GNLP0482

Support

Representation ID: 20123

Received: 27/02/2020

Respondent: Ms Linda Woolfenden

Re: GNLP0482 support unreasonable decision.
Development too prominent as you approach the village -intrusion on the landscape.
Restrictive narrow bendy road through the village.
HGV restrictions on road into village.
Accident black spot junction.
Noise pollution from airport engine testing.
Amenity land, sports fields, woodland walks, leisure activities, children’s play areas already exist.
Bullock Hill NEWLY built traffic free cycle path links nearby villages. This lane is well used by cyclists,walkers, families, providing safe traffic free areas for children.
Beautiful highly productive agricultural land.
Local historic site of Old Drovers’ Road, ancient hedgerows and Norfolk Wildlife logged endangered species.

Support

Representation ID: 20150

Received: 27/02/2020

Respondent: Mr Graham Woolfenden

Re: GNLP0482
I agree this is an unreasonable site for development:
The development would be too prominent at approach to village and destroy the rural landscape.
Noise pollution from engine testing at the airport.
Hazardous junction with Spixworth Road which has access restrictions to HGV vehicles
Bullock hill and associated cycle path is now well used as cycle link to adjoining villages and for safe recreational use.
Access to NDR through narrow roads and sharp bends in village.
This site is productive farmland which also homes much diverse wildlife.

Support

Representation ID: 20192

Received: 29/02/2020

Respondent: Mrs Cornelia Keeney

I object to the building of further dwellings on the land east of Old Norwich Rd for the following reasons:
*to increase the village by the amounts of dwellings proposed will but a strain on the already failing sewer system.
*,there isn't adequate infrastructure for such an increase ie doctor surgery, bus sevice, adequate roads for an increase in traffic
*roads are to narrow and bendy for amount of traffic that would be created there are already high accident risks!!!
* breeding grounds for wild life already disturbed by NDR are further diminished.
*Popular walking and cycling opportunities are removed.

Support

Representation ID: 20212

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Miss Laura Porter

The road from the site towards the village is narrow and has a sharp bend, with limited footpaths. HGV's using this road would cause major issues for other vehicles and children/adults on foot.
A development of such size would impact the local residents who currently enjoy a village lifestyle. It would destroy the route through bullock lane to footpaths alongside the NDR, which are heavily used by walkers and cyclists and be too prominent on the landscape on the approach to the village. Old Norwich road is a largely bungalow lined road, houses would not fit in this area.

Support

Representation ID: 20218

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Mrs Janet Hartwell

Currently approaching Horsham StF from Spixworth there are open agricultural fields on the proposed site which development would destroy forever. The site and lanes are of local historical interest (drovers market) and provide habitat where flora and fauna flourish. Moreover the lanes are enjoyed by residents and visitors alike for recreation. Spixworth Road has hgv restrictions and at the junction with Old Norwich Road there have been many accidents. Any residents on the proposed development would suffer noise pollution from the airport and the massive increase of cars would be a problem on the narrow bends in the village centre.

Support

Representation ID: 20225

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Mrs EMMA HAYLETT

(Changed from object to support as respondent is actually supporting the categorisation of the site as unreasonable in the GNLP)

The proposed site is not conducive to the character of the village. The main Spixworth Road is already dangerous to cross. A new housing development will increase the number of cars and will make it even more dangerous and busy. There are already houses being built in Newton St Faiths, and the village infrastructure cannot accommodate an increase in population. The village school is at capacity as is the doctors surgery. This is over-development and the village will lose its character and charm.

Support

Representation ID: 20227

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Mr Victor Hartwell

The site would have negative social and economic impact on this historic village whose infrastructure is largely fixed. 70+ houses would result in more than 100 cars (1.4 cars per household National Travel Survey) using the junction Old Norwich Road/Spixworth Road site of multiple accidents. The junctions with Cromer Road would mean additional cars would have to go through the village centre (sharp bend/narrow road) or along the congested road by the Crematorium/school/doctors surgery. The site was the old drovers market/lanes of local historic importance, currently prime agricultural land and recreational use. The visual impact would be immense.

Support

Representation ID: 20236

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Miss Jacqueline Goodson

The development would intrude onto the landscape. The proposed green space is not needed as the village already has it. The development is on prime agricultural land. The quiet lanes are breeding grounds for endangered species. The quiet lanes are a village amenity used by children, families to walk and cycle safely. Any development would be close to the NDR and new residents would have noise pollution from the NDR and the airport where they test the plane engines. Development would increase traffic through the village where there has already been multiple accidents.

