GNLP0069

I have lived in Hainford since 1991 and it originally had a post office and shop. These closed and the community of the village suffered. I believe new development in the village would add to the life of the village and would hopefully improve amenities.

I support more houses in Hainford!

I object to any development in Hainford on the grounds that the proposal is outside the settlement boundary in conflict with the Hainford village status of "other village" and in conflict with the Parish plan. I strongly object to any large scale development of the village that would require a change of status from " other village" to any other status. Hainford is a village not a suburb of a town or city. Our village cannot sustain the large scale proposals connected to this plan. Please preserve our village status and leave the residents alone in peace

This site is far too big. A certain amount of development could bring some benefits but this would double the size of the village and completely change the character of Hainford. I chose to live here as it is small and quiet - it is not Spixworth or Coltishall or Horsford. I want this to be preserved this in future.

I recently moved to Hainford from East Northamptonshire. What attracted me to Hainford was the quiet "village charm" of a county I had visited for 40 yrs plus.
Whilst it is always difficult to find reasons to object to small scale developments I find it beyond comprehension and utterly unacceptable that the proposal to develop land on Stratton Road to accommodate 404 houses is being considered at any level.
I am not aware of the exact number of current properties in Hainford but consider that this development alone would see the size of our village more than Quadrouple in size!!
Putting aside the social problems this would cause with development on such a large scale,with most homes now having more than one car, the surrounding road infrastructure could not support "without" considerable risk to life, the increased volume of traffic (approx an extra 800 vehicles using the roads twice a day and more).

The A140 has been closed several times in the last 3 months due to accidents - not involving the winter weather. The volume of traffic on this road is already set to increase substantially with the the extensive housing development of Aylsham!

Marsham is already campaigning for reduced speeds!

Considerable traffic ALREADY uses Waterloo road in Hainford as a short cut and regularly exceeds the 30 mph speed limit. Limited lighting and narrow pathways already put pedestrians at risk.

Roads leading to Buxton, Stratton Strawless, Newton St Faith, Coltishall and Frettenham are hazardous at the best of times due to restricted width, passing places, uneven surfaces etc. It would be wrong to simply believe that local traffic will always access Norwich via the A140.

It seems to me that Hainford has little drain on council expenditure. We no street lighting, no mains gas, low water pressure,. We have no resources that I am aware for policing, or medical attention other than use of available services in outlying towns.

In short, large estates should be built closer to and immediately adjacent to the NDR to contain costs, reduce disruption alround, and keep traffic on roads that were purposely built for safety .

i live in the last house on stratton road with the field in question in front of my house, i have lived here for 30 years and would not want to live anywhere else due to the quite and lots of wildlife to be seen everyday. Having 2 small children i want them to grow up in the country like i did and respect the country life. we have already had 14 houses put up on the cheques field and it has made our small country lane very dangerous, by putting more houses on this small lane is only going to make things worse please re think x

This will be a much to large site for the area again Hainford will soon connect to Spixworth and become a suburb of the city I strongly opbject and to the status of the village being changed from other village to service village as this means just that service the town

This proposal is grossly disproportionate to the size of the existing village and the amenities available. In effect this would represent an 80% growth in the village and is more than x10 the amount of building in the village in the past 15 years.

There is insufficient infrastructure capacity in the local school and health network to support this level of growth.

A development of this scale would fundamentally change the village.

1. Site is arable land outside the development boundary, remote from and out of scale with the existing village scene. "The site would produce development disproportionate to the existing settlement pattern but is not large enough to provide or support additional services." It is disproportionate to the status, size and aspect of the village.
2.There appears to be an access road planned from the B1354 'old church road', such a road would;
Interfere with the natural peaceful setting of the church to the east and the burial ground to the west
The road would be directly adjacent to an 'active burial ground', just a few meters from the edge of any access road. The point at which the new road junction/entrance/exit joins the B1354 is located on a fast (National Speed Limit) road with limited visibility due to the inclination of the road and trees

3.Access to the site via Stratton road would create a dangerous situation as Stratton Road is in places only wide enough for access by one car at a time.

4.A number of trees could potentially be affected in making any access road.

5.This proposed site where the houses would be located is on an area known to be subject to surface water flooding. There have also been long standing issues with sewer capacity in the area of Stratton road causing problems with the pumping station and residents toilets overflowing.

There is. widespread flooding throughout Hainford due to high water table and overflowing ditches.

