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

This is entirely out of scale with the rest of the housing in Bawburgh. Notwithstanding the fact that this allocation should not have been accepted in the first consultation, now proposing to extend it is contrary to many development management policies, eg. having an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the wider street scene, it does not make a positive contribution to local character, it will not maintain the character of the surroundings and will not integrate successfully with its surroundings. The Services and Community Facilities descriptor is inaccurate - there are not a range of facilities, there is simply a small primary school, a village hall and a pub. There is no bus route (except a once week to Wymondham which has now lost most of its banking facilities) there is no shop and there are no safe walking or cycling routes to bus stops or shops. In this respect it therefore cannot provide access by routes and public spaces that meet
different requirements of accessibility (including pedestrians, cyclists and people with mobility or sensory difficulties)
without an unsatisfactory domination of traffic. It cannot support sustainable transport and development objectives, there are no opportunities to integrate with local sustainable transport networks, as there are no sustainable forms of transport appropriate to the location. It is unsustainable in that it does not contribute to the environment, with the loss of even more agricultural land and its biodiversity. The lack of public transport will increase traffic movements with every house needing a car putting pressure on the village's narrow roads, conservation area and bridge which is a protected monument. Increasing the land area to reduce density means more tarmac roads, pavements, longer driveways, and increased run off putting pressure on the already struggling flood plain with the river bursting its banks on several occasions in heavy rain and with more run off it increases the risk of homes in the centre of the village being flooded. All development should respect, conserve and where possible, enhance the landscape character of its immediate and wider environment.
Development proposals that would cause significant adverse impact on the distinctive landscape characteristics of an area will be refused. (policy DM 4.5) This proposal does not enhance the landscape character of Bawburgh. The site is within the Norwich Southern Bypass Landscape Protection Zone due to high levels of visual accessibility to and from the road to a predominantly open rural area that plays an important part in making the landscape setting of Norwich. The Policy was designed to ensure all development within the wider zone of visual influence visible from the transport corridors is designed to reinforce and avoid undermining the rural character experienced when travelling along the Undeveloped Approaches into Norwich. Policy DM4.6 Development which would significantly harm the NSBLPZ or the
landscape setting of the Norwich urban area will not be permitted.

Approximately one third of the sites that have been selected for Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan - Alternative Sites & Focused Changes (Reg. 18) are within my Wicklewood Ward. You may not be surprised that I have received considerable enquiries and concerns from residents in the three villages of Barford, Barnham Broom and Wicklewood, which I will attempt to reflect in this response.

The four sites in question are: SN600, Land north of Chapel Street, Barford, SN0552REVC, Land at Watton Road, Barford, SN0055, Land east of Spur Road and south of Norwich Road, Barnham Broom, and VC WIC1 REV, Land to the south of Wicklewood Primary School. There are some common concerns that apply to these sites which I list in no particular priority order.

Flooding

In each of these villages surface water flooding is a major concern and indeed discussion with stakeholders over mitigation in all these villages has been ongoing, in the case of Barford and Wicklewood for a considerable time. I want to ensure that in your deliberations the existing problems of surface water flooding and the potential for making things worse has been properly considered. Any doubts over the impact that further large scale development in these villages will have on surface water flooding should rule out these sites as credible for additional development of the scale proposed. In my opinion it is no coincidence that large scale development in North Wymondham has had an adverse effect on the River Tiffey, causing devasting damage to homes during periods of heavy rainfall on communities downstream in Barford and Wramplingham.

Scale, Density and Protecting the Rural Lanscape

I must stress that I am not in any way against some appropriate development in rural villages. When the village clusters scheme was first introduced I supported the idea of small scale developments as a way of ensuring our rural villages remain sustainable in the future. However, increasing housing in a concentration of relatively small villages north of Wymondham over a relatively short time, will in my view have the potential to damage the rural character, important landscapes and bucolic nature of these communities. This is made more serious when the necessary infrastructure (health care, education, retail, transport) to support this growth either lags behind construction or simply does not feature.

