GNLP0126

This piece of land had an application 20131212 for houses which was refused on 3rd of December 2013. The applicant took this refusal decision to The Planning Inspectorate at an appeal held at Broadland Council Offices on 24th. of August 2014.On the 8th. of September 2014 the Inspector dismissed this appeal. The Appeal Reference No. was APP/K2610/A/14/2213841.How come you can now allow this piece of land to be even considered to be used for housing after a Planning Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State has refused permission? Fred Tuddenham Drive is not suited to more development.

Reference both these proposed developments of 14 houses and 36 houses being built on greenfield sites when we still have in Cawston a brownfield site housing a so called "Care Home" which has never been used since built in 2008 and which has 7 affordable units attached to it which unfortunately can not be accessed due to not knowing who the present owner is.I thought the Government Policy was to use brownfield sites especially those with housing already there.Surely it is Broadland Councils duty to sort out this problem before giving permission to something that Cawston already has.

A natural extension to the village, a small contained development from existing access roads with all services already available to the site

At the planning appeal in 2014, it was agreed that this site is in a sustainable location and that it does not raise any significant landscape impact issues or Highways issues
Cawston is one of the largest service villages with a good range of local services, which would benefit from additional residents to sustain these services

Destroying this area of countryside isn't the answer when you have brown field sites available. Please follow government guidance and use these first. Also transport connecting via the centre of the village is already very congested - anything further would be unsafe.

Access to the site is not good enough . chapel Street is far too congested and busy already, and the access Rds themselves cannot support the increase in traffic.

Cawston Parish Council Councillors having debated this proposed plan have voted to object this plan for the same reasons as they did for the previous application in 2013, that being Chapel street can not take any more traffic.At present there are at least 4 new houses being built on infill places in the Village, we have several empty houses that have been empty for years and we have a Care Home with a bungalow standing empty from new for more than 10 years, Broadland Council should be doing more to getting these issues sorted before approving more not needed houses.

Whilst there is a need for further housing which I would suggest needs to be social more than affordable, this site is accessed via Chapel Street. This a busy and narrow road with both private and industrial vehicles using it on a regular and daily basis. Additional vehicles would only exacerbate an already dangerous situation where cars a parked along this road causing an even further narrowing. There are empty homes including a Care Home which could and should be utilised before further development is considered.

I object to both applications for residential dwellings and commercial units on the basis that this has already been refused by an inspector appointed by the secretary of the state after appeal back in 2014. I don't see what has changed, except greed on behalf of the land owner. The village is already congested, Fred Tuddenham Drive cannot come with extra vehicles, the infrastructure locally has no capacity.
The commercial element - the current winery causes untold traffic congestion, with lorries parked along chapel street all day and often at night, with drivers using the village as a lorry park. The staff at the winery already have no parking, and so park along chapel street causing danger to walkers, children especially.
The noise - both the existing units, create noise all day, from staff and heavy machinery inside units. The winery operates all night, with beeping and crashing in the yard, a further 4 units would make an unbearable situation worse.

I moved to a village to enjoy village life, these plans, just compound my thinking, in that I should simply move back to Norwich, withdrawing vital skills and local influence from the village.


STOP THESE PLANS NOW

This site is well located for village services and amenities
The land is redundant scrub, there would be no loss to agricultural production
Ideally situated for additional housing which can be contained within a defined area, without the prospect of further expansion

Site is a planned extension of Fred Tuddenham Drive which was constructed to Highway Standards to be capable of servicing this extra development.Full testing has been undertaken to show drainage can be achieved on site & all services ,including foul drainage , are available with sufficient capacity. The site is a contained area & will not lead to further pressure for extra development in the future. It has been accepted by Broadland Council the site is in a sustainable location & it does not raise significant landscape impact issues.

This is an ideal site for the development proposed
The new housing will help to support village business and community activity with new residents.
Also new mixed housing stock would give the opportunity for people to downsize, plus the benefit of affordable housing.
This is a natural extension to the village