It is current planning policy to steer development to areas with the lowest probability of flooding

6. The site is in conflict with Hainfords status of 'other village' which by the definition stated in the GNLP still applies

7. The Development would be in conflict with Hainfords Parish Plan.

8. The Development would be unsustainable due to lack of adequate infrastructure services, general facilities, limited power supplies with a reliance upon oil, electricity power failures and lack of transport services to support this level of development. (when commenting recently on a single dwelling proposal in the Grange Rd area the highways response was
"in regard to transport sustainability Hainford, which has very limited standard every day facilities is not Considered an acceptable location, the site is not connected to footway links which, in any case, are Sporadic in the village and public transport services are very limited. Accordingly the proposed Development will result in an over reliance of the private car contrary to sustainability objective
9..The narrow rural lanes throughout Hainford are inadequate for the increased volume of traffic and there is insufficient room for two vehicles to pass in many locations. There would be increased congestion at the junction between A140 and B1354(Waterloo Rd).
10. The Primary school is not accessible as there is only one pavement running from Stratton/waterloo area. There are no pavements from the main settlement in the chapel road area to the South, nor from the West/ A140 Cromer Rd nor from the Eastern side of the village. The reliance being on the private motor vehicle for safe access to the school which is contrary to sustainability objectives
12.The Primary school is small and would not be able to accommodate increased volume of pupils generated If wider development were allowed on this scale

13. Loss of rural amenity-the site has landscape value.

We as a village simply don't have the infrastructure to support a development of 400 homes! If the infrastructure was provided before the building starts then i wouldn't object so much, but this is close to doubling the size of the village and the local school, roads, and sewage system would not be able to take this many additional homes.

I am objecting to all the site proposals on the grounds that:-
The village has a very high water table and most areas are subject to surface water flooding which at times infiltrate the foul sewer network causing problems within properties.The very narrow rural roads with no pavements are unsuitable for increased traffic.We have limited power supplies,a sporadic bus service and no local facilities.
All the services and infastruture would be overloaded by more development; only small scale housing within the development boundary would be suitable.

There appears to be an access road planned from the B1354 'old church road', such a road would:
Interfere with the natural peaceful setting of the church to the east and the burial ground to the west;
The road would be directly adjacent to an 'active burial ground', just a few meters from the edge of any access road;
The point at which the new road junction/entrance/exit joins the B1354 is located on a fast (National Speed Limit) road with limited visibility due to the inclination of the road and trees
A number of trees could potentially be affected in making any access road.

Access to the site via Stratton road would create a dangerous situation as Stratton Road is in places only wide enough for access by one car at a time.

This planned site where the house would be located is on an area known to be subject to surface water flooding.

Hainford has insufficient services to support such a significant development.

REJECT this proposal due to:
1. Flooding at most all sites due to high water table in the village,
2. Most all services (e.g. sewage, electricity) barely able to cope with existing population,
3. Virtually no 'social' infrastructure - e.g. no shops, no Post Office, only one pub, Village Hall, Junior/Primary school, and church,
4. Very poor road links and capacity,
5. Very poor public transport links - and nothing that would support commuting into Norwich,
6. Contrary to current Village Plan,
7. Ridiculously high number of properties proposed - would double size of village.

This development would be completely disproportionate with the current 390 odd properties that currently make up the village of Hainford.
The access road that appears to be planned to allow access to this development would upset the peaceful nature of the village and increase the traffic at an already dangerous junction and narrow single track road with passing spaces that join the village together. The area highlighted is already a known site liable to surface water flooding, because of the high water table. The current sewer system is unable to cope with the houses that already exist and it is difficult to comprehend whether the pipes/ pumping station can handle any more properties being connected. I remember two companies going bust when it was first installed, so the cost to update and increase capacity alone would be considerable and would make the cost nonviable as a project.
The site is in conflict with Hainfords status of 'other village' which by the definition stated in the GNLP still applies.
When commenting recently on a single dwelling proposal in the Grange Road area the Highways response was:
"In regard to transport sustainability Hainford, which has very limited standard every day facilities is not Considered an acceptable location, the site is not connected to footway links which, in any case, are Sporadic in the village and public transport services are very limited. Accordingly the proposed Development will result in an over reliance of the private car contrary to sustainability objective."

