24

This site would be the wrong site for the gypsy and traveller pitches due to the conservation area being so close by. Bawburgh already struggles greatly with weakened sewers and drainage which will be under more strain if the site was to go ahead. The site will also be located in a built up area with elderly and vulnerable people living along side. The road is very narrow and is considerably busier at peak times of school pick up and drop off. It would also over look a very beautiful water meadow within Bawburgh and is used very frequently by dog walkers so wouldn't be a very private area. Historically, such sites have been left in a state of disrepair and then costs alot of money to be put right. I would suggest a more private dwelling, away from such a built up area, especially since this particular location is used mainly for parents turning their cars around for school pick and also creates a tight squeeze for bin collection. I believe the transit site up towards the park and ride on Long Lane would be much more suitable. I also don't believe it to be a very safe place due to the use of calor gas bottles and the regular use of bonfires when the main gas line to bowthorpe is directly positioned under the site. The risk of a major explosion is much higher due to this.
The water meadow also floods very frequently in the winter months and has been within just a few feet of this site, I also have pictures as evidence that this actually happened.

I would like to object due to the following reasons.
The greater Norwich plan has identified reasonable alternatives such as Ketteringham Dept.

The gypsy site will be located within a ground water catchment zone so would require work to progeny contamination of the water and river.

The site is also close to a water meadow that is very frequently used by dog walkers and people who enjoy nature.

The road is very narrow making it difficult to access, this road is also used by the school coach and also parents picking up and dropping off children.

The village does not have street lighting and also does not have shops or facilities within walking distance which will increase the use of traffic in Bawburgh which is already very busy.
We have also experienced high numbers of incidents with burst water mains and sewers due to the amount of strain it already experiences.

I would like to object to this prosed traveller site on the grounds of:

1. It will overlook social housing dwellings that contain vulnerable (elderly and young) people. This will create a significant loss of privacy for the families on Hockering lane, particularly those with their main stretches of garden directly in front of the site area. In these gardens, children play (as signposted by the plethora of outdoor toys) and can do so without fear of being exposed to strangers. The meadow owners also frequently stay in a caravan on their land, which would be overlooked.

2. The increase in traffic will be impossible to accommodate. At peak times (pre-work, school drop-offs and collections and post-work), Hockering lane is regularly at a standstill. This is partly due to there being no yellow lines, which allows cars to park on the roadside, thereby creating a single-file traffic gangway. Add in that the street is a cul-de-sac with only turning circles to allow for movement and the situation is untenable. In fact, it is already beyond reasonable, with private driveways getting blocked by cars, bin lorries unable to maneuver, couriers frequently blocking the street and cyclists almost being hit. As a cycling family, I can tell you t hat we find it difficult to safely navigate our street at congested times but also during more free-flowing hours. Adding more vehicles into the mix and presumably larger styles would be a risk that I don't believe is worth taking.

3. Noise. Hockering lane is a very quiet street. There is a sense of community with everybody waving hello and respecting each other. The few noisy encroachments that do occur (such as the school alarm going off or a loud vehicle) are very unwelcome. I confess that I do not know about the sound-proofing capabilities of mobile homes but I assume they are less effective than insulated brick houses. Therefore, it would be terrifically unfair to expect the residents in close proximity to suddenly have to endure more noise.

4. As a conservation area, Bawburgh is beautiful, relatively unspoilt and enjoys good tourist trade for the public house as a result. Visitors to the village are generally respectful and help to maintain the charm of the area, as they are likely to return regularly. I worry that communities who are potentially not planning to return will not take the same care to drive slowly, be cautious of our very narrow bridge etc.
5. The layout, density and design of development, I'm afraid to say, sounds awful. When it was six pitches, I think I maintained some perspective. I understand the need to provide shelter for travelling communities, but when I discovered that the plans would see up to 24 individual trailers shoe-horned into a small space, in immediate proximity to social housing, I'm afraid I stopped seeing any positives to this project.

