The biggest issue by far is the number of properties being proposed. A much smaller development in line with previous developments would be far more appropriate. 35 houses on this small parcel of land would totally destroy our village spirit and community, adding to unwanted traffic and associated pollution let alone compromising the Make Norfolk Healthier initiative. Please think carefully about what you are trying to achieve here. We want to remain a beautiful place to live, a true Norfolk Village with the spirit and community that reflects that. We have seen our village grow by over 40% in recent years due to other developments. We’ve had enough!

35 more houses in a small Norfolk village of only 240 houses is totally unacceptable and out of kilter. The development is in complete contradiction to the “Make Norfolk Healthier” initiative as every resident will have to use their cars as we have no bus route or shops. Traffic flow on our already congested roads will increase significantly. Our local school is full and unable to take any more pupils, resulting in even more travelling. The natural vista looking across the site will be destroyed for ever. I object to this development in the strongest terms as does Bawburgh VILLAGE.

I suggest you find somewhere else to put your developments. Not somewhere that people moved to in the first place to avoid all the noise, mess and inconvenience of newer houses where the road will be busier and changes will be made to the way we love our lives. That is not why any of us moved to Bawburgh in the first place. We moved here for the quiet and village living that you’re threatening to ruin with your barbaric planning and scheming.

The village is too small and cannot support more housing and financial loss that will come with more properties.

We do not want the village to change. We do not want footpaths, street lighting or bus routes through Bawburgh.

We would face a worse road with more cars which also means more co2 emissions which goes against the scheme for Norfolk and to make it a healthier place.

The view will be obscured and the river Yare lost amongst more ghastly houses which will not tie in the look or feel of Bawburgh.

I have lived in the village of Bawburgh for 38 years, I am now 85 years old and I want Bawburgh to be my place of rest when the time comes, more houses will force me to leave this village I call home and I will have to reside somewhere more quiet and peaceful away from friends and family that keep me going and look after me.

I love this village so much and I don’t believe that these houses are what is right for Bawburgh not to mention the turmoil you’re putting us all through by needing to object, because no body wants these houses built here, we want to protect Bawburgh and keep it as the village me know and love, no welcome more strangers into it.

Reduce the size of the development to 10. 35 just crazy for this village.

Totally unsuitable site breaking every rule in the rule book for new developments. Out of kilter with our village look and feel, environmentally damaging given the remoteness of the village for basic services such as shops and doctors. On a blind bend on a crest of a hill and on a road that has seen a fatality last year. An increase of 210 daily vehicular movements due to the need to use cars, destroying beautiful views of the Yare Valley, within yards of a conservation area and SSSi status and in a road that floods every year! Good job SNDC, you and Mr Fuller are letting us down AGAIN! Time to go!

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 add to the vitality of the village. It will instead have the opposite outcome.

The character of Bawburgh was irreparably destroyed by re-opening New Road following the construction of the Southern Bypass (1990s), together with the housing increases in the GNLP and the development of Longwater Retail Park and Park & Ride. These have already turned the village into a speeding “Rat Run” degrading the quality of life and vitality of the village.

The character of the village would be destroyed – the building of these dwelling would have a great damaging impact on this pleasant, friendly, quiet village. Why are these dwellings not built in a town such as Wymondham, where there are very large developments and an extra 35 dwellings would have little or no impact at all on the town?

UNSOUND
The character of the village would be destroyed – the building of these dwelling would have a great damaging impact on this pleasant, friendly, quiet village. Why are these dwellings not built in a town such as Wymondham, where there are very large developments and an extra 35 dwellings would have little or no impact at all on the town?

The Local Plan (VC BAW1) contains incorrect information – See the information below about insufficient facilities and bus services. This obvious inaccuracy gives little confidence in the validity of other information given in the plan.

Bawburgh, a conservation village, is not in a village cluster and the Plan is not appropriate - The South Norfolk Local Plan is for village clusters and is about getting better facilities to be shared between the villages. Bawburgh is not in a village cluster and so the Plan is not appropriate for this type of overall plan.

The village is too small and would see no benefits – The National policy, which is given in the South Norfolk Local Plan is “To promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities”. Bawburgh is a small conservation village and the introduction of 35 dwellings, at a higher density than anywhere else in the village would be by far the biggest recent development in the village. It would increase the number of dwellings in the village by 15%! It would be most detrimental to, rather than enhancing, the vitality and quality of village life. This development would destroy one of Norfolk’s beautiful and unspoilt villages, and no-one would benefit from these plans apart from the landowner who is also a developer.

The road network safety would be totally unacceptable - The entrance to the site will be via Stocks Hill on the brow of a hill. This road is narrow and is already overloaded with traffic both from the villagers and people outside the village using it as a rat-run (There has recently been a fatality on the road).

35 new dwelling could mean an extra 60-70 extra vehicles using the roads. There is no lighting and very few footpaths within the village. The access roads to the village are already unsafe for pedestrians, cycles or cars.

