Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan - Alternative Sites & Focused Changes (Reg. 18)

Barford and Wramplingham Parish Council consider that Option 1 is the most appropriate. The GNLP already includes a significant housing delivery buffer. Therefore, releasing a large buffer of extra land on greenfield “village cluster” sites is unnecessary.
We continue to question our grouping with Marlingford & Colton as a village cluster when there are so few facilities and no shops on the ground. (Many of the businesses that show up on a google search are digital and not servicing residents). In addition, Barford is approximately 4 miles from the nearest accepting doctors’ surgery (Humbleyard Practice), there is no public transport, and we understand that many residents must travel even farther afield.

Barford and Wramplingham Parish Council recognise the long term need to ensure a sustainable village hall and playing field which are currently leased with approximately 37 years remaining (hardly a “relatively short time remaining on the lease” – as claimed in the consultation document). The housing allocation described, however, is too big and MUST ALSO be considered in the light of preferred site VCBar1. Furthermore, many residents object to the proposed development for many reasons.

Barford and Wramplingham Parish Council wish to submit the following specific requirements for inclusion in the allocation policy:

1) The size of the proposed development in conjunction with the preferred site VC BAR 1, and any others that are approved, must be limited to 20 houses or less.

Reasons: Development of this site is unacceptable if the preferred site VC BAR1 (potentially along with SN0552REVC) is developed to the full. It would be entirely disproportionate for Barford to have to expand by 70 houses or more. We understand that the VCBar1 site owner is not intending to develop the site and question the validity of that allocation. Development should involve investment in appropriate, guaranteed, drainage management systems for both the new housing stock and the remaining pitch and new village hall to ensure that run-off does not add to the flood risk for Barford and Wramplingham. This should include improvement of the Barford Flood Alleviation Scheme, within the village, it's drainage to the river Tiffey and the passage of flood water past the confluence with the River Yare, which occurs within the Parish.

Furthermore, we have little confidence in the ability of SNDC, Planning, Anglia Water, and Developers to address the great conundrum facing Barford (and Wramplingham), that of flood risk exacerbated by run off from new developments, and climate change. Therefore, unless sufficient investment is made to mitigate this risk meaningfully (for example, assessing and extending the buffering capacity of the Barford Flood Alleviation Zone to carry extra water from a new development), and for the open field areas to be sufficiently drained via the scheme to prevent water accumulation in and around properties surrounding the SN6000 site, we deem the development unacceptable. Failure of any mitigation strategy should be indemnified by SNDC.

2) The Barford sewage system should be upgraded / improved to ensure that no foul water is allowed to pollute people’s houses, gardens, and the road. Failure of the system should be indemnified by SNDC.

Reasons: We are not confident that Anglia Water infrastructure will handle extra foul water from such a development. During heavy rainfall, sewage regularly washes out of manholes, either in gardens, or in the road. Some residents are unable to use showers or toilets at such times. This is despite over a decade of complaints. Building new developments upstream will be hazardous for those downstream.

3) The types of new build, their locations, and the promise of a new village hall and pitch should be described in detail, understood, and agreed throughout the Communities of Barford and Wramplingham, by an appropriate formal process, and should expect to include transfer of ownership of the freehold of the new village hall and pitch area to the Village Hall Committee. The Village Hall Committee should not be pressurised into relinquishing the current lease until such agreement has been reached.

Reasons: the Village Hall committee holds the lease for the current village hall and the playing fields. We understand that there is no legal requirement for the Village Hall Committee to relinquish the lease at this time, and it is in the interests of the local community that the Village Hall Committee uses the lease ownership to ensure the local community receive a fair deal.

4) We wish for a full traffic load and traffic safety evaluation to be carried out to ensure that the extra vehicle movements are not going to overload the junction between Cock Street and the B1108, and to ensure safety of residents and children in Chapel Street.

Reason: The junction between Cock Street and the B1108 is on a deceptively dangerous bend. Many residents have reported "near misses" when attempting to turn right into the village from the B1108. In Chapel Street, traffic currently struggles to move along the street at all during school drop-off and close and this is likely to be exacerbated.

No, Barford and Wramplingham Parish Council OBJECT to this allocation, which is outside the development area, adjacent to a dangerous winding road (B1108), and a significant distance from the centre of the village. Furthermore, the water management approach and claims of nutrient neutrality are confusing. Neither do we agree to the earlier decision to make VC BAR1 a preferred site, since we understand that the landowner is not intending to develop the site. Also, it would lose several businesses employing people in the area which you give as a reason for clustering.

Barford and Wramplingham Parish Council wish to submit the following specific requirements for inclusion in any allocation policy:
1) A covenant should be placed on other land adjacent to restrict any further development on greenfield sites.
2) Any sewage system should be guaranteed (and professionally evaluated and indemnified by SNCD) to maintain nutrient neutrality and not cause any flood or pollution risk to the local villages.
3) Flood risk from run-off should be mitigated on site and not exacerbate the existing problem of floodwater along this road that currently affects residents downhill in "Suttons Loke" and Style Loke.
4) We wish for a full traffic load and traffic safety evaluation to be carried out to ensure that the extra vehicle movements, into and out of the development, are not going to overload the dangerous double blind-bend on the B1108.