Do not destroy Bawburgh further. Take the houses and put them somewhere that is already massively built up. Instead of taking away views and green fields which are slowly disappearing, never to be seen again!

(N.B. This representation was submitted by Mrs Daphne Fisk)

I object to the 35 houses proposed in Bawburgh inline with the cluster scheme because Bawburgh is already over developed and has already seen 2 very recent new developments. Since we have no continuous footpaths, bus routes or street lighting and we also don’t want that for this village. It would also go against environmental sustainability. Since there has just been a property denied planning permission, just for one single dwelling, why would it be acceptable for 35?

The houses will obscure the lovely and picturesque valley and river Yare located at the the bottom of this field.

Stocks hill is already a rat run, full of people getting from one place to another and these properties would just make this issue so much more dangerous. Especially since the speed limit through the village is 30 and we have recently had a fatality in the village when I man struck the chicanes head on and died, the chained where there to stop the speeding traffic. We also have people parking on the road outside the village hall for gatherings and social events which would also add much more danger on the road and make it difficult for people access the site.

The added edition of 35 new houses would also be likely to reduce the price of the other houses already in Bawburgh, leading to this wonderful village being over populated and completely destroyed by the look and amount of houses for this proposed site. Further more, the 35 new houses will be very hard to sell due to another proposal of 6 traveller pitches which are able to hold 4 families per pitch! So not only do we have the prospect of the 35 houses, we also have to fight to save our small little village from Travellers too! It simply is not fair!

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.

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 proposed development is too large for the size of village. Any development plan needs to be smaller in scale.

35 dwellings is a large development for the size of village - a village of historical character with multiple listed buildings. It means maybe up to an additional 150 residents. The existing village population was 595 in 2011 - for one development to bring a 25% population increase is not balanced. It might be reasonable to assume a 25% increase in traffic volume which is unsafe in a village with so few pavements or safe crossings of the main road.

Due to the proposed size of the development which would have a detrimental effect on the character of the village and put strain on the limited amenities and be a safety risk due to the increase in traffic the plan should be scrapped.

The constraints and sensitivities related to the plan should lead to it not going ahead. 35 dwellings in a such a small area would be high density and not of adequate size particularly if they are limited to a low roofline. This increase would be significant when compared to the size of Bawburgh as a whole.

Considerable reduction in the size and density of the development, if it goes ahead.

Planned number of properties per ha is too dense. Better ratios suggested for other developments under this scheme that would better match the usual density of housing in Bawburgh. Too many new houses given the current size of the village. Village has already had recent new developments adding to the pressures on the infrastructure and reducing the infiltration of water as land has been tarmacked and built over.

Both the 1.4ha plot of land and the density of houses proposed are not appropriate for this rural setting. Any development should be aligned to the most recent permission in Bawburgh (2018/1550) for ~9 homes per hectare which would be more appropriate for this rural environment.

Section A.7. states “Paragraph 69 of the NPPF notes the importance of small and medium sized sites, up to 1 hectare in size”. Given the proposed site in Bawburgh is 1.4 hectares, this implies a “large site”. Therefore this is totally unacceptable in a small village, not clustered with any others.

35 houses within a 1.4 hectare site is not in keeping with the current density of other groups of housing in the village, contradicting SNVC objective 3. It is also based on the council's spacing criteria for urban settings, and not appropriate for a rural setting as in Bawburgh.