Already there have been two new developments on Stocks Hill within the last five years. This has led to more traffic, noise and pollution. There have been overflows from the drain during heavy rainfall which has led to homes and gardens being flooded. The proposed site for the new development is on greenfield and these are disappearing fast. It is also a big part of the attraction of Bawburgh and one of the reasons many of us moved to this beautiful village! The facilities in Bawburgh are already far from adequate with the school at full capacity, the doctors unable to cope and no safe footpaths especially how the traffic speeds down Stocks Hill! Already, during good weather, the village green gets packed causing distress and anger to the nearby residents with excess noise and general bad behaviour.
The essence of our village is slowly being eroded.
We cannot let this continue.
The proposed site is right next to our property and we feel very strongly that any development will enroach on our privacy with excess noise and air pollution both during and after the build. Part of the reason we moved here was because of the quietness, tranquility and rural views. This, we feel, will be spoilt forever.

I object to the 35 houses. Additional traffic on an already busy road. Very small school with no space meaning more cars going on school runs to other schools. The sewage blocks at the bridge now and can't cope with more houses. We have no housing shortage in Norwich area. Thousands of houses are being built on big estates. If more houses are built in Bawburgh we will lose another village to big building developers. We have a small and beautiful village something to be proud of. The impact on wildlife and the environment will be impacted on with pollution from more cars and people. The 18th century bridge is weak and small. (Sewerage works building work) noise and light pollution. No shops. Bus service paths to cope with 35 house after already having houses built recently is too many for Bawburgh.

Bawburgh is a conservation village not in a village cluster. At present Bawburgh is the only real village within 4 miles of Norwich - all nearby villages e.g. Little Melton, Easton etc. have been ruined by indiscriminate over-development. It would be a tragedy if the only decent village in this area was wrecked. Roads too narrow, no pavements, Drs surgeries nearby over-subscribed, no bus services, very narrow bridge and more traffic would heighten the danger to pedestrians and oncoming traffic.

1. Bawburgh is a small village, sloping down the valley to the river Yare. The flood meadows edging the river floods regularly - See attached photographs taken opposite my house on December 24th 2020. On that night neighbours and I were told by the police that we may have to leave our homes if the river rose further. Luckily this didn't prove necessary.
2. As the drainage is poor and sewers regularly block, more building on high ground will inevitably cause more flooding and contamination.
3. The brick built bridge is a scheduled ancient monument (number 348) and carries far too much traffic already. It is badly battered and cracked by dangerous and careless drivers.
4. There are no buses or shops, few pavements and no street lights. And we like it that way!
5. Far too many cars already speed through the village, using it as a rat-run.

1. When we had a flood 2 years ago, the people in the bungalows opposite Hockering Lane had raw sewerage in the back garden. They wanted to stay in the village but the new houses had to be built on stilts.
2. Too many cars use Stocks Hill as a cut through.
3. We have no facilities to accommodate more housing.
4. The school is not big enough for more children.
5. There are no shops or post office.

Bawburgh is a peaceful, quiet village with the perfect amount of residents, anymore will just ruin the peaceful, natured environment we have.

I think that 35 properties is too much. Maybe a smaller amount, say 10-15 properties. This is mainly due to the amount of traffic it would produce on already very busy narrow roads.

I think that 35 properties is too much. Maybe a smaller amount, say 10-15 properties. This is mainly due to the amount of traffic it would produce on already very busy narrow roads.

Bawburgh village has very little amenities at present, i.e. no shops, therefore home owners drive causing an increase in traffic throighout the village. The traffic is already excessive for a small village due to the school, popularity of the pub and drivers using the village as a cut thrrough to avoid the bypass.
Building more houses will only increase the traffic further.
The river also attracts visitors in the summer months and can be difficult to drive through the village at times.
The proposed site access is concerning too as its on the brow of a hill. Although the speed limit is 20mph most drivers don't stick to that speed limit.
We don't have any public transport either so those would also cause an increase in traffic. Every year the village has flooding issues, reducing available land for soaking up water would make the flooding worse.

The traffic in the village of Bawburgh is already excessive with very little amenities and no shops. Home owners would therefore need to drive to access shops. We have no public transport either.
We already have an increase in traffic due to the school, popularity of the pub and drivers using the village as a drive through to avoid using the bypass. Building more houses will only increase the traffic further.
The river attracts lots of visitors during the summer months and the village can be difficult to drive through at times.
Every year the village has flooding issues reducing available land for soaking up water will only make the flooding worse.
The proposed site access is concerning too as its on the brow of a hill. The speed limit there is 20mph but most drivers don't stick to that limit.

Objections:
1. Too much traffic already especially at the river and school (river during the summer).
2. Flooding in Bawburgh is getting worse every year. Building more houses on land that is needed to soak up the rain water will only make the flooding worse.
3. No facilities for people. No shops, doctors or bus service. No suitable footpaths to be able to walk out of the village.
4. The proposed site access is also concerning as its on the brow of a hill and on a 20mph road.

Every year the village of Bawburgh suffers with flooding. Building more houses would limit further the ground that's needed to soak up the rain water which in turn would make the flooding worse.
We have a lot of traffic already in the village due to the pub and school and building more houses will increase the traffic.
We also have no facilties, no shops or doctors, no bus either. People moving to the village would have to be able to drive as we also have no safe footpaths to be able to walk out of the village.
People/drivers also use Bawburgh as a cut through to avoid the bypass and to go through Bowthrope.

