FW Properties consider Site VC BAP1 to be a suitable and deliverable location for new homes within the village. Whilst this brownfield site is slightly detached from the main clusters of development within Bergh Apton and nearby Alpington, we believe its regeneration as part of a residential development would provide many benefits to the local community. Not only is Bergh Apton considered to be an appropriate location for growth but also a residential proposal would provide many social, economic, and environmental improvements to the village.

The site currently generates a number of sizable HGV movements through the village each day. In addition, the current use also creates various social issues and is detrimental to its attractive rural setting which can be remedied by the change of use to residential.

FW Properties have entered into agreement with the owners of the site so VC BAP1 is immediately available. Despite the additional costs of demolishing the existing buildings and for breaking up the concrete surfaces on the site together with the associated de-contamination costs, FW Properties, who have previously developed 11 new houses in Bergh Apton in 2017, consider the development of 25 new homes on Site VC BAP1 to be viable and deliverable.

Vehicular and pedestrian access from Church Road, together with the connections to services, will be provided by way of several private drives each serving no more than 9 properties. In addition, the development of VC BAP1 will provide a mix of dwelling types and sizes to meet local needs.

The site is not subject to any delivery constraints which would prevent its development for new homes and FW Properties believe that the site specific requirements attached to this draft allocation can all be fulfilled. The scheme layout will also respect the listed Tayler and Green houses which are located nearby.

On this basis, FW Properties believe that Site VC BAP1 should be taken forward for allocation as not only will it regenerate a poor quality brownfield site located in an attractive rural setting but will also make a valuable contribution to the planned housing growth in South Norfolk in the period up to 2041. The site is outside the area currently effected by nutrients neutrality so it is FW Properties’ intention to submit the planning application for its development during Quarter 2 2023 so that we can then hopefully be on site with the delivery of these new homes by Quarter 2 2024.

Remove VC BAP1

Access to Alpington and Bergh Apton 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.

Half the number of houses planned. Make the gardens bigger and plant lots of trees, and include a nature reserve and community orchard.

Too many houses are planned. 25 dwellings would mean at least 50 extra cars on these narrow rural roads. Too far for children to walk to school and the increase in traffic will make cycling and walking even more uncomfortable.

The whole principle of VCHAP is a flawed one. It will change forever the feel of numerous villages in the County and erode the natural environment.

This is a brown field site which makes it more palatable than the Alpington /Yelverton site in the same Cluster. It is however totally inaccessible to the school other than by driving.
Vehicle traffic will increase from the current c29,000 per month on Church Road on roads that are in the main single track.

Remove this from the plan. However, as previously stated if development has to be accepted, which is not conceded, then as a brownfield site this should be given priority over ALP1.

I fully endorse the previous objections.

Reject it

I am struggling to understand how anybody can think this is an appropriate site for development other than it is brownfield. The road network is appalling, there are no pavements, no easy access to any shops other than by car, even Alpington school is not walkable so it basically has nothing for it other than brownfield. Its development will put more traffic onto minor one lane roads. None of the proposed sites have suitable road access.

I think the proposal should be withdrawn

This proposal for potentially 100 people is far too big and is away from the linear form of the village, forming an insular neighbourhood with little direct contact with existing inhabitants.
Access from The Street is on a blind bend. All routes to the west are single track with no constructed passing places . Dual track roads to the east are not passable for their full length. Proposed road improvements are not practical.
The local primary school is at capacity and GP, dentist and other facilities at Poringland and Loddon are over stretched from vast developments in those areas.

Reduction : 12-15 dwellings.
Speed limit reduced to 30mph in the village.
Road signage to indicate narrow/single track roads on all roads entering the village.
No street lighting.

Bergh Apton is a small village classification 5. Already had an additional 23 dwellings in last 8 years.
Narrow roads to site from all directions which are being damaged by already increased traffic. 25 dwellings will create further large increase in vehicles making walking/cycling hazardous in 60mph speed limit zone especially at school/work time.
No safe cycle routes to main centres of employment.
Potential increase in light pollution.
Local school is full.

