A significant reduction in the number of houses, so as not to change the feeling of the village.

As a homeowner, I am very concerned about the increase flooding risk and the pressure on an already weak sewage infrastructure. Added volumes of traffic in the village are also a worry. Bawburgh is a quiet village with low density housing. The proposal will see a radical change to this in an extremely negative way. As the proposed development is on the brow of a hill and the village already suffers with antisocial driving, I fear accidents may arise.

Reduce to the number of dweelings to be more in line with recent developments.

35 new dwellings is too many. Stocks Hill is already busy and another junction will be dangerous.
Bawburgh does not have the facilities to cope with these extra properties - no shops or regular bus service meaning just about every journey will be by car.

In an ideal world the village would stay as it is. If this is not possible the 35 houses in this area of land is far too high density. If the houses were to go ahead then the whole of stocks hill should have safe pathways all the way up to Watton Road. Traffic management should be improved with for example speed bumps to slow traffic through the area. Cycle ways would improve the accessibility. Improvements to existing Internet provision should be added for the whole village. Additional amenities for the village should be provided such as green space the benefit the whole area. Bus service other than local voluntary one.

I am not in a position to comment if the site meets its legal compliance or duty to co-operate but I have not see enough evidence to convince me enough to say yes that they are. I can comment on the soundness of the plan with complete confidence.

My objections to the site start with the density of the housing. Compared to the majority of the village 35 houses within this area of land is not consistent with the rest of the village. If the plans continue for development within the village it is going to completely change the character of the area. This is not a suburb of the city. This will be a loss of important green space within the area.

There are barely amenities for the existing locals and if a resident does not have a car there are zero amenities. The school is currently oversubscribed and more residents will increase the issue. There are zero NHS dentist places available in the local area. The doctors surgery is already impossible to get an appointment with. There are no pathways accessing any regular bus routes. The road is very busy and there are no traffic mitigations in place to slow drivers down so anyone walking without a pathway is in constant danger. It is completely impossible for any child to walk safely without a parent and even then its not safe. The addition of another group of houses and cars will only worsen the situation.

The site is on important drainage land for the surrounding houses. Our house is already in danger of surface water flooding. With this development up hill from our house it will worsen the situation and increase the likelihood of damage for other villagers. No SFRA has been included for Bawburgh village in the supporting documents.

I know of local villagers who have had planning permissions declined within the area based on the environmental impact to the area. How are these houses allowed?

The village has very slow internet speeds. Access to the internet is a requirement.

Significantly reduce the number of houses proposed in this development to be in keeping with a the other recent developments within the village. Looking at the size of the land and the other houses on Stocks Hill, I would think 10 dwellings would be ideal.

The new development should be in keeping with the other new Stocks Hill developments. i.e be generous specification detached bungalows. Limited in number to maintain the open spaces and pleasant views all Bawburgh residents currently enjoy.

As a father of two children, I worry that without any public transport provision in the village, Bawburgh is too cut off from civilisation. There are no footpaths leading out of the village, meaning a walk of at least 1.5 miles on the busy highway to the nearest connecting footpath to Norwich or Longwater. I would like to see the plans incorporate provision for at the very least new “trod paths” linking Bawburgh to the Park and Ride at Longwater and the current “trod path” along the Watton Rd.

I am worried that a development such as this, will substantially affect surface water flows and certainly add to the ongoing issues with waste water. Especially when this housing estate is combined with any future developments. I would be very concerned that the various Section 106 requirements would pose many constraints on a development of this size. Especially with regards to layout, number of affordable housing, green spaces and of course nutrient neutrality. Leading to the obvious increase in development size to mitigate these requirements, causing permanent damage to the picturesque village in terms of landscape and visual appearance.

In an ideal world the village would stay as it is. If this is not possible the 35 houses in this area of land is far too high density. If the houses were to go ahead then the whole of stocks hill should have safe pathways all the way up to Watton Road. Traffic management should be improved with for example speed bumps to slow traffic through the area. Cycle ways would improve the accessability. Improvements to existing Internet provision should be added for the whole village. Additional amenities for the village should be provided such as green space the benefit the whole area. Bus service other than local voulintary one.

I am not in a position to comment if the site meets its legal compliance or duty to co-operate but I have not see enough evidence to convince me enough to say yes that they are. I can comment on the soundness of the plan with complete confidence. My objections to the site start with the density of the housing. Compared to the majority of the village 35 houses within this area of land is not consistent with the rest of the village. If the plans continue for development within the village it is going to completely change the character of the area. This is not a suburb of the city. This will be a loss of important green space within the area. There are barely amenities for the existing locals and if a resident does not have a car there are zero amenities. The school is currently oversubscribed and more residents will increase the issue. There are zero NHS dentist places available in the local area. The doctors surgery is already impossible to get an appointment with. There are no pathways accessing any regular bus routes. The road is very busy and there are no traffic mitigations in place to slow drivers down so anyone walking without a pathway is in constant danger. It is completely impossible for any child to walk safely without a parent and even then its not safe. The addition of another group of houses and cars will only worsen the situation. The site is on important drainage land for the surrounding houses. Our house is already in danger of surface water flooding. With this development up hill from our house it will worsen the situation and increase the likelihood of damage for other villagers. No SFRA has been included for Bawburgh village in the supporting documents. I know of local villagers who have had planning permissions declined within the area based on the environmental impact to the area. How are these houses allowed? The village has very slow internet speeds. Access to the internet is a requirement.

