Object
New, Revised and Small Sites
Representation ID: 18213
Received: 10/12/2018
Respondent: Miss Sandra Gibson
Kirstead Green is an isolated location with no facilities. Previous single property applications have been refused due to this reason.
This application would double the village in size, and fundamentally change the structure and feel of the village. The village falls under Policy 17 of the JCS and as such only limited development which is essential to the countryside should be supported. I would suggest this proposal does not fall within those guidelines.
It will increase the number of vehicles using small country roads, as public transport is limited.
Damage to wildlife due to use of greenfield site.
I would like to strongly object to the proposal for this site to be used to develop housing. Kirstead Green is a very small village with no infrastructure or facilities to support such a development. Previous applications for infill properties have been refused in Kirstead Green and the following is directly taken from one of the applications which was refused and this was one reason given.
'Kirstead Green a small, isolated rural community without a defined settlement boundary in the development plan. Kirstead Green has limited facilities to meet the day-to-day needs of residents. Accordingly the settlement falls under the ambit of Policy 17 of the Joint Core Strategy for Broadland, Norwich and South Norfolk 2011 (and amended 2014) (the JCS) as a smaller rural community in the countryside where only a limited range of development which essentially requires a countryside location will be supported'
Given this was the position previously given for refusal of a 2 bedroom bungalow which would be within the village. I cannot see how the proposal for 20 plus houses can be agreed. This would fundamentally change the village and more or less double the village in its current size.
The application states that Brooke is easily reachable from Kirstead Green however to do this on foot is very dangerous. You have to walk along a pavement on a busy road which in places is very narrow. This would mean increased use of cars in the village to access local facilities, which I would contest are not really suitable in Brooke so the nearest place would be Poringland. In another passage taken from a previous refusal the following was observed:
'I noted the bus stops on the B1332 but these are only accessible from the appeal site via a narrow, dark and overgrown connecting path from the unlit footway in Kirstead Green. Accordingly, I am not persuaded that it would form a particularly attractive transport option'
Given that the application highlight the availability of the buss route, I find it strange that previous applicants have been told this is not an attractive option for transport from Kirstead Green.
The increased speculative development on open countryside is not acceptable and is damaging rural communities and wildlife. Hence the reason for this objection.