Do not build more properties in the small village of Bawburgh and turn it into Heathersett or Little Melton. The property prices will plummet and everyone stands to lose more than a village they love so much.

This smacks of corruption. The same builder owns the land for the 35 houses and also the traveller site, dodgy deal being done is it? I’m sure this will all unravel in the fullness of time. Legally compliant or bribery? Bawburgh has too much to lose with this site being built on. The village cannot cope with the amount of houses and traffic that passes through it now, it will be a busy, over populated and worse rat run than it already is. We have just had more housing, we do not need any more. The environmental damage this would create is barbaric. The school is already full and these new properties would create more CO2 emissions with the increased use of private vehicles being used. I thought it was ‘make Norfolk healthier’ not ‘create a smog over norfolk’

scrapped

There are so many things I consider to be wrong and borderline illegal about this planning application.

Firstly, the way it has been quietly submitted. No communications were sent to Bawburgh residents, nor affixed to the site so we could be made aware in reasonable time. Secondly, by avoiding the regular South Norfolk planning portal, none of us who check regularly saw anything. Very underhand and dishonest.

This site is the third proposed in almost as many years. How much is Bawburgh expected to accommodate? We are a small community that has unwillingly taken an extra 15 houses. While. they were supposed to be in-keeping with our rural location, they stick out like a sore thumb and have increased traffic through our village (which is already a high-speed rat run) exponentially. Now another 35 have been proposed and it won't end there. If these are agreed, the landowner will try to convert the entire field, taking away all of the charm and appeal of Bawburgh, while adding enormous strain on our already incapable infrastructure (which is minimal at best).

Despite paying large amounts of council tax, we have just one service to show for it in Bawburgh: bin collections. We have no street lights, no pavements, we are not gritted in winter (despite bing in a valley making t hard to leave in vehicles when icy). We have no emergency services stationed here, no speed cameras, despite us being a 20 mile and hour village and everybody being aware that this is a rat run through which everybody speed, sometimes at vastly dangerous speeds. We have nothing. Even our drainage is ineffective. We have multiple floods every year and water leaks (we have ANOTHER water leak on Hockering Lane at the time of typing). The flooding shuts down the central part of the village every winter and now you want to add more houses, more drainage strain etc? It is simply impossible to comprehend.

Having lived through the two building projects either side of the village hall, I can safely say that we do not want anymore. Stocks Hill was a dangerous nightmare, with debris all over the street, large vehicles parked at will and constant congestion. The houses were allowed due to the village needing to support local housing initiatives and we have done our part, though we notice that only one house on each site is classed as 'affordable', which makes a mockery of the whole justification. Can we suggest alternative sites, such as Brooke etc that would make excellent recipients of new housing estates? I'm sure Cnclr John Fuller would be only too happy to see more homes in his own village as he is such a supporter of the idea.

To say that we have facilities that make us suitable for more homes is an absolute joke. The village hall is small and used for few things. The primary school is already oversubscribed due to Bowthorpe children coming to it and pushing local children out of the catchment area already. The pub is small and expensive, making it prohibitive for many. There is no shop, no garage, no health services, meaning residents will have to travel to these, presumably in their cars, increasing our village's pollution. Assuming each house will have an average of two cars, that's already an extra 70 vehicles running through our small conservation village, twice a day. That is ridiculous and unsafe. And claiming we have a regular bus? One minibus per weekday, to WYMONDHAM? That is not a regular bus service. That is a joke. Going to Norwich would be more productive!

We cannot keep allowing more houses in characterful conservation villages. This is ruining the Norfolk countryside and making the county less appealing. City centre developments are far more appropriate, where large factories etc have been removed to make space for homes and flats in greater number and with no impact on the surrounding infrastructure or residents. This proposed Bawburgh development is an exercise in personal greed and nothing more. It will add nothing to Bawburgh or South Norfolk but will take away and harm so much. It cannot be allowed to progress. And let's be honest, who is going to buy these houses when a traveller site has been proposed around the corner? Ridiculous.

scrapped

There are so many things I consider to be wrong and borderline illegal about this planning application.