SNVC objective 3 states – ‘Ensure that the scale, location and density of housing is well related to the form and character of existing villages, protects the historic environment, including protected landscapes, and ensures appropriate landscaping measures are delivered as part of new development.’ Increasing the development boundaries into new green field sites, which are detached from existing historic development, will inevitably change the character of these villages and will fail to protect much cherished and special landscapes. No amount of sensitive landscaping can replace a landscape that has been identified as needing protection as is the case in Wicklewood.

Approximately one third of the sites that have been selected for Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan - Alternative Sites & Focused Changes (Reg. 18) are within my Wicklewood Ward. You may not be surprised that I have received considerable enquiries and concerns from residents in the three villages of Barford, Barnham Broom and Wicklewood, which I will attempt to reflect in this response.

The four sites in question are: SN600, Land north of Chapel Street, Barford, SN0552REVC, Land at Watton Road, Barford, SN0055, Land east of Spur Road and south of Norwich Road, Barnham Broom, and VC WIC1 REV, Land to the south of Wicklewood Primary School. There are some common concerns that apply to these sites which I list in no particular priority order.

Flooding

In each of these villages surface water flooding is a major concern and indeed discussion with stakeholders over mitigation in all these villages has been ongoing, in the case of Barford and Wicklewood for a considerable time. I want to ensure that in your deliberations the existing problems of surface water flooding and the potential for making things worse has been properly considered. Any doubts over the impact that further large scale development in these villages will have on surface water flooding should rule out these sites as credible for additional development of the scale proposed. In my opinion it is no coincidence that large scale development in North Wymondham has had an adverse effect on the River Tiffey, causing devasting damage to homes during periods of heavy rainfall on communities downstream in Barford and Wramplingham.

Scale, Density and Protecting the Rural Lanscape

I must stress that I am not in any way against some appropriate development in rural villages. When the village clusters scheme was first introduced I supported the idea of small scale developments as a way of ensuring our rural villages remain sustainable in the future. However, increasing housing in a concentration of relatively small villages north of Wymondham over a relatively short time, will in my view have the potential to damage the rural character, important landscapes and bucolic nature of these communities. This is made more serious when the necessary infrastructure (health care, education, retail, transport) to support this growth either lags behind construction or simply does not feature.

SNVC objective 3 states – ‘Ensure that the scale, location and density of housing is well related to the form and character of existing villages, protects the historic environment, including protected landscapes, and ensures appropriate landscaping measures are delivered as part of new development.’ Increasing the development boundaries into new green field sites, which are detached from existing historic development, will inevitably change the character of these villages and will fail to protect much cherished and special landscapes. No amount of sensitive landscaping can replace a landscape that has been identified as needing protection as is the case in Wicklewood.

Approximately one third of the sites that have been selected for Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan - Alternative Sites & Focused Changes (Reg. 18) are within my Wicklewood Ward. You may not be surprised that I have received considerable enquiries and concerns from residents in the three villages of Barford, Barnham Broom and Wicklewood, which I will attempt to reflect in this response.

The four sites in question are: SN600, Land north of Chapel Street, Barford, SN0552REVC, Land at Watton Road, Barford, SN0055, Land east of Spur Road and south of Norwich Road, Barnham Broom, and VC WIC1 REV, Land to the south of Wicklewood Primary School. There are some common concerns that apply to these sites which I list in no particular priority order.

Flooding

In each of these villages surface water flooding is a major concern and indeed discussion with stakeholders over mitigation in all these villages has been ongoing, in the case of Barford and Wicklewood for a considerable time. I want to ensure that in your deliberations the existing problems of surface water flooding and the potential for making things worse has been properly considered. Any doubts over the impact that further large scale development in these villages will have on surface water flooding should rule out these sites as credible for additional development of the scale proposed. In my opinion it is no coincidence that large scale development in North Wymondham has had an adverse effect on the River Tiffey, causing devasting damage to homes during periods of heavy rainfall on communities downstream in Barford and Wramplingham.

Scale, Density and Protecting the Rural Lanscape

I must stress that I am not in any way against some appropriate development in rural villages. When the village clusters scheme was first introduced I supported the idea of small scale developments as a way of ensuring our rural villages remain sustainable in the future. However, increasing housing in a concentration of relatively small villages north of Wymondham over a relatively short time, will in my view have the potential to damage the rural character, important landscapes and bucolic nature of these communities. This is made more serious when the necessary infrastructure (health care, education, retail, transport) to support this growth either lags behind construction or simply does not feature.

SNVC objective 3 states – ‘Ensure that the scale, location and density of housing is well related to the form and character of existing villages, protects the historic environment, including protected landscapes, and ensures appropriate landscaping measures are delivered as part of new development.’ Increasing the development boundaries into new green field sites, which are detached from existing historic development, will inevitably change the character of these villages and will fail to protect much cherished and special landscapes. No amount of sensitive landscaping can replace a landscape that has been identified as needing protection as is the case in Wicklewood.

Approximately one third of the sites that have been selected for Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan - Alternative Sites & Focused Changes (Reg. 18) are within my Wicklewood Ward. You may not be surprised that I have received considerable enquiries and concerns from residents in the three villages of Barford, Barnham Broom and Wicklewood, which I will attempt to reflect in this response.

The four sites in question are: SN600, Land north of Chapel Street, Barford, SN0552REVC, Land at Watton Road, Barford, SN0055, Land east of Spur Road and south of Norwich Road, Barnham Broom, and VC WIC1 REV, Land to the south of Wicklewood Primary School. There are some common concerns that apply to these sites which I list in no particular priority order.

Flooding

In each of these villages surface water flooding is a major concern and indeed discussion with stakeholders over mitigation in all these villages has been ongoing, in the case of Barford and Wicklewood for a considerable time. I want to ensure that in your deliberations the existing problems of surface water flooding and the potential for making things worse has been properly considered. Any doubts over the impact that further large scale development in these villages will have on surface water flooding should rule out these sites as credible for additional development of the scale proposed. In my opinion it is no coincidence that large scale development in North Wymondham has had an adverse effect on the River Tiffey, causing devasting damage to homes during periods of heavy rainfall on communities downstream in Barford and Wramplingham.

Scale, Density and Protecting the Rural Lanscape

I must stress that I am not in any way against some appropriate development in rural villages. When the village clusters scheme was first introduced I supported the idea of small scale developments as a way of ensuring our rural villages remain sustainable in the future. However, increasing housing in a concentration of relatively small villages north of Wymondham over a relatively short time, will in my view have the potential to damage the rural character, important landscapes and bucolic nature of these communities. This is made more serious when the necessary infrastructure (health care, education, retail, transport) to support this growth either lags behind construction or simply does not feature.

SNVC objective 3 states – ‘Ensure that the scale, location and density of housing is well related to the form and character of existing villages, protects the historic environment, including protected landscapes, and ensures appropriate landscaping measures are delivered as part of new development.’ Increasing the development boundaries into new green field sites, which are detached from existing historic development, will inevitably change the character of these villages and will fail to protect much cherished and special landscapes. No amount of sensitive landscaping can replace a landscape that has been identified as needing protection as is the case in Wicklewood.

Approximately one third of the sites that have been selected for Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan - Alternative Sites & Focused Changes (Reg. 18) are within my Wicklewood Ward. You may not be surprised that I have received considerable enquiries and concerns from residents in the three villages of Barford, Barnham Broom and Wicklewood, which I will attempt to reflect in this response.

The four sites in question are: SN600, Land north of Chapel Street, Barford, SN0552REVC, Land at Watton Road, Barford, SN0055, Land east of Spur Road and south of Norwich Road, Barnham Broom, and VC WIC1 REV, Land to the south of Wicklewood Primary School. There are some common concerns that apply to these sites which I list in no particular priority order.