6. Nature conservation. On Hockering Lane alone we have nesting herons, bat colonies, bee hives, grass snakes and countless other treasured animal species. These thrive in our village due to the lack of overdevelopment and the careful co-existence that everybody in Bawburgh subscribes to. While there is a need for traveller sites, there is also a climate crisis in full swing, with countries, cities and villages all expected to play their part in a net-zero future. As a rural location, we do our part by protecting the animals that live here, collecting refuse in and around our village, allowing rewilding (a far better use of the site in my personal opinion) and trying to work together. I do not believe that an extra traffic-heavy site will complement these efforts.

The roads are busy enough as it is without further traffic being added at Burlingham A47 junction. It will also ruin the local landscape/ rural environment. The local facilities are already unable to cope with the number of residents it's having to serve

Re policy GNLP5014 consultation on plan for gypsy and traveller site at A47 North Burlingham junction.

I object to this proposed site because of the increasingly dangerous junction at the location. In the 35 years we have lived in the area, the volume of traffic has increased hugely making either joining the A47 at that point, or crossing it to return home, treacherous even at less busy times. Increasing traffic, particularly with more large vehicles such as caravans, would inevitably increase the danger at what is already an accident black spot. I note that the proposal suggests that the site would only be formed once proposed improvements are made to the road which is welcome but would need to be an absolute minimum requirement. In addition, there is the issue that, during the ‘campaign’, sugar beet lorries use the B road to get to Cantley sugar beet factory. This already presents a danger on these roads. I have been the victim of beets falling off overladen lorries onto my car. On one occasion I was extremely lucky not to have been killed or seriously injured & even luckier that my children were not travelling with me on that occasion.

This area often floods - what mitigation has been considered for this? I cannot find any details relating to this in the proposal. I am pleased to see that the impact of noise and pollution from the busy road on the site residents has been considered and that mitigations have been suggested. Would these be a requirement? Are there sufficient services in the area? Sewage, water etc. I am sure this has been considered but, again, is not set out in the consultation document.

GNLP5009 Bawburgh. This 'favoured' site is clearly far less favourable than some of the sites deemed 'unreasonable'. Where is the common sense??. To consider a site at the end of a residential cul-de-sac, close to a primary school, on top of a gas main, alongside a conservation area, with zero local amenities and very narrow access is ludicrous. The Bawburgh site is only 'favoured' because the landowner will gift it to the council in return for positive consideration of other development opportunities. There is a perfectly adequate existing site next to the park&ride on Long Lane in Bawburgh.

Too much strain on local medical centres, schools & dentists. There has already been a huge increase in the number of new housing estates in the area and it's totally unreasonable to put these under any more pressure.
Eyesore on the 'gateway to the Broads'
Detrimental impact on the surrounding land and the wildlife
Loss of farm land
Noise and and chemical pollution from the very busy A47 for the travellers and a lack of pathways to local amenities. Dangerous position for children

In your policy of why this site was chosen you say it was chosen so the children from the site can attend school. The closest school is Lingwood who have a capacity of 210 and are currently at 225. The nearest next ones are south walsham she only have 3 spaces available.
You also say that there is access to health services. Acle already cover over 4000 minimum of patients and it’s almost impossible to get appointments as it stands so there isn’t really access to health services as easy as you say for 30 caravans & all the people it would cater for within this site.
To get access to Lingwood there are no safe paths, only winding roads that would not be lit up as Lingwood has no street lights. Only way of accessing the nearing villages would be to drive so I would not see how people would be able to have an integrated co-existence between the site and local residents as set out in your policies.

I strongly object to this plan and cannot understand why this considered a favourable location as it located at the end of a residential cul-de-sac in the middle of a quiet village and close to a primary school. This lane is extremely busy during school drop off and pick up times and not suitable for additional traffic. The proposed site is also on top of a gas main and on a conservation site. There is a perfectly adequate existing site next to the Park and Ride on Long Lane in Bawburgh.

Not a pleasant place to reside - right next to 70mph roads, with high death tolls. Dangerous for children and high risk of noise pollution. They’ll be disruptions for years as construction of the new road layout takes place, which will surround this site. It is not sensible timing. Also, this area doesn't connect to any main routes in or out of Norfolk, that’s why we’ve never had any gipsies or travellers in our vicinity. They won’t want to be here, ask them what they’d rather do. Answer: Expand sites that are convenient locations and where they are already happy!