Firstly, the way it has been quietly submitted. No communications were sent to Bawburgh residents, nor affixed to the site so we could be made aware in reasonable time. Secondly, by avoiding the regular South Norfolk planning portal, none of us who check regularly saw anything. Very underhand and dishonest.

This site is the third proposed in almost as many years. How much is Bawburgh expected to accommodate? We are a small community that has unwillingly taken an extra 15 houses. While. they were supposed to be in-keeping with our rural location, they stick out like a sore thumb and have increased traffic through our village (which is already a high-speed rat run) exponentially. Now another 35 have been proposed and it won't end there. If these are agreed, the landowner will try to convert the entire field, taking away all of the charm and appeal of Bawburgh, while adding enormous strain on our already incapable infrastructure (which is minimal at best).

Despite paying large amounts of council tax, we have just one service to show for it in Bawburgh: bin collections. We have no street lights, no pavements, we are not gritted in winter (despite bing in a valley making t hard to leave in vehicles when icy). We have no emergency services stationed here, no speed cameras, despite us being a 20 mile and hour village and everybody being aware that this is a rat run through which everybody speed, sometimes at vastly dangerous speeds. We have nothing. Even our drainage is ineffective. We have multiple floods every year and water leaks (we have ANOTHER water leak on Hockering Lane at the time of typing). The flooding shuts down the central part of the village every winter and now you want to add more houses, more drainage strain etc? It is simply impossible to comprehend.

Having lived through the two building projects either side of the village hall, I can safely say that we do not want anymore. Stocks Hill was a dangerous nightmare, with debris all over the street, large vehicles parked at will and constant congestion. The houses were allowed due to the village needing to support local housing initiatives and we have done our part, though we notice that only one house on each site is classed as 'affordable', which makes a mockery of the whole justification. Can we suggest alternative sites, such as Brooke etc that would make excellent recipients of new housing estates? I'm sure Cnclr John Fuller would be only too happy to see more homes in his own village as he is such a supporter of the idea.

To say that we have facilities that make us suitable for more homes is an absolute joke. The village hall is small and used for few things. The primary school is already oversubscribed due to Bowthorpe children coming to it and pushing local children out of the catchment area already. The pub is small and expensive, making it prohibitive for many. There is no shop, no garage, no health services, meaning residents will have to travel to these, presumably in their cars, increasing our village's pollution. Assuming each house will have an average of two cars, that's already an extra 70 vehicles running through our small conservation village, twice a day. That is ridiculous and unsafe. And claiming we have a regular bus? One minibus per weekday, to WYMONDHAM? That is not a regular bus service. That is a joke. Going to Norwich would be more productive!

We cannot keep allowing more houses in characterful conservation villages. This is ruining the Norfolk countryside and making the county less appealing. City centre developments are far more appropriate, where large factories etc have been removed to make space for homes and flats in greater number and with no impact on the surrounding infrastructure or residents. This proposed Bawburgh development is an exercise in personal greed and nothing more. It will add nothing to Bawburgh or South Norfolk but will take away and harm so much. It cannot be allowed to progress. And let's be honest, who is going to buy these houses when a traveller site has been proposed around the corner? Ridiculous.

No further building will benefit Bawburgh in any way, other than for the landowner/developer..

• How will 35 more houses support the vitality of the village, when previous housing developments have not prevented closure of the village shop, butcher and a restaurant?
• The village suffers from poor sewage and drainage systems, with frequent callouts, in a village that is already a flood risk.
• More houses will put further pressure on the volume of traffic and on a bridge that is in a pitiful state of repair
• Doctors’ surgeries are already stretched without adding further local houses

Further building in Bawburgh is not required and will be of no benefit to the village.