If the development proceeds, Council recommend a reduction in the number of houses from 25 to 12 (to include 2 affordable). It should be a requirement that there is a 30mph limit on Church Road and the Street. It should be a condition that this site is connected to the mains sewarage.

The number of houses is excessive especially given that BA has had 27 developments in the last 8 years. It was noted the current commercial site has minimal traffic and as a rural village, there is little infrastructure and therefore very much a car orientated development. Improvements to the highways will be difficult because most of the roads from the sites are single track or very narrow and there are no footpaths. Concerns about the lack of school capacity in the area will further result in children being taken to school by car, especially considering the 25 houses at Alpington.

Less houses

Therefore
We think 12-15 houses to be built
Less houses Less cars Less accidents Less erosion of the fields
Less Rubbish Less Pollution of the skies

Too much traffic for single road that is already used alot
25 houses is too many
That is at least another 50/60 cars on this narrow quiet lane
No facilities nearby without using a car except dog walking
We are not disagreeing with the houses just the amount of houses
the lanes further through the villages will all be affected too
Down to Brooke and Alpington
This is a dispersed village without any facilities

Number of houses on the site to be reduced to 12. 20 mph speed limit starting to west of site.

We live at Oakdale House, immediately to the east of the site. In the SNVCH January 2023 site assessments, NCC Highways express serious concern about the local road network. I agree . The nearest non single track road is about 2 miles away. NCC Highways go on to say that the development "shouldn't result in higher traffic numbers than previous use of the site". The site is currently used (and has been for some time) for storing various vehicles and machinery as well as other mostly metal materials. Traffic movements to and from the site are minimal, probably no more than 2 or 3 vehicles per day, if that. The increase in traffic movements from this site will therefore be very considerable.

We would hope to be consulted on the design of the site and particularly the boundary arrangements. We would hope that there will be some kind of "buffer" along our western boundary.

27 new homes have been built in Bergh Apton over the last 5 years or so. An additional proposed 25 dwellings is too many.

Other issues such as pressure on local infrastructure (schools, doctor, shops etc.) should be taken in to account when deciding on the number of dwellings.

In principle we are not opposed to residential development on this site. However we feel 25 houses is far too many. We think the number should be 12.

Finally, assuming this development is going to go ahead we think there should be a 20 mph speed limit starting somewhere to the west of the site.

This site should be withdrawn from the VCHAP and should be retained for commercial use.B.A.has already accommodated 27 new dwellings under the J.C.S.This ought to be enough as a contribution for an Other Village.

The Clusters is based on Primary School Catchment areas.B.A.has no school and no safe access to Alpington School.This is why it is classed as an “other”village,category 5 under GNLP hierarchy.The preferred site is very remote and will impact severely on narrow local roads requiring passing places.Village services are minimal.The proposal is unsound socially and environmentally.There will be a major increase in traffic as the development is car orienrated.The existing commercial use generates very little traffic or noise.

Smaller number of units set out in an arrangement to suit the character of the village.
Provision of appropriate and safe roads connecting the site.
30mph limitation to roads with housing connecting the site. This should apply throughout the village.
Design arrangements and lighting to reduce the impact on the night sky.

The size of this development is inappropriate for Bergh Apton. The characteristics of this village are set by small scale linear, or isolated ‘pockets’ of houses or farm buildings. This arrangement of development makes this place special and well loved.
The size of this development and the likely estate format of the development will be alien to the character of the village. It will set a precedent for future larger schemes.
The single track road network without pavements will become hazardous due to increased traffic created. It would be difficult and unsafe to walk children to school from this location.

I would prefer this to be removed from the plan, but if the site is given the go ahead, I would say it is essential to cut down the number of houses to about 10 houses. Also to bring in 30mph speed limits in that area.