I object that any additional houses need to be built in Bawburgh. In the last two years 12 bungalows were built next to the village hall. If houses have to be built then a considerable reduction (90%) should be in place.

Much more detail of the landscaping of the site needs to be shared so we can suggest changes. Hedgerows, conservation area, tree planting and footpaths all need to be in place.

If the site is confirmed more bus routes and cycle lanes need to be introduced, otherwise the council is only encouraging people to use cars.

A new drain system will have be installed throughput the whole of Stocks Hill. The drains are unable to cope with the currant level of surface water.

There is another proposal (GNLP5009) for Bawburgh. If both sites are agreed then the population of Bawburgh will be significantly increased in a very short period of time. The extremely limited infrastructure in the village would not be able to support this. Is there any detail on what proposed infrastructure will be put in place so we can comment?

The village has a history of flooding and there is a serious concern regarding surface water and waste capacity for the proposed site.
To ensure this is managed correctly more land than currently proposed will be needed which is concerning as the site is a green field site. There will be a considerable negative impact on the environment.

There needs to be more detail provided regarding the landscaping of the proposed development. Bawburgh is a conservation village and the new development on a green field site is not in keeping with this.

The village cannot support the additional traffic.

I would prefer if the development did not go ahead due to the issues which I have already stated in my objection.

If the development was approved,I would like the number of houses to be reduced as I think that the house density is too great for the land size.
Also for the houses to be of the same standard and sympathetic design as the recent 2 small developments.

Roads and Traffic.
Bawburgh is a small village with narrow roads and no allocated or room for any passing places.
It is already hard for cars to pass each other in some areas.
In recent years, vehicle activated speed signs have been introduced to the village, due to vehicles speeding through the village, which unfortunately continues to be a problem.
Additional houses built in the village will bring in more cars and exacerbate this issue.
On some of the roads there are no footpaths and as there is no public street lighting in the village, increased traffic on the roads will negatively impact the safety of residents, pedestrians, domestic animals, and wildlife.
There is very limited public transport available, therefore cars, bicycles or foot are the only way to travel through Bawburgh.
There are no bike paths in the village.
The bridge over the river Yare which is the only way of going from one area of the village to the other, is a scheduled monument and any increase in traffic may have a detrimental structural effect on it.
Facilities and Infrastructure.
Bawburgh has no shop, dentist, or doctor facilities in the village. There is extremely limited access to nearby surgeries also.
The sewage infrastructure is already under pressure and struggles to cope with the existing number of houses / residents in the village.
There is a primary school but according the DoEd website, it is already up to capacity.
Broadband speeds and mobile signals are poor within the village.
Flooding.
Bawburgh has flooding issues in many areas of the village.
In 2019 the flood water went over the bridge and a car was stuck.
Adding houses onto farmland will increase the risk of surface water flooding.

I think a few houses along the front would be ok for the village. I don’t believe that 35 houses is ridiculous and Bawburgh will not cope. We have very old sewer lines, flooding becoming worse, SUDS is also not working within Bawburgh. This just adds to the amount of water at the bottom of Stocks Hill.

Pollution is also something that really needs to be taken into consideration, it’s a serious issue and will not be helped by more and more houses.

I object to the housing development because Bawburgh is getting busier day by day. The village is already bursting with houses and people. This village is in a conservation area and is used as a rat run from people going from A to B. I have lived in this village for 44 years and the road passed my house has changed so much with traffic and speeding. The road is becoming dangerous with one man losing his life due to traffic calming, this is needed because of the speed.
We do not have the amenities or facilities for there to accommodate more.
There would be another extra 210 daily trips in and out of this village due to their not being any shops or drs in walking distance.
Bawburgh has already gone through a lot of changes with more houses being built each side of the village hall.
Bawburgh school is bursting and is unable to take on any more students and this will offer more problems amongst families who already have their children at the school and will not be able to have any sibling attend.
The sewers and drainage within bawburgh is terrible, we have had so many problems with flooding, burst water mains and sewers backing up and becoming blocked. How will the drains and sewers cope with an extra 35 houses?
The bridge located in bawburgh is also weak and we have had many problems with the bridge crumbling and being closed for some time due to works carried out to make it safe.
Bawburgh is a lovely village which is being spoilt by developments and more cars as well as a gypsy and traveller site proposal just down the road from this development.
Both plans are unnecessary and this little village is unable to sustain any more new changes.
What happened to ‘Make Norfolk Healthier’?

I think the plan will ruin the character of a small, peaceful old village and should not be allowed.

Junction on bend and brow of hill, opposite three entrances.
Construction traffic obstructing main highway in and out of village.
Generating 70 extra vehicles in small village on speeding rat-run between B1108 and A47.
Additional traffic over single-track historic bridge..
Loss of informal green space on entrance to village and water will not be able to drain down from field into Yare.
Density of building out of scale and character of conservation village. Already water and sewage problems in village.
Village school and both local surgeries already over-subscribed.
No shop, employment or surgery in village and poor bus service.