• How will 35 more houses support the vitality of the village, when previous housing developments have not prevented closure of the village shop, butcher and a restaurant?
• The village suffers from poor sewage and drainage systems, with frequent callouts, in a village that is already a flood risk.
• More houses will put further pressure on the volume of traffic and on a bridge that is in a pitiful state of repair
• Doctors’ surgeries are already stretched without adding further local houses

No housing considered at all.
A smaller number of housing considered, however not in conjunction with the land that has been offered up as a travellers site which the landowner has offered as an underhand deal by local government. A smaller number of houses would be acceptable, with green space for walking, dog walking etc.

Any further building of residential houses in Bawburgh will drastically increase the already heave speeding traffic flow through this idylic village. The village is already used as a cut through from the Watton road into Bowthorpe/Lognwater, more housing will increase traffic. There are no amenities to provide more residents and will have massive impact on already over prescribed schools, doctors and dentist surgeries. Building more housing, roads and the likes will increase the flooding and drainage, the drainage system on Sticks Hill struggles at the best of times, further surface water using these drains will have a massive detramental affect on the current system and localised flooding. Residential housing at the bottom on Stocks Hill/Church Street already suffer with over flowing drainage which has an impact on their toilets, sinks, bath and drainage system, often with raw sewage escaping.

No housing considered at all.
A smaller number of housing considered, however not in conjunction with the land that has been offered up as a travellers site which the landowner has offered as an underhand deal by local government. A smaller number of houses would be acceptable, with green space for walking, dog walking etc.

Any further building of residential houses in Bawburgh will drastically increase the already heave speeding traffic flow through this idylic village. The village is already used as a cut through from the Watton road into Bowthorpe/Lognwater, more housing will increase traffic. There are no amenities to provide more residents and will have massive impact on already over prescribed schools, doctors and dentist surgeries. Building more housing, roads and the likes will increase the flooding and drainage, the drainage system on Sticks Hill struggles at the best of times, further surface water using these drains will have a massive detramental affect on the current system and localised flooding. Residential housing at the bottom on Stocks Hill/Church Street already suffer with over flowing drainage which has an impact on their toilets, sinks, bath and drainage system, often with raw sewage escaping.

The Plan is not sound.
1. 35 houses is far too many. Combined the other new developments over the last 25 years, the housing in this village has increased by 10%. This will increase it by a further 10%.
2. The plan does not include any of the necessary infrastructure, shops, Doctor’s surgeries, school etc.
3. The routes into and out of the village are narrow and wholly unsuitable for the additional private and commercial vehicles which will result from the additional housing.
4. With the exception of one bus service a week (which doesn’t go to Norwich), there is no public transport in the village. Vehicular pollution of the additional traffic is unacceptable.
5. The Plan will spoil a beautiful view over the Yare Valley for anyone approaching down Stocks Hill and heading north.
6. The existing sewerage system cannot cope with the existing housing.
7. There is no street lighting permitted in the village.
8. Even if the above obstacles were overcome, there is no adequate provision for affordable housing. “10% affordable housing” equates to 3 affordable houses. Not enough.

The Plan does not comply with the duty to cooperate
1. The Plan makes no provision for accepting the views of local people affected by the proposed development. Well over half the residents object to the proposals. The Plan is therefore not democratic.
2. The landowner originally asked for permission to build 20 houses. The Council responded by suggesting he build 35 houses. The Council is therefore cooperating with (and enriching) the land owner (who lives nowhere near the village) to the detriment of the interests of local residents.

The Plan is not Legally Compliant
1. The Plan has failed to take any or sufficient notice of the damage to the environment, road safety concerns and the need to provide supporting infrastructure.
2. The Plan infringes an established Conservation Area.