As well as the site development entrance being on the brow of the hill, it is also opposite the village hall. The hall is very well used by people from both inside and outside the village (particularly by the Bridge Club which I understand is the biggest in Norfolk). There is already a significant parking problem and several times a week overflow from the village car park leads to cars parking on Stocks Hill restricting the effective width of the road.

The village hall also has a playground and the extra traffic, together with the car overflow, would put children at undue risk when crossing the road.

The route through the village is over a narrow bridge crossing the river. The bridge is only wide enough for one vehicle at a time, and oncoming traffic cannot be seen. The increased traffic would make an already precarious crossing unsafe for both pedestrians and vehicles.

The Plan conflicts with Government and Norfolk policies that promote walking and cycling to improve heath - The Government policy document “Gear change: a bold vision for cycling and walking” has several themes including “cycling and walking at the heart of decision-making”, “empowering and encouraging local authorities” and “enabling people to cycle and protecting them when they do. Also the Norfolk Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plans support the Governments ambition for “Cycling and walking to be the natural first choice for many journeys ..” The increased traffic will undermine these policies.

The are insufficient facilities – there is a small school which is full (the school capacity is 105 children and 106 are in the school), a public house and a village hall. The Council claim that the village has excellent facilities which is not true.

VC BAW1 states that “there is a daily bus service to Wymondham”. This is factually incorrect. The only bus service is a bus on Friday that runs to Wymondham at 9.20 and returns at 12.45 after a journey of nearly an hour each way.

There is a huge reliance on private cars to access doctors’ surgeries and supermarkets as there is no surgery or shop in the village. The local surgeries are oversubscribed and there are no local NHS dentists where residents can register.

Environmentally unfriendly – As mentioned above, there is no regular bus route so all travel will be via car or other vehicle. The addition of 35 new dwellings would (using Norfolk County Council assumptions of 6 trips a day), will mean 210 trips per day and lead to an associated detriment to the environment. The value of 210 could well be an underestimate due to the huge reliance on private cars mentioned above.

The development would eliminate for ever the beautiful unspoilt views across the Yare Valley.

Around twice a year the village suffers sewage blockages and this would be exacerbated with the new development.

Flooding occasionally occurs due to water run off and the new development would increase the risk of this occurring.

Adverse effects on mental health and welfare - Present times can be very stressful and stress relievers can play a big part in reducing stress and improving peoples’ welfare. Simple acts of walking through a peaceful village and looking across open fields are ways to reduce stress, and the effectiveness of these stress relievers will be greatly reduced if the new building developments go ahead.

FAILS TO COMPLY WITH DUTY TO COOPERATE

The Chairman of our Parish Council was informed on 19th January that there are plans to have a residential gypsy and traveller site located in the village, and to have up to 35 new dwellings built in the village. By chance I recently spoke with the Chairman and found out about the plans.

Such plans, if they go ahead, would have massive implications for the village and village life, yet the deadlines for views from villagers are 13th and 6th March respectively! Many of the villagers are elderly, have no access to the internet and very limited access to private transport (there is no regular bus service for the village – one bus per week to Wymondham). Also, the process for registering objections is not simple. Separate and different forms are required, one for the gypsy and traveller site and another for the new dwellings. How on earth do you hope to get an informed view from villagers in such a situation?

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.

The village is small, quite, pleasant and friendly and so the character of the village would be destroyed. It would make sense to build the houses in a town with large developments where 35 houses would make no difference to the character of the town.

UNSOUND

The character of the village would be destroyed – the building of these dwelling would have a great damaging impact on this pleasant, friendly, quiet village. Why are these dwellings not built in a town such as Wymondham, where there are very large developments and an extra 35 dwellings would have little or no impact at all on the town?

The Local Plan (VC BAW1) contains incorrect information – See the information below about insufficient facilities and bus services. This obvious inaccuracy gives little confidence in the validity of other information given in the plan.

Bawburgh, a conservation village, is not in a village cluster and the Plan is not appropriate - The South Norfolk Local Plan is for village clusters and is about getting better facilities to be shared between the villages. Bawburgh is not in a village cluster and so the Plan is not appropriate for this type of overall plan.

The village is too small and would see no benefits – The National policy, which is given in the South Norfolk Local Plan is “To promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities”. Bawburgh is a small conservation village and the introduction of 35 dwellings, at a higher density than anywhere else in the village would be by far the biggest recent development in the village. It would increase the number of dwellings in the village by 15%! It would be most detrimental to, rather than enhancing, the vitality and quality of village life. This development would destroy one of Norfolk’s beautiful and unspoilt villages, and no-one would benefit from these plans apart from the landowner who is also a developer.

The road network safety would be totally unacceptable - The entrance to the site will be via Stocks Hill on the brow of a hill. This road is narrow and is already overloaded with traffic both from the villagers and people outside the village using it as a rat-run (There has recently been a fatality on the road).