Hainford lacks a suitable infrastructure to support this level of development, we constantly suffer power cuts, the sever system is always blocking, there is no real practical bus service for the working people
Hainford, with the bus company already struggling to justify the service now. Your own policy suggests that there should be a pavement from all areas of the village to the primary school, which there isn't which is in conflict with the service village status. Loss of rural amenity

Proposed development too big for the village. There would be a huge increase in traffic along small country lanes where people and children walk dogs, cycle and ride horses. Agree with all other comments made objecting to this development.

Without masses of new infrastructure the village cannot cope with with such a large proposal. The sewerage network and high water table would cause all sorts of problems. For the Public Transport to be increased to cope with this, the roads are not suitable and overhanging trees would need to be taken down. The school is not large enough to cope with these sort of figures, there is no village shop, and we would lose our individuality.

0069- Too vast,Unsustainable due to,lack of adequate infrastructure to support. This. Flooding and drainage/sewage issues.Outside development boundary.

0065- Flooding,rural roads inadequate, unsustainable due to lack of infrastructure,remote from village.

0393- previous objections from Environment Agency due to significant flooding. Unsustainable,lack of infrastructure to support.Too many properties.

0181- flooding on site, lack of infrastructure to support, disproportionate in size.

0190- too large and disproportionate,flooding and drainage issues Hall Rd,,inadequate infrastructure to support, out of development boundary.

0582- too large/disproportionate, lack of adequate infrastructure to support,flooding on site, TPO's in force.

0512- site is too large, flooding on the sites and on Hall Road at the junction, inadequate infrastructure to support, outside the development boundary. Reliance upon narrow rural roads.

Site GNP0069 - 404 Dwellings
Given the validity of the criteria and comments in sections 1 and 2 above, such an enormous development in Hainford completely disregards and conflicts with GNLP's own policies and the wishes of the Hanford's residents. It is then difficult to understand how this site could ever feature or be considered as a potential development for 404 dwellings which would more than double the total
village current size!
Of particular significance is the fact that this location is arable land
and outside the development boundary. It is also, not surprisingly, remote from the existing village and completely out of scale and character with the rural environment.
The only two access road options to such a development would require to be on a scale which is unsupportable within the existing country road network and cause serious safety concerns..The Highways Authority are already expressing
concern about the standard and sustainability of the road network when considering even applications for single developments.
This particular area already suffers from poor services support and it would, as it presently stands, be completely unable to support such a development.
The question of drainage also seems to have been ignored. A basic and simple assessment would have identified that flooding and sewerage overload is a regular and ongoing problem in the immediate area due to the high water table in Stratton Road.
There is also the fact that with the new woodland burial ground being located adjacent to the proposed new access road, this would make two access points on the B1354 in close proximity. At this point the B1354 carries fast (up to 60mph) traffic including large gravel trucks, freight lorries and large, 'wide vehicle' agricultural machinery.
There is a traditional burial ground also nearby with yet another access.
Access to the proposed site via Stratton Road would not be tenable; this is a narrow, one car-wide only un-categorised road. This road and other rural lanes in Hainford are not capable of carrying the potential increased volume in traffic, and in many places it is not possible for two vehicles to pass without mounting the verges. The access from B1354 on to A140 is already congested even at non-peak times and a potential of an additional 400+ cars from this development is unthinkable. The scarce public transport service means that nearly all current residents in Hainford rely on at least one, if not two, private cars per household. Any future residents would do the same.
A major consideration relating to this site is the longstanding problem of surface water flooding, which is in fact a feature of the whole village due to the high water table.
Hainford is an 'other village' and this development is in conflict with that
status. Also in conflict with the Parish plan.
Loss of rural amenity-the site has landscape value.

Site GNLP0393 - 45 Dwellings
Serious risk of flooding
Development would infringe on the school car park
Already speeding problems on Newton Road
Loss of mature trees along Newton Road to make way for development Flooding by surface water is a serious problem o this road
site outside the development boundary
site is disproportionate to the size of the village
Hainford is an 'other village' and this development is in conflict with that status. Also in conflict with the Parish plan.
Narrow winding rural lanes throughout Hainford are inadequate for increased volume of traffic. In many locations there is insufficient room for two vehicles to pass safely. There would be increased congestion at the junction between A140 and B1354(Waterloo Rd).Also potential congestion at the junction with Newton Rd and the B1354.
The Primary school is small and would not be able to accommodate increased volume of pupils generated If wider development were allowed on this scale
Loss of rural amenity-the site has landscape value.