I object to the proposed planning application tor housing off Stocks Hill, nearly opposite the Village Hall.
My reasons-
Bawburgh Village Hall attracts many occupants, Some functions attract more cars than the parking spaces can allocate, particularly when the Bridge classes are on.
When the car parks become full excess traffic parks on or near the pavement on Stocks Hill. This is adjacent to the exit of St Walstan Meadow onto Stocks Hill.
This makes navigating along Stocks Hill difficult. Also exiting St Walstans Meadow is sometimes dangerous as the traffic emerging uphill cannot be seen until the last moment.
The application for proposed development of 35 houses, potentially will attract an additional 70 cars to an already difficult section of road.
Too much traffic uses Stocks Hill lane as a cut through, Stocks Hill does not need any more vehicles.

The proposal for up to 35 new houses has no precedent in Bawburgh. There has been no development of this size. There are no facilities in the village, which means an influx of new residents will have no choice but to add to the traffic levels. There are no proper bus routes, no cycleways and lack of proper pavements. There is no way to get to Longwater or Watton Road safely due to traffic speeds. This does not meet the ethos of local and central government. The local infrastructure cannot cope with a development of this size.

Reduce site to 1.0ha
Max density 9 units per ha
Form of development to be bungalows

Para. A5; Policy BAW1 - Not sound
The allocation of 35 units at Bawburgh (BAW1) is not sustainable. It will not enable the village to grow and thrive. The school is over-subscribed. The local doctors surgery, the Humbleyard Practice in Hethersett, is over-subscribed by 5,000 people. Bawburgh is not part of a cluster of nearby villages as confirmed by Council officers in their briefing to Parish Councils on 26.01.2023. Answer to Question 25: "The village is not clustered with others...". The allocation is unsound and fails para 79 of the NPPF.

Para. A7; Policy BAW1 - Not sound
The proposed allocation BAW1 is 1.4ha therefore contrary to Paragraph 69 of the NPPF.

Para. A13; Policy BAW1 - Not sound
The Bawburgh Primary School serves just the single parish of Bawburgh. It is over-subscribed. There is no capacity to extend the school and the proposed housing allocation could not viably fund any extension to the school.

Para. A27; Policy BAW1 - Not sound
The Council's assessment criteria fails to consider appropriate densities for propose sites. It suggests 25 units per hectare which is an urban densities not appropriate to rural allocations.
25 units are proposed on 1.4ha under BAW1. The most recent permission (2018/1550) was for 10 bungalows on 1.13 ha (i.e. 9 units per ha). BAW1 should be the same density of 9 units (bungalows) per hectare.

Para. A32; Policy BAW1
The sustainability assessment does not look at school, employment or health capacities in the villages.

Para. 6 - Not sound
Bawburgh is not part of a village cluster

Para. 6.3 - Not sound
The primary school has no capacity and is over-subscribed.

Para 6.5; BAW1 - Not sound
The site exceeds 1.0ha which is the upper limit as prescribed by para 69 of the NPPF. The new development of bungalows (10 units) permitted under 2018/1550 has a density of 9 units per hectare. BAW1 should be same density and comprise bungalows.

Para 6.6; BAW1 - Not sound
The proposed site has open views to and from the A47 contrary to para. 6.6
The form of any new development should respect the existing form of dwellings and village hall. New development should be bungalows.

Para 6.11; BAW1 - Not sound
Only 1 ha should be allocated at a density of 9 units per hectare. The development should be bungalows.

Policy BAW1 - Not sound
The design of dwellings should be bungalows to reflect form of existing development as the site is on the top of the plateau. Only 9 units to be developed on 1 hectare.
Modifications:
Allocation BAW1 -
Reduce site to 1.0ha
Max density 9 units per ha
Form of development to be bungalows

Yes, I do wish to participate in a hearing sessions.
It is essential to present evidence to show allocation BAW1 is unsustainable in terms of employment, education and health. The proposed allocation BAW1 is at inappropriate density add the site is too large. Bungalows rather than houses.

Don't build!

- The proposed site is currently on beautiful, open, agricultural land. If it's not illegal to build on here it should be!
- Planning permission has often been refused in Bawburgh in the past, even when none of the neighbouring properties object, on the grounds that it is not in keeping with the eessence of Bawburgh. Now it is suddenly deemed okay to lose a beautiful open space of agricultural land to a cluster of houses. This open space is part of the beauty of this village and should not be lost.

