I am writing to formally register objections to proposed development of the site reference GNLP0463 in the Loddon & Chedgrave area, and to its allocation within the Draft Plan. The reasons for the objection may be summarised as follows:

Non-Suitability of Site – GNLP0463

The elevation of this site, and its prominent position in a rural location on the outskirts of the low-lying, modest-sized village of Chedgrave as one enters an area of the countryside bounded by woodland, means that any development there, whatever the design, would be an incongruous eyesore, unduly prominent in the nearby street scene which comprises pre-dominantly bungalows and chalets, which are a defining characteristic of the local area. Any development would also impact adversely on the existing properties (see below).

Even the consultation documents seem to suggest that this site is not at all suitable. The site appears to have been chosen as one of two that are “preferred” within Loddon & Chedgrave partly, at least, on the basis being the one of the least unsuitable within the village, which hardly makes it a sensible choice, especially given the stated reservations about the site in the form of caveats and the requirement for significant, additional infrastructure to accommodate its development:

“GNLP0463: Although this site is elevated and would be quite prominent it is preferred for allocation subject to a good layout to work with its setting in the landscape. A design brief would be needed. It is not considered appropriate for the 70 homes originally suggested. The allocation is subject to visibility improvements and frontage development at Langley Road to the north. A 2m footway will be required at the site frontage to link with existing facilities. If access is to be via Snows Lane then it will need to be widened and a footway provided.”

And despite some revisions, including the allocation of “at least 20 homes”, the consultation states that “more homes may be accommodated, subject to an acceptable design and layout being achieved and any infrastructure issues addressed.” In other words, the site, if approved, is likely to subsequently be further developed, for perhaps 70 homes, despite the obvious unsuitability for any such development.

Perhaps more significantly, the reason(s) for dismissing at least one of the alternative locations for ‘Loddon & Chedgrave’ no longer apply. Specifically, site reference GNLP1014 would be a much more suitable site, as explained in this document.

Impact of Any Development of Site – GNLP0463

Any development on this particular site would unduly impact on the neighbouring properties and the local area:

• Increase in Traffic – the historical classification of Langley Road (linking Loddon & Chedgrave with Langley, Surlingham and surrounding villages) as a ‘residential road’ (rather than a ‘designated traffic route’) fails to take into account the large volume of traffic which passes along it on a daily basis, not least due to the twice-daily fleet of minibuses, parents, and students travelling to and from Langley School (one of the largest private schools in Norfolk), together with large goods vehicles serving e.g. Langley School and the various agricultural business i.e. animal feed, transportation of crops and live animals, and so on. This is already a very busy road and any further development at this location would significantly increase the volume of through traffic in Chedgrave on roads which are unsuitable even for the existing volumes. As such, further development would endanger higher safety, and prejudice the flow of traffic on the existing road network.
• Encroachment on Open Countryside – the location is part of a continuous area of rural land stretching from Chedgrave to the Norfolk Broads National Park, and a popular route for walkers and cyclists alike, the latter using part of the National Cycle Network (Route 1).
• Negative Impact on Biodiversity – this site is an important habitat for wildlife. Various species are regularly seen (e.g. birds, including kestrel, buzzard, barn owl, marsh harrier, and various farmland birds, and at least one species of bats). The absence of a built environment on this site means that many of those species of birds can easily be observed from, and within, those properties that currently exist.
• Residential Amenity – any development of this site, whatever the design, would have an adverse impact on the daylight and outlook enjoyed by the existing properties, particularly those that are adjacent to this site, together with those that enjoy unrestricted views of skies over hedgerows and farmland and which have done so for over fifty years.
• Damaging Impact on Privacy – given the elevation of the site, any development on it, whatever the form or height, and even anyone walking within the site, would be able to see directly into the gardens (and, perhaps, habitable rooms) of other properties, even with fencing, removing the privacy of nearby dwellings enjoyed by some for over fifty years.
Overall, any development of this site would have a significant adverse impact on nearby residents, through damage to the setting of the existing buildings, and damaging impacts on the amenity and privacy of nearby dwellings.

Suitability of Alternative Site – GNLP1014

According to the consultation document(s), site reference GNLP1014 was deemed unsuitable:

“This site is not considered to be suitable for allocation as it does not relate well to the form of the settlement and would appear as a separate enclave of development.”

And yet, there are a number of decided (and withdrawn) planning applications to South Norfolk District Council that have rendered that assessment inaccurate. Examples include:

• 2020/2405
• 2019/0027
• 2018/1792
• 2016/2535
• 2019/1163
The sequential approval of some 11 dwellings (one of which is already occupied) means that GNLP1014 is now well-suited to development for precisely the opposite reasons to those used to explain why it was, initially, deemed unsuitable i.e. it does relate well to the existing settlement and would not appear as a separate enclave.

Moreover, one wonders how long it will be before land to the west (i.e. beyond Chedgrave Manor, Woodview, Hill Crest) is developed for those same reasons. This would seem the most logical area for any further development, with easy transport links to the A146 without increasing the amount of through traffic within the main residential part of Chedgrave. This is similar perhaps to the manner in which the development of St. Georges Park, in George Lane, Loddon almost inevitably followed not long after the construction of Chet Valley Medical Practice.

For the avoidance of doubt, I object to the allocation of site GNLP0463 within the Draft Plan. I would however support an alternative site – GNLP1014 – as the ‘preferred’ site.