25

This entire project is clearly predicated on a private agreement to benefit individuals. The wellbeing of Bawbnurgh residents is being flagrantly disregarded.

I strongly object to the proposed traveller site at North Burlingham . The site will be situated close to a very high risk accident site and having travellers living here and accessing the A47 could cause even more accidents.
The local schools are already all full so how do you propose to take more children in ? and if they are intitled to school transport again this site is situated in a very high risk accident site.
The doctors are at full capacity ,you have trouble getting an appointment so this will put more of a strain on local services.
A lot of North Burlingham is Green belt land and shouldn't be built on and we need fields for crops ,soon there will be no green land as everywhere seems to be getting built on and spoiling the countryside which we love and want to keep.
Who if this goes ahead actually funds this and also covers the cost for maintaing the site ,is this something that local people will have to pay for through their council taxes ?
Is there any restriction on size of the plot ,can it be expanded in years to come ?
Also for people living locally having a travellers site could really lower the value of propeties close by

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.

GNLP5009 Bawburgh. Strongly object to this area being redeveloped when we already have a "temporary" site at long lane which is currently closed due to being vandalised and having already spent over £2K clearing this site. This site could redeveloped to a permanent site, enabling the resident to access local amenities, which our village does not have. Also the issue of the landowner gifting this land to the council for favourable outcome to building planning in the village.

The consultation website is confusing to navigate and understand. There is no common navigation bar to allow easy navigation of the significant amount of content to be reviewed before commenting in this limited consultation time period.
The website structure is misleading, and also no Site Map is provided to show the website structure. This is a basic criteria to meet international WCAG 2.1 AA standard which as a government related website it is expected you should meet.
On consultation launch day (30th Jan) there were broken links leaving users unable to provide feedback. This has been acknowledged in writing by a Project Officer at NCC. This alone should call for a revised consultation period given the impact on the 1st day.
The poor website will have impacted the consultation feedback response count, there have been several reports from local residents at Parish Council meetings stating this.

This website has proved difficult and confusing. It is not easy to navigate. This is evidenced by the location of some of the responses posted here. There are comments that are clearly related to specific sites, but may now be lost as they have been incorrectly posted.
The Consultation process has not been effectively advertised. Many people, including myself, were not aware of the existence of these proposals until very late. I would therefore suggest that many will still be unaware, or discover about them until too late. These people will have been disenfranchised by the lack of notification. I gather that there have been local meetings that have been very noisy, raucous even, as people vented their frustration and anger as they felt that they had been bypassed and the whole process was covering up a rubber stamp – the decisions had already been made from ‘on high’.
The technicality of the documentation has added to the feeling of exclusion, added to the complexity of getting around and understanding such a large website based source of information. It all adds to the impression that this is a token exercise, all to justify and give cover to a group that will just do what it wants.

Planners should be aware of an existing site offering Travellers a safe, accessible base, with sufficient pitches to provide a community hub.
Namely the unused Postwick Park and Ride site, which is fit for purpose, has safe access, egress, is tarmacked, with lighting, sewage and water in situ.
It is ready for occupancy and offers space for growth.
Taxpayers have paid for this site thus costs would be significantly reduced on stretched funds and remove pressure on limited financial resources.
It would be irresponsible and inflexible not to realise these potential benefits for the Travelling community.

The local infrastructure, schools, doctors, dentists and social care is already stretched to the maximum with new housing developments being rapidly built in Acle, Brundall and Blofield the introduction of potentially 30 families changing on a regular basis I believe is putting too much of a strain on local services.
The planning consent for 30 sites directly contravenes the Governments own guidelines on how the building of a traveller site should not overwhelm the surrounding population's size and density. Given that there are only 3 dwellings in the immediate vicinity this disproportionate.

I feel that this is the wrong place to allow this gypsy/traveller site as it’s at the end of of narrow road which also has a primary school on it that generates a lot of parking challenges during term time, the area is widely used by locals for dog walking and general well being

My ref Objection 8.4

The website seems to lack the means of appropriate attribution of comments and objections to a particular location / Site Reference.

Although the consultation process is inviting comments for a collection of preferred sites, the submission form does not provide a means of identifying the particular site that a respondent is referring to, if applicable.

The user may feel they have identified a site by virtue of their "location" in the website when activating a submission, but this information may or may not be adequately recorded by the system.

This could lead to mis-attribution of a comment or failure to identify accurately which site the respondent was referring to.

A case in point, an early consultation response (24565) recorded by the system is from Mr Kelvin Myhill and can be seen at

https://oc2connect.gnlp.org.uk/document/representation/24565

It should be noted that the response appears to contain no site identifying feature either by the respondent (who may have assumed it unnecessary) or added by the system.

In fact the page displays a "breadcrumb" reference to paragraph/policy 36 at the top, however I believe that primary data should always be tagged and stored with appropriate qualifying data fields.

Indeed, in using a source paragraph reference number to tag data, there is the risky assumption that such references will not change or be unidentifiable in future.

As a designer of IT systems I would identify this as indicative of poor design.

Comments on Policy GNLP5023 Land off Strayground Lane, Wymondham.
Access to this site has been a problem for many years and the proposed plans for passing bays to make this safe for pedestrians and cyclists would need to be fully costed, particularly in the light of just two pitches, although the impact on the wider community would be an easier walking route along Strayground Lane.
The Bays river is reasonably undeveloped on this side and this development would add new environmental pressure. Bats are in the local area. The historic landfill was recently levelled but is contaminated with Japanese knotweed – the land owner did not respond to requests to treat this and I am unaware of any official action on this issue. A smaller site in a local community is probably the best way to go with Traveller sites as it spreads the perceived negative impact across a larger number of smaller sites.

Comments on Policy GNLP5023 Land off Strayground Lane, Wymondham.
The site is clearly large enough for many more than 10 pitches and if approved would most likely be expended leagally or otherwise. There is also adjacent land that is likely to be used illegally, even if only temporarily. This site runs the risk of becoming a major source of local community conflict.
Access to this site has been a problem for many years and the proposed plans for passing bays to make this safe for pedestrians and cyclists would need to be fully costed, although the impact on the wider community would be an easier walking route along Strayground Lane.
A new access from the eastern side of the site would restrict pedestrian access to the level crossing. There is minimal space to run vehicles on this “road”. Maintaing the current access is most sensible as the space in front of the site is already wde enough to accommodate large recycling vehicles from turning around.
The Bays river is reasonably undeveloped on this side and this development would add new environmental pressure. The landowner has already levelled the site causing widespread destruction to the mature trees that lined it – they were all removed without warning – likely adding to flooding pressure.
Bats are in the local area; likely affected by tree removal.
The historic landfill was recently levelled but is contaminated with Japanese knotweed – the land owner did not respond to requests to treat this and I am unaware of any official action on this issue.
The paving company highlighted is likely to close or relocate if the site is developed.
Pollution measures would need to be carefully safeguarded as the site would easily lead to groundwater and Bays river pollution affecting the downstream Tiffey.