Bergh Apton is a rural ‘other’ village classified as Level 5, because there are very few services available, and because the nearest primary school is in Alpington. This often necessitates use of a car. Putting possibly 25 houses on this site will increase this, especially as the roads are narrow and primarily 60mph limit, and there is no safe, easy route to get to school.
There have been 27 developments over the last 8years., in pockets built under JCS. Putting 25 more houses in one place in a likely estate format will be alien to the character of the village.

Withdrawn from the VCHAP.

The proposal is far too large to fit the existing character of Bergh Apton,a rural village described by S.N.C.planners as a collection of small hamlets,which include the listed Taylor and Green dwellings on Church Road.Currently,this is a valuable commercial site,the only one in the village.Before permission to change use to housing,careful consideration is needed to avoid losing it.Potentially it could be like the site on Mill Road,Alpington,occupied by Russell Civil Engineering.The site was not chosen for housing under the J.C.S.,being regarded as remote.The large housing estate proposed,being car orientated,would put undue pressure on the existing settlement.

A proposal more in keeping with the listed part of the Taylor Green development MIGHT be more acceptable if development has to happen - 8, or 9, mixed properties around a green with off road garaging and parking for the residents and their guests could, possibly, be sustained without having to widen ALL the roads in the area though I trust the developers would be prepared to compensate existing residents for the negative impact on their lives/value of their properties. I would ask that the proposal be rejected and sympathetic alternatives be sought.

I am with reference to the above plan. I wish to have it recorded that I believe the proposal for Bergh Apton to be 'unsound'. My reasons for this objection are detailed below.

The proposed development site in Bergh Apton is located on Church Road. Church Road is a narrow, little used, lane that is not wide enough for white lines to be painted on it. In fact there is hardly a road within 1 mile of the proposed site that is wide enough to allow for two vehicles travelling in opposite directions to pass safely without one of them having to drive up a bank or pull into a layby that has been formed through the erosion of a field edge. The suggested number of dwellings for the Bergh Apton site is 25. In all likelihood that would result in excess of 25 vehicles being added to the number of cars already using these narrow lanes or, to put that in perspective, currently the total number of dwellings on Church Road and The Street combined have approximately 25 cars between them. This proposal could result in DOUBLING the number of vehicles using these narrow, poorly maintained roads. This is neither safe or convenient.

The proposed development site is currently used as a storage yard for ferrous and non-ferrous metals. This business has been there for some years. The majority of the site is covered with concrete to provide hard standing. There are vehicles on the site to move the metal stored there. Invariably over the years oil, hydraulic fluid as well as the metals themselves would have passed, in part, in to the substructure and, possibly the soil. So before any construction can take place all of the existing hard standing will probably need to be removed, along with, quite possibly, a substantial quantity of soil. How exactly is all of this going to be removed via the inadequate road network to the collection point? At present the only large vehicles that pass through this area are the refuse collection lorry (once a week), the container lorries to the recycling centre (they travel along Welbeck Road and are few in number, probably no more than 1-3 vehicle movements a week), the very occasional long vehicle to the proposed site (not even once a week to the best of my knowledge) and, about 2-3 times a year, large agricultural machinery from the surrounding farms pass through the lanes (usually at harvest time). The clearance of the proposed site would involve the delivery of large machinery (the long vehicles that call to the yard already have problems getting here) as well as a substantial number of large, and heavy, vehicle movements on a near daily basis. I am not sure the existing fabric of the roads would cope with that sustained activity, certainly the verges won't. This is not safe, convenient or sustainable.

