving Hackford Road on what is already a fast double bend on which road regulations are abused by a high proportion of drivers.

Overview Objection: At a time when we should all be reducing road usage, resources and consumption, developments that naturally increases pollution, noise and cause more danger are unnecessary. 80-100 new residents plus children here opposes legitimate credentials. Loss of wildlife habitat is inevitable.

Comment

Representation ID: 1991

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Water Management Alliance

See attachment for full response.
SN4045SL – Land south of Hackford Road
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: 2002

Received: 27/07/2021

Respondent: CPRE Norfolk

See attachment for full response.
Inaccuracy in the definition of this site within the ‘Village Clusters’ section of the ‘Introduction and Background’. Here, the Settlement Limit Extension sites are defined as being “for sites smaller than 12 dwellings”. On examination it is found that the following ‘SL’ site is not for fewer than 12 dwellings:

SN4045SL Land south of Hackford Road, Wicklewood for up to 12 dwellings, which is described as a “small allocation”.

Comment

Representation ID: 2060

Received: 21/07/2021

Respondent: Historic England

Please see attachments for full response.
Site: SN4045SL, Land south of Hackford Road
Whilst there are no designated heritage assets on this site, the grade I listed church of All Saints and the grade II listed war memorial lie to the north of the site. However, the intervening trees provide an effective screen to the site. We suggest that additional planting along the northern boundary of the site would help to safeguard the setting of the church.
A heritage impact assessment of the site should be undertaken to assess the impact of the proposed development on the listed buildings and determine if allocation of this site is appropriate, and if it is what mitigation may be required. The findings of the HIA should inform whether the site is allocated and if it is, the policy criterion including any mitigation and enhancement.
Complete an HIA to inform the allocation of the site including any mitigation, enhancement and policy wording.
Reference the grade I listed church and grade II war memorial in the policy and include a requirement for landscaping along the northern edge of the site to protect the setting of the church.

Comment

Representation ID: 2126

Received: 14/07/2021

Respondent: Norfolk County Council - LLFA

SN4045SL
See attachment for full details.
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: 2235

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.
Pasture. Hedges are priority habitat so losses should be avoided, minimised and, as a last resort compensated. - 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.