Proposed Site GNLP2162, Harvest Close, Hainford.

I object to the proposed development.

I am not a planning expert, so I am not sure whether my points on the proposed development plan are relevant, however, I feel that I need to make you aware of the following observations:

May I initially suggest that residents, not just those who live adjacent to or opposite, or living nearby to the the proposed site may not be aware of the proposed development, and would suggest that they need to be personally formally advised by letter. I only became aware of the application when a member of my family mentioned that they were aware of several development applications in the Hainford area, including this very latest proposal.

In respect of the actual development application "plans", I have the following observations:
Although highway access points are shown, these do not actually reflect the very restricted access that they provide, both from Harvest Close and Dumbs Lane.
Why aren't all the roads within the proposed site shown?, as I'm guessing that there will be more required than just the one shown.
Why aren't the positions and orientation of the residences within the proposed site shown?.
Why are the "Open Spaces / Play Areas" sited near to the existing properties rather than away from them. If the development were to go ahead, the new property purchasers would be aware of the fact that the Open Spaces / Play Areas were on the plan, whereas existing residents would have them forced upon them.
There is a "Landscaping Buffer" to open countryside shown on the plan to the north of the development. What will be done to separate the development from the existing properties on Harvest Close to maintain their privacy?
**On the Application document, completed by Geoff Armstrong, page 15, Utilities8(a) it states that there would be a gas supply. As far as I'm aware, this area of Hainford does NOT have access to a mains supply gas**.

Not withstanding the above observations on the proposed development I would like you to consider the following points:
**Some considerable time ago, the residents of Harvest Close adjacent to the field where the development site is proposed, looked at the possibility of purchasing some of the field so that they could extend their back gardens. We were advised by the Council that this would not be possible as it was "prime agricultural land" that had to be retained for agricultural use only and, to add to this, it would extend the gardens beyond the "settlement boundary".
**Approximately six years ago, the field came up for sale, at which point residents had concerns as to what was going to happen with the field. I visited Broadland District Council at the time, and had a very lengthy conversation with a member of staff who was very knowledgeable about the planning process.
He said that the Council would always look to use "brownfield" sites as opposed to "greenfield" agricultural land for housing development, and that the field would remain a field, and emphasised that the Council would more likely support applications inside a "settlement boundary", and that preservation of the countryside outside the "boundary" was always a priority.
The comments that he made included the previous points that we had been told when looking into the possibility of extending our back gardens, in that the land had to continue to be used for agriculture, and the field was outside the "settlement boundary". To add to this, the local road network was already barely satisfactory to handle the existing traffic. Further, he said the village had very few supportive facilities, with no shops, one pub, and a small school. I passed on this message to some of my neighbours, and they were pretty happy that the field would remain as a field.
**The recent application for a housing development has provided a great deal of concern, and I feel that, as a someone who moved to Harvest Close for its quiet and countryside location, I must strongly object to having my outlook impacted upon by a residential site that will overlook mine and other properties. To add to this, I did not move here to be next to "Open Spaces / Play Areas" with all the potential activities and noise that this could create.
**The two proposed access points are completely unsuitable. Although being comparatively small, Harvest Close already has significant daily traffic movements that would be exacerbated by further traffic entering and leaving the Close from Harvest Close. Also, as with the access from Dumbs Lane, and already suggested by the Council on the planning documents, "The local road network to be unsuitable either in terms of road or junction capacity, or lack of footpath provision".
**In respect of the vehicular access from Harvest Close, if I remember correctly, a neighbour, who lived almost opposite the suggested road access point to the proposed development, was looking to put in a second driveway access to his property. However, this was turned down by the Council in that it could present a significant hazard to traffic coming into and leaving the Close. The proposed access roadway would surely present a far greater hazard than a single driveway.
**Local facilities are already very limited, with the village having just a church, a school that I gather is already fully utilised, a pub, and the local doctors surgery is already overburdened.

In summary, I feel that there are many reasons why this development should not be allowed as previously detailed, and hope that the Council stand by their statements:
Site Reference GNLP2162 - THE HIGHWAY AUTHORITY CONSIDER THE LOCAL ROAD NETWORK TO BE UNSUITABLE EITHER IN TERMS OF ROAD OR JUNCTION CAPACITY, OR LACK OF FOOTPATH PROVISION and, in respect of GNLP2162 and GNLP2035 jointly, that "IN CONCLUSION, DUE TO THE HIGHWAYS CONSTRAINTS, THE SITES ARE NOT CONSIDERED TO OFFER FAVOURABLE OPTIONS FOR HOUSING IN COMPARISON WITH SITES PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED".