GNLP0393

Showing comments and forms 1 to 17 of 17

Support

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 13286

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: 13292

Received: 25/02/2018

Respondent: Miss Claire Yaxley

Representation:

I would be very happy to see some of this land used for the school, including building a PROPER car park and perhaps reserving some land to allow the school to eventually expand. Then use the rest for houses. Building more houses so close to the school - especially 3, 4 bedroom houses and affordable housing - will ensure more pupils attend the school and save it from potential closure as most parents tend to drive their kids elsewhere these days.

Full text:

I would be very happy to see some of this land used for the school, including building a PROPER car park and perhaps reserving some land to allow the school to eventually expand. Then use the rest for houses. Building more houses so close to the school - especially 3, 4 bedroom houses and affordable housing - will ensure more pupils attend the school and save it from potential closure as most parents tend to drive their kids elsewhere these days.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 13333

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: 13779

Received: 11/03/2018

Respondent: Mrs Frances Lloyd

Representation:

The area in question not only has a very high water table and floods on a regular basis but is against the propsed upgeade to being a service village and it is in conflict with our current status & parish plan.

Full text:

The area in question not only has a very high water table and floods on a regular basis but is against the propsed upgeade to being a service village and it is in conflict with our current status & parish plan.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 14313

Received: 18/03/2018

Respondent: Cllr Dan Roper

Representation:

It is not possible to support this site given issues raised about potential flooding.

The number of properties identified is significant given the current size of the village and its limited amenities to support growth.

Full text:

It is not possible to support this site given issues raised about potential flooding.

The number of properties identified is significant given the current size of the village and its limited amenities to support growth.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 14561

Received: 19/03/2018

Respondent: Hainford Parish Council

Representation:

significant flooding on site, previous objections from Environment Agency,overflowing ditches and flooding onto road,
Disproportionate to status and size of existing settlement,
infringement on school car park and setting of church,
existing speeding/parking problems
loss of mature oaks for visibility splay,
outside Development Boundary,
conflict with status of 'other village' and Parish Plan,
Unsustainable-lack of infrastructure.'Hainford having very limited standard everyday facilities is not considered an acceptable location' 'Footway links are sporadic and public transport services are very limited resulting in an over reliance on the car contrary to sustainability objectives',
reliance upon inadequate rural roads,
School has inadequate capacity




Full text:

1.This site was previously objected to by the Environment Agency , due to very significant risk of flooding,

2. It would infringe on the school car park and be detrimental to the setting of the church,

3.There are existing problems with speed/parking along Newton Rd.

2. Loss of mature oaks to provide visibility splay.

4.This site is on an area known to be subject to significant surface water flooding. There have also been long standing issues with sewer capacity in the area of Stratton road nearby causing problems with the pumping station and residents toilets overflowing. Flooding is widespread throughout Hainford with overflowing ditches and flooding onto the roads.

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

5. The site is outside the Development Boundary.

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

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

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

9. 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
10..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.
11.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
12. Loss of rural amenity-the site has landscape value.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 14839

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 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 sproradic bus service and no local facilities.
All services and infrastructure would be overloaded by more development; only small scale housing within the development boundary would be suitable.

Full text:

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 sproradic bus service and no local facilities.
All services and infrastructure would be overloaded by more development; only small scale housing within the development boundary would be suitable.

Comment

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 15380

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 would be disperate from the village centre. This is outside of the development boundary and is known to be liable to frequent flooding.

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 would be disperate from the village centre. This is outside of the development boundary and is known to be liable to frequent flooding.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 15390

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 would be disperate from the village centre. This is outside of the development boundary and is known to be liable to frequent flooding.

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 would be disperate from the village centre. This is outside of the development boundary and is known to be liable to frequent flooding.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 15405

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,
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,
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: 15414

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, the environment agency have previously objected to any development here.
The school car park and church would be negatively affected by any development on this site. There are several matures oaks that would have to be removed.
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 and is in conflict with the Parish plan.
The site is again in conflict with Hainford's status of 'Other Village' which by 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, 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: 15787

Received: 22/03/2018

Respondent: Mrs Teresa Watker

Representation:

Object to 45 houses being built on this area... agree if building were to take place, better facilities for the school (i.e. a dedicated sports facility which could be used by the village as a whole) would be a better use. However, the land the park, car park and grassed area behind is owned by the Diocese of Norwich and they will not allow any permanent structures to be built. The flood plain is also high in this area.

Full text:

Object to 45 houses being built on this area... agree if building were to take place, better facilities for the school (i.e. a dedicated sports facility which could be used by the village as a whole) would be a better use. However, the land the park, car park and grassed area behind is owned by the Diocese of Norwich and they will not allow any permanent structures to be built. The flood plain is also high in this area.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 16445

Received: 22/03/2018

Respondent: Mr Stephen Rogers

Representation:

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

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.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 16623

Received: 22/03/2018

Respondent: Mr Clifford Self

Representation:

Serious risk of flooding
Development would put strain on the school capacity & infringe on the 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
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.
Roads throughout Hainford are inadequate for an increased volume of traffic.
Loss of rural amenity-the site has landscape value.

Full text:

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.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 16628

Received: 22/03/2018

Respondent: Janet Self

Representation:

Serious risk of flooding
Development would put strain on the school capacity & infringe on the 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
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.
Roads throughout Hainford are inadequate for an increased volume of traffic.
Loss of rural amenity-the site has landscape value.

Full text:

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.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 16734

Received: 22/03/2018

Respondent: christine henning

Representation:

Serious risk of flooding; infringement onto school car park; would exacerbate speeding problems on Newton Road and result in loss of mature trees; Flooding by surface water is a serious problem; site outside the development boundary; site disproportionate to the size of the village; would be in conflict with Hainford's 'other village' status and with the Parish plan. Road network inadequate for volume of traffic generated. Often insufficient room for two vehicles to pass safely. Increased congestion likely at the A140/B1354 and Newton Rd/B1354 junctions.

Primary school small and unable to accommodate increased volume of pupils generated. Loss of landscape value and rural amenity.

Full text:

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.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 16736

Received: 22/03/2018

Respondent: Mr Michael Bown

Representation:

Serious risk of flooding; infringement onto school car park; would exacerbate speeding problems on Newton Road and result in loss of mature trees; Flooding by surface water is a serious problem; site outside the development boundary; site disproportionate to the size of the village; would be in conflict with Hainford's 'other village' status and with the Parish plan. Road network inadequate for volume of traffic generated. Often insufficient room for two vehicles to pass safely. Increased congestion likely at the A140/B1354 and Newton Rd/B1354 junctions.
Primary school small and unable to accommodate increased volume of pupils generated. Loss of landscape value and rural amenity.

Full text:

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.