Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 15216

Received: 21/03/2018

Respondent: Mrs Victoria Anthoni

Representation Summary:

Access through Church Lane is a narrow single lane road with no pavement. Road quality in and around Wicklewood in all directions is poor and congested at peak times. This is a greenfield site. National policy dictates that brownfield should be developed as a priority. Increased housing will put increased pressure on stretched local infrastructure and damage the local environment and character of the village. The School is already inadequate in size for the number of pupils. Development on this site will deliver homes but not jobs and is therefore not good for the immediate local economy.

Full text:

Access and Transport: It is assumed that Wicklewood has been identified as a "service village" to support the promotion of "the Cambridge / Norwich Tech Corridor growth initiative" and "Norwich Research Park, Wymondham / Hethel, Longwater and the Food Enterprise Zone". However access and road quality in and around Wicklewood in all directions is poor and congested at peak times due in part to the narrowness of the lanes. More specifically access to the site, Church Lane, is a narrow high banked single lane road with no pavement. The lane is already highly used and dangerous for pedestrians, particular during school drop and collection times. Public transport to and from the village is limited.

Environment: This is a greenfield site. National policy dictates that brownfield should be developed as a priority over greenfield. It is important to keep areas of green within villages so that they retain their character and it is a concern that environmental considerations will be ignored as developments such as this are considered so small scale and low impact. Overtime these continued small developments will increase traffic and affect wildlife and the local environment, becoming increasingly unsustainable. More specifically the hedgerows around this proposed plot help to sustain a variety of wildlife and are part of the character of the village.

Infrastructure: Increased housing will put increased pressure on an already stretched local infrastructure. The School is full and the size and condition of the building and parking is inadequate for the number of pupils. There is no medical facilities in the village and things such as power cuts, flooding and poor broadband speed are clearly not designed to support an increased population.

Community: It is unclear how these new houses will support a "thriving rural economy". Development on this site will deliver homes but not jobs and is therefore not good for the immediate local economy. Larger sites have the potential to offer more in terms of environmental sustainability, community infrastructure and employment. Again it is difficult to see how this small scale development improves Wicklewood as a community, it just makes it bigger.

Consultation: Finally I have only just discovered that these proposals had been put forward at all and this was by word of mouth. All my immediate neighbours and most other villagers I have spoken to were also ignorant of these proposals. If this document is truly meant to act as a vehicle of consultation then more effort should be made to disseminate these plans throughout the communities that they are allegedly supposed to be serving.