I object to the traveller site as I don’t feel it is the correct place, the road is not suitable for anymore traffic. It has a primary school on it and anymore traffic would be very dangerous putting children’s lives at risk, there is also an environmental and flooding concern, the proposed site is very close to the river, this poses a contamination risk. Also the field next to the site floods frequently and I would be concerned the traveller site could flood. It also passes over a main gas pipe which has prevented building previously. Also there are not a

I Object to the proposed development for many reasons.
1) The village does not have the infrastructure to support such development
2) The school is already at capacity with no space to expand. If this and other proposed developments get the green light the school will no doubt end up closed.
3) Hockering lane was not designed for and the risk to school kids and congestion caused by this developments traffic.
4) Drainage, we already have surface water and mains problems this development will increase this.
5) why develop in the centre of village!!

I am concerned about the current pressure on services. It is already so difficult to get a gp appointment and the local school is so over subscribed even some children within catchment haven’t got a space.

Also the other reason is the health of the traveller community. Being right on the road, pollution hugely affects health. I work with traveller communities and we know they suffer hugely with health inequalities as a minority group. Placing them next to a polluted road adds to this health risk. Additionally, the free roaming children are at risk from an accident on the road.

That A47 is a significant risk to life and choosing to place families and children next to it places them
At direct risk of harm. The families and children will be at risk as well as motorists.

Additionally, the extra families will increase pressures on the local dentists, schools and surgeries which are already struggling to meet demands of local residents and are at capacity already.

Situating 30 caravans within a few feet of fast moving traffic on one of Britain’s busiest trunk roads can only lead to major safety and health concerns. Animals are an integral part of the Gypsy lifestyle with horses and dogs featuring heavily. Unless the site is made to look like a prison camp these animals WILL continually be allowed to wander onto the carriageway with inevitable results. I also have concerns for small children, who will without doubt be numerous, doing the same. The noise and air quality at this location will be appealing and have long term health implications.

I object to this plan because bawburgh is a residential area that is very busy, especially the proposed site. The road has private access and wouldn’t offer any privacy for the traveller and gypsy families. This area is at a dead end which is used for U turns when parents drop off and pick up children from the school.
There is also a water meadow located very close by which is used often by dog walkers so they would continuously be overlooked. There has also been serious issues with flooding. The water has been within 3 foot of this site which also would be an issue.
Calor gas use is also worrying. Especially with the main gas line to Bowthorpe being directly underneath this area of land.
We have a lot of diverse wildlife located on the water meadow which need protecting and I think that leaving the land for wildlife to enjoy is a better way to keep the land, particularly since the site at Kettringham Depot would be much more quiet and private.

We already have a committed traveller site at long lane which could be adequately refurbished to house this new proposed plan. This would mean that Bawburgh has two sites, when other villages don't have any. The village already struggles with traffic and drainage. There are no current amenities in the village able to support this current plan.

I object to this proposal in the strongest terms. There is already very adequate provision for this community at the longwater park and ride and Ketteringham council site both of which would allow these people to live as they wish without any disruption to their lives or to the closer community. I cannot think of a more unsuitable site for gypsies and travellers as this one on Hockering Lane. No through access, a road already grid locked, poor access, next to a beautiful water meadow, an abundance of wildlife on top of a gas main and in the middle of a residential area. We are supposed to trust people like SNDC but you continue to let us down. You should all be ashamed to even consider such an option, it’s beyond irresponsible. I vote to move it to Brooke. Bawburgh already has two large gypsy communities on its doorstep. We’ve had enough!

Dangerous situated next to A47,no services (water,sewerage,electric,unsuitable for the area,agricultural land,eyesore to holidaymakers visiting area,drs,dentists,schools over stretched,no to this proposal

I object on basis of location (known flooding and drainage problems),safety of pedestrian and vehicles (adjacent to A47 -traffic flow,access,animal straying risk),Safety of site dwellers walking to local shops--no pavements,lighting and dangerous side roads,sewage facilities are non existent (and mains water too?). Further concern re available school facilities,GP surgery for site dwellers (policing too?). General concern re local pollution levels (+ heavy HGVs travelling on flyover adjacent to proposed site)-have the travellers etc ACTUALLY AGREED to this unsuitable/dangerous and unhealthy site?