Primary school already fully subscribed. Local GP facility overwhelmed. Drainage already an issue within the village for Anglian Water and more houses = more runoff (downhill) towards the river, which has flooded in recent years towards the riverside properties in the village. All journeys out will require vehicle movements as there are no safe walking/cycling routes out of the village. There is 1 bus per week to Wymondham only. Concern is this development (if approved) could lead to further (considerable) expansions.

1. Bawburgh Primary School fully subscribed.
2. Drainage in village causes issues that have not improved over many years so further housing will add to this deterioration.
3. RIver floods and roads closed in deluges will only get worse with more developments.
4. There are no facilities in the village so transport is essential to live.
5. No cycle ways or pedestrian walkways near proposed site and already limited in the village.
6. I bus to Wymondham Friday only - no other day.
7. Concerning development if approved. Could expand greatly.

1. Lack of facilities / amenities in the village
2. Transport - what transport?
3. School childrens safety
4. Footpaths and cycle ways are minimal
5. Let 35 houses in and many more will appear

1. Lack of amenities in the village. No shops and contrary to the Council report there is only 1 bus per week to Wymondham.
2. The school is fully subscribed and local GP services totally overwhelmed.
3. The road system is totally unsuitable to additional traffic.
4. There are no footpaths or cycle routes out of the village.
5. The fear is that if the development was approved then this could lead to further expansion.

It is my understanding that the original offer from the landowner was to provide a site of 1 hectare for 25 properties and that it has been the decision of the Council to suggest that the landowner provides 1.4 hectares for up to 35 houses. This aside, my objections are for NO houses at all for the reasons stated above.

Objection to proposed development on Stocks Hill, Bawburgh. Ref: VC BAW1

Dear Sir / Madam

I wish to object to the proposed development on Stocks Hill Bawburgh for the following reasons:-

Highway Safety
The traffic from the proposed development of 35 properties on Stocks Hill, will emerge onto a blind hill on an already very busy road, with existing exits for The Warren, St Walstans Meadow and the Village Hall, already vying for access.
The additional traffic may also have a detrimental effect to the structure of the ancient bridge which crosses the river.

Traffic Generation
Stocks Hill, Bawburgh is already used as a “rat-run” between the B1108 Watton Road, the A47 Southern Bypass and surrounding villages. The associated additional vehicles resulting from the development of another 35 properties on Stocks Hill will increase the amount of traffic on this already heavily used road.
The village has recently installed traffic calming measures but they will have no effect on the additional number of vehicles using the road.

Density
The density of the proposed development is too overcrowded for the proposed site. The area of the proposed development is similar in area to the group of properties to its right, yet it is proposed to build almost twice as many properties.

Scale
The proposed development of up to 35 houses is out of scale to other developments which have recently been built on Stocks Hill - The Warren (5 properties) and St Walstans Meadow (7 properties).

Visual Impact
To infill this field will have a detrimental effect on the visual beauty of the approach to the village – much of which is in a Conservation Area. The site provides a safe green field view of the valley enjoyed by residents and visitors alike along a pathway. The proposed development will obliterate the views of open land which is continually being reduced by other infill developments.

The site is a few yards from a Conservation Area. It would be preferable to preserve Norfolk’s Conservation areas rather than gradually squeeze them out of existence.

Pressure on local School
Bawburgh School is currently at capacity. The proposed development could require more classrooms and additional teaching and administrative staff.

Health Centre
The Humbleyard Practice is already bursting at the seams and will cope even less with additional housing of this scale.

Drainage issues
The village often experiences drainage issues where the system cannot cope from periods of heavy rainfall. The development would create large areas of hard standing where surface water could not drain naturally and would potentially cause even further sewerage and flooding issues.

