GNLP0181

Showing comments and forms 1 to 12 of 12

Support

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 13284

Received: 25/02/2018

Respondent: mrs belinda yaxley

Representation:

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.

Full text:

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.

Support

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 13290

Received: 25/02/2018

Respondent: Miss Claire Yaxley

Representation:

This particular plot is perfect as it is alongside existing homes in Hainford right near the Village Hall, which is always a hub of activity and has a pre-school. Lots more events have been happening there in recent years and more houses, especially so close by, would only help.

Full text:

This particular plot is perfect as it is alongside existing homes in Hainford right near the Village Hall, which is always a hub of activity and has a pre-school. Lots more events have been happening there in recent years and more houses, especially so close by, would only help.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 13331

Received: 26/02/2018

Respondent: Mrs Deborah Bennett

Representation:

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

Full text:

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

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 14308

Received: 18/03/2018

Respondent: Cllr Dan Roper

Representation:

I can see potential for this site to be used for a limited amount of infill with road frontage as it is well connected to the rest of the village. However, I consider 20 houses to be excessive.

The totality of development is a paramount consideration given village size and limited amenities/infrastructure

Full text:

I can see potential for this site to be used for a limited amount of infill with road frontage as it is well connected to the rest of the village. However, I consider 20 houses to be excessive.

The totality of development is a paramount consideration given village size and limited amenities/infrastructure

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 14543

Received: 19/03/2018

Respondent: Hainford Parish Council

Representation:

Outside Development Boundary.
Impact on setting of Hainford Hall
Widespread flooding and unresolved drainage problems
Disproportionate to size and aspect of the village
Conflicts with Status of 'other village' and Parish Plan
Unsustainable-lack of infrastructure 'Hainford having very limited everyday facilities is not considered an acceptable location,site is not connected to footway links which are sporadic in the village and public transport services are very limited resulting in over reliance on the car contrary to sustainability objectives'.
reliance upon rural roads inadequate to support the volume of traffic generated.
School inaccessible by footway and lacks capacity
Site has landscape value

Full text:

1.The proposed development would impact on the setting of Hainford Hall

2.This area of the village is known for longstanding and continuing flooding and unresolved drainage problems.The site is on an area known to be subject to surface water flooding.The ditches nearby are over flowing. The sewerage capacity is known to be inadequate in this location.

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

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

3.The site lies outside the Development Boundary.

4. The site is disproportionate to the status, size and aspect of the village.

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

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

7. Wider development in this location would be unsustainable due to lack of adequate infrastructure services,general facilities ,limited power supplies( reliance upon oil) electricity power cuts 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
8.The narrow and winding rural lanes in this location are inadequate for increased volume of traffic and in many locations it is impossible 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.
9. The Primary school is not accessible by definition 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
10.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

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

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 14834

Received: 21/03/2018

Respondent: Mrs D Fuller

Representation:

I am objecting to all the site proposals on the grounds that:-
The village has a very high water table and many 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,slow broadband,and poor mobile phone conectivity.A sporadic bus service and no local facilities.
All services and infrastructure would be overloaded by more developments, only
small scale housing within the development boundary would be a suitable option.

Full text:

I am objecting to all the site proposals on the grounds that:-
The village has a very high water table and many 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,slow broadband,and poor mobile phone conectivity.A sporadic bus service and no local facilities.
All services and infrastructure would be overloaded by more developments, only
small scale housing within the development boundary would be a suitable option.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 15373

Received: 21/03/2018

Respondent: Adrian Fletcher

Representation:

Hainford has insufficient services to support further build up. Public transport is poor, and electric supply/sewage limited. There are no shops, only one public house. This site is know to be prone to flooding. This is outside of the development boundary.

Full text:

Hainford has insufficient services to support further build up. Public transport is poor, and electric supply/sewage limited. There are no shops, only one public house. This site is know to be prone to flooding. This is outside of the development boundary.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 15379

Received: 21/03/2018

Respondent: Mr. Kevin Saggers

Representation:

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; sewage system short distance down the road regularly backs up,
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.

Full text:

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; sewage system short distance down the road regularly backs up,
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.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 15425

Received: 21/03/2018

Respondent: Mr Christopher Danby

Representation:

This site is known to have serious flooding issues, Hainford lacks a suitable infrastructure to support this level of development, we constantly suffer power cuts, inadequate sever system, inadequate practical bus service. The roads in and around Hainford lack the capacity to support increase traffic movement, being single track with passing spaces in most cases. The site is again in conflict with Hainford's status of 'Other Village' which by definition stated in the GNLP still applies. The site is outside of the development boundary, disproportionate to the size of Hainford and is in conflict with the Parish plan.

Full text:

This site is known as to have serious flooding issues, over flowing ditches and sewer issues. The road at the junction is always flooded after even the smallest of rain showers. 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 outside of the development boundary and disproportionate to the size of Hainford as it currently stands.
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, 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 you propose.. Loss of rural amenity

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 15427

Received: 21/03/2018

Respondent: Mr Christopher Danby

Representation:

This site is known to have serious flooding issues, Hainford lacks a suitable infrastructure to support this level of development, we constantly suffer power cuts, inadequate sever system, inadequate practical bus service. The roads in and around Hainford lack the capacity to support increase traffic movement, being single track with passing spaces in most cases. The site is again in conflict with Hainford's status of 'Other Village' which by definition stated in the GNLP still applies. The site is outside of the development boundary, disproportionate to the size of Hainford and is in conflict with the Parish plan.

Full text:

This site is not related to the existing village and would impact the setting of Hainford hall which is a listed building, The size and position is disproportionate and outside the development boundary and in conflict with the parish plan.
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.
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, 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 you propose
The roads in and around Hainford lack the capacity to support increase traffic movement, being single track with passing spaces in most cases. Loss of rural amenity

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 15780

Received: 22/03/2018

Respondent: Mrs Teresa Watker

Representation:

Object to 20 houses being built on this land. Although a generous plot I feel 20 would be too close together... we are a village, not Broadgate Park! Agree with all other parishioners comments to objection.

Full text:

Object to 20 houses being built on this land. Although a generous plot I feel 20 would be too close together... we are a village, not Broadgate Park! Agree with all other parishioners comments to objection.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 16719

Received: 22/03/2018

Respondent: Mr Stephen Rogers

Representation:

Flooding on site, lack of infrastructure to support, disproportionate in size

Full text:

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.