reduce number of houses so there is less vehicular impacr

25 houses is far to much for a small village accessible by single track roads never mind widening junctions

Area not suitable for building. Paths would be needed through whole village. Impossible to widen road to allow for more traffic as required to accommodate more traffic. School would need more places. Wildlife needs protection. Flooding needs assessing as land regularly floods in wet weather. Work would need to allow for public right of way right across the field.

outside village boundary. The essential widening of church road is not possible due to adjoining private gardens. The village is too small for this amount of houses, narrow roads, no amenities and no capacity in the school. The building would destroy homes of protected wildlife. The field regularly floods, doesn’t have sufficient drainage. The new development would ruin the outlook for adjacent homes, increased traffic would endanger lives as families walk to school through the village on roads with no paths. There is a public right of way across the field.

Do not develop on the site, as the surrounding areas and infrastructure are already being negatively affected by previous developments in the villages.

The proposal will place further significant burden on our inadequate road infrastructure and services. Leading to significant increase in traffic movement in and out of the villages, where in many places there is only enough room for single lane traffic. Verges and driveways are already being eroded, by the large number of traffic movements at peak times.
It would be detrimental to the quality of life for residence on Church Road with the significant increase in traffic movements from this proposed development. The additional traffic would also increase the risk to pedestrians, as there are no footpaths in Yelverton.

We have extremely poor public transport, our lanes which are full of pot holes as well as our roads just cannot cope with current traffic flow. The Council do not maintain the roads to satisfactory standards now so more vehicles are going to cause more problems / damage. Use the funds to improve our infrastructure rather than giving us more problems!!!
We have no shops. Our GPs and Dentists are already over stretched. More housing means more cars (on average 2 cars per household so that is 50 additional vehicles) causing more pollution to the environment / our village. All this contant building of new homes spoils the environment, takes away our countryside and destroys natural habitats for wildlife.

The proposal to build further housing behind Church Meadow is ludicrous! The infrastructure is inadequate to cope. Our small lanes/ roads in Alpington with few paths cannot cope now with the traffic flow. The Slad / Slade Lane is narrow with no paths for walkers and cars have to pull in on many occasions to allow for oncoming traffic. Doctors/ Dentists can't cope with servicing our current residents / patients now!

Do not develop on the site- surrounding areas and infrastructure are already negatively affected by previously developed villages.

Concerns about additional dwellings proposed in our village- roads, drainage and amenities not adequate to support. Small school unable to allow for children in 25 more families to enroll. Traffic along church meadow may pose risk to the safety of children.

Remove VC ALP1

Access to Alpington is very poor. We have repeatedly been told that there will be no new development until the access is improved. The public transport provision is so poor that most journeys involve cars. The primary school is full. The nearest shop is in Poringland, two miles away.

Do not build on this plot due to the impact it will have on multiple levels.

However, if a plot does need to be selected, then use other plots which will have lesser impact.

Plot VC BAP1 will also have an impact on Alpington, therefore going ahead with both plots seems overkill and unfair. Based on where the plots are, I personally feel VC BAP1 would have a lesser impact to the village and residents, as there are other routes to reach it and its in a less populated area.

Church Road is tight and difficult to pass traffic on, it cannot be widened without impacting the residents living along it by using some of their private gardens. If the widening work happened it would result in roadworks and traffic controls into the village, which again would impact all residents.

Has the school attendance quota been reviewed? The school is already busy and I suspect oversubscribed.

Nature on the plot will be impacted, deer's, owls, bats. For some reason this is acceptable?

Adjoining houses to the plot will be significantly impacted, from building work, noise, traffic and privacy.

Up to 50 dwellings in the Alpington/Yelverton/Bergh Apton Cluster is unsound. The drive to build c1,200 homes has always been the VCHAP aim. It feels that it was assumed all Clusters could provide a suitable site for development. Now it has been proven otherwise it has put an unreasonable burden on the remaining Clusters.
The c1,200 target should be reviewed.

This is not a suitable site for development as it will create a large housing estate. Villages by definition have linear developments. The loss of another piece of green space is reprehensible.
Mr Gove MP has stated that whilst national housing targets remain local authorities can build fewer homes if they can show that meeting centrally imposed targets would damage the character of their area. This absolutely is the case here.
"Brownfield land will be prioritised for development". You have identified Bergh Apton as this. That must be the limit of what our Cluster has to provide.

Reduce the number of additional dwellings proposed. If a site of 25 houses is required in the cluster then site VC BAP1 as a brownfield site should be preferred especially as the Landscape Visual Appraisal states development would improve the visual of the site.
The plan should also state what account is taken of existing housing stock becoming available on the local housing market due to the age profile of current residents.

The number of additional dwellings proposed for the cluster (50) is too high . The road access to the Village is poor, the primary school is at capacity, local GP and dental services are already stretched with no local NHS dental practices taking on new patients.
In addition this is a greenfield site and housing development will have a detrimental impact on local wildlife and the environment.
The number of extra vehicle journeys resulting from this many additional households is a serious concern.

Remove ALP1 from the VCHAP
BAP1 is a brown field site, so if the Cluster has to take some houses (against our better judgment) then surely that is the only credible site. No cluster should be forced to take more than 25 houses, simply because some of the original clusters did not have potential sites as anticipated.

ALP1 is a green field site. Once developed it can never be returned to the grassy meadow with an abundance of wildlife it currently is. The Government policy (Michael Gove MP) is to prioritise brown field sites so why is this site being considered, especially in a village that simply cannot cope with additional development. Additionally, there is now no Government directive to build where it can be shown that new development is damaging the character of their area. SNDC should should look carefully at their outdated policy or face judicial review.

Development of what is a peaceful rural field, surrounded by mature hedges and trees would disrupt and destroy an area which supports an abundance of established wildlife and is a natural boundary to the village.
Church Meadow is a completely unsuitable location.

Alpington is served by very poor single track roads from the A146, Berghapton and Poringland.
Slade Lane is partially dangerous, this is a singe track road and is the busiest access to the village. It has high banks and no official passing places, just unpaved areas that have been formed in the banks by traffic avoiding each other. Further development in the village would only exacerbate an already dangerous situation.
Church Meadow which will become the access to the proposed new housing estate is very often difficult to navigate due to parked vehicles, making emergency access often impossible.

Proceeding with site VCBAP1 will also impact Alpington. However, if a site must be found within the village cluster, this would be preferable - brownfield, situated in a less populated area, and its location means traffic would have a less detrimental impact.

Alpington is unsuitable for this level of development. All access roads are single track in places, with dangerous bends and mostly without footpaths. Additional traffic would make the roads still more hazardous, especially for pedestrians. Public transport is very infrequent and since there are no shops, GP surgeries etc in the village, people depend on cars to reach the nearest services in Poringland (to which there is no public transport at all). The school is oversubscribed and local GP surgeries are already overstretched. Furthermore, this is a greenfield site, and its development will have a detrimental impact on the environment.

No further development should be allowed in Alpington, as the lanes cannot cope with further traffic, plus environmental problems.
The boundary should not be extended further and no more agricultural land should be taken out of production.
Has any thought be given to the sewerage system with all the proposed housing?

The development will have to go through an existing estate and will be a danger to the residents there. There will be an impact on traffic movements onto Church Road and Church Meadow is opposite the Village Hall which has it own traffic movement problems.
Further development will mean more traffic, noise and pollution as well as destroying agricultural land.
The lanes round here are narrow in places and it is not uncommon to come face to face with heavy agricultural machinery as well as HGV’s.
Joining the A146 can be challenging due to volume of traffic.

Remove ALP1 from the VCHAP, if any development is required in our cluster the BAP1 site is preferred as long as traffic and pavement concerns can be addressed and it is a brownfield site.

The number of additional dwellings proposed for the cluster is too many. Road access to the Village is poor(single track roads), the primary school is at capacity, local GP and dental services are already stretched with no local NHS dental practices taking on new patients.
This ALP1 housing development will have a detrimental impact on local wildlife and the environment and the number of extra vehicle journeys resulting from this many additional households is a serious concern.

This scheme should not go ahead at all for the reasons stated above. The danger is that all the roads will eventually be widened in order to address residents' concerns and our small village will become even more open to development.
Surely land adjacent to the NDR is already providing thousands of houses.

No consideration has been given to the narrow roads leading into and through the village. Traffic to and from the school is heavy and chaotic., exacerbated by traffic to the playgroup. Roads from Poringland, BerghApton and Norwich to the school are all too narrow in parts to accomodate two vehicles passing. The verges are being eroded. There are very dangerous blind bends on the Poringland Road which have already had accidents. Local people avoid using the roads at school times. More housing will obviously result in more traffic. Until Poringland has an adequate school things will not improve.