Site GNP0069 - 404 Dwellings
Given the validity of the criteria and comments in sections 1 and 2 above, such an enormous development in Hainford completely disregards and conflicts with GNLP's own policies and the wishes of the Hanford's residents. It is then difficult to understand how this site could ever feature or be considered as a potential development for 404 dwellings which would more than double the total
village current size!
Of particular significance is the fact that this location is arable land
and outside the development boundary. It is also, not surprisingly, remote from the existing village and completely out of scale and character with the rural environment.
The only two access road options to such a development would require to be on a scale which is unsupportable within the existing country road network and cause serious safety concerns.. The Highways Authority are already expressing concern about the standard and sustainability of the road network when considering even applications for single developments.
This particular area already suffers from poor services support and it would, as it presently stands, be completely unable to support such a development.
The question of drainage also seems to have been ignored. A basic and simple assessment would have identified that flooding and sewerage overload is a regular and ongoing problem in the immediate area due to the high water table in Stratton Road.
There is also the fact that with the new woodland burial ground being located adjacent to the proposed new access road, this would make two access points on the B1354 in close proximity. At this point the B1354 carries fast (up to 60mph) traffic including large gravel trucks, freight lorries and large, 'wide vehicle' agricultural machinery.
There is a traditional burial ground also nearby with yet another access.
Access to the proposed site via Stratton Road would not be tenable; this is a narrow, one car-wide only un-categorised road. This road and other rural lanes in Hainford are not capable of carrying the potential increased volume in traffic, and in many places it is not possible for two vehicles to pass without mounting the verges. The access from B1354 on to A140 is already congested even at non-peak times and a potential of an additional 400+ cars from this development is unthinkable. The scarce public transport service means that nearly all current residents in Hainford rely on at least one, if not two, private cars per household. Any future residents would do the same.
A major consideration relating to this site is the longstanding problem of surface water flooding, which is in fact a feature of the whole village due to the high water table.
Hainford is an 'other village' and this development is in conflict with that
status. Also in conflict with the Parish plan.
Loss of rural amenity-the site has landscape value.

Site GNLP0393 - 45 Dwellings
Serious risk of flooding
Development would infringe on the school car park
Already speeding problems on Newton Road
Loss of mature trees along Newton Road to make way for development Flooding by surface water is a serious problem o this road
site outside the development boundary
site is disproportionate to the size of the village
Hainford is an 'other village' and this development is in conflict with that status. Also in conflict with the Parish plan.
Narrow winding rural lanes throughout Hainford are inadequate for increased volume of traffic. In many locations there is insufficient room for two vehicles to pass safely. There would be increased congestion at the junction between A140 and B1354(Waterloo Rd).Also potential congestion at the junction with Newton Rd and the B1354.
The Primary school is small and would not be able to accommodate increased volume of pupils generated If wider development were allowed on this scale
Loss of rural amenity-the site has landscape value.

Response to Site Proposals within GNLP 2018 GNP 0069 and others - OBJECTION

Dear Sir,

I wish to register my objections to the Site Proposals referenced above. The following paragraphs identify the key areas of my objection.

1. A Point of Order
It would appear that the district council failed to adequately notify the Parish Council about the proposed change of status of Hainford from "Other Village" to "Service Village". This very important aspect was "buried" in small print in an appendix to the GNLP document. The implications of such a major change are highly significant and the district Councillor's recorded, dismissive remark that such a change was 'not of sufficient importance', indicates, in my view, that the Councillors' judgement, impartiality and competence is questionable.
My comment is particularly relevant because the Councillor seemed to indicate that he is not aware, does not understand - or perhaps is happy to disregard? - that Hainford does not meet the criteria for Service village status as defined in the GNLP document. Hainford only meets one of the 4 key criteria for Category 1 service village status as defined in the GNLP document, and only 4 of the 12 in Category
2. How have these important criteria been overlooked?

2. Hainford Current Status
Hainford's current status within the Planning Policy hierarchy is that of 'Other Village' due to it having only a range of basic services and suitable only for infill.

This would mean only small scale developments should apply and not the large scale developments being considered.

I understand that the "Other Village" status of Hainford is current although the primary school is not 'accessible' within the specified criteria in the GNLP 2018 document.
The current "Other Village" status is also consistent with the Parish Plan, set up following consultation with Hainford residents, which concluded that a high proportion of residents were opposed to any further development in the village and the overwhelming view of parishioners was that the local environment should be protected and preserved.