DROP THE PLAN

Access to site from A47/Stocks Hill or through village over Bridge - designated of National Importance. Local roads struggles to cope with present level of traffic as recent fatality shows. New development will add minimum 45/50 cars accessing Stocks Hill from a difficult junction on a steep hill!
Village facilities Public House,Village Hall,Golf Club. No Surgery (nearest 2.4 miles by car) or dental service; shops 1.8- 2 miles ; school over-subscribed; timely public transport.
Site opposite Village Hall - possible source of complains from new residents/noise at night, car parking, disturbance from visitors to V. Hall.






Sent from my iPad

If there has to be a development it should be small - only 8 to 10 single-storey modest-sized dwellings, including affordable housing. The houses should be sensitively designed to be in keeping with local building traditions (similar to The Warren). The development should take into account the issues of climate change and include trees, hedges, and green spaces.

1. Residents depend on cars to access all essential services; no regular, accessible bus service.
2. The primary school is already over-subscribed.
3. The site is on the brow of a hill, opposite two residential developments and the village hall; visitors to the hall regularly park on the road. This, plus the excessive speed and volume of traffic, will increase the dangers to drivers and pedestrians. Traffic-calming measures have proved ineffective.
4. The proposed development adjoins the conservation area, and, because of its size, will inevitably detract from the character of the village.

1. The traffic on Stocks Hill is already very busy and used as a rat run. Further significant traffic from a new development would increase all the risks of accidents on Stocks Hill and the bridge in particular.
2. Drainage is also a big problem and can only be made worse with further houses.
3. Further housing developments would change the character of our conservation village.

An extra 35 homes will significantly change the character of the village. I would not like to see more traffic in this conservation village as I am going to be 102 in August and feel more houses will make it a housing estate and not a little village. Thank you.

This proposed site does not respect the scale and character of our existing village environment. It would have the wrong impact on the appearance of the local environment.
1. Bawburgh is a conservation village and introducing 35 new homes changes the scale and character of this village.
2. If 35 houses were allowed to be built then it would be inevitable that the land would extend eventually further to more houses and then we would be in a huge estate not a conservation village.
3. 35 new homes would impact greatly on the little village school which is always oversubscribed.
4. Traffic through the village has increased substantially and is used as a fast run from the Watton Road through to the Dereham Road, hence we have had to install speed cameras. Therefore, 35 houses with potentially two cars per house will further increase road traffic and pollution.
5. There ore no local amenities in Bawburgh just one pub. No buses into Norwich each day, no shops. Doctors are completely overloaded and it's impossible to get an appointment.
6. Flooding and sewerage in the village over the 30 years I have lived here has been a problem and can only be made worse with new houses, and the proposed gypsy and travellers' site as well.
7. I moved from Kent to this conservation village to retire. If I had wanted to live in a housing estate I would have moved there. I really do not want these 35 houses to be the beginning of such an estate and this is what I fear.

I do not think this plan has been well thought out. Bawburgh is a quiet village and adding 35 houses would destroy the village. There is no infrastructure to cope with the demands this development would bring.

-site is on the brow of Stocks Hill
-No amenities in the village apart from pub
-local school oversubscribed
-up to 70 cars will increase pollution
-sewage system already compromised. Multiple floods
-no streetlights, footpaths or bus routes

Similar scheme as St Walstan Meadow. Bungalows so not to impact on views and far less numbers of housing. 9 houses per hectare is recommended number.

35 houses will significantly increase traffic through the village on an already busy road, and over Grade 2 listed bridge.
Entrance onto Stocks Hill will be on a brow of the hill, increasing risk of accidents.
Drainage is poor throughout the village with ground water flowing down Stocks Hill during heavy rain and sewers backing up.
No amenities in village apart from pub, school and village hall. School is oversubscribed and GP surgeries have waiting lists. No regular bus route through village means reliance on driving.
Bawburgh is a conservation area. 35 modern homes will have a negative impact.

Not a suitable site for development to increase housing needs given no public transport links, no amenities within a close and safe walking distance for various age groups, will negatively impact existing wildlife and flora and will increase the already substantial flood risk to the housing and roads through Bawburgh.

Increased traffic for the existing road structure and there is only 1 main road through the village.
No medical facilities, retail or financial outlets for the increased population generated by the development.
No public transport infrastructure
No street lighting or consistent pavement and therefore safety concerns for older and younger residents due to recent fatal accident
Increased flood risk due to run-off
Increased noise and light pollution
Environmental impact as possible conservation area and buffer zone for duel carriageway
No school capacity and requirement for own transport for high school
Disruption to existing flora and fauna
Recent developments already existing

Infill the existing frontage with no access to build further on to the field. These houses must be in-keeping with the village feel.
Note - the need for increased housing needs is already being met in the Norwich City Center area which has far better access to the facilities aforementioned without the need for private transport.