A development of housing association properties on the junction between Church Road and The Street was completed a few years ago. These four dwellings are on a septic tank with the overflow running into an open ditch. The tank is emptied regularly and the, often smelly, ditch is dredged at least once a year. Why were these properties not linked to the mains drains that run along Church Road given the fact the SNDC planners are not, generally, fond of septic tanks as part of planning applications? Is it reasonable to assume, therefore, that the connection to the mains drains was not made because the existing drains (constructed in the 1950's) could not sustain further demand? So this raises the question of where 25 dwellings worth of waste is going to go? Are the existing drains to be upgraded? Are additional drains to be installed? And how is that going to be managed? Are all the roads to be closed and dug up to facilitate this? Is our access to be restricted and our journey times extended whilst these works take place?

Where is the surface water going to go? It is well known that when there is heavy rainfall Lower Kiln Lane (parallel to the proposed site) floods despite the farmers strenuous efforts to keep the drains clear. Water runs down the road to Welbeck Road, the roads are literally, awash. Further the drains on Church Road have been eroded, neglected and the point where Church Road joins the residents car park (near the junction with The Street) also floods (despite the strenuous efforts of the residents. The occasional dredging doesn't include the dredging of the bottleneck in the system). The system can no longer cope with what we have. Is the development somehow going to ensure these problems don't increase?

The proposal for 25 properties in a confined space is near equal to the total number of properties along the entirety of Church Road and The Street. One of the unique, and defining, characteristics of Bergh Apton is the layout of the properties here (this has been noted by the planning department and has been cited as a possible reason for declining a planning application), the dwellings here are built house to road. There are no cul-de-sacs or 'roads round the back', in fact there are only, approximately, 6 (?) dwellings Bergh Apton that are built behind another dwelling. Therefore 25 dwellings would have to be constructed in a manner completely contrary to all other dwellings in Bergh Apton.

It goes without saying that 25 dwellings will result in more than 25 individuals living in this mini-estate. The lay out of Bergh Apton, the lack of obstacles between homes means that at present you can stand on the corner of Church Road and The Street and hear traffic over a mile away (on the B1332 and the A146 to be precise). We are able to hear this because there is no other noise to mask it. Fire works can be heard from miles away. 25 dwellings, and their occupants, will just, via ordinary life noises, a very significant increase in noise in the area. External doors closing, vehicles, conversations outside ... the people who already live here have chosen to live here, one the most appealing factors of the location is the fact that is it quiet. 25 concentrated domiciles will add a level of noise unknown anywhere in the entirety of Bergh Apton and will be very detrimental to the quiet enjoyment of our homes that we currently benefit from.

As well as noise 25 dwellings will contribute to light pollution. Because of the density of the proposed housing outside lights, lights on with the curtains open could literally result in a 'glow' on the horizon with nothing to block it. With so many councils, businesses and organisations already contributing to 'dark skies' are we to have our dark sky blighted? We currently have some of the most amazing views of the stars on clear nights because there is so little lighting in this area. Are the residents to have their lighting needs restricted?

Based on the above, therefore, I would just like to highlight some of the points made in your own documents:


" ... the Village Clusters assessment widened the number of services to which distances to/from the site have been assessed to include some which are characteristic of rural villages, for example, a village/community hall and pub, as well as pre-school provision and formal sports facilities. The maximum distance to services was also increased, to reflect the more dispersed pattern of development across the South Norfolk Village Cluster area. However, the choice of sites was still informed by the need for safe and convenient access to those services, as well as by an accompanying Sustainability Appraisal, see below."

As I has stated above, the increase in vehicle movements along the existing narrow country lanes would not be safe, or convenient and, in fact, could significantly increase the risk of harm to both pedestrians, domestic and wild animals as well as other vehicle users.


