We strongly object to Site GNLP0329 (Bradshaw Road/Reepham Road) being allocated for Housing in the new Local Plan - the Site and access to the Site are completely unsuitable. The piece of land put forward is landlocked. The Site is also completely remote / isolated from any amenities and therefore completely unsustainable. Development of the Site would be detrimental to the landscape and character of the area and would erode away the purposeful hard edge created for Drayton at this location when the permission for the development of Bradshaw Road was granted.
There are other Sites that have been put forward for Housing which are much more suitable and more sustainable.
There is NO access to the Site from Bradshaw Road so it is actually unsuitable and misleading for the Site to have been named `Bradshaw Road / Reepham Road` and we would strongly oppose any such access should this be applied for in the future.
The piece of land that has been put forward is a considerable distance from the Reepham Road and completely landlocked. Since the applicant owns the whole of the stretch of land between Bradshaw Road and Reepham Road, it is unclear why he has only put forward part of the land he owns for housing or why he has put forward the strip of land that he owns on this site that is furthest from the access point to it on the Reepham Road. We can only assume that it is to pave the way to get planning permission to infill the remaining part of the site should he wish to build on it in the future.
The ONLY existing access to the piece of land put forward is via a very small track off the Reepham Road. Accessing the entrance to this track on the Reepham Road would be extremely dangerous. The additional traffic that the development would generate would also put unacceptable additional pressure on the Reepham Road and other already heavily congested roads nearby and on the infrastructure of the surrounding area.
Additional housing in this location was NOT included in the traffic models for the NDR
The piece of land put forward is also immediately under one of the main flight paths into Norwich Airport and also serves as a crash safety zone for the airport and for this reason has always previously been purposefully left undeveloped.
The Applicant is suggesting that this piece of land will facilitate up to 144 houses - this is virtually four times more than the amount of houses in the adjacent development of Bradshaw / Howell Road which is of a similar size. We fail to see how 144 properties on this site would or could possibly be in keeping with the current dwellings and character of the nearby Hurn Road Estate.
Site GNLP0329 is adjacent to the existing County Wildlife Site at Drayton Woods and also in close proximity to the valued ecological area of Canham`s Hill. Development of this site would seriously endanger the fine ecobalance of the area in which it lies.
Drayton currently has insufficient Pumping Station facilities to deal with the current amount of surface water that runs into the village from the existing surrounding built up areas and as a result the village centre frequently suffers from flooding. Additional development in the Drayton area would serve only to exacerbate the existing flood and drainage problems in the village. It would be completely inappropriate to facilitate ANY additional development in the Drayton area until the existing flood and drainage issues have been fully resolved. We note that recently granted permission for housing at both the Manor Farm and Low Farm Sites have in fact now been rescinded pending further investigation for this exact reason
Site GNLP0329 is also covered by a covenant prohibiting any building on the Site. No doubt there may be ways for this to be overturned but the covenant was put in place for a reason - the land on which the site lies was deemed as `white land` under the provision of the Norwich Fringe Area Town Map and it was the intention of the Local Authority for the existing land use to remain undisturbed. Whilst there are other sites available that can be freely built on to meet the 5 year land supply requirement for housing, there is insufficient grounds for this covenant to be discharged.