GNLP2176

We chose to live in a village location, away from a built up area and all the negatives that go with it. This proposal is a 'foot hold', and once this is approved, it will then lead to another, slightly bigger, and so on. It will have a major impact on the village, its traffic, pollution, wildlife, drainage, utilities, medical and education services. Are there other alternatives; of course there are. I'm sure the village will be built on, and ruined in the years ahead, however, for now, we will fight to delay this vandalism out of principal.

Infrastructure in the village particularly drainage is a major problem. As a resident of Hall Drive I often find that it is impossible to leave my house by foot because of flooding from water coming from the higher ground adjacent to the A47 . The area has important heritage housing and village assets and although the development is expected to address this and the drainage similar undertakings have been given before that are subsequently ignored..
The village has no public transport links other than a few prime time buses that require a lengthy walk to access which is nigh impossible for older/infirm residents.
A development of this density would severely damage the inherent nature of this village

There are ignificant issues with a development in an area that already has some issues with water drainage. Any development MUST take Drainage into account. Also their is already traffic issues leaving the village due to cars and lorries using the village as a shortcut from the main road when this gets busy. The road is unsuitable for heavy goods vehicles and there is insufficient width in the road to pass safely. There is also few amenities in the village and no adequate facilities for an increase in population. The environmental impact needs to be looked closely.

Further to my earlier representation 20953 I now wish to reinforce my comments with the attached

I object to this proposal for the following reasons:
- the proposal appears to be a precursor to further development of the much larger field
- Honingham appears to have been grouped with Easton - this extended area has already seen approval of a considerable number of new homes; the character of the area will already be changed considerably by these sites with existing approvals
- development of this site will detrimentally impact my place of work - I fear that residential development on the field opposite Quarry Works Business Centre will result in conflicts between the new residents and our existing operations. The business centre is home to 14 separate businesses
- the elevation of the site compared to the road and business centre on the opposite side further increase the likelihood of an the potential impact on any new residents on this proposed site
- Honingham doesn't have any services for residents within the village; we must travel by car to the local doctors surgery, supermarket, post office, school etc; bus services are infrequent and do not pass through the village - residents must walk along Colton Road (a single width track) in order to get to the bus stop on Mattishall Road
- development of brownfield sites in Norwich which have ready access to services would be a much more appropriate location for new homes.

Unlike other allocation policies there is no reference to water efficiency forming part of the design of this student accommodation.

Please also see comments relating to Policy 2 of the Sustainable Communities of the Strategy document.

In March 2019, our application for outline planning permission ( 20190060) for one house on land at 25 The Street, Honingham was refused.
One of the reasons was that Honingham was located outside of any settlement limits and therefore was an unsustainable location. It is remote from local services and facilities. Future occupiers would be dependent upon a car as the village is not well linked and well related to existing development, services, facilities and employment opportunities. This is stated in Policy GC2 of the DM DPD .
The above applies to these 12 homes too.

I STRONGLY OBJECT TO THE PLANS.
• There is very little employment, people will have to travel out of the area for work, means using
cars as public transport is very limited.
• There are NO shops in the village. Again more car use.
• There are no schools within walking distance • No additional doctors surgeries planned. Honingham
residents are already using Mattishall Surgery. These GP’s are not coping
with the patients that they have already, getting an appointment is already difficult!
• The area suggested for housing is on an elevated position thus overlooking existing properties opposite it.

There would be immense detrimental impact to a village that is currently deprived of utilities, medical and education services. No shop, limited bus service and a n increase in pollution and narrow roads .An impact on the countryside ,birds of prey and hedgerows and removal of a quaint village into a sprawling metropolis .

On behalf of the Rampton Property Trust, we strongly support the preferred allocation of GNLP2176, Land North of Dereham Road, Honingham. The site is entirely deliverable, and capable of making a significant contribution towards satisfying the Councils’ housing needs during the period to 2038.
GNLP2176 has been identified as a preferred allocation for at least 12 dwellings, of which 33% will be affordable. It is recognised that more homes may be accommodated on the site, subject to an acceptable design and layout, as well as infrastructure constraints. The preferred allocation recognises that development is expected to achieve vehicular access onto Dereham Road, with a suitability splay and frontage development; provision of a 2.0m footway and carriageway widening to 5.5m; consideration of the Source Protection Zone 3 when developing a drainage strategy; and, a design
and layout which minimises adverse impacts on the nearby heritage assets.

In accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework’s (NPPF) definition of ‘deliverable’, the proposed allocation represents a suitable location for development now, is available immediately, is achievable with a realistic prospect of housing being delivered on the site, and is viable. This, as well the ability to of the site to satisfy the requirement of Policy GNLP2176, is considered in further detail below.

See Attachment for Full Representation