Support

Representation ID: 20239

Received: 03/03/2020

Respondent: Mr John Carey

It will be unreasonable to build on this land & change the village scene with modern housing .The road infrastructure is poor & already carries through traffic . Children would have to cross the Spixworth road to walk to school. This is green space ,farmland & would not be improved by housing .

Support

Representation ID: 20256

Received: 29/02/2020

Respondent: Mr Robert Baker

Comment supports site being considered unreasonable.

I agree that GNLP0482, the site East of Old Norwich Road, is totally unsuitable for residential development.
The adjacent roads cannot sustain additional traffic and there would be a likelihood of an increase in accidents at the bottom of Old Norwich Road where the through road is already constricted. In addition there would be safety concerns for cyclists who currently enjoy the new cycle paths running along Bullock Hill to neighbouring villages.
The proposed development would also result in the loss of valuable agricultural land and destroy the character and rural life of the village.

Support

Representation ID: 20268

Received: 03/03/2020

Respondent: Mr James Cutmore

(1) Bullock Hill since its closure to traffic has become a country haven for many hundreds of walkers, cyclists and joggers and has become a much used village amenity to residents who due to the lack of footpaths have very few out of the village walks.
(2) Another 70+ houses plus the a already planning approved houses would overload the already oversubscribed
Doctors surgery and School.
(3) Traffic from the site would exit onto the narrow and dangerous Spixworth Road.
(4) The development would be a over prominent eyesore upon entering the village.
(5) Further, good agricultural obliterated, destroyed.

Support

Representation ID: 20290

Received: 04/03/2020

Respondent: Mrs Julie Leach

There would be highway issues with increased traffic through the village. The local history of Bullock Hill, Calf Lane needs to be preserved. There is valuable wildlife habitat around the surrounding area and lanes.
The lanes are used frequently throughout the day for walking or cycling and has a great benefit for families it is a fantastic recreatonal site.
The NDR footpaths are used buy numerous people to connect with ajoining villages and they are safe to use.
The site is currently being farmed.
I agree that it is unreasonable as the site would be prominant on the landscape.

Support

Representation ID: 20458

Received: 07/03/2020

Respondent: Mrs Jemma Mason

I agree that GNLP0482, the site East of Old Norwich Road, is totally unsuitable for residential development.
The adjacent roads cannot sustain additional traffic and there would be a likelihood of an increase in accidents at the bottom of Old Norwich Road where the through road is already constricted. In addition there would be safety concerns for cyclists who currently enjoy the new cycle paths running along Bullock Hill to neighbouring villages.

Support

Representation ID: 20504

Received: 08/03/2020

Respondent: Mr Ian Mitchell

I agree that this site is unsuitable for development.
The vast increase in vehicles in the village would significantly change the quiet feel to the village and would reverse the effect of the NDR (this was installed to reduce the levels of traffic).
Traffic congestion at the Cromer road junction would become unacceptable.
The introduction of the walking/cycle path and Bullock hill that connects the local villages has seen a massive increase of use by walkers, groups of cyclists and running clubs which reduces the risk to people by vehicles.
The rural feel to the village would be changed forever

Support

Representation ID: 20528

Received: 09/03/2020

Respondent: Nick Cook

I agree this is an unreasonable site for development:
The development would be too prominent at approach to village and destroy the rural landscape.
Noise pollution from engine testing at the airport.
Hazardous junction with Spixworth Road which has access restrictions to HGV vehicles
Bullock hill and associated cycle path is now well used as cycle link to adjoining villages and for safe recreational use.
Access to NDR through narrow roads and sharp bends in village.
This site is productive farmland which also homes much diverse wildlife.

Comment

Representation ID: 20548

Received: 10/03/2020

Respondent: Mrs Sharon Coleman

I agree with all the comments already made deeming this site unreasonable. I would add that green areas as well as being unnecessary, would need maintenance - whose responsibility and whose cost?

