Newton Flotman Cluster (Swainsthorpe) - GNLP0604R

Showing comments and forms 1 to 16 of 16

Comment

Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations

Representation ID: 20238

Received: 03/03/2020

Respondent: Mrs Elaine Parkinson

Representation Summary:

I endorse the GNLP findings that this site is unsuitable for allocation and unnecessary as there is more than sufficient land available for existing organisations to re-locate their business.
I regret that the GNLP does not appear to be able to prevent the planning application made by Ben Burgess Ltd to develop this site, which is larger than the village of Swainsthorpe. However, I hope that South Norfolk planners and counsellors will heed the GNLP findings and as such be unable to justify the destruction of arable fields and the re-definition of Swainsthorpe as an adjunct to an industrial complex.

Full text:

I endorse the GNLP findings that this site is unsuitable for allocation and unnecessary as there is more than sufficient land available for existing organisations to re-locate their business.
I regret that the GNLP does not appear to be able to prevent the planning application made by Ben Burgess Ltd to develop this site, which is larger than the village of Swainsthorpe. However, I hope that South Norfolk planners and counsellors will heed the GNLP findings and as such be unable to justify the destruction of arable fields and the re-definition of Swainsthorpe as an adjunct to an industrial complex.

Support

Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations

Representation ID: 20435

Received: 06/03/2020

Respondent: Mr Darren Webster

Representation Summary:

I support the assertion that this site is not suitable for development by Ben Burgess for the main reason that other sites around Norwich are more suitable.

Full text:

I support the assertion that this site is not suitable for development by Ben Burgess for the main reason that other sites around Norwich are more suitable.

Support

Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations

Representation ID: 20436

Received: 06/03/2020

Respondent: Mr Alan Rowe

Representation Summary:

This proposed development will destroy good quality farmland at a time when the UK requires as much home grown food as possible. It will also devastate a beautiful Saxon village when there are alternative industrial sites. It will also cause further congestion on the A140, a road already seriously overwhelmed at peak times.

Full text:

This proposed development will destroy good quality farmland at a time when the UK requires as much home grown food as possible. It will also devastate a beautiful Saxon village when there are alternative industrial sites. It will also cause further congestion on the A140, a road already seriously overwhelmed at peak times.

Support

Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations

Representation ID: 20481

Received: 07/03/2020

Respondent: Mr Richard Phillis

Representation Summary:

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

Ever since the application was submitted by Ben Burgess I have been at a loss to understand why he feels that this is a suitable site for such a development. From a business point of view the transport links would be terrible. The amount of traffic on the A140 is already horrendous and would be significantly worsened by the extra traffic as a result of this development. The road has a large number of accidents and the delays due to volume of traffic make this a totally unsuitable location for such a development.

Full text:

Ever since the application was submitted by Ben Burgess I have been at a loss to understand why he feels that this is a suitable site for such a development. From a business point of view the transport links would be terrible. The amount of traffic on the A140 is already horrendous and would be significantly worsened by the extra traffic that would be attempting to travel on the A140 as a result of this development. The road already has a large number of accidents and the delays due to volume of traffic make this a totally unsuitable location for such a development. On top of that the noise pollution that the village would suffer is unacceptable let along the destruction of the surrounding views for residents and the damage caused to surrounding fields, habitats and wildlife. I cannot believe that there is not a more suitable location in the county. There is tons of land north of the city around the NDR which would have significantly better transport links and access for heavy good vehicles than next to a small, quiet, picturesque village.

Support

Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations

Representation ID: 20493

Received: 08/03/2020

Respondent: Mr Roger Pugh

Representation Summary:

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

The site is unsuitable in many ways. There are a number of other sites which afford all of the requirements of such a large operation as proposed by Ben Burgess. The objections set out in the GNLP document are constructive and reflect my views. Were approval to be given the character and nature village of Swainsthorpe would be damaged beyond recognition. I trust that all elected and unelected persons in a position to block this application will do so.

Full text:

The site is unsuitable in many ways. There are a number of other sites which afford all of the requirements of such a large operation as proposed by Ben Burgess. The objections set out in the GNLP document are constructive and reflect my views. Were approval to be given the character and nature village of Swainsthorpe would be damaged beyond recognition. I trust that all elected and unelected persons in a position to block this application will do so.

Support

Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations

Representation ID: 20538

Received: 09/03/2020

Respondent: Mr Stuart Shearing

Representation Summary:

I fully support the GNLP's response to this proposed development in Swainsthorpe .

There are far more suitable areas along the A11 and A47 Southern Bypass for an industrial development of this size.
SNDC should honour the recommendation of the GNLP and turn down Ben Burgess's planning application forthwith.

Full text:

I fully support the GNLP's response to this proposed development in Swainsthorpe .