It is my understanding that the original offer from the landowner was to provide a site of 1 hectare for 25 properties and that it has been the decision of the Council to suggest that the landowner provides 1.4 hectares for up to 35 houses. This aside, my objections are for NO houses at all for the reasons stated above.

[No text comments]

No modification required if this excessive development does not go ahead. Common sense really in a small conservation village/area?

No sound consideration has been given to the impact of extra vehicular movement (traffic onto Stocks Hill) and surrounds, in a still relatively small village.

I object tot he houses being built opposite the village hall (ref. VC BAW1). If there are to be 35 houses it could mean an extra 70 cars (allowing 2 cars per family). Stocks Hill is not suitable for this type of traffic this would create, also there is an ancient bridge which has a weight limit. Bawburgh is a quaint village and it should remain that way. There is too much traffic already using Stocks Hill as it is, using it as a rat run.

Reduce the Size of site
Reduce the amount of houses. Just an infill along the road 10 houses.
No through road on the development. If there is a through road it’s likely more housing would be built at a later date.
Rainwater soak always need proper investigation
Roads need widening
Paths introduced
It’s a small village which needs to be kept small

I am objecting to proposed 35 houses on Proposed development site off Stocks Hill Bawburgh.
Road system and bridge are not suitable for increased traffic.
Will increase light pollution if street lights are installed
No amenities. Only have Village Hall & Pub
No pathways
No bus service.
School is already over subscribed.
Water run off Will add to an already overloaded water table on the flood meadow which flows into river. Road has been flooded and blocked bottom Stocks Hill near bridge. This has already happened because of the new homes on Stocks Hill
Sewage system already struggling to cope

Village involved in planning.
10 houses maximum
Big gardens and driveway parking.
Lots of trees and green land
Would need to be similar to the two recent developments on stocks hill.
Ideally nothing, keep the green space.

35 houses will not be keeping with the layout or character of other houses.
We live in a village, already in recent years had two developments of 10 properties, 35 would be a real issue and not fit
Increased risk of flooding drainage / sewage due to extra buildings - regularly need to have drainage companies out.
The Village amenities can't cope with this.
35 houses is not aesthetically pleasing across size of land proposed.
Views of fields gone visual impact for us locals
Impact of extra children at school, we would need 3 extra classrooms due to mixed classes.

Do not build houses, plant trees and flowers.
Or if houses must be built they need to be similar to the other two developments, small bungalows with large gardens. Not 35 in a small space, 9 maximum.
Keep this village a village.

Will cause huge traffic transport issues
Drainage issues already in the close
Aesthetically will not fit with the village
A huge number of houses for a small amount or land
Bridge wont cope with extra traffic
No amenities
GP and dentists full
It's a beautiful green space.
The school is full cannot have 3 more classes.
More people at the already busy river in the summer
Environmentally not sound
Perfect space for dog walking
We want to remain a SMALL village and close community

Plant trees and do nothing more. Keep this village beautiful and a desirable place to live.

Looking to move to the village due to being small and quiet building 35 houses will change all of this. The whole feel of the village, this is why it is a desirable place to live, lots of fields, quiet roads.
The school is full, the local GP and dentists are full.
There are no amenities.
We need to keep these beautiful green fields, this is what makes Bawburgh so beautiful.
35 houses will ruin the village asthetically.

The plan should be scrapped completely.

The landowner originally proposed 20 houses. Council suggested 35. Villagers are concerned that underhand dealings have taken place between members of the SNDC Planning Committee and the owner of the land. It is felt that 35 houses are only the start and that a much larger number of houses will be built in the future.,35 houses is far too many. Over last 25 years, housing in Bawburgh has increased by 10%. This will increase by further 10%.

There is no adequate provision for accepting views of residents affected by proposal. Well over 50% object therefore the proposal is not democratic. The process to lodge objections online is not easy to navigate.

If the plan is to proceed limit the amount of houses to 10 and ensure that they are in keeping with the last 2 small scale developments within the village.