Please add to this the important history of this area. The largest cattle and horse fair in Norfolk was held here from about the 12th century. Note the names : "Bullock Hill", "Calf Lane". Refer to "Horsham St Faith A History" by Julian Eve 1992 ISBN 0 9522840 0 6

Support

Representation ID: 20729

Received: 12/03/2020

Respondent: Mrs Aileen Hughes

(Changed from object to support as respondent is actually supporting the categorisation of the site as unreasonable in the GNLP)

This proposal would provide a disproportionately prominent development given the rural/agricultural nature of the surrounds. Addition of this many houses to HSF, which is already challenged with e.g. school places, GP Surgery overload, would be a major concern. The additional vehicular traffic in our small village would be a concern, particularly as Spixworth Road already sees a lot of 'fast' traffic, braking suddenly as it comes to the village boundary, and the junction within the village is not designed for high volume traffic, with a very tight near-blind corner at Back St/Crown Rd.

Support

Representation ID: 20807

Received: 12/03/2020

Respondent: Mrs Anne Hall

Spixworth road is very busy, it is rat run from a140 to spixworth, catton and frettenham areas. There is no footpath. The junction to church street from spixworth has historic buildings, it has a 'blind' exit from back street and presently hazardous for pedestrians. More traffic will exacerbate this. Exhaust fumes vehicles slowing down/ speeding up will effect the buildings and the environment. Bullock and calf lanes would be lost to walkers, cyclist etc. There is already a green area next to coltishall lane which is under used and not maintained, we don't need this so near the airport

Comment

Representation ID: 21141

Received: 15/03/2020

Respondent: Cllr Dan Roper

I endorse the comments of residents in opposing any prospect of development on this site. Such development would destroy the rural aspect of this section of the village as well as putting extra highways pressure on Spixworth Road.

Support

Representation ID: 21424

Received: 10/03/2020

Respondent: Mr Mark Taylor

Comment supports site as unreasonable
As a resident of Horsham St Faiths, I was glad to hear that the proposed development of Bullock Hill/Calf Lane (GNLP0482) has been deemed unreasonable for housing construction. This would have had a huge adverse affect on the village.
Horsham St Faiths is a village; it has one small Post office/shop, a bar/restaurants, 1 small school and 1 doctors surgery. The school is already stretched with each yearly intake and the surgery struggles to cope with the patients it has.
The N.D.R. has already increased 'through traffic', the village roads are, 'village roads', and would struggle to accommodate another large influx of traffic, and as for wasting money putting in a cricket green - why? I could understand it if we had a team/club that needed one - it would just be (an expensive) place for dog walkers.

Support

Representation ID: 21789

Received: 11/03/2020

Respondent: Jean Chamberlain

Comment supports site being unreasonable
As a NORWICH born resident now living for the past 56 years at the above address I strongly oppose using good, needed arable land for building. (Also flanked by lanes unsuitable for heavy vehicles)
N.B.
1) The local Doctor's Practice, Ambulance service, norfolk and norwich University Hospital, Ill home visit doctors, struggle to cope for many years now.
2) Buildings prevent rainwater drainage to aquifers norfolk is the driest part of England.
3) N.C.C. only meet demands for desirable housing, NOT for those NEEDED.
Just say NO to Government unjust demands.

Object

Representation ID: 22138

Received: 13/03/2020

Respondent: ESCO Developments Ltd

Agent: Mrs Amber Slater

The site is being promoted by Lovell Partnerships Limited and ESCO Developments in conjunction with the landowners, with Brown and Co as Planning Consultants.

No significant infrastructure constraints have been identified to date which would be likely to delay or impede the development of the site for housing. The site is in a single ownership and no further land is needed to enable the land to be brought forward for development. The land is currently available for development. Subject to approval, this site could deliver housing in the short term.

The proposed development would make a positive contribution to the supply of market and affordable housing in the area. The proposal would also add to the range of housing sites available in the locality, providing flexibility and a wider choice of development opportunities to the market, and thus strengthening the local supply of housing land. New residents would add to the vitality of the local community. Given their accessibility, existing local businesses and services would be likely to derive support from the development due to the addition to the local economy of the spending power of new residents. The construction of the development would also provide some economic benefits, albeit temporary.

Furthermore, it is considered that Horsham St Faith would represent a sustainable location for development of the scale envisaged, given its close proximity to Norwich and its wide array of services. By providing sufficient land of the right type in the right place to support growth the development would address the social, economic and environmental dimensions of sustainable development, as defined in the NPPF.