No transport infrastructure and access on to the main road has hazardous visibility - recent fatal accident on that road
Increased flood risk due to increased run-off cutting off access to and from the village
No retail, financial or medical facilities - have to have transport or good internet connection to be able to access these facilities
Environmental damage to existing flora and fauna
No crossing for children to safely cross to access play area
No street lighting
Increased noise and light pollution and the site is a buffer zone to a main A road.
Already received recent building developments

No further buildings/property will benefit our small village in anyway. The only person gaining is the landowner/developer.
Plans to be scrapped and the field to be kept as a green open space in fitting with our small rural village.

1. Proposed site is a beautiful green open land, one I particularly love to admire from my bedroom window in a morning- I cannot say the same for over looking 35 houses.
2. Small village- community feel- we want to keep it that way.
3. Small village school already oversubscribed
4. Lack of amenities: no shops, doctors etc.
5. No public transport/buses come through the village. All transport would need to be in the form of a private owned vehicle which adds pressure/traffic onto our small narrow village roads and a small ancient bridge that has a maximum weight baring. The bridge is already showing signs of damage- it would not cope with the footfall of extra traffic.
6. Danger of added traffic to the village
7. Local doctors surgeries already stretched without adding further properties to the area and more patients.
8. No street lights in the village
9. Ruining of green open spaces and habitat for wildlife.
10. Poor sewage and drainage systems in the village- adding further properties adds to the problem
11. Plan infringes on an established conservation area
12. Put 35 homes there in 5 years time it will be many more- once they start building it’ll continue to grow!
13. Dog walking area will be lost

Not to build the proposed new homes as Bawburgh recently had a cluster of 10 homes close to the proposed site.

District Councillors Phil Hardy and Adrian Dearnley objections.
Up to 35 new homes in Bawburgh is a substantial amount of new-build development in a small village with no shop and very limited services and facilities. The environmental damage from 35 new homes would be colossal: Norfolk County Council Highways calculates 6 traffic movements a day from each new home, 3 movements in and out. 35 homes would therefore generate 210 extra car trips a day in a location where there is an over-reliance of car use due to there being no shop (nearest is Little Melton) as Stocks Hill lacks continuous footpaths to Little Melton. Environmental damage from C02 emissions for 210 extra car journeys in a car dependent village would constitute considerable harm.
10 new dwellings were approved next to the village hall a few years ago which was a lot for this small village. Up to 35 more new homes would be off the scale for what the village requires in terms of housing numbers.
The landscape visual impact at this site would be irreversibly eroded and the harm would be substantial. This open area on the eastern side of the road would be lost forever with its beautiful views and natural landscaping and trees visible for a mile and more into the distance.
Conclusion: the environmental damage would be severe and the proposed development unsustainable in terms of CO2 emissions generated and landscape views irreversibly lost.

Proposed allocation Policy VC BAW1 be deleted from the South Norfolk Village Clusters Allocations Plan.

1. This objection to the Regulation 19 South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (SNVCAP) is made because the proposed allocation of land for residential development at Bawburgh (Policy VC BAW1: Land East of Stocks Hill) is considered to be unsound.

2. These representations are being submitted on behalf of Bawburgh Parish Council and a group of residents.

3. The policy proposes the allocation of 1.4ha. of land for up to 35 dwellings. The proposal is not considered to be consistent with the objectives of the strategic policies of draft Greater Norwich Local Plan (GNLP), of which this SNVCAP forms part. Furthermore, the proposed allocation is not considered to be consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Thus, the proposal is not sound.

4. The NPPF (paragraph 35) suggests that local planning authorities should submit a plan for examination which it considers is sound, namely that it is:
▪ Positively Prepared
▪ Justified
▪ Effective
▪ Consistent with national policy
5. The strategic policies of the GNLP relating to housing are:

- Policy 1 Housing – proposals located to meet the need for homes across the area, providing good access to services, facilities and jobs, supporting urban and rural living.

- Policy 2 Sustainable Communities – identifies a number of considerations, where relevant:
“1. Ensure safe, convenient and sustainable access to on site and local services and facilities including schools, health care, shops, recreation/ leisure/community/faith facilities and libraries;
“5. Respect, protect and enhance local character and aesthetic quality (including landscape, townscape, and the historic environment), taking account of landscape or historic character assessments, design guides and codes, and maintain strategic gaps and landscape settings, including river valleys, undeveloped approaches and the character and setting of the Broads;
“7. Create inclusive, resilient and safe communities in which people of all ages have good access to services and local job opportunities, can interact socially, be independent and have the opportunity for healthy and active lifestyles;”

- Policy 3 Environmental Protection and Enhancement – includes avoiding harm to designated and non-designated heritage assets and historic character, unless there are overriding benefits from the development that outweigh that harm or loss and the harm has been minimised;

6. In the pre-amble to Policy 2, a number of key issues are identified in Table 8. Issue no. 6. relating to Travel states “the design of development, as well as its location and the local availability of services addressed in Point 1 of this policy, play an important role in determining how much and how people travel.” [Point 1 of the policy relates to providing safe and sustainable access to facilities, thereby reducing the need to travel, and assists in the viability of local services.]

7. The proposed allocation in Bawburgh presents two distinct areas of objection. Firstly, the scale of development in a village with only limited facilities, and linked to this, the second area being the non-compliance of the proposal with the strategic policies of the GNLP.