There are far more suitable areas along the A11 and A47 Southern Bypass for an industrial development of this size.
SNDC should honour the recommendation of the GNLP and turn down Ben Burgess's planning application forthwith.

Comment

Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations

Representation ID: 20547

Received: 10/03/2020

Respondent: Mr Robert Graver

Representation Summary:

I support the conclusion that this site is not suitable for allocation as suggested. There is already sufficient suitable land allocated for the purposes proposed in the Greater Norwich area. I am aware of a planning application for this land by Ben Burgess Ltd (reference 2018/2631 and 2018/2632) which has been commented upon separately.

Full text:

I support the conclusion that this site is not suitable for allocation as suggested. There is already sufficient suitable land allocated for the purposes proposed in the Greater Norwich area. I am aware of a planning application for this land by Ben Burgess Ltd (reference 2018/2631 and 2018/2632) which has been commented upon separately.

Support

Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations

Representation ID: 20609

Received: 10/03/2020

Respondent: Mr Stuart Callis

Representation Summary:

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

Totally agree with the considered desicion of the GNLP. The JCS 2.12 states that brownfield sites will be used wherever possible.
Surely it is the point of providing these commercial areas, to allow businesses the freedom to build large unattractive but functional units where they can be as noisy and smelly as they like without affecting anybody else.
This proposal is massive - it covers 11 hectares , it would dwarf the village.
Entrance would undoubtedly be the start and cause of a long queue of idling traffic.
Wilful destruction of beautiful countryside without compelling justification

Full text:

Totally agree with the considered desicion of the GNLP.
The JCS 2.12 states that brownfield sites will be used wherever possible.
A quick search on Google gives several available large commercial plots for sale or rent in and around Norwich - Sweet Briar Rd, Buxton Rd several sites on the Broadland Business Park take your pick. I'm led to believe there will be a lot of land along the new NDR allocated for purely industrial use and that surely is the point of providing these areas, to allow businesses the freedom to build large unattractive but functional units where they can be as noisy and smelly as they like without affecting anybody else.
2.19 states that smaller villages will have small scale development, appropriate to the scale and needs of the village and its immediate surroundings.
This proposal is massive - it covers 11 hectares , it would dwarf the village so could in no way be deemed either small or appropriate to scale and who in the village needs it ? The surroundings of the village are fields which have offered a lovely view across the Tas valley enriching the lives of the local community and passers by for centuries, what it doesn't lack is a dirty great carbuncle plonked in the middle of it with high metal fences , car parks and machinery.
Access to this site would cause a bottleneck which would stretch out of the village in all directions, especially north bound during the morning rush hour. The A140 is already groaning and with the addition of 1800+ new homes proposed for Long Stratton this is going to get a lot worse, any obstacle, such as an island or roundabout, located at the proposed site entrance would undoubtedly be the start and cause of a long queue of idling traffic.
Wilful destruction of beautiful countryside may sometimes be unavoidable but there should always be a very compelling case to justify such actions with unassailable arguments. I spoke to the representatives from Ben Burgess when they pitched their proposal in the village and was offered none of the above, all I could glean was it suited them, never mind if it ruins the peace and tranquillity, the environment & general wellbeing of the entire community, it suits Ben Burgess and that's all they really care about.
In a nutshell - There is No good reason to build this Here.

Support

Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations

Representation ID: 20610

Received: 10/03/2020

Respondent: Ros Callis

Representation Summary:

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

JCS- Other village , states very limited infill but this is a very large development. Will erode and encroach on countryside/Tas Valley
Cannot support local services in Swainsthorpe as there are none
NPPF/JCS - does not retain local character or protect and enhance area
GNLP - maximise brownfield development. Should be on existing brownfield site not 1000 yr old arable land
Loss of green, open space
Destroy beautiful area of Tas Valley
Increased traffic on A140 - pollution, noise, climate change, dangerous junctions, delay to emergency services

Full text:

The Joint Core Strategy (JCS) states, as an 'Other Village' very limited infill can occur without affecting the form and character of the village although settlements may be considered to deliver the smaller sites in the NPA allowance. It states that no such sites have been indentified in Swainsthorpe. The Ben Burgess proposal is not very limited infill but a large industrial development on land designated as countryside in a tiny village. It would destroy the rural, undeveloped character of Swainsthorpe and the natural beauty of the landscape, erode and encroach on open countryside to the detriment of the local environment/Tas Valley Area. It should be on industrial/brownfield land.

The proposal states it will support local services - there are none in Swainsthorpe.

NPPF - Proposal does not reflect and retain local character - it would be a large, noisy industrial site in a tiny,rural village. There are no overriding benefits.

JCS - Proposal does not protect and enhance the individual character and culture of the area - development would destroy, not protect, rural green fields, harm wildlife and the countryside. Destroy views to Grade 2 listed church.