"A.24. The following sets out the three Objectives which the Village Clusters Plan is aiming to achieve through the allocation of appropriate sites and the amendment of Settlement Limits.
SNVC Objective 1 - Meet housing needs
Deliver housing in accordance with the Greater Norwich Local Plan housing target for the South Norfolk Village Clusters through the allocation of suitable, viable and deliverable development sites for housing. ..."
I do not believe the number of properties being proposed is suitable for this location. The scale of the development is not viable when the other factors - roads, drainage, waste water, sound and light proofing - are taken into account.
"SNVC Objective 2 - Protect village communities and support rural services and facilities
Provide opportunities for new housing development in a range of settlements within the village clusters, meeting the needs of a range of occupiers with the potential to support different local services and facilities. Seek to deliver improvements to local services, facilities and infrastructure where justified and appropriate."
The scale of the improvements required to make the proposal development 'safe' would require millions of £s worth of investment, unless the central Government has plans to increase the size of all the rural roads around the site the proposal is not viable.
"SNVC Objective 3 - Protect the character of villages and their settings
Ensure that the scale, location and density of housing is well related to the form and character of existing villages, protects the historic environment, including protected landscapes, and ensures appropriate landscaping measures are delivered as part of new development.
However, the choice of sites was still informed by the need for safe and convenient access to those services, as well as by an accompanying Sustainability Appraisal, see below."



I think the proposed development is far too large a number of dwellings for the area, the density of housing completely out of keeping with anything in Bergh Apton and the location means that the occupants of the site are going to be heavily, if not fully, reliant on their cars to access local services safely. There are no footpaths, no cycle paths and no 'alternative routes' that can get you from the proposed site without extensive walking/cycling on narrow roads.

In conclusion, I fully respect the rights of the owners of the proposed site to seek a financial return on their investment and I understand that this quantity of housing would probably result in all their costs being covered as well as achieving a comfortable profit. And I respect the fact that 25 dwellings would go some way to meeting the target for South Norfolk. However I think the proposal is excessive, unsafe and unsustainable for the area, inconsiderate and wholly inappropriate. A proposal more in keeping with the listed part of the Taylor Green development MIGHT be more acceptable if development has to happen - 8, or 9, mixed properties around a green with off road garaging and parking for the residents and their guests could, possibly, be sustained without having to widen ALL the roads in the area though I trust the developers would be prepared to compensate existing residents for the negative impact on their lives/value of their properties. I would ask that the proposal be rejected and sympathetic alternatives be sought.

We need 15 houses, max, including social housing, built in a small cluster and well-designed – not a new estate.

I am a resident of Bergh Apton, the population of which is now around 450 people.

We have had 27 new dwellings in the village since 2015. 24 of these are occupied and three are under construction.

Under the GNLP, I understand that 25 houses are proposed for the site known locally as The Blockworks on Church Road, and strongly disagree with this decision.

There are highway constraints. The roads in Bergh Apton are almost all single lane with 60mph limits. We were refused a 30mph limit last summer.

Church Road is narrow and winding and cannot accommodate another 50+ cars every day.

There is one shop at the far end of village 1.3 miles away. There is no safe route to the school. Alpington Primary School, already heavily oversubscribed, is well over a mile away and there are no pavements or footpaths. Walking is hazardous in this village.

It is poor planning to plonk such a large development on a small village – and is a decision clearly made with the size of the 1.65 hectare site in mind, not whether it is appropriate.

Has anyone in the planning department visited this site? Has anyone noted the width of our roads and lack of infrastructure?

We need 15 houses, max, including social housing, built in a small cluster and well-designed – not a new estate.

We live in a beautiful quiet village. The birds are the sound we listen to day by day. This will change what we have and why we live here.

Plan VCBAP1 is unsound other than keeping the hedging and trees in this plan - there is nothing else considered rural. A modern noisy housing estate, widening roads causing residents in the Taylor & Green homes to subjected to disruption, modification of the entire area would lose the peace and quiet of the rural, quirky, oldy worldy village. We would be overlooking a housing estate from our properties, putting up with all the noise from the estate, as well as an increase of cars and noise and people. And, what about the valuations of our properties? View? What about the impact on wildlife? None fo the modern houses built in Bergh Apton over the last 10 years have been welcomed by the residents - unfortunately - Bergh Apton is full of a large number of older residents, no laptops, no way to have their say.

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.