8. The Topic Paper Policy 7.4 Village Clusters describes the reasons for the village clusters approach adopted by the GNLP. Paragraph 6 states:
“Policy 16 of the JCS identifies a number of Other Villages which have defined development boundaries to accommodate infill or small groups of dwellings and small-scale business or services subject to form and character considerations, but no allocations. Settlements categorised as other villages were defined based on having a basic level of services and facilities, generally a primary school and village hall and are not thought to be sustainable locations for significant new development.”

9. Bawburgh is classified in the JCS as being within the “other Villages” classification, the 4th tier of the hierarchy. The scale of development considered appropriate for the village was infill or a small group of dwellings; a small group of dwellings being defined as around 5 properties. A further allowance was made in the JCS for an unspecified amount, as part of an additional housing allowance for the Norwich Policy Area not included in allocations.

10. Sites of between 10 – 20 dwellings were made in the third tier settlements of “Service Villages”.

11. The policies of the JCS will be superseded by the GNLP when adopted.

12. The context for the Village Clusters approach can be found in the NPPF (2019), which includes guidance on housing in rural areas in paragraphs 77 – 79. It states that in rural areas, planning policies and decisions should be responsive to local circumstances and support housing developments that reflect local needs. It goes on to say that to promote sustainable development in rural areas housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. Planning policies should identify opportunities for villages to grow and thrive, especially where this will support local services. Where there are groups of smaller settlements, development in one village may support services in a village nearby.

13. In support of dispersing growth more widely, indeed this is a core objective of the plan, developed in light of the emerging of Greater Norwich Local Plan (GNLP), which commends the village clusters approach as ‘innovative’, and which states: “… this level of growth in village clusters aims to promote social sustainability by supporting rural life and services… [and] has the benefit of supporting small-scale builders, providing choice for the market and helping to ensure the delivery of housing in popular village locations.”

14. The 2021 Topic Paper produced by the GNLP on Cluster Villages states the concept of village clusters was discussed at paragraph 4.19 of the GNLP’s ‘Towards a Strategy’ document which states that “Board members have been clear that they favour an approach that places all remaining areas of Greater Norwich within a village cluster based on primary school catchments. To reduce additional car journeys and encourage healthy and active lifestyles, and reduce the risks to soundness, it is advisable to limit new housing allocations to sites within the cluster with good access to a primary school and a ‘safe route to school’”. The Topic Paper sets out that the “scale of growth in any cluster will reflect school capacity or ability to grow, plus the availability of other accessible services. Taking account of the timescales for delivery and other uncertainties, such as pupil preference, it is reasonable to assume that a minimum scale of allocation (15 to 20 dwellings) can be accommodated in all clusters if appropriate sites are available.”

15. Clearly the proposed allocations in the Village Clusters Local Plan have the intent of meeting the sustainability objectives of both central government guidance of the NPPF and the strategic policies of the GNLP. However, the fundamental issues with the proposed site at Bawburgh are firstly, the lack of services and public transport meaning the future residents would be heavily dependent on commuting into Norwich for basic services and facilities, and not supporting rural life and services. Secondly, the impact on the character and appearance of the area.

16. The Council’s Sustainability Assessment of the site highlights the limited access to local services and facilities. Noting only a primary school and some “local employment opportunities, including Bawburgh golf club.” Compared with the Suitability of the Assessment of the proposed Gypsy and Traveller site in the village, where this assessment states that other than the Primary School, “facilities are limited and residents would likely need to travel by private vehicle” to shops and health facilities.

17. Paragraph 104 of the NPPF encourages opportunities to promote walking, cycling and public transport use, but apart from walking to the Primary School, the proposed site would not comply with any other aspects of the sustainable transport. Furthermore, paragraph 105 advises that the planning system should actively manage patterns of growth in support of the sustainability objectives.

18. The availability of other means of transport other than the private car, is particularly important for frail and less mobile residents, children and teenagers – to get to a wide range of places by public transport, with frequent services.

19. While the NPPF also notes that different sustainable transport policies will be required in rural areas, and hence the village clusters concept (paragraph 79 of the NPPF) whereby villages and services are linked, the selection of Bawburgh falls short of any measure of sustainable transport. The proposed development could give rise to 200 – 250 private car movements per day.

20. The only cluster applicable to Bawburgh is the groups of housing forming the various groups in the village. Virtually all services and facilities are located within Norwich, or other settlements. None of these services are connected by sustainable means of transport. Apart from the Primary School, there is no provision of food shops, convenience shops, leisure, secondary education, or health care facilities available in the village or accessible by walking, cycling or regular public transport.

21. Currently the Primary School (January 2023) is just over its capacity of 105 places with 106 pupils enrolled. A development of around 35 dwellings on the proposed site would give rise to about 8 children of primary school age. The scale of the proposed development would not be sufficient to finance an extension to the school, if it were physically possible.

22. Neither is there a range of locally available jobs or opportunities in the village. This requires commuting to Norwich or other settlements not directly connected with Bawburgh. For these reasons of lack of access to services and facilities, the selection of Bawburgh for further housing development under the Village Clusters is not considered to be consistent with the policy approach advocated in the NPPF or the strategic policies of the emerging GNLP.