GNLP states it will maximise development on brownfield sites and protect valuable landscapes on greenfield sites. There are alternative brownfield/industrial sites available along dualled roads such as A47.
Proposed development is situated in a dip in lowest part of the fields - surface water lies on the field during winter months/wet weather.
Loss of productive arable land - field has been farmed for probably over 1000 years-crops needed for increasing population.
Loss of green, open space enjoyed by many villagers for recreational purposes such as walking. Cycling and walking on roads in Swainsthorpe can be dangerous due to limited pavements and traffic travelling at dangerous speeds along narrow, uneven roads with blind bends.
A140 - main route for tourists and visitors to the South Norfolk area and this section of the A140 is attractive. Beautiful views across these fields from Church Road as well as the A140. Coming from Norwich,looking across the fields towards Caistor St Edmund, past Dunston golf course and then through the wooded area is incredibly attractive - once past this area it would be unforgiveable to then ruin the current, beautiful skyline and natural openness of the landscape with a huge industrial site which, once destroyed by this development, can never be retrieved. Would contradict SN Local Landscape Designations Review-Landscape Character Areas & River Valleys in Norwich Policy Area (2012).

GNLP states the need to reduce environmental impact contributions to climate change and air pollution - locations need to reduce the need to travel. This proposal contradicts this. It will increase the need to travel by car/van for the high numbers of staff and customers due to unsuitable public transport/convenience reasons. Volumes of delivery lorries/agricultural vehicles on the single carriageway A140 will increase consequently increasing pollution, contributing to poorer air quality as well as generating noise and light pollution and have an adverse impact environmentally and socially. Numerous news reports re the environment/flooding/health problems - those making decisions need to be forward thinking and leading the way in doing their bit to protect the countryside and the planet.

SN Local Plan -Endangering & Satisfactory functioning of Highway - Increased traffic on A140 from this development, especially lorries and agricultural machinery, will create tailbacks and congestion and compromise road safety. Traffic from large housing developments in Long Stratton will add to this. It is already extremely difficult to turn right from Church Road onto the A140 during rush hour. I have to turn left onto the A140, which is almost as difficult, and swing round in the Caistor turning to then get back onto the A140 to travel to work.
To travel by public transport it is necessary to cross the A140 at some point. Even with an island on this road it does not feel safe standing in the middle of the A140 with lorries and cars thundering along past you.
It is also very dangerous at present to turn right from the A140 onto Church Road due to the excessive amount of traffic and narrowness of the turning lane. This can be extremely frightening especially when lorries are approaching in front of you and from behind. Any increase in traffic volumes, such as created by the Ben Burgess proposal, would make all of these situations even more dangerous.

Access for vehicles and staff during construction of the proposed site would cause a potential hazard on the A140.

The A140 is the main route for a high number of emergency response vehicles. Sirens can be heard many times throughout the day and any increase in traffic from the Ben Burgess site would delay these vehicles potentially putting lives at risk.

Support

Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations

Representation ID: 20928

Received: 14/03/2020

Respondent: Mrs Elaine Parkinson

Representation Summary:

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

I fully support the conclusions as to the unsuitability of this site for employment development. I also endorse the submission from the CPRE dated February 2020. Swainsthorpe is a rural village bisected by the A140 and the main railway line. The proposed development of a large, high visibility floodlit site with security fencing is grossly unsuitable for this location. The proposal will add significant traffic problems on a stretch of the A140. There already exists designated employment which would provide for this company's needs. This proposal would cause great damage and unnecessary destruction of precious Norfolk countryside.

Full text:

I fully support the conclusions as to the unsuitability of this site for employment development. I also endorse the submission from the CPRE dated February 2020. Swainsthorpe is a rural village bisected by the A140 and the main railway line. The proposed development of a large, high visibility floodlit site with security fencing is grossly unsuitable for this location. The proposal will add significant traffic problems on a stretch of the A140. There already exists designated employment which would provide for this company's needs. This proposal would cause great damage and unnecessary destruction of precious Norfolk countryside.

Comment

Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations

Representation ID: 20947

Received: 14/03/2020

Respondent: Mr Nicholas Chandler

Representation Summary:

I support the findings of GNLP that this site is unsuitable for industrial development on the basis that there is a wealth of alternative designated industrial sites better suited for re location of the Ben Burgess company. I do not agree that the GNLP is unable to prevent the application be on the basis that it is an existing application particularly as the final detailed application has not been made.
It is our hope that the South Norfolk Planning Officers will be sufficiently supported by the findings of the officers of the GNLP against further unplanned and unnecessary industrial development.

Full text:

I support the findings of GNLP that this site is unsuitable for industrial development on the basis that there is a wealth of alternative designated industrial sites better suited for re location of the Ben Burgess company. I do not agree that the GNLP is unable to prevent the application be on the basis that it is an existing application particularly as the final detailed application has not been made.
It is our hope that the South Norfolk Planning Officers will be sufficiently supported by the findings of the officers of the GNLP against further unplanned and unnecessary industrial development.

