scrapped

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

scrapped

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prevent further building in Bawburgh

In our opinion, the character of Bawburgh has been 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 current plan will add further traffic volume and create another access point on a dangerous brow of a hill.

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.

As there is no safe pedestrian access out of the village and as the views from Stocks Hill and the openness and character of the village will be detrimentally affected the plan should be scrapped.

Development within the Norwich Southern Bypass Landscape Protection Zone (NSBLPZ), should have regard to protecting the openness of the zone and, enhancing the landscape setting of the southern bypass. Development which would significantly harm the NSBLPZ will not be permitted.

Access provided by the footpaths is limited to an area within the village but it should be noted that there are no footpaths along Stocks Hill that provide access to the Watton Road, or along New Road providing access to Bowthorpe or from the top of Hart's Lane and along Long Lane providing access to the Longwater retail area.