The road where site is proposed is prone to flooding and extra sewage would not help this. No safe footpath to village. Dangerous road from a child's safeguarding point of view.

From my female perspective , gypsies/travellers living alongside the very busy A47 especially gridlocked summer traffic coastal bound, village school too far away for children cycling from A47 winter months no street lights on dangerous road with sugar beet constant traffic to Cantley would not help their community or ours living in Lingwood as. Doctors, dentists, too stretched to take on new patients. Emergency services too far away . The empty site at Postwick Parknride with existing hard standing, electric, plumbing amenities, a more suitable plan for travellers/gypsies with bus routes to Thorpe St Andrew & Norwich facilities.

Inappropriate site
Noise Pollution from Sugar beet lorries and traffic
Cost to set up drainage sewage
Dominant the area its a village location
Too much pressure on schools doctors other facilities

The junction on the A47 (White House) is a notorious accident black spot area. Further danger would be added to this junction with the extra vehicles of the travellers. As the local residents know there is a constant flow of HGV sugar beet lorry's in the season. Therefore, this is a totally unsuitable land for the travellers site.
2AREFGNLP5014 A47 NORTH BURLINGHAM

I am writing to object to plan GNLP5009. This is the only site within a village boundaries (all other are on the outskirts). We have only just finished clearing the transit site in Bawburgh which would be a better position in any event. Also the rent due on the transit site was never paid and Hockering Lane is narrow and not suitable for more traffic.

I wish to object to the proposal reference number GNLP5009

Roads and Traffic in the village.
Bawburgh is a small village with narrow roads and no allocated or room for any passing places.
It is already hard for cars to pass each other in some areas.
In recent years, vehicle activated speed signs have been introduced to the village, due to vehicles speeding through the village, which unfortunately continues to be a problem.
On some of the roads there are no footpaths and as there is no public street lighting in the village, increased traffic on the roads will negatively impact the safety of residents, pedestrians, domestic animals, and wildlife.
There is a very limited public transport available, therefore cars, bicycles or foot are the only way to travel through Bawburgh.
There are no bike paths in the village.
The bridge over the river Yare which is the only way of going from one part of the village to the other is a scheduled monument and any increase in traffic may have a detrimental structural effect on it.

Hockering Lane.
The proposed site is at the end of a narrow cul -de- sac.
Access to the site is from a private road and therefore further negotiation regarding this would be needed.
There is a school (which is already at capacity) on Hockering Lane and at school opening and closing times, the road is very congested and not suitable for larger vehicles.
There is no public street lighting on the road and turning would be problematic.
On the proposed site there is a gas main and so any pitches would need to be kept away from this.
Also, it would be situated within the catchment area of a ground water protection zone.
Work would therefore be needed to ensure the prevention of contamination of water in the river.
Flooding very close to the site in previous years has been noted.

Wildlife.
There is a plethora of wildlife in and around Bawburgh which needs to be looked after and protected.

Facilities and Infrastructure
Bawburgh has no shop, dentist, or doctor facilities in the village. There is extremely limited access to nearby surgeries also.
The sewage infrastructure is already under pressure and struggles to cope with the existing number of houses / residents in the village.
There is a primary school but according the DoEd website, it is already up to capacity.
Broadband speeds and mobile signals are poor within the village.

Flooding
Bawburgh has flooding issues in many areas of the village.
In 2019 the flood water went over the bridge and a car was stuck.

Objection to GNLP5014
1. I honestly believe that a gypsy and traveller site in close proximity to the development of the A47 junction would present a significant risk to the health and well being of families.
2. A gypsy traveller site alongside the main tourist route to Great Yarmouth would in due course have a serious impact on tourism
3. The site has no public transport links, no mains sewerage, pavements to any of the amenities in the surrounding villages.
4. As set out in the Governments own Planning Policy for Traveller sites, section 3, 10 d.

