Object
South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 19 Pre-submission Draft)
Representation ID: 2345
Received: 17/02/2023
Respondent: Mrs Amy Buxton
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
Lack of suitable infrastructure for 35 new homes.
Danger of more fatalities as traffic increases through the rat run.
Borders up to conservation area.
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.
Object
South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 19 Pre-submission Draft)
Representation ID: 2357
Received: 17/02/2023
Respondent: Mr Gavin Buxton
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
Lack of suitable infrastructure for 35 new homes.
Danger of more fatalities as traffic increases through the rat run.
Borders up to conservation area.
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.
Object
South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 19 Pre-submission Draft)
Representation ID: 2581
Received: 01/03/2023
Respondent: Mrs Kate Smallwood
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
Bawburgh village already suffers from flooding annually - this extends to some residents gardens and to New Road and Stocks Hill by the bridge. There have already been two recent housing developments in Bawburgh. The proposed 35 houses, potentially as well as the proposed Gypsy and Traveller site on Hockering Lane, represents lots of additional development in water drainage areas with the potential to increase flooding in the village.
Less houses to be built to lessen the flood risk
Bawburgh village already suffers from flooding annually - this extends to some residents gardens and to New Road and Stocks Hill by the bridge. There have already been two recent housing developments in Bawburgh. The proposed 35 houses, potentially as well as the proposed Gypsy and Traveller site on Hockering Lane, represents lots of additional development in water drainage areas with the potential to increase flooding in the village.
Object
South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 19 Pre-submission Draft)
Representation ID: 2712
Received: 05/03/2023
Respondent: Mr Kevin Underwood
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
If the hard standing in the area of any proposed development is increased this will significantly hamper the natural ground absorption of rain fall and could lead to harmful surface water flow to the south of the development that could affect the school and homes on Stocks Hill and Hockering Lane.
Due to the potentially damaging surface water flow the plan should be scrapped
If the hard standing in the area of any proposed development is increased this will significantly hamper the natural ground absorption of rain fall and could lead to harmful surface water flow to the south of the development that could affect the school and homes on Stocks Hill and Hockering Lane.
Object
South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 19 Pre-submission Draft)
Representation ID: 2774
Received: 05/03/2023
Respondent: Mr Mike Smallwood
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
Due to its location at the base of a valley, and significant surface area of surrounding fields, Bawburgh regularly suffers during high rainfall, with surface water runoff clogging the low level drainage and turning the roads into rivers in places. Furthermore, the foul drainage in Bawburgh regularly (~twice annually) requires maintenance by Anglian Water to unblock the system when it overflows. Any additional input to Bawburgh’s existing inadequate system would further escalate the issue and cause increased likelihood of direct pollution into the main Yare watercourse upstream of Norwich and the Norfolk Broads.
Bawburgh does not currently have sufficient surface or foul water drainage to sustain additional housing.
Due to its location at the base of a valley, and significant surface area of surrounding fields, Bawburgh regularly suffers during high rainfall, with surface water runoff clogging the low level drainage and turning the roads into rivers in places. Furthermore, the foul drainage in Bawburgh regularly (~twice annually) requires maintenance by Anglian Water to unblock the system when it overflows. Any additional input to Bawburgh’s existing inadequate system would further escalate the issue and cause increased likelihood of direct pollution into the main Yare watercourse upstream of Norwich and the Norfolk Broads.