The planning needs to be scrapped entirely. There is no scope for extra homes in this village as they will impact on everybody's existing infrastructure and rights.

Had the plans been reasonable and only sought to add 5-10 homes, perhaps this would have been less objected to but the ramping up and greed is frankly disgusting and putting us all at risk. You cannot increase a village by 10% in one hot and think nobody will be hurt in the propcess.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

scrapped

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bawburgh has few facilities; a primary school, village hall and public house. There is a single weekly bus service to Wymondham. The village has no access to a shop without a vehicle.

This is factually incorrect.
The bus is not daily. It runs once per week on a Friday.
The village is not connected to any regular public transport. This means that any additional houses added to the village will have to be serviced by individual cars.
The village does not have a local shop so all shopping has to be done by delivery or by car.
Adding additional houses to a village so poorly served by public transport contradicts Section 9 of the NPPF. It is clear that transport issues have not been fully considered.

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 introduction of regular (multiples times a day) buses to Wymondham and Norwich.

More schools / school places in the area to accommodate the huge amount of development taking place in all the local villages and outskirts of Norwich.

Bawburgh has just one bus a week to Wymondham, not a daily service. The village is not currently served by a public transport network sufficient for the proposed number of additional residents - nor is it safe to walk from the village to any other location (no footpaths).

The primary school in the village is currently full to capacity - not just with children living within the village, but also from neighbouring housing developments e.g. Queens Hills, The Hampdens - as the primary schools serving these developments are also full to capacity. 35 new dwellings means the potential for many more children living in the village and a knock on effect on school places in the whole area.

Move the proposed site to one where sustainable power supplies and good public transport connection links are present

Stocks hill is allready used as a cut through. 35 houses with on average two cars would result in cars being spilled onto the main streets. No public transport or links available. No infrastructure in an oversubscrbied school which will not be able to cope. Would rely on more homes linked to oil which is not cost effective or efficient. No local buses/shops which is walkable would rely on more car journeys over a village bridge which is not built to take this strain.

I would not recommend this development.

The school is oversubscribed.
The public transport links are poor and realistically you need to assume that each new house would have two cars travelling to Norwich for shopping, schools and work. Stocks Hill is narrow and has had to have traffic calming measures put in recently. It is busy during rush hour periods. Parking on the pavement outside the village hall is already creating safety issues exactly where the new residents would need to enter Stocks Hill from the new estate.

The plan needs to have enough detail in order for a properly informed decision to be made. It should not contain erroneous information
Perhaps ... a range of facilities including a currently full (?) primary school, ..... There is currently no bus service.

6.3 – Misleading – There is no information regarding suitability of Primary school for any increase in numbers.
There is no daily bus service to anywhere. There is one bus on a Friday

Such a significant increase in the size of Bawburgh will put strain on the amenities and increase the danger of the roads due to an increase in traffic and no pedestrian access beyond the village. The plan should be scrapped.

Bawburgh School is already over-subscribed and there is only one bus each day Monday to Friday and none at weekends. Any families moving into the village will rely on cars to access schools, GP services, shops, sports facilities etc. There is no pedestrian access to areas outside the village and the roads, particularly at commuting times, have many vehicles travelling dangerously along narrow roads.

Much smaller development, if at all.

These are the only facilities and they are not enough to allow people to rely solely on the village for all their daily needs. There is one bus to Wymondham a WEEK and one back a few hours later. Local park and ride only goes to UEA and hospital - not the city. Primary school is already oversubscribed and little room for expansion given previous development on its land. Secondary school is already having to be extended due to other local developments. Primary school is a lovely small rural school with a family feel which would be lost with expansion.

Bawburgh does not have the required facilities or services to support this plan.

The proposed ~15% increase in housing/population for the village is unacceptable as it will stretch local services further, contradicting the criteria laid out in section A.5 “Planning policies should identify opportunities for villages to grow and thrive, especially where this will support local services”. Furthermore, the only services highlighted are a pub, a village hall and a primary school. None of these could viably be enhanced by the construction of these additional houses, contradicting SNVC objective 2.

Plan incorrectly states a daily bus service. There is in fact only a weekly bus to Wymondham.