It would be a terrible place for a traveller site. It’s a tiny town with minimal facilities, the local towns nearby are the same. It’s a beautiful area, very natural and peaceful and adding a traveller site would add noise, rubbish and unattractive buildings. Having lived near traveller sites before and seeing the negative impact they have this concerns me greatly.

THE SITE IS COMPLETELY WRONG FOR THE SITING OF A TRAVELLER SITE ON SO MANY LEVELS
I HAVE LISTED SOME OF THEM BELOW, BUT I AM SURE THERE ARE MANY MORE.
THERE IS NOT ENOUGH DOCTORS OR DENTIST PLACES CURRENTLY, WE HAVE TO WAIT WEEKS FOR A GP APPOINTMENT AND MY DENTIST OFTEN CANCELS MY APPOINTMENT DUE TO STAFF SHORTAGES.
LIMITED PLACES AND LOCAL SCHOOLS FOR THE NUMBER OF CHILDREN EXPECTED FROM A SITE OF SUCH A LAGE SCALE.
NO PATHWAYS TO SCHOOLS OR LOCAL AMENITIES PLUS THE LOCAL AMENITIES ARE NOT VERY LOCAL, THE NEAREST SHOP IS A CAR JOURNEY AWAY AND THE SAME FOR SCHOLS.
THERE IS NO MAINS SEWAGE ANYWHERE NEAR THE SITE. IT WOULD COST AN ABSOLUTE FORTUNE TO JOIN UP TO THE MAINS. THERE IS NO MAINS SEWAGE IN BURLINGHAM SO IT WOULD PROBABLY HAVE TO JOIN IN LINGWOOD WHICH IS PROBABLY A MILE AWAY.
SEPTIC TANKS ARE NOT A VIABLE OPTION DUE TO THE LAND AREA NEEDED FOR THE WATER TO DRAIN INTO.
THE AREA IS ALREADY REGULARLY FLOODED JUST FROM RAINFALL SO THE GROUND IS SATURATED FOR A LARGE PERIOD OF TIME. THIS WOULD OBVIOUSLY WORSEN WITH ANY ADDED DISCHARGE FROM THE TANKS.
THE AREA LISTED AS A POTENTIAL SITE IS REQUIRED FOR HIGHWAYS AS A DRAINAGE AREA FOR THE NEW ROAD SCHEME WHEN THE BRIDGE AND JUNCTION WORKS TAKE PLACE.
THERE WILL OBVIOULSY BE NOISE AND AIR POLLUTION FROM THE NEW ROADS AND BRIDGE.

Objection 8. (Not specific to GNLP5014)
The GNLP website has proved confusing to use and navigate.

As well as being difficult to navigate and being poorly structured, the use of terminology in relation to the Gypsy and Traveller Site proposals has been poorly chosen, though this is a more general criticism of effective communication than the website specifically.

8.1 The Phase 1 and 2 Site reports for sites under consideration were termed Site Assessments and Sustainability Appraisals.

Both lead to the acronym SA which occurs in various paragraphs and it is sometimes not made clear which document is being referred to. A third term used on the website with the potential acronym SA is Site Allocations.

8.2 One of the main sections on the GNLP website of importance comes under the heading Site Policies – a confusing heading when used for marking primary content.

If you open the link you will indeed be able to access all of the numbered Policy Stages (1-29) for the Gypsy and Traveller Site analysis.

However the term is not on all pages, and sometimes has an active link or not. Indeed, on the main page, a reference to Site Policies does not contain a hyperlink to the actual detail (attached)

The term is also easily overlooked in terms of being a reference to “Website Policies” (which is a common feature of websites for the detailing of privacy or data protection policies). It is a link that many website users would simply not follow to locate primary information.

From a lay persons point of few (as opposed to perhaps a planning professional), the use of the term Site Policies and exactly what it means in relation to this study is generally unclear. The term is simply far too ambiguous.
–
8.3 The website is also noted to offer no Search function, Help System, or central Glossary of Terminology.

After several weeks of using the system I found some help notes on an obscure page, but they are far from obviously placed. Can you find them?

Even as an IT professional I find the website confusing, and I have received many comments from people who have failed to understand its structure for the purposes of this consultation.