35 new dwelling could mean an extra 60-70 extra vehicles using the roads. There is no lighting and very few footpaths within the village. The access roads to the village are already unsafe for pedestrians, cycles or cars.

As well as the site development entrance being on the brow of the hill, it is also opposite the village hall. The hall is very well used by people from both inside and outside the village (particularly by the Bridge Club which I understand is the biggest in Norfolk). There is already a significant parking problem and several times a week overflow from the village car park leads to cars parking on Stocks Hill restricting the effective width of the road.

The village hall also has a playground and the extra traffic, together with the car overflow, would put children at undue risk when crossing the road.

The route through the village is over a narrow bridge crossing the river. The bridge is only wide enough for one vehicle at a time, and oncoming traffic cannot be seen. The increased traffic would make an already precarious crossing unsafe for both pedestrians and vehicles.

The Plan conflicts with Government and Norfolk policies that promote walking and cycling to improve heath - The Government policy document “Gear change: a bold vision for cycling and walking” has several themes including “cycling and walking at the heart of decision-making”, “empowering and encouraging local authorities” and “enabling people to cycle and protecting them when they do. Also the Norfolk Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plans support the Governments ambition for “Cycling and walking to be the natural first choice for many journeys ..” The increased traffic will undermine these policies.

The are insufficient facilities – there is a small school which is full (the school capacity is 105 children and 106 are in the school), a public house and a village hall. The Council claim that the village has excellent facilities which is not true.

VC BAW1 states that “there is a daily bus service to Wymondham”. This is factually incorrect. The only bus service is a bus on Friday that runs to Wymondham at 9.20 and returns at 12.45 after a journey of nearly an hour each way.

There is a huge reliance on private cars to access doctors’ surgeries and supermarkets as there is no surgery or shop in the village. The local surgeries are oversubscribed and there are no local NHS dentists where residents can register.

Environmentally unfriendly – As mentioned above, there is no regular bus route so all travel will be via car or other vehicle. The addition of 35 new dwellings would (using Norfolk County Council assumptions of 6 trips a day), will mean 210 trips per day and lead to an associated detriment to the environment. The value of 210 could well be an underestimate due to the huge reliance on private cars mentioned above.

The development would eliminate for ever the beautiful unspoilt views across the Yare Valley.

Around twice a year the village suffers sewage blockages and this would be exacerbated with the new development.

Flooding occasionally occurs due to water run off and the new development would increase the risk of this occurring.

Adverse effects on mental health and welfare - Present times can be very stressful and stress relievers can play a big part in reducing stress and improving peoples’ welfare. Simple acts of walking through a peaceful village and looking across open fields are ways to reduce stress, and the effectiveness of these stress relievers will be greatly reduced if the new building developments go ahead.

FAILS TO COMPLY WITH DUTY TO COOPERATE

The Chairman of our Parish Council was informed on 19th January that there are plans to have a residential gypsy and traveller site located in the village, and to have up to 35 new dwellings built in the village. By chance I recently spoke with the Chairman and found out about the plans.

Such plans, if they go ahead, would have massive implications for the village and village life, yet the deadlines for views from villagers are 13th and 6th March respectively! Many of the villagers are elderly, have no access to the internet and very limited access to private transport (there is no regular bus service for the village – one bus per week to Wymondham). Also, the process for registering objections is not simple. Separate and different forms are required, one for the gypsy and traveller site and another for the new dwellings. How on earth do you hope to get an informed view from villagers in such a situation?

I think there should be no more houses built in this small village with its narrow roads and lack of services

Too high a density of houses for this small village
Stocks Hill is narrow road with 2 bad pinch points; already used as a rat run: cars turning onto the brow of the hill dangerous; already one fatality last year. Bus service to Wymondham runs once a week (not as stated in your plan)
Few services - school oversubscribed, no shops, doctor, etc. Pavements are sparse, necessitating car use - doesn't comply with the national plan for more walking/ cycling.
Sewage system frequently breaks down
Flood risk - very real problem in Bawburgh

Please do not build any more houses because we love our views and countryside.

In order for an increase in housing in Bawburgh there needs to be:-
1. Better footpaths and more of them.
2. Regular bus routes every day.
3. More school places and a surgery to allow daily GP appointments.
4. A shop
5. Speed restrictions as Stocks Hill is a rat run.
6. Better lighting
7. Safe vision along Stocks Hill because it’s narrow and cars exceed the speed limits.
8. Improved sewage and drainage for properties to prevent call outs each year.
9. Better and improved Broadband facilities.
10. Protection of the Gas Mains if affected from this plan.

I think the houses should not be built rather than adapting the plan.

I don’t believe these houses should be built for the following reasons;
- not enough schools, doctors, shops, bus routes, footpaths, street lighting
- already issues with speeding
- would need to improve sewage and drainage
- issues with broadband