Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 15735

Received: 22/03/2018

Respondent: Mr Nick Leighton

Representation Summary:

This site doesn't meet the aim of point 3 in Tasburgh PC's Development Policy 'any development should unite Upper and Lower Tasburgh.....)It wouldn't unite the two as it would only extend it a 100m closer to upper Tasburgh and would still very much be classed as "Lower Tasburgh". Grove Lane already has issues with flooding as demonstrated recently in the heavy rain and snow which blocked the road for 5 days. The current allocated land for 20 homes has not been taken up, this is due to there being no local amenities and no transport links foe those without transport.

Full text:

Ways in which the application departs from the approved development plan for the area
*This site in no way meets the aim of point 3 in Tasburgh Parish Council's Development Policy 'any development should unite Upper and Lower Tasburgh and not further polarize it' It would not unite upper and lower Tasburgh as it would only extend it a further 100m closer to upper Tasburgh at the most and would still very much be classed as "Lower Tasburgh".
*Henry Preston School is not able to accommodate for the planned level of development here and is already unable to meet the required demand on it.
*The current allocated parcel of land for 20 homes is yet to be taken up by any of the numerous developers that have shown only a partial interest, this is due to the fact that apart from the school there are no local amenities in the village and anyone without transport is very much isolated, especially in Lower Tasburgh.
*The road network is unable to meet the current demands already put on it and is further put under strain by heavy use of traffic in the event of an accident on the A140. Although the road is a 30 mph limit, traffic is often seen and recorded, I believe on (SAMS) doing in excess of 70mph.


How the plan fails to fit in with their surroundings in terms of their design and use.
*Tasburgh in every way is a rural village with lots of open space and agricultural land. The addition of 50 homes in Lower Tasburgh is in no way "in keeping with the character of the village" as the plan would suggest.

Impact on parking, traffic and road safety
*Grove Lane is a single track road with extremely dangerous corners which is supported by the parish council and demonstrated by the recent addition of road safety display boards at a cost of £10,000. If the national average statistics of two vehicles per household is used, this proposed development could add 100+ additional vehicles to the road. This would make the dangerous corners even more dangerous for pedestrians as there is no footpath. The addition of more traffic using Church Road to access the A140 would cause even more delays (currently 5-8 vehicles can sit at the junction for 15 - 20 minutes) and increase the risk of frustrated drivers taking chances to get out of the junction. On days when the village hall is being used it is often seen that vehicles are parked on verges all along Grove Lane further restricting safe access/passage.


Residents impact
*The current housing on Grove Lane would be overlooked by any proposed development due to the land height and would also disrupt the views of residents that drew them to live here in the first place. Consideration needs to be given to those that live in the area and have chosen to live there with particular health conditions that require peace and quiet.


Environmental impact
*Grove Lane already has an issue with flooding as demonstrated recently in the heavy rain and snow (the snow also blocked the road for 5 days). With any type of rain, you will frequently see a river running by your door and the loss of this crucial natural drainage would create further flooding hazards. This can be further demonstrated by the high amount of sand and stone that has historically been deposited down the road and around the "dangerous" corners after heavy rain that has been drawn out of the drainage channels along both sides of the road dug by Norfolk County Council.
The large area of the proposed development site also often floods and has in the past shifted large amounts of soil down the hill, but has always stopped before reaching the road.
*Wildlife - The field of the proposed site is favoured by numerous species of animals including bats and barn owls. It would be a great shame to deprive such species of their natural habitat and would ensure their steady decline.

*The proximity of the proposed site to the Heritage site is of concern as various recorded and unfortunately numerous unrecorded significant finds have been recovered from this site. It would be a shame to cover over and lose history dating from early Iron age to Anglo Saxon periods.