This conclusion was based upon the desire of the residents to retain the rural aspect. It is already well known and recognised that the limited infrastructure, limited power supplies, drainage problems, poor internet coverage, narrow roads (speeding traffic) etc. continues to be a problem.

In particular and highly significant is the fact that Hainford also opted to retain the existing development boundary.

I would draw you attention to the fact that there are four areas in the GNLP document which falsely claim to meet the requirement to change the status to Service Village.

They are:
i) that public transport meets the requirements of a service village - it does not
ii) that the primary school facilities meet the requirement of a service village - they do not.
iii) that pre-school facilities meet the requirements of a service village - they do not
iv) that Community group facilities meet the requirements of a service village - they do not.


3. Site GNP0069 - 404 Dwellings
Given the validity of the criteria and comments in sections 1 and 2 above, such an enormous development in Hainford completely disregards and conflicts with GNLP's own policies and the wishes of the Hanford's residents. It is then difficult to understand how this site could ever feature or be considered as a potential development for 404 dwellings which would more than double the total village current size!

Of particular significance is the fact that this location is arable land and outside the development boundary. It is also, not surprisingly, remote from the existing village and completely out of scale and character with the rural environment.

The only two access road options to such a development would require to be on a scale which is unsupportable within the existing country road network and cause serious safety concerns. The Highways Authority are already expressing concern about the standard and sustainability of the road network when considering even applications for single developments.

This particular area already suffers from poor services support and it would, as it presently stands, be completely unable to support such a development.

The question of drainage also seems to have been ignored. A basic and simple assessment would have identified that flooding and sewerage overload is a regular and ongoing problem in the immediate area due to the high water table in Stratton Road.

There is also the fact that with the new woodland burial ground being located adjacent to the proposed new access road, this would make two access points on the B1354 in close proximity. At this point the B1354 carries fast (up to 60mph) traffic including large gravel trucks, freight lorries and large, 'wide vehicle' agricultural machinery.

There is a traditional burial ground also nearby with yet another access.

Access to the proposed site via Stratton Road would not be tenable; this is a narrow, one car-wide only un-categorised road. This road and other rural lanes in Hainford are not capable of carrying the potential increased volume in traffic, and in many places it is not possible for two vehicles to pass without mounting the verges. The access from B1354 on to A140 is already congested even at non-peak times and a potential of an additional 400+ cars from this development is unthinkable. The scarce public transport service means that nearly all currrent residents in Hainford rely on at least one, if not two, private cars per household. Any future residents would do the same.

A major consideration relating to this site is the longstanding problem of surface water flooding, which is in fact a feature of the whole village due to the high water table.

Hainford is an 'other village' and this development is in conflict with that status. Also in conflict with the Parish plan.

Loss of rural amenity-the site has landscape value.

4. Site GNLP0393 - 45 Dwellings

Serious risk of flooding

Development would infringe on the school car park

Already speeding problems on Newton Road

Loss of mature trees along Newton Road to make way for developmet

Flooding by surface water is a serious problem o this road

Site outside the development boundary

Site is disproportionate to the size of the village

Hainford is an 'other village' and this development is in conflict with that status.

Also in conflict with the Parish plan.

Narrow winding rural lanes throughout Hainford are inadequate for increased volume of traffic. In many locations there is insufficient room for two vehicles to pass safely. There would be increased congestion at the junction between A140 and B1354(Waterloo Rd).Also potential congestion at the junction with Newton Rd and the B1354.

The Primary school is small and would not be able to accommodate increased volume of pupils generated If wider development were allowed on this scale

Loss of rural amenity-the site has landscape value.