Flooding

In each of these villages surface water flooding is a major concern and indeed discussion with stakeholders over mitigation in all these villages has been ongoing, in the case of Barford and Wicklewood for a considerable time. I want to ensure that in your deliberations the existing problems of surface water flooding and the potential for making things worse has been properly considered. Any doubts over the impact that further large scale development in these villages will have on surface water flooding should rule out these sites as credible for additional development of the scale proposed. In my opinion it is no coincidence that large scale development in North Wymondham has had an adverse effect on the River Tiffey, causing devasting damage to homes during periods of heavy rainfall on communities downstream in Barford and Wramplingham.

Scale, Density and Protecting the Rural Lanscape

I must stress that I am not in any way against some appropriate development in rural villages. When the village clusters scheme was first introduced I supported the idea of small scale developments as a way of ensuring our rural villages remain sustainable in the future. However, increasing housing in a concentration of relatively small villages north of Wymondham over a relatively short time, will in my view have the potential to damage the rural character, important landscapes and bucolic nature of these communities. This is made more serious when the necessary infrastructure (health care, education, retail, transport) to support this growth either lags behind construction or simply does not feature.

SNVC objective 3 states – ‘Ensure that the scale, location and density of housing is well related to the form and character of existing villages, protects the historic environment, including protected landscapes, and ensures appropriate landscaping measures are delivered as part of new development.’ Increasing the development boundaries into new green field sites, which are detached from existing historic development, will inevitably change the character of these villages and will fail to protect much cherished and special landscapes. No amount of sensitive landscaping can replace a landscape that has been identified as needing protection as is the case in Wicklewood.

Approximately one third of the sites that have been selected for Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan - Alternative Sites & Focused Changes (Reg. 18) are within my Wicklewood Ward. You may not be surprised that I have received considerable enquiries and concerns from residents in the three villages of Barford, Barnham Broom and Wicklewood, which I will attempt to reflect in this response.

The four sites in question are: SN600, Land north of Chapel Street, Barford, SN0552REVC, Land at Watton Road, Barford, SN0055, Land east of Spur Road and south of Norwich Road, Barnham Broom, and VC WIC1 REV, Land to the south of Wicklewood Primary School. There are some common concerns that apply to these sites which I list in no particular priority order.

Flooding

In each of these villages surface water flooding is a major concern and indeed discussion with stakeholders over mitigation in all these villages has been ongoing, in the case of Barford and Wicklewood for a considerable time. I want to ensure that in your deliberations the existing problems of surface water flooding and the potential for making things worse has been properly considered. Any doubts over the impact that further large scale development in these villages will have on surface water flooding should rule out these sites as credible for additional development of the scale proposed. In my opinion it is no coincidence that large scale development in North Wymondham has had an adverse effect on the River Tiffey, causing devasting damage to homes during periods of heavy rainfall on communities downstream in Barford and Wramplingham.

Scale, Density and Protecting the Rural Lanscape

I must stress that I am not in any way against some appropriate development in rural villages. When the village clusters scheme was first introduced I supported the idea of small scale developments as a way of ensuring our rural villages remain sustainable in the future. However, increasing housing in a concentration of relatively small villages north of Wymondham over a relatively short time, will in my view have the potential to damage the rural character, important landscapes and bucolic nature of these communities. This is made more serious when the necessary infrastructure (health care, education, retail, transport) to support this growth either lags behind construction or simply does not feature.

SNVC objective 3 states – ‘Ensure that the scale, location and density of housing is well related to the form and character of existing villages, protects the historic environment, including protected landscapes, and ensures appropriate landscaping measures are delivered as part of new development.’ Increasing the development boundaries into new green field sites, which are detached from existing historic development, will inevitably change the character of these villages and will fail to protect much cherished and special landscapes. No amount of sensitive landscaping can replace a landscape that has been identified as needing protection as is the case in Wicklewood.

Approximately one third of the sites that have been selected for Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan - Alternative Sites & Focused Changes (Reg. 18) are within my Wicklewood Ward. You may not be surprised that I have received considerable enquiries and concerns from residents in the three villages of Barford, Barnham Broom and Wicklewood, which I will attempt to reflect in this response.