Support

Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations

Representation ID: 21092

Received: 15/03/2020

Respondent: Mrs Lauren Mercer

Representation Summary:

As a resident of swainsthorpe - I fully support the GNLP's response to this proposed development in Swainsthorpe .

There are far more suitable areas along the A11 and A47 Southern Bypass for an industrial development of this size.
SNDC should honour the recommendation of the GNLP and turn down Ben Burgess's planning application forthwith.
The A140 is already a busy road and does not need more traffic including heavy duty vehicles adding to what is already a busy road.

More More

Full text:

As a resident of swainsthorpe - I fully support the GNLP's response to this proposed development in Swainsthorpe .

There are far more suitable areas along the A11 and A47 Southern Bypass for an industrial development of this size.
SNDC should honour the recommendation of the GNLP and turn down Ben Burgess's planning application forthwith.
The A140 is already a busy road and does not need more traffic including heavy duty vehicles adding to what is already a busy road.

More More

Support

Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations

Representation ID: 21165

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Mrs Jacqueline Baker

Representation Summary:

This site is unsuitable due to insufficient road access and is unnecessary as better sites exist along the NDR and A47 corridor. Any development would spoil the village of Swainsthorpe and would cause traffic congestion along the A140 which is already congested on a daily basis.

Full text:

This site is unsuitable due to insufficient road access and is unnecessary as better sites exist along the NDR and A47 corridor. Any development would spoil the village of Swainsthorpe and would cause traffic congestion along the A140 which is already congested on a daily basis.

Support

Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations

Representation ID: 22650

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Prof. David Peters Corbett

Representation Summary:

In favour of site being unreasonable

I am against the village cluster model that SNDC has developed. it bundles villages together for convenience, based on features of the larger villages without regard to the individual nature of small villages like Swainsthorpe. I agree with the detailed response made by the Council for the Preservation of Rural England (CPRE), and object to the proposal that Swainsthorpe should be clustered together with Newton Flotman.

Full text:

I am against the village cluster model that SNDC has developed. it bundles villages together for convenience, based on features of the larger villages without regard to the individual nature of small villages like Swainsthorpe. I agree with the detailed response made by the Council for the Preservation of Rural England (CPRE), and object to the proposal that Swainsthorpe should be clustered together with Newton Flotman.

Support

Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations

Representation ID: 22685

Received: 15/03/2020

Respondent: Mrs susan Peters Corbett

Representation Summary:

Support unreasonable site

I am against the village cluster model that SNDC has developed. it bundles villages together for convenience, based on shared schools or other features of the larger villages, without regard to the individual nature of the small villages like Swainsthorpe. I agree with the detailed response made by the Council for the Preservation of rural England (CPRE), and object to the proposal that Swainsthorpe should be clustered together with Newton Flotman.

Full text:

I am against the village cluster model that SNDC has developed. it bundles villages together for convenience, based on shared schools or other features of the larger villages, without regard to the individual nature of the small villages like Swainsthorpe. I agree with the detailed response made by the Council for the Preservation of rural England (CPRE), and object to the proposal that Swainsthorpe should be clustered together with Newton Flotman.

Object

Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations

Representation ID: 22742

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Ben Burgess Ltd

Agent: CODE Development Planners Ltd

Representation Summary:

These representations have been prepared by CODE Development Planners on behalf of Ben Burgess in response to the Greater Norwich Local Plan Regulation 18 consultation, March 2020. (GNLP). The representations have been compiled following a review of the draft Strategy and Site Allocations documents and supporting evidence base, with consideration as to whether the GNLP as currently drafted meets the four tests of soundness. We are concerned that there is insufficient recognition of the need for large single occupier employment sites and these representations, therefore, set out our concerns on this aspect of the plan. Further concern arises from the statement that, “The site is also subject to a planning application by Ben Burgess agricultural machinery (reference 2018/2631) and would be better dealt with through the development management process.” (Village Clusters Non-Residential Assessment Booklet, 2020, Pg.34)
The main focus of the representations is to demonstrate that insufficient evidence has been produced and assessed relating to the specific needs of agricultural machinery sector and the sectors which require sites suitable for single users. These representations also demonstrate that through the application process considerable evidence has been produced by and on behalf of Ben Burgess to demonstrate that land west of Ipswich Road, Swainsthorpe is the only site that meets the requirements for the development of the new headquarters facility. These representations also contend that in delegating the site as an issue for development management, the GNLP is considered unsound.

Full text:

Please find attached the following:

• Response form submitted on behalf of Ben Burgess in respect of land west of Ipswich Road, Swainsthopre incorporating drawing 1472-1 revision C.

Attachments: