QUESTION 159: Do you think

Object

Representation ID: 15

Received: 07/06/2021

Respondent: Mr Michael Savage

yes, the site to the south of the school is too large of an development for the village given only previous developments have been of a limited size, keeping the character of the village. Also given there is no shop within the village this would only increase traffic to other villages or towns

Object

Representation ID: 487

Received: 20/07/2021

Respondent: Mr John Seville

Site: SN4064 The Nurseries forms part of the large open area of land bounded by Wymondham Road, High Street, Hackford Road, Church Lane, which was mentioned in earlier local plans as being a particular feature of the village and development of this area would be detrimental to the form, character and rural setting of the village.

This is back land development and would be poorly related to the existing pattern of development in Wicklewood and would set a precedent for development of the remaining large open area of agricultural land which would see the village double in size.

Object

Representation ID: 500

Received: 20/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Vaughan Harrington

It establishes a new housing development in green fields on the south side, whereas nearly all residences are on the north side. An urban sprawl to me, which is only its beginning.

The locations are situated on a dangerous bend, with restricted viewing near a school, which surely can not be safe.

Long term, it would limit future expansion of the school, and create an additional road hazard in a rural location. There are also no shops in Wicklewood either, so all retail purchases are "imported" by road.

The two proposals reflect ineffective short term thinking.

Object

Representation ID: 739

Received: 28/07/2021

Respondent: Dr Beatriz de la Iglesia

Again for same reasons, Wicklewood should not be considered for large housing developments and should instead be developed using infill developments which would have better integration in the village.

Comment

Representation ID: 775

Received: 28/07/2021

Respondent: Mr joel pailes

When one considers on South Norfolk's own plan and numbers. Hingham will see 120 new homes. Hethersett 1370 new homes. Wymondham 2,565+1000.
Circa 5000 new homes within 5 miles of Wicklewood.
There can be no evidenced requirement to go above and beyond the current approvals and permissions in Wicklewood/natural windfall development in the years ahead.
None of these sites therefore can fall back on evidenced demand but neither can the allocated sites.
Regulation 18 consultations will lead to Regulation 19 consultations and South Norfolk must be prepared to be challenged on evidence of need as it is clearly not met.

Object

Representation ID: 853

Received: 29/07/2021

Respondent: Wicklewood Parish Council

Objection from Wicklewood Parish Council -SN0577REVA and REVB
The parish council believes that an estate development like this in a small village will alter the whole character of the village which has previously developed by small developments which are more easily integrated into the community. The parish council would support smaller, infill, road front developments which would be better integrated.

Comment

Representation ID: 950

Received: 30/07/2021

Respondent: Mrs Alison Foyster

It is unreasonable to develop any more of the land in Wicklewood. Where is the need in the village? There are no proposals for Starter homes or older people's housing.
There is already flooding, which will get worse, and covering fields in tarmac and concrete will not help.
The volume of traffic is already appalling with no intention of curbing access or slowing down traffic.

Comment

Representation ID: 1051

Received: 31/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Alan Highet

At its recent meeting, Wicklewood Parish Council concluded (if I recall correctly) that while it recognises the need for more housing generally and that Wicklewood can expect to contribute, there is opportunity for infill development within the current Settlement Limit. It opposes development beyond the existing Settlement Limit, implied by the District Council’s proposals; and I have responded to previous questions with my views. I agree with the PC's sentiment; therefore other infill sites might be selected instead of the two preferred sites outside the Settlement Limit if other, reasonable criteria are met.

Comment

Representation ID: 1329

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Ralph Withers

Should be allocated as preferred if any…
The shortlisted site in Wicklewood Nurseries:
It is an infill site, amenities already exist within the village boundaries, access is easy and is not directly onto a busy main road.
There is no loss of employment envisaged by such a development here. The nurseries are no longer viable.
This is clearly the best site for development in Wicklewood.

Object

Representation ID: 1330

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Ralph Withers

Yes it would be entirely unreasonable to consider land to the south of Wicklewood Primary School because it would constitute an extension of the preferred site SN0577REVA and REVB impacting on the single track road known as Milestone Lane.

Object

Representation ID: 1512

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Simon O'Connor

The existing Settlement Limit has already allowed more than sufficient expansion within the village to meet current and future targets (20 houses in 2020). Any expansion to the south of the Hackford road would constitute urban sprawl and lead to a village being bisected by a busy and dangerous main road, this cannot be good for road safety or the overall rural feel of the village. There is no need for additional housing in this location considering the level of development within 5 miles of this village.