The four sites in question are: SN600, Land north of Chapel Street, Barford, SN0552REVC, Land at Watton Road, Barford, SN0055, Land east of Spur Road and south of Norwich Road, Barnham Broom, and VC WIC1 REV, Land to the south of Wicklewood Primary School. There are some common concerns that apply to these sites which I list in no particular priority order.

Flooding

In each of these villages surface water flooding is a major concern and indeed discussion with stakeholders over mitigation in all these villages has been ongoing, in the case of Barford and Wicklewood for a considerable time. I want to ensure that in your deliberations the existing problems of surface water flooding and the potential for making things worse has been properly considered. Any doubts over the impact that further large scale development in these villages will have on surface water flooding should rule out these sites as credible for additional development of the scale proposed. In my opinion it is no coincidence that large scale development in North Wymondham has had an adverse effect on the River Tiffey, causing devasting damage to homes during periods of heavy rainfall on communities downstream in Barford and Wramplingham.

Scale, Density and Protecting the Rural Lanscape

I must stress that I am not in any way against some appropriate development in rural villages. When the village clusters scheme was first introduced I supported the idea of small scale developments as a way of ensuring our rural villages remain sustainable in the future. However, increasing housing in a concentration of relatively small villages north of Wymondham over a relatively short time, will in my view have the potential to damage the rural character, important landscapes and bucolic nature of these communities. This is made more serious when the necessary infrastructure (health care, education, retail, transport) to support this growth either lags behind construction or simply does not feature.

SNVC objective 3 states – ‘Ensure that the scale, location and density of housing is well related to the form and character of existing villages, protects the historic environment, including protected landscapes, and ensures appropriate landscaping measures are delivered as part of new development.’ Increasing the development boundaries into new green field sites, which are detached from existing historic development, will inevitably change the character of these villages and will fail to protect much cherished and special landscapes. No amount of sensitive landscaping can replace a landscape that has been identified as needing protection as is the case in Wicklewood.

Approximately one third of the sites that have been selected for Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan - Alternative Sites & Focused Changes (Reg. 18) are within my Wicklewood Ward. You may not be surprised that I have received considerable enquiries and concerns from residents in the three villages of Barford, Barnham Broom and Wicklewood, which I will attempt to reflect in this response.

The four sites in question are: SN600, Land north of Chapel Street, Barford, SN0552REVC, Land at Watton Road, Barford, SN0055, Land east of Spur Road and south of Norwich Road, Barnham Broom, and VC WIC1 REV, Land to the south of Wicklewood Primary School. There are some common concerns that apply to these sites which I list in no particular priority order.

Flooding

In each of these villages surface water flooding is a major concern and indeed discussion with stakeholders over mitigation in all these villages has been ongoing, in the case of Barford and Wicklewood for a considerable time. I want to ensure that in your deliberations the existing problems of surface water flooding and the potential for making things worse has been properly considered. Any doubts over the impact that further large scale development in these villages will have on surface water flooding should rule out these sites as credible for additional development of the scale proposed. In my opinion it is no coincidence that large scale development in North Wymondham has had an adverse effect on the River Tiffey, causing devasting damage to homes during periods of heavy rainfall on communities downstream in Barford and Wramplingham.

Scale, Density and Protecting the Rural Lanscape

I must stress that I am not in any way against some appropriate development in rural villages. When the village clusters scheme was first introduced I supported the idea of small scale developments as a way of ensuring our rural villages remain sustainable in the future. However, increasing housing in a concentration of relatively small villages north of Wymondham over a relatively short time, will in my view have the potential to damage the rural character, important landscapes and bucolic nature of these communities. This is made more serious when the necessary infrastructure (health care, education, retail, transport) to support this growth either lags behind construction or simply does not feature.

SNVC objective 3 states – ‘Ensure that the scale, location and density of housing is well related to the form and character of existing villages, protects the historic environment, including protected landscapes, and ensures appropriate landscaping measures are delivered as part of new development.’ Increasing the development boundaries into new green field sites, which are detached from existing historic development, will inevitably change the character of these villages and will fail to protect much cherished and special landscapes. No amount of sensitive landscaping can replace a landscape that has been identified as needing protection as is the case in Wicklewood.