23. For the Village Cluster Plan to realise the sustainability objectives these must be met to the fullest extent with potential benefits being maximised and negative effects being minimised. The degree of residual tension with sustainability objectives therefore has to be minimal.

24. The village is characteristically located on both sides of the River Yare, with the bridge a scheduled monument. To the west, along the River Yare corridor, are the two village clusters where the visual break in development provided by the site, give rise to a clear and distinct, pattern of development. This makes a significantly positive contribution to the setting of the village clusters, and therefore the character and appearance of the area.

25. One of the objectives of the GNLP is to protect and enhance the character, quality and diversity of the rural landscapes, townscapes and river valleys through the appropriate design and layout of new development.

26. The Council’s own conclusions from their site visit as part of the assessment process notes “the development of the site will impact upon the landscape character of the area. The site is in a prominent position and offers open views across the river valley towards Norwich.” Furthermore, the Council’s Landscape Architect states the site forms part of the river valley and offers open views to the west.

27. The proposed development would result in significant harm to the landscape character and appearance of the area. Conflict therefore arises with GNLP Policies 2 and 3 insofar as they require that all residential development responds positively to and respects the character of the site and its surroundings; makes a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness, having regard to valued and distinctive elements of the historic environment; protects landscape character for its own intrinsic beauty; avoids
detrimental effects on types, patterns and features that make a significant contribution to the character, history and setting of a settlement; and seeks to protect or enhance the environment where possible, retaining and where appropriate enhancing, important landscape features within the designated landscape zones.

28. The site is also an important component of the undeveloped contextual setting for the adjacent Conservation Area. Whilst the village has inevitably changed over time, the proposed site contributes to the physical and visual detachment of the clusters of houses, and the village core, that are the very essence of the character of the settlement as a crossing point of the river. Thus, the site certainly comprises a part of the setting of the conservation area and is of value to the individual significance and special interest. A point mentioned by in the Council’s assessment of the site.

29. The permanent change within the setting of the Conservation Area would irreversibly dilute the character of this part of the village with the coalescence of the clusters that underpins the character.

30. The outworking of this situation, with the eventual submission of an application for planning permission would therefore conflict with paragraph 130 of the National Planning Policy Framework which requires that permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions.

31. There would be social and economic benefits associated with supporting local services, future residents feeding into the local economy and economic benefits associated with the construction phase of the housing. However, given the limited range of services in Bawburgh is extremely limited little weight should be attached to there being a public benefit of the scheme.

32. Overall, the Sustainable Appraisal for the whole of the Village Clusters Plan highlights that there still tensions between sustainability objectives. The detailed Site Assessment highlights important individual tensions, which are fundamental to the sustainability of the proposed allocation in Bawburgh. The conclusion is there is an accumulation of impacts and non-compliance with sustainability objectives that result in this proposed allocation being unsound.

The proposed site does no respect the scale and character of our existing village environment. The site would have the wrong impact and effect on the appearance of the local environment in so many ways. Traffic volume, volume of houses and type.
The selection of Stocks Hill is unreasonable and unsound. Placing it within the village is ill-conceived and ill-planned and ill-thought through.

Please see attached for full submission.
The proposed site does no respect the scale and character of our existing village environment. The site would have the wrong impact and effet on the appearance of the local environment in so many ways. Traffic volume, volume of houses and type.

- Would like a public meeting with representation from Council to state why this development is needed.
- A thorough investigation into wildlife habitats, conducted with local people, and report accessible to residents.
- A statement from Council marrying the impact of these proposed houses with the fact that Bawburgh has a large conservation area, including that of the bridge (the main thoroughfare) through the village.
- Would like Council to extend conservation and build on Bawburgh Conservation Area Character Appraisal and Management Guidelines 1973, and build on (not destroy) the very good husbandry of Margaret and David on the Flood Meadows below said housing project.
- Reject or minimise to 6 houses.

- No representation from Council at locally held public meeting, even though informed 16/2/23 (packed village hall);
- Will have a most negative effect on nature - wildlife habitats: bats, badgers and muntjacs, birds, great crested newts, birds of prey. Significant impact on existing vegetation.
- No immediate reason for extra houses in a village with amenities that only consist of a public house and a village hall - no bus service, doctor, dentist, P.O, shops;
- Increased traffic pressure over ancient monument of bridge and safety issues here for pedestrians, dogs and motorists. Speeding through the village is already an issue.
- Infrastructure, particularly drainage, is already an issue. This will impound further underground stream across this area, as well as another that flows on Stocks Hill on rainy days.

- Would like a public meeting with representation from Council to state why this development is needed.
- A thorough investigation into wildlife habitats, conducted with local people, and report accessible to residents.
- A statement from Council marrying the impact of these proposed houses with the fact that Bawburgh has a large conservation area, including that of the bridge (the main thoroughfare) through the village.
- Would like Council to extend conservation and build on Bawburgh Conservation Area Character Appraisal and Management Guidelines 1973, and build on (not destroy) the very good husbandry of Margaret and David on the Flood Meadows below said housing project.
-Reject or minimise to 6 houses.

