Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan - Reg. 19 Pre-submission Addendum

Remove 'on demand services' and include 'very limited public transport options' with 'need for residents to be vehicle owners'

On demand services is misleading when there is no evidence of this, other than taxis. Locals report being unable to access any public transport when needed and have to rely on lifts from friends and family. One bus a week to Wymondham does not constitute an adequate public transport facility. Also lacks any safe walking or cycling routes to public transport hubs as no pavements to the top of Stocks Hill or on Long Lane.

Remove reference to second footpath as irrelevant. Highway safety needs reviewing

Second access footpath to the school is too vague as it does not give any idea who should maintain it. Plus unlikely to be much need for it for at least a decade as school is at capacity and any children moving into new development would have to go to school elsewhere unless entering in reception year which means many years until children in the new development can attend Bawburgh Primary. Plus when children leave primary there is no public transport to secondary school. Refute existing pedestrian connectivity from the site as can only safely access school and village hall

Area of 1.4ha allocated for 15 dwellings

Loss of highest grade agricultural land is contrary to planning policy. Increasing the area means greater loss of land. If a scheme has to be accepted I agree with parish council that 15 dwellings would be an appropriate number on 1.4ha. More development area equals greater flood risk from water run off due to more tarmac and concrete and loss of habitats/productive agricultural land

Reduce the site size to 1.4ha for 15 dwellings

From the GNLP it states
"The Council acknowledges the concerns of residents about highways matters. The
Council also recognises that growth in rural locations will result in some increase in
traffic, but this is balanced with supporting existing local services (including public
transport) through modest growth. The approach to the distribution of growth within the
village clusters seeks to ensure that a higher proportion of growth is supported within
the more accessible areas whilst seeking to limit new development in those areas that
are either poorly connected or constrained by the local highway network."
There are extremely limited public transport options in Bawburgh and very few facilities to warrant such a large increase in village population therefore 35 homes contradicts the above statement. It should be limiting new development in Bawburgh as it is poorly connected and constrained by the local highway network in that there are no safe walking or cycling routes out of the village from the proposed site with also an ancient monument bridge which should be afforded greater protection with one-way traffic between the proposed site and the nearest bus hub (Costessey park and ride) and shopping/retail hub (Longwater). New residents will need to be vehicle owners which is bad for the environment and therefore unsustainable and contrary to provision of 'affordable' homes. The Southern Bypass Landscape Protection Zone also covers this proposed site and it is contrary to that policy to develop here and affect views across the countryside giving a green barrier to Norwich.

Amend to 'area of 1.4ha of land is allocated for 15 dwellings'

The village cannot support 35 homes on this site due to lack of infrastructure, facilities, public transport links, safe walking or cycling routes, impact on ancient monument bridge and flood plain. The school is already at capacity and new residents will not get places there for their children for several years. There are other locations more suited to this size of development.

Please consider the comments contained in this letter to be my formal response to the above consultation.

I have received considerable enquiries and concerns from residents of Barford and Wicklewood, over the proposed addendum document relating to Barford and Wicklewood. The comments below concerning flooding and scale were made in my earlier response.

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. In my opinion it is no coincidence that large scale development in North Wymondham has had an adverse effect on the River Tiffey, causing additional pressures 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 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.

In Barford the combined total of VC BAR1 and VC BAR2 is approximately 60 new homes. This is a disproportionately large increase in the existing number of dwellings. Likewise in Wicklewood the addition of 60 new homes seems wholly disproportionate in relation to the existing number of dwellings in the village.

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 development, will inevitably change the character of these villages and will fail to protect much cherished and sensitive landscapes. No amount of sensitive landscaping can replace a landscape that has been identified as needing protection as is the case in Wicklewood.

VC BAR2
The revised proposal for this allocation has caused particular concern over the loss of leisure amenity by reducing the size of the recreation ground, also safety concerns over the access road to the new homes and the consequential increase in traffic crossing the recreation ground. Using the existing village hall access as the means of accessing the new homes would mean children having to cross the road to reach the playground.

Please consider the comments contained in this letter to be my formal response to the above consultation.

I have received considerable enquiries and concerns from residents of Barford and Wicklewood, over the proposed addendum document relating to Barford and Wicklewood. The comments below concerning flooding and scale were made in my earlier response.

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. In my opinion it is no coincidence that large scale development in North Wymondham has had an adverse effect on the River Tiffey, causing additional pressures 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 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.

In Barford the combined total of VC BAR1 and VC BAR2 is approximately 60 new homes. This is a disproportionately large increase in the existing number of dwellings. Likewise in Wicklewood the addition of 60 new homes seems wholly disproportionate in relation to the existing number of dwellings in the village.

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 development, will inevitably change the character of these villages and will fail to protect much cherished and sensitive landscapes. No amount of sensitive landscaping can replace a landscape that has been identified as needing protection as is the case in Wicklewood.

VC BAR2
The revised proposal for this allocation has caused particular concern over the loss of leisure amenity by reducing the size of the recreation ground, also safety concerns over the access road to the new homes and the consequential increase in traffic crossing the recreation ground. Using the existing village hall access as the means of accessing the new homes would mean children having to cross the road to reach the playground.