At most a maximum of twelve dwellings or preferably none at all.

The site is infill and depending on number of dwellings could cause a problem with vehicle access onto Stocks Hill. The village hall opposite is well used most days too so there is traffic movement and it's a main route in and out of the village. Also a lack of amenities, no bus transport, no shops and school is full. At most a maximum of twelve dwellings or preferably none at all.

My objections to the 35 house site are:
1. the proposed site is on the brow of the hill and on a blind bend opposite the village hall and children's playground.
2. School already to capacity.
3. More traffic using an already weak and deteriorating 18th century bridge.
4. 35 houses will increase light and noise pollution.
5. Traffic over-spill onto Stocks Hill from the village hall already creates a serious road hazard.
6. Large developments are already being built in nearby villages (Little Melton and Hethersett).

Given the extremely short period of time between receipt of consultation paperwork and the deadline for comment I do not feel that the villages have had sufficient time to appoint a professional body to determine the legality of this proposal. Without specialist advice I cannot comment on the legality or otherwise on this particular proposal. i will therefore use this space to outline a couple of my objections:
1. The initial phase of buildings is for 35 dwellings. I am confident that once this has been passed it will only be a matter of time before further planning applications will be proposed.
2. Assuming 2 children per dwelling that would entail schools for approx 70 children, not to mention health and dental services.
3. Having just moved to the area I am becoming aware of just how stretched Dr's services are in the vicinity and I have been quoted a 2-year waiting list for NHS dental treatment.

1. We have already absorbed two new developments adding to the fast traffic up and down Stocks Hill. Increased traffic would be a nightmare, as cars use the roads as rat runs through the village.
2. There are no significant amenities in Bawburgh; no decent buses; none into Norwich.
3. Is the projected housing fit for young, first homeowners? There are no amenities here for retired people. The school is for young families.
4. Issues of retaining open vistas, fields village non-density, if is a rural community.

As well as the inadequacy of village amenities, no shop, no proper public transport, NHS provision etc. and the danger of our uncalmed Stocks Hill rat-run traffic on the blind hill/road bend where traffic from new housing would have to join Stocks Hill. My main objection is to the urban density of proposed 35 houses on 1+ hectare. If there must be any new housing on the agricultural land the maximum should be 12. I do not want our village turned into a Norwich suburb.

- Reject application for 35 houses.
- Consider at most 10-12 new houses on a common access road onto Stocks Hill.

- Stocks Hill is a narrow road with old single-lane bridge.
- Traffic is already a problem and dangerous for bikes and pedestrians.
- Local facilities are limited. No shop or surgery or bus service.
- Drainage/sewage in area already a problem.
- Similar but smaller planning applications have been rejected recently setting a precedent.
- This is a small rural village and proposed development is, due to its scale, in conflict with community approach to rural villages.

- Reject application for 35 houses.
- Consider at most 10-12 new houses on a common access road onto Stocks Hill.

Short period of time given to villagers cannot be compliant. We should be given due consultation period. This seems to be already done and determined behind the villagers' backs. This cannot be right.

Complete lack of infrastructure within the village:
- No pavements to walk on.
- No facilities.
- Lack of Dentists/Doctors in the area.
- Already too much through traffic, especially in busy periods.
- Extra dwellings will mean extra cars.
- Ruin village life for existing villagers.

A footpath to the Watton Road would give the whole village accessibility to the regular Norwich to Watton bus service, and make the most treacherous stretch of road very much safer and go some way to justifying an influx of new properties, although 35 is totally out of proportion, single figures would be much more palatable.

Bawburgh is a small village, whilst subject to the same planning needs as every other village, due to its size it has always been low density. Whilst the site is in what we consider to be a satisfactory position for development the 35 properties proposed is completely out of scale and unnecessary for our village. We have no street lights, footpaths or most importantly, a bus service.

A footpath to the Watton Road would give the whole village accessibility to the regular Norwich to Watton bus service, and make the most treacherous stretch of road very much safer and go some way to justifying an influx of new properties, although 35 is totally out of proportion, single figures would be much more palatable.

Amend criterion 3 to read…
‘Planning applications should be supported by archaeological assessment including the results of field evaluation where appropriate.’

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.

I am a resident in Bawburgh and I wish to object to the proposed development for the following reasons:-
1. Bawburgh is a small village which already experiences traffic issues and overcrowding during the summer months. Stocks Hill and Long Lane are used as cut through’s with people driving over the speed limit.
2. The roads are narrow within the village. There are very few pavements. It is already difficult for traffic to pass easily.
3. I am concerned about maintenance of the bridge in the village. It is a very old bridge which could be damaged as a result of traffic increasing.
4. We do not have any facilities in Bawburgh. We have a pub, a village hall and a church but no shop or GP surgery. The school is already overcrowded. Because we do not have a shop in the village it is necessary for residents to drive in and out for shopping. Walking or cycling is not safe due to the lack of pavements and no cycle paths. We have no street lights which makes walking and cycling anywhere from late autumn through to spring dangerous.
5. We do not have any public transport links.

The small-scale nature of these allocations is unlikely to require phasing in respect of Whitlingham WRC and therefore the policy requirement can be removed.

See attached document.