I wholly object to the current proposition of building so many more new houses in Barnham Broom. There are many reasons for my objections and I will try to cover them all. This applies to GNLP 0174, 0196, 0324 and 0055.

First of all I would like to point out that your information on the current amenities in Barnham Broom is wrong. There is no garage. We have been living in Barnham Broom for over 17 years and there has not been a garage in that time. It was demolished quite a while before we moved in. This error on the planners' part will have had an impact on their view of the suitability of building in this area. Please ensure that this error is noted and corrected!

The character and present form of the village makes it just that: a village. The proposed number of houses will have a serious impact on this. Those who live here enjoy a small village atmosphere - that is why they live here.

The current infrastructure will not support the number of people the proposed new houses will accommodate. The school is already at full capacity and the small shop and Post Office has limited opening hours. There is no provision for a larger store but, if this had been proposed, I would be against that too, as it would destroy the livelihood of the village store owners.

No thought has been given to the local community, who already have to deal with a lot of through-traffic congesting the narrow lanes. The surface of the lanes is constantly churned up by the constant flow of rat-run traffic (A47 to Wymondham cut-through) which results in the edges of the surface breaking away and large potholes at junctions. This is already a major problem and a danger to the current level of traffic. The speed at which potholes are repaired is dismally slow. Whilst talking of speed, motorists using these lanes as a cut-through speed through the village with no regard to the 30MPH speed limit, causing a potential risk to life and limb - especially to small children and older members of the community.

The bus service is insufficient to serve a larger community.

As a village, we all experience frequent power outages throughout the year. Adding so many new dwellings will increase the load on the local power network.

The Broadband coverage is dire in this area, despite have Fibre Optic available. Adding over 50% more Broadband users to this small community may render the service unusable. In this day and age, many people rely heavily on good Internet connections both for business and pleasure.

The building of many more new houses, in addition to those that are currently under construction, will have a negative impact on local wildlife, especially with the loss of hedgerows which a lot of animals rely upon for nesting and ground-cover. There are also some rare plants that grow in this area - a type of rare orchid, for certain, but there may be more.

There is an existing problem with localised flooding in various spots in the village due to lack of drains and natural drainage caused by the saturation of the heavy clay earth we have. This would be exacerbated by the addition of more ground covered by buildings or roads. The water table is very high and it is difficult and expensive to find solid ground to build upon. I know this from experience, because we had to put in piles down to over 6 metres to find solid ground to support our conservatory. I read the report on RoFfSW (Risk of Flooding from Surface Water) but it does not mention the proposed building areas and the risk of the run-off impacting the established housing.

There is the potential impact of surface and ground water on my house and my immediate neighbours' properties. This is in relation to GNLP 0196 and 0174 specifically, as this is the end of the village in which I live. These two plots sit adjacent to "Barn1" which is currently under construction.

My neighbours and I live downhill from these two sites on Mill Road. We already experience heavy run-off from the fields, as I am sure do several properties along the lower portion of Hillside. There are two surface water drains that run from Hillside itself and its properties across my garden to a large concrete cylinder in the middle of my patio (with a manhole cover) and from there, through the rest of my property out to Mill Road. This is often full with nowhere but our patio for the excess water to go. If more land up the hill is covered with houses and impervious surfaces, we will all be impacted by their run-off as well.

The small privately owned field to the rear of my property, between these proposed sites and my garden, is 5 feet higher than my land and has been moving steadily downhill for some time. We are currently in the very expensive process of erecting a retaining wall in an effort to halt this, having removed between 15 and 20 tons of earth that had collapsed into the garden. Unfortunately, we are being hampered by the fact that any holes dug fill with water as we go. Again I repeat that, should the site 0196 and, to a lesser extent, 0174 be built upon, the impact of surface water we already cope with would be increased substantially; this is totally unacceptable.

There are a couple of paragraphs in the huge number of documents I have read which I feel are pertinent to this subject:

"All new developers should aim to minimise areas of impermeable ground to reduce surface water runoff. Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) should be used on all new development." This is all very well, but I have read negative reports on SuDS, so this too is worrying.

"Planners should be aware of local conditions and surface water and their strategy should demonstrate that adequate protection is given to properties and infrastructure on AND off the site."

The planners have obviously not visited the area - this is truly a "Desk Top" plan! The people who live here are horrified at the proposed ruthless "back filling" of these two sites, both of which have serious access issues.

To maintain the form and character of the village but keep it as a village, some linear building has been completed in recent years. Some small linear development, in keeping with the overall personality of the area, may be acceptable; however, the back-filling over many hectares of land is utterly objectionable.