I would object to this proposed development (VCBAW1) for the following reasons: -

Bawburgh has no shops, no GP or dental provision and minimal public transport links meaning that any additional developments would result in an increase in the number of cars needed to access these services.

We live in a small village which already experiences traffic problems. The roads are narrow, and cars already struggle to pass each. Stocks Hill is used as a cut through by many motorists and they often drive at excess speed through the village despite the recent traffic calming measures which endangers people’s safety.

The school on Hockering Lane means that is extremely busy during morning and afternoon drop off and collection times. Hockering Lane is a cul-de-sac and given the existing problems of traffic overcrowding increasing the number of residents in the village will cause further problems.

Several roads in the village do not have footpaths or street lighting and the impact of additional traffic on pedestrian safety must be considered.

The bridge over the river Yare in the village is a scheduled monument and extra traffic using it could be detrimental to its structural integrity.

The proposed development will exacerbate these issues by increasing the number of vehicles already using our existing road network as well as leading to an increase in noise and air pollution.

Bawburgh has experienced a high number of water drainage and sewerage problems in recent years and increasing the number of residents would put even more pressure on facilities that are already struggling to cope. The intention to add more houses on land that is currently aiding natural water drainage is likely to increase the risks of increased surface water flooding if the development proceeds.

Housing density is too large for the area proposed and will provide an eyesore when viewing the village.

Lower density of housing

Where as the Village of Bawburgh understands the need for extra housing, it does not need high density housing. With large housing schemes going ahead in neighbouring villages - Easton (900) and Hethersett (900) any development in Bawburgh ought to be kept low density as the through roads are already very busy.
The village could probably accommodate 15 houses on this site, to keep in line with developments on the opposite side of Stocks Hill

Can an explanation of the link between these houses and the traveller site be explained to us please as the same person owns both land and this seems an awful coincidence. Perhaps you could explain what monies have transferred to propose this plan?

Less houses please, no more than 15 would be slightly better. Need to look aesthetically pleasing,
of good size, with parking and gardens, ideally bungalows built to a high standard.

Improved pathways out of village to longwater and little Melton would support any proposal. More green areas added, with trees and plants, so buildings aren't overlooked and impact for current residents is reduced. Funding support to the school with additional children in village. More traffic calming measures put onto stocks Hill, by the bridge and up the hill. Cars speed up the hill and are dangerous and needs looking at before more houses added with more cars.

Reduce number of houses proposed.

35 houses over size of land is not in keeping with village. 2 Recent developments of around 10 properties were prestigious bungalows with large gardens, this development should follow same standard. Entrance proposed is on hill, and access would be dangerous. Volume and noise of traffic is already an issue over bridge and up stocks Hill. Alterations already made to mitigate speeding, but this would only add to it.
The views over land would be visually impacted with local conservation areas impacted due to being abutting to site.
Has an impact assessment been carried out?

There should be at most, 10 houses, single storey, modest in size, designed sensitively to reflect local styles and materials (as is The Warren).

1. 35 houses means up to 70 cars entering a narrow road already subject to daily rat runs at excessive speed.
2. The protected status bridge will be in greater danger of collapse.
3. There are already inadequate public services and no shops in the village
4. Public transport is almost non-existent.
5. The intimate rural character of a village with a conservation area adjacent to the proposed development will be spoiled for future generations.
6. There will be increased pollution from vehicles, including those delivering items, in an area already subject to exhaust fumes from the bypass.

35 new homes is too many. A considerably reduced number of new dwellings would fit more appropriately within the village.

Bawburgh is a small and quaint village. This many homes will have a detrimental effect on the road network, causing even more traffic on an already very busy village road. The proposed site is on the brow of the hill; which could make it extremely dangerous for those coming in and out of the site. This many homes in the village will also put added pressure onto the Primary school. There would be extra pressure on the already vulnerable sewage infrastructure too. The village has issues with flooding; paving over fields would reduce available land to soak up excess water.