Response to Site Proposals within GNLP 2018 GNP 0069 and others - OBJECTION
Dear Sirs,
I wish to register my objections to the Site Proposals referenced above. The following paragraphs identify the key areas of my objection.
1. A Point of Order
It would appear that the district council failed to adequately notify the Parish Council about the proposed change of status of Hainford from "Other Village" to "Service Village". This very important aspect was "buried" in small print in an appendix to the GNLP document. The implications of such a major change are highly significant and the district Councillor's recorded, dismissive remark that such a change was 'not of sufficient importance', indicates, in my view, that the Councillors' judgement, impartiality and competence is questionable.
My comment is particularly relevant because the Councillor seemed to indicate that he is not aware, does not understand - or perhaps is happy to disregard? - that Hainford does not meet the criteria for Service village status as defined in the GNLP document. Hainford only meets one of the 4 key criteria for Category 1 service village status as defined in the GNLP document, and only 4 of the 12 in Category 2.
How have these important criteria been overlooked?
2. Hainford Current Status
Hainford's current status within the Planning Policy hierarchy is that of 'Other Village' due to it having only a range of basic services and suitable only for infill.
This would mean only small scale developments should apply and not the large scale developments being considered.
I understand that the "Other Village" status of Hainford is current although the primary school is not 'accessible' within the specified criteria in the GNLP 2018 document.
The current "Other Village" status is also consistent with the Parish Plan, set up following consultation with Hainford residents, which concluded that a high proportion of residents were opposed to any further development in the village and the overwhelming view of parishioners was that the local environment should be protected and preserved.
This conclusion was based upon the desire of the residents to retain the rural aspect. It is already well known and recognised that the limited infrastructure, limited power supplies, drainage problems, poor internet coverage, narrow roads (speeding traffic) etc. continues to be a problem.
In particular and highly significant is the fact that Hainford also opted to retain the existing development boundary.
I would draw your attention to the fact that there are four areas in the GNLP document which falsely claim to meet the requirement to change the status to Service Village.
They are:
i) that public transport meets the requirements of a service village - it does not;
ii) that the primary school facilities meet the requirement of a service village - they do not.
iii) that pre-school facilities meet the requirements of a service village - they do not
iv) that Community group facilities meet the requirements of a service village - they do not.
3. Site GNP0069 - 404 Dwellings
Given the validity of the criteria and comments in sections 1 and 2 above, such an enormous development in Hainford completely disregards and conflicts with GNLP's own policies and the wishes of the Hanford's residents. It is then difficult to understand how this site could ever feature or be considered as a potential development for 404 dwellings which would more than double the total village current size!
Of particular significance is the fact that this location is arable land and outside the development boundary. It is also, not surprisingly, remote from the existing village and completely out of scale and character with the rural environment.
The only two access road options to such a development would require to be on a scale which is unsupportable within the existing country road network and cause serious safety concerns. The Highways Authority are already expressing concern about the standard and sustainability of the road network when considering even applications for single developments.
This particular area already suffers from poor services support and it would, as it presently stands, be completely unable to support such a development.
The question of drainage also seems to have been ignored. A basic and simple assessment would have identified that flooding and sewerage overload is a regular and ongoing problem in the immediate area due to the high water table in Stratton Road.
There is also the fact that with the new woodland burial ground being located adjacent to the proposed new access road, this would make two access points on the B1354 in close proximity. At this point the B1354 carries fast (up to 60mph) traffic including large gravel trucks, freight lorries and large, 'wide vehicle' agricultural machinery.
There is a traditional burial ground also nearby with yet another access.
Access to the proposed site via Stratton Road would not be tenable; this is a narrow, one car-wide only un-categorised road. This road and other rural lanes in Hainford are not capable of carrying the potential increased volume in traffic, and in many places it is not possible for two vehicles to pass without mounting the verges. The access from B1354 on to A140 is already congested even at non-peak times and a potential of an additional 400+ cars from this development is unthinkable. The scarce public transport service means that nearly all currrent residents in Hainford rely on at least one, if not two, private cars per household. Any future residents would do the same.
A major consideration relating to this site is the longstanding problem of surface water flooding, which is in fact a feature of the whole village due to the high water table.
Hainford is an 'other village' and this development is in conflict with that status. Also in conflict with the Parish plan.
Loss of rural amenity-the site has landscape value.
4. Site GNLP0393 - 45 Dwellings
Serious risk of flooding
Development would infringe on the school car park
Already speeding problems on Newton Road
Loss of mature trees along Newton Road to make way for development
Flooding by surface water is a serious problem on this road
Site outside the development boundary
Site is disproportionate to the size of the village
Hainford is an 'other village' and this development is in conflict with that status.
Also in conflict with the Parish plan.
Narrow winding rural lanes throughout Hainford are inadequate for increased volume of traffic. In many locations there is insufficient room for two vehicles to pass safely. There would be increased congestion at the junction between A140 and B1354(Waterloo Rd).Also potential congestion at the junction with Newton Rd and the B1354.
The Primary school is small and would not be able to accommodate increased volume of pupils generated if wider development were allowed on this scale
Loss of rural amenity-the site has landscape value.