I hope further development in Bawburgh can be properly considered in the context of the infrastructure, or lack of, the village has in place.

I was very disappointed to see the plans for further houses to be built on Stocks Hill, Bawburgh.

Stocks hill is already a busy road. The site at which the houses are to be built magnifies existing safety concerns, being close to the exit from the village hall, the exit from other recent housing developments and immediately before a steep hill. Concerns about traffic on the road has already prompted the installation of safety features.

Bawburgh has very few, if any, public transport options. The roads out of the village are treacherous for pedestrians. This means residents in the new houses will have to have cars to live in the village, further adding to the traffic problem.

I note the fragile nature of the sewage system and problematic drainage further down the hill. There have been several occasions when sewage has been noted to pour from the drains, further down the hill, over the last few years.

Last year saw some of the worst flooding in Bawburgh I have known in 40years. My understanding is that further development adds to issues of fast water run off and thereby contributes to the flooding.

I hope further development in Bawburgh can be properly considered in the context of the infrastructure, or lack of, the village has in place.

I am emailing to oppose the development of 35 houses on Stocks Hill for the following reasons.

1. I am concerned about speeding on Stocks Hill.
2. I don’t believe the drainage issues and flooding have been properly considered.
3. We have very few amenities in Bawburgh and nothing in the plan aids this.
4. I am concerned that this small village cannot cater for a further 35 homes, families and upwards of 35 vehicles.
5. This is agricultural land in the middle of the village and there must be better sites with better access and amenities.

So I kindly suggest to reconsider this proposal and find another suitable location instead of our village.

The reason for this email is to express my concerns about the proposed additional 35 new houses to be built in the Bawburgh village.

First of all, let me express my strong objection to this proposal.

A few worrying factors are already being discussed among my family and friends about this proposal.

First of all, the very quiet nature of the village will be destroyed with the emergence of the additional houses .

Secondly, the traffic itself is already very dangerous in this village due to the lack of enough width to the road, and with the new houses the volume of traffic will be very much increased and thus will cause more chaos to this area. It will increase the number of potential accidents.

Increased traffic will be a major concern for the pedestrians and cyclists in the area.

Another major problem is that it’s going to affect the already weak drainage and sewage infrastructure. We have had several instances of bad flooding in the past few years.

I do appreciate the fact that more houses will be a relief for some who wants to get a new house . But it shouldn’t be at the expense of destroying a fine village atmosphere.

So I kindly suggest to reconsider this proposal and find another suitable location instead of our village.

Once again I strongly oppose this proposal for 35 new houses in the Bawburgh village.

I do request to the South Norfolk District Council to withdraw from this housing project and express my strong opposition once again to this proposal.

I have very strong concerns about this new project and I wish to express my utmost objection to this project.

There are several reasons why I would like to oppose this housing development. Some of them are as follows;

Bawburgh is a beautiful small village and a very close knitted community live here. Building another 35 more houses is going bring the population to a much larger number and it will add more chaos to the village .

We do not have enough amenities in our Village to cater to the needs of a larger population; basic facilities such as GP surgery,post office, library, community shops are still not available here. Our school here is not in a position to provide more rooms for an increased number of children, which is going to be an injustice to the children of the new families.

Traffic is another issue. We already have many concerns with the volume and speed of the vehicles passing through our roads, which are very much narrower than normal and the geographical structure of these roads will add more potential accidents. Building another 35 houses is going to bring more volume of vehicles to the village roads and It will also affect the safety and security of the cyclists and dog walkers. Most of the families here enjoy a quiet walk through the village with children and pets and bringing more traffic is going to destroy the peace and tranquility of this small village.

Bawburgh village has a history of bad flooding. The current infrastructure of the existing sewage and drainage is not adequate to handle the additional pressure from the increasing number of households.

Destroying the much loved greenery will be another sad outcome ,if this project go ahead.

We do not have any public transport in our village and the number of increased vehicles would definitely increase the pollution and carbon emissions in this area. Not all the families can afford a zero emission modern electric vehicle.

These are some of my most worrying concerns and once again I express my strong objections about this project.

I do understand building houses might be a good relief for some people who wants to own a dream home, but it shouldn’t be at the cost of destroying a fine small village, which are becoming a rare scene these days.

I do request to the South Norfolk District Council to withdraw from this housing project and express my strong opposition once again to this proposal.

I am very concerned about the proposed development of 35 new houses for Stocks Hill, Bawburgh.

Stocks Hill is already a relatively busy road considering its location in a small village. Our local village speed watch group regularly have recorded drivers going well above the speed limit and this has only marginally improved since the introduction of traffic calming measures further up the road. The access to the proposed new housing estate would be near the village hall access and another recent housing development access, just before a steep hill. The speed limit of 20mph is often not obeyed and I would be very concerned regarding road traffic accident risk.

Bawburgh has no public transport going through the village. The roads out of the village to main roads with bus stops are treacherous for pedestrians. This means residents in the new houses will realistically have to have cars to live in the village, further adding to the traffic problem. This is also harmful to the environment, especially as other proposed developments sites do have public transport links so do not have this issue to the same extent.

