An alternative route for the new houses planned to keep new traffic away and reduce existing traffic from the current residents.

The blind bend is a consistent problem, with the current level of traffic this is already hard to negotiate and with the addition of the houses proposed this will become a nightmare for existing and new residents alike.

The plans for the development of the estate to be cancelled. I do not want another housing estate to look at, it will ruin the beautiful public foot path I use on a daily basis. Gillingham lacks pavements and the footpath across the fields is used by dog walkers and families.

I'm extremely concerned about the safety of the villagers who live along the road with increased traffic. It's a struggle to pull out safely as it is with the traffic flow. When traffic is diverted through the village due to accidents the road simply cannot take the increased traffic and it has become congested with buses and lorries reversing around the bend to let oncoming cars through.
Parents with children, the elderly and disabled and people such as my self who need to transport equipment to and from their vehicles for work need to park along the street.

The allocation of VC GIL1 is not appropriate for the reasons outlined above. From the documentation provided it is not clear how this site was allocated as preferred over the other sites considered within the area. This is not in keeping the NPPF and does not demonstrate sound decision making. The allocation of this site should be reviewed.

Paragraph 79 of the NPPF states that 'To promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities...'
The development of VC GIL1 will not enhance the rural community. The allocation of the site for up to 35 dwellings, represents gross over-development of a Service Village, particularly when taken alongside the previous development 2022/1897 at Fieldgate Reach (Daisy Way and Tulip Close) which was completed only in summer 2022. The effects of which are not yet fully understood and not fully assessed within the Village Clusters Plan Supporting documentation.
Paragraph 69 of the NPPF notes ‘the importance of small and medium sized sites, up to 1 hectare in size, in contributing to meeting housing needs, particularly in terms of the ability to deliver those sites quickly..’
The proposed site VC GIL1 is c.2.36 hectares in size and therefore more than double the size of sites identified within the NPPF. The number of houses proposed (c.35) in addition to the recently developed Fieldgate Reach Site (22 houses) is disproportionate to the size of the village and far in excess of that which was set out in the Joint Core Strategy (Policy 15). This level of growth is not in keeping with the Village Clusters Plan key Objective SNVC 3 – to protect the character of villages and their setting. It is unclear why Gillingham is being subjected to such high levels of development which are out of keeping with the rural character of the village and not in keeping with the NPPF or Objectives of the Village Clusters Plan.

Alternative access route should be provided.

My objection to this development is due to the inadequate infastructure which surrounds it.
Local schools, GP and dental surgeries are at/beyond capacity, with the latter 2 generally failing its users.
The proposed access to the development; via The Street, Gillingham, is inadequate for the exisitng amount of road users.

Further development will exacerbate the above mentioned issues.

There are no changes that could be made to this plan which would make it acceptable to, or safer for, the residents of Gillingham.

The Street has a blind bend, made more dangerous by the parking of cars and vans too far round the corner. Residents from Geldeston and Gillingham, plus school traffic, have daily issues getting through the village. The village is brought to a standstill every time the A146 is closed making it very difficult for residents to reach/leave their properties. The recent development has resulted in cars being parked on the road/pavement putting pedestrians at risk. Daily speeding issues.
The bend on the Street cannot cope with additional traffic developments in Gillingham and Geldeston would bring, confirmed by the Highways Agency.

Separate access to the village needs to be provided.

Because of the layout of the village all traffic for any new development has to go along the street and negotiate the blind bend. Residents have to park along this road as there is no viable alternative and the road is already hazardous during busy times with traffic coming from both directions. Any new development will greatly increase the potential for accidents. This problem was confirmed in a report from the Highways Agency within its response to a planning application in 2022/1993

The plans need to amended or rejected unless a reduction to existing traffic levels is incorporated into the plans. Therefore I object the these plans.

The Street is currently too busy to sustain more traffic. The blind bends that lead to single carriage way traffic, due to on street parking, is often a place where cars meet head on. Often they can not reverse as there are either cars behind them or they are reversing around a blind bend into oncoming traffic. This leads to cars mounting the pavement, which leads to the primary school, causing a danger to pedestrians. This street is also bus route and so this exacerbates the problem.

The dangerous bend is unavoidable and unchangeable - if any new houses are built in the area then the access needs to be via the A146 or A143 via newly constructed roundabouts. A new roundabout in between the Heart services and Stockton roundabouts will all help to slow down the traffic that meets the Heart services at far to high speeds where we have already seen many accidents since the services has been expanded.

The housing expansion plans for Gillingham and Geldeston rely on the existing infrastructure to be able to cope with the new demand. The existing ninety degree bend on "The Street" is the fundamental flaw with any expansion and will eventually lead to a fatal accident i.m.o. I have personally come face to face with delivery driver vans on the wrong side of the road that were obviously unaware of the danger of that bend. This danger will only get worse as more cars use it due to more houses and more delivery drivers due to the way we shop.

Remove this site from the plan as there are others which have less constraints and better meet the over-arching planning guidance. For example, in your Sustainability Appraisal Report on page 79 and 80 it can be seen that the Stockton site SN0091 has far better RAG status than this site in Gillingham (as per attached extract). Many other sites in the wider list also better meet the criteria listed.

Gillingham is a village of approximately 250 houses separated into two parts. The road which connects the two parts (The Street) is narrow and has two 90 degree bends and extensive car parking which blocks the road, rendering it to be one way only. These concerns are acknowledged in the NCC Highways response to planning application 2022/1993 which is an outline application for this exact site and which notes that mitigation will be required as it cannot cope with the proposed additional traffic levels.

Planning decisions need to take this problem into account when considering further development.

The Street currently is very busy, difficult to negotiate and dangerous for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles.

There must be no new roadways coming out on to The Street.

Travel through Gillingham is already an issue as, due to the parking, The Street is virtually a single carriageway with a blind bend and there is so much traffic trying to negotiate it any additional traffic just adds to the problem. Whenever there is an issue on the surrounding main roads traffic diverts through the village and gridlock often ensues. More housing in Gillingham or Geldeston - and therefore more vehicles - will only exacerbate this problem.

A new road of the A146 needs to be built to supply the new houses and support with the rest of traffic in Gillingham.
Flood risk zone 3 land should only be used a last resort. I do not believe all the other possibilities in south Norfolk have been explored and exhausted yet to warrant considering this one.

Within Gillingham there is a blind bend which is very dangerous with cars parked on 1 side too. This is the only way into or out of Gillingham. An increase in traffic (caused by extra cars/houses). The Highways agency have also noted this.
The area is in flood risk zone 3, as confirmed by the environment agency and therefore should only be built on in very extreme circumstances (when all other possibilities have been explored.
Development of this site would harm views out of the 2 main parts of the village into open countryside.

Do not build. Use infill sites

I object as we already have had our quota of 22 house on a site considered fit for 10. That development has already caused further pressures on drainage, surface flooding, extra vehicle movements. The effect of commercial development alongside houses should be considered as the acreage subject to concreting over has been vast and with unprecedented rain events happening more frequently flooding will happen far more often.
Gillingham has no services other than fast food and a beauty Parlour. As repeatedly stated schools, dentists and doctors are beyond capacity. More houses would add extra pressure to all of this particularly if they were getting obese as it is a scientifically documented fact that this happens within easy access of fast food.
Yes the main roads are good but the only access dangerous and becomes log jammed if the main roads are closed.
If the new commercial proposal goes ahead who is going to want to move into these houses anyway? There is enough light noise etc. now.
This is a lovely area that has had its quota of houses, let alone commercial development and these should be taken in totality.