Thank you for consulting Historic England on the South Norfolk Village Clusters Local Plan Regulation 19 Draft Consultation. As a statutory consultee, our role is to ensure that the conservation of the historic environment is fully integrated into planning policy and that any policy documents make provision for a positive strategy for the
conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment.
Please also see our detailed comments in the attached table. We provide a summary of the main comments below.
SUMMARY
We very much welcome the completion of the Heritage Impact Assessments for a number of sites. The assessments have helped to inform many of the policies
providing helpful recommendations for mitigation and enhancement which is welcomed.
Whilst we consider many aspects of the plan to be sound, we have identified issues with some of the policies and site allocations which do compromise the overall soundness of the plan.
Under paragraph 35 of the NPPF some aspects of this Plan are unsound as they have not been positively prepared, are not justified, effective, or consistent with
national policy. We have identified below some of the key areas where we find the Plan unsound and what measures are needed to make the Plan sound. In summary we highlight the following four issues.
1. Heritage Impact Assessments
We are delighted to see that Heritage Impact Assessments have been prepared for
many sites. However, there are a few allocations where we recommend the preparation on an HIA now prior to EiP (e.g. VC BRO1 West, VC WOR1). The policy wording should then be amended accordingly. In the absence of an HIA we consider these sites are not sufficiently justified. There are also some settlement limit extensions where an HIA should also be prepared now ahead of EiP (e.g. SN0020SL, SN0588SL). Finally, there are some recommendations in HIAs that have not been incorporated into policy. The policies need to be amended to incorporate these HIA recommendations. This applies to a number of sites as set out in the attached table. Further details of all the relevant sites are given in Appendix A.
2. Settlement Limit extensions
We note that the smaller sites have not been included as allocations but instead the settlement limit has been extended to include that land. However, there are some extensions which would have an impact on the historic
environment and yet, in the absence of a site-specific policy, we are concerned about how the recommendations of the HIAs and any necessary mitigation/enhancement will be secured through an appropriate policy framework. The NPPF (para 16d) makes it clear that Plans should contain policies that are
clearly written and unambiguous, so it is evident how a decision maker should react development proposals. Further advice on the content of policies is given in the PPG at Paragraph: 002 Reference ID: 61-002-20190315 Revision date: 15 03 2019. It states that, ‘Where sites are proposed for allocation, sufficient detail should be given
to provide clarity to developers, local communities and other interested parties about the nature and scale of development’.
3. Archaeology Criterion
Many of the policies include an archaeology criterion which states that ‘The HER should be consulted to determine the need for any archaeological surveys prior to development’. Whilst we welcome the inclusion of a criterion for archaeology, in our view some
assessment is needed to inform any planning application (rather than waiting until after permission is granted but before development). This is consistent with the
policy set out in para 194 of the NPPF. We therefore advise that the archaeology criterion should be amended to read, ‘Planning applications should be supported by archaeological assessment including the results of field evaluation where appropriate.’ This applies to a number of sites in the Plan.
4. Site-Specific Issues
We have raised a number of quite site-specific issues in relation to the Bressingham, Little Melton, Rockland St Mary and Tasburgh sites. See the attached table for
further details of our concerns.
Closing comments
We have suggested a series of other changes to the Plan. Many of these changes suggested do not go to the heart of the Plan’s soundness, but instead are intended to improve upon it. We believe that these comments can be addressed by changes to wording in the plan.
In preparation of the local plan, we encourage you to draw on the knowledge of local conservation officers, the county archaeologist and local heritage groups.
Please note that absence of a comment on a policy, allocation or document in this letter does not mean that Historic England is content that the policy, allocation or
document is devoid of historic environment issues. We should like to stress that this response is based on the information provided by the Council in its consultation. To
avoid any doubt, this does not affect our obligation to provide further advice and, potentially, object to specific proposals, which may subsequently arise as a result of
this plan, where we consider that these would have an adverse effect upon the historic environment.
If you have any questions then please do get back to me. We suggest it would be helpful for us to meet and discuss our comments, resolve any outstanding issues and
begin to prepare a Statement of Common Ground. Please contact us to suggest some possible meeting dates.

The Landowner/Developer (Otley Properties) SUPPORTS the proposed allocation of land they have an interest in at Alpington (ALP 1). The Landowner/ Developer confirms that the land is available for and suitable for development and are committed to bringing the site forward for residential development as soon as possible.

A Site Promoter Confirmation of Availability, Deliverability and Viability is appended to this submission.