The sewage system and drainage infrastructure on Stocks Hill has been shown to be problematic in recent years. Overflowing drains at the bottom of the hill, just down from the new housing development have been a common occurrence.

Since moving to Bawburgh 14 years ago I have seen many winters with extensive flooding around the village, which have caused damage to property. I am concerned that any developments on open farm land which acts run off during periods of heavy rain would increase risks of damaging flooding in the village.

I do not think this development is appropriate given current lack of infrastructure in the village, the risks posed by more traffic and the wider environmental impact.

I do not agree that the VCHA Plan is legally compliant, sound or complies with duty to cooperate.
Therefore, I object to the 35 houses being built on Stocks Hill, Bawburgh on the site opposite the village hall. I do not agree that this is a suitable site for the following reasons laid out below.

Noise, Traffic and Pollution
Already Stock Hill struggles with the amount of traffic it encounters leading down to the village and bridge which also experiences numerous traffic on a daily basis, as well as heavy loads contributing to the weakening of the bridge, causing further damages to what has been designated to having nation importance under the Ancient Monument and Archaeological Areas Act 1979.
Bawburgh is a small village community where we raise our children amongst nature, teaching them of the importance of wildlife and their natural environment. We're in a conservation area with trees, wildlife, river, historic buildings are protected and listed.
Further development in the village will cause disturbance, impacting on what we and the council have protected over the years.
Councils are looking to cut carbon emissions and cut congestions which doesn't support this.
Already our village is used as a rat run with traffic coming through the village from Bowthorpe, Costessey, other surrounding villages, towns and city. More houses being built will add to the congested traffic we see today raising further increase to our current environmental concerns for the village. The average car ownership in Norfolk is two per person adding a further 70 vehicles (plus additional family and friends) who will be reliant
on car and road based transport. This will increase air and noise pollution.
Our village attracts hundreds of people looking to enjoy the good weather in the summer causing issues with excessive traffic, safety for other drivers and pedestrians using Harts Lane in an unsafe way, additional traffic will only add to this problem.

Amenities and Infrastructure
We have 3 amenities in our village, a primary school which is already over-subscribed, a village hall and a pub.
The village school has 105 spaces but currently has 106 pupils attending. Our nearest GP surgeries are 2.4 miles by car and 1.8 miles by foot (on unsuitable roads) and accessing emergency service is also a task having rely on road transport. We have no suitable public transport links in our village. The nearest bus stop we have in walking distance is 1.6 miles.
The nearest shops are 1.8-2 miles away which are not easily accessed without a car. The majority of the village is not on the gas grid therefore most residents are reliant on heating oil or LPG. Not only is it not environmentally friendly, heavy vehicles, are required to deliver these. Building more houses will only add to the issues our village is already facing.

Flooding
We have experienced several times flooding of the river in Bawburgh village which is very much a concern to our community. Christmas eve 2020, police were asking villagers to be prepared for evacuation should the flooding circumstances increase. I believe the proposed
housing will sit on a drainage site which will further add to the risk of flowing.

I write to raise the below issues and observations in relation to the above proposal. As they currently stand we
strongly object to the proposals.
• Bawburgh is a small village, well known for it's tranquillity, beautiful valley and valley views and truly British feel. A development of this size is simply completely at odds with what Bawburgh is all about. The village has been classified as 'other village' by planning authorities and only suitable for small developments at most, 35 cannot be considered as 'small'.
• There is no bus service, which would mean that new
residents would have to rely on private cars for access to shops, doctors surgeries etc. The Co2 generated by adding on average 2 cars per household, 6 trips a day is significant and goes against central government goals.
• Although there is a village primary school, this is full, currently ay 106% of capacity. Again this would mean parents relying on private transport to get children to their allocated schools, adding Co2 and traffic.
• The 'Make Norfolk Healthier' campaign promotes walking and cycling to boost mental and physical wellbeing. There really are no pavements that lead anywhere in Bawburgh, even a walk to the local public house necessitates walking on the road over a single track bridge. Cycling on the local narrow roads which are flanked by tall hedgerows is fraught with danger and both hindered by the lack of streetlighting.
• The proposed site is on the brow of a hill, opposite the village hall which already has overspill at busy times. Adding extra traffic will only make this well used 'rat-run' even more congested and dangerous for drivers and pedestrians.
• Much of Bawburgh is in a conservation area, the proposed development, although on the edge of the area, will clearly have an impact on the protected surroundings if only to destroy the views from and into the Yare valley.
• Although the Kings Head is classified as a public house it is very much more of a restaurant. The owners pride themselves on their food menus and boutique B&B offering rather than local residents wanting a local pub. Once again, those wishing to partake in a social alcoholic drink would need to drive from the village.
• The village does suffer from flooding, there is inadequate storm water management provision.
• The proposed site is directly opposite the village hall and a children's play area, an increase in vehicular traffic on this scale will only add danger to anyone trying to use the limited pavements in the vicinity.
• Overall we consider this a poor choice for a development of this size.
We trust you will consider our concerns as raised when making your decisions regarding this proposal.