GNLP 0147:
The submission by Broadland Architectural claims that all the land belongs to his client - Sycamore Farm. I have heard that some land belonging to someone else may be included in the proposal. The land is regularly used both by cattle and horses. Whilst the land is not of the highest quality for agriculture, it is not wasted land as claimed. The form claims the land is "in the centre of the village". This is not true. It is in fact nearly two miles from the village. It does not have good access and does not have some essential services (sewage, gas and drainage). Silver Green is a single track road with no real passing places. It is not suitable for any traffic and would certainly not be an appropriate access road for a major development. Alburgh Road is not wide enough for two large vehicles to pass and is not suitable for the increased level of traffic this proposal would lead to. The entrance to the proposed site is on a bend and could be dangerous for road and people's safety and is not suitable for a major development. There are a significant number of mature trees on the site - not a few minor ones. Bats are regular visitors to the site. The statements in section 7b. are untrue. The site is not in a flood risk area. It does however regularly flood and is waterlogged for several months of the year. There are real drainage problems with this site and the surrounding area. The statements made in section 7d are designed to mislead you. There are both mature trees and water on the site. The proposals are likely to have a major and negative impact on the neighbourhood including lack of adequate access. poor services, flooding. This is a major proposal for development in a rural agricultural area. Unless there were major changes - mains drainage, gas supply, major road works and public transport improvements, the scheme would not work. The high costs of these would make the scheme unviable. The suggestion to close a pig farm at a time when more not less food needs to be produced locally is not satisfactory.
There is no mains sewage in the area. There is also no gas supply. The public highway is not suitable. The broadband internet locally is still very poor. All these statements in section 8a are lies designed to mislead you. The land is used for grazing both for horses and cattle. There are major infrastructure costs for this scheme. The site is not viable for the proposal. This scheme is not suitable for the area in which it is proposed. Submission includes a number of misleading statements

GNLP 0580
Alburgh Road is not a well developed road. There are a number of farms and agricultural dwellings with some housing. It is too far from major services to be developed. Four bedroom houses do not meet the pressing need for social housing, rented accomodation and affordable homes. The village is nearly two miles from this site. There could be scope for development of some affordable, social and rented homes in Hempnall village where there are better services. Indeed I understand there was provision, not yet built, in the previous plan and the Parish Council are in favour of some development but in the village and not in Alburgh Road which is unsuitable. The suggested access is on to a fast road used by farm and lorry traffic. Access from a cul-de-sac could be problematical on road safety grounds. The statement that the land has not flooded is a lie. It floods regularly several times a year. In fact the local people who sometimes hire it to keep their horses have had to take them off on many occasions when the land becomes waterlogged and unsuitable. It was also briefly used for grazing sheep and again they had to be removed because of flooding. The proposal would have some negative impact on the area in terms of traffic, road safety, sewage disposal and flooding. The broadband reception is poor in the area. Flooding is a risk and waste water disposal is a major problem. There is already a substantial problem with waste water and sewage with the existing dwellings in the road. There is no capacity for additional properties. Indeed South Norfolk Council have had to turn down even small scale developments (one house) because of these problems. I would imagine the applicant may be aware of this and failing to disclose this to you.
The field is still used for grazing but as previously noted waterlogging makes this problematic. The field is not in the middle of a developing area - this is a disingenuous statement designed to mislead. The area is not expanding and has been stable for many decades.The services are poor and it is an agricultural area with some housing. There would be significant abnormal costs - road safety improvements, sewage disposal and flood amelioration expenses. The statements about viability of the site are untrue. The area has had no new building since the 1980s and the level of communications is poor.

I also note that you have received another proposal - GNLP 2046 - for the site next to 0580. Whilst you have yet to release the details of the proposal, I would suggest that similar arguments to those above would make the site unsuitable and would ask that you also reject it.