GNLP0310

Showing comments and forms 1 to 4 of 4

Comment

Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations

Representation ID: 19908

Received: 11/02/2020

Respondent: Miss Josie Hindle

Representation Summary:

Seamere Road is a location of countryside beauty and is of historical significance. Whilst hingham grows with every new building site, this is a tranquil road for walkers alike. Not appropriate for development, especially given that there is little road access and the continued use for walkers. Do not disturb or destroy!

Full text:

Seamere Road is a location of countryside beauty and is of historical significance. Whilst hingham grows with every new building site, this is a tranquil road for walkers alike. Not appropriate for development, especially given that there is little road access and the continued use for walkers. Do not disturb or destroy!

Comment

Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations

Representation ID: 21319

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Miss Dawny Christien

Representation Summary:

GNLP 0310 should be disregarded as an option for Hingham EVER.

Full text:

Deliverability:
Significant amounts of local opposition to GNLP-0520, local people preferring a dispursed housing model using sites which “balance” housing development preventing a “massive housing estate” aesthetic approach from Norwich when combined with The Hops.
GNLP-0298: Clayland Homes is landowner, developer, promoter and housebuilder with all relevant flooding, drainage and highways assessments are complete. GNLP-0298/0501/0502 ARE DELIVERABLE AND REASONABLE.
Footpath along small section of Watton Road IS deliverable. Footpath along Norwich road is NOT due to TPOs.

Highways:
The developers for GNLP0520 assert that traffic emerging from the site will “turn right to work in Norwich” focussing traffic along the B1108 toward Norwich - people in Hingham work in all areas of Norfolk, as it is a “rural town” and not ostensibly a Norwich suburb (some 14 miles distant).
B1108/Norwich Road already mixes significant frequencies of long wheel-base HGVs emerging slowly from a standstill from Ironside Way/ACBacon onto the B1108/Norwich Road whilst encountering oncoming domestic traffic within 300metres of a national speed limit and entering from a blind bend.
Local residents frequently note near misses with domestic and industrial vehicles at the Ironside Way/ACBacon junctions. Speed compliance along this road is very poor, hower enforcement is the answer NOT housing development, and there is NO EVIDENCE BASE to suggest, despite Abel Homes assertions, that this would be the case.

Environmental Health:
GNLP-0520 is opposite a mixed industrial estate with current B1-B8 use and future intended use allocated as B1, B2 and B8; B2 being ‘general industrial’ including chemical treatment and incineration, and B1(c) uses could change or be restricted by a higher concentration of residential housing (due to noise and use of acetylene and solvents as restricted under HSE).
This will effect the sustainability of this employment area AND the future residents of GNLP-0520.

Flood risk:
Historic poor compilation of the issues raised by agencies and residents regarding flooding due to The Hops development.
Surface water flooding run-off area to the south of GNLP-0520 is likely to be insufficient and ineffective, just as the run off south of The Hops has been.
Topography of GNLP-0520 is FAR MORE EXTREME than The Hops, is a far larger site and flooding will impact a larger number of homes, including listed buildings. Recreating the same failed run-off strategy will not prevent the same flooding issue in this instance.

Financial and Land Blight:
Houses along Seamere Road, including listed buildings, will be negatively affected and financially blighted by flooding and decimation of rural situation.
Arable land south of both The Hops and GNLP-0520, designed to assist with surface water flooding will be financially blighted and become unusable, inaccessible and waterlogged - as has the land south of The Hops.
Land south of The Hops/GNLP0520 has no road access for agricultural vehicles.

Visual:
No development is without visual impact - preference for dispursed and low visual impact sites is vastly preferred by local people
GNPL-0520 will be visible for over 4 miles around, especially to the South and East, where one of Hingham’s few walks will be able to see the site almost continuously.
The arguments put forward in favour of The Hops development in 2014 maintained that the site’s sloping nature would cause “minimised visual impact” on the approach to Hingham from the East and “preserve the visual of the tree line with the church tower ablove”. This argument and necessity seems to have been abandoned.

Leisure and Wellbeing:
Added value for Hingham - GNLP-0520 offers no benefit to Hingham as a community, is UNIVERSALLY UNWANTED, and will be a draw on local infrastructure, creating further ‘dormitory town’ issues and not benefiting local commerce/retail. A staged and staggered low-density, dispursed model, including GNLP-0298, will potentially balance housing for retired people, be closer situated to Hingham’s commerce/retail centres (the Co-Op is NOT the centre of Hingham!) and increase Hingham’s populations which can easily make use of, and contribute to, our leisure facilities (Sports Centre, Lincoln Hall Social Centre and Hingham Bowls Club). GNLP-0298 will likely connect a new woodland area with circular walks to the west and centre of the town, and GNLP-0501/0502 could create significant facilities enhancements at the Sports Centre.

Additional:
The singular comment in favour of GNLP-0520 is from an agent of the proposed developer. This is not an admissible comment, especially in view of the numbers of objections against.
Inaccuracies, inconsistencies and contradictions within the Site Assessment Document casts a long shadow over the information contained within, and calls into question it’s usefulness and efficacy as the basis of any planning decision making.

Support

Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations

Representation ID: 21357

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Hingham Town Council

Representation Summary:

The Town Council support the decision to deem this site unsuitable for allocation – HOWEVER Hingham Town Council object to the suggestion that the site could be considered suitable if developed in conjunction with or after GNLP 0520 – due to the vehement and extensive objections stated against GNLP0520 (flooding, road safety, detrimental visual impact on an historic town, lack of adequate pedestrian facilities to the town centre – etc). The Town Council request the this site be deemed as UNSUITABLE for housing development and that it NOT be considered for development at any future time.

Full text:

HINGHAM TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS - GNLP0310
Hingham Town Council object to any new sites being allocated for house building in revised local plans to 2038 until all existing allocations in current core strategies have been developed.

The Town Council support the decision to deem this site unsuitable for allocation – HOWEVER Hingham Town Council object to the suggestion that the site could be considered suitable if developed in conjunction with or after GNLP 0520 – due to the vehement and extensive objections stated against GNLP0520 (flooding, road safety, detrimental visual impact on an historic town, lack of adequate pedestrian facilities to the town centre – etc). The Town Council request the this site be deemed as UNSUITABLE for housing development and that it NOT be considered for development at any future time.

Support

Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations

Representation ID: 23062

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Hingham Town Council

Representation Summary:

Hingham Town Council object to any new sites being allocated for house building in revised local plans to 2038 until all existing allocations in current core strategies have been developed.
The Town Council support the decision to deem this site unsuitable for allocation – HOWEVER Hingham Town Council object to the suggestion that the site could be considered suitable if developed in conjunction with or after GNLP 0520 – due to the vehement and extensive objections stated against GNLP0520 (flooding, road safety, detrimental visual impact on an historic town, lack of adequate pedestrian facilities to the town centre – etc). The Town Council request the this site be deemed as UNSUITABLE for housing development and that it NOT be considered for development at any future time.

Full text:

For full representation response, please refer to the attached document.

Attachments: