GNLP0512

Showing comments and forms 1 to 19 of 19

Support

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 13287

Received: 25/02/2018

Respondent: mrs belinda yaxley

Representation Summary:

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: 13293

Received: 25/02/2018

Respondent: Miss Claire Yaxley

Representation Summary:

Makes TOTAL sense to build houses here as some already exist.

Full text:

Makes TOTAL sense to build houses here as some already exist.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 13334

Received: 26/02/2018

Respondent: Mrs Deborah Bennett

Representation Summary:

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: 13883

Received: 13/03/2018

Respondent: Mrs Carol Futter

Representation Summary:

Hainford should remain in its status of other village, there are not enough facilities for the kind of development being proposed through greedy developers

Full text:

Hainford should remain in its status of other village, there are not enough facilities for the kind of development being proposed through greedy developers

Comment

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 14316

Received: 18/03/2018

Respondent: Cllr Dan Roper

Representation Summary:

I share the concern expressed by residents that this proposal represents creeping development into part of the village. This is contrary to the parish plan and is outside of settlement limits.

Full text:

I share the concern expressed by residents that this proposal represents creeping development into part of the village. This is contrary to the parish plan and is outside of settlement limits.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 14566

Received: 19/03/2018

Respondent: Hainford Parish Council

Representation Summary:

Disproportionate to size,status and not contiguous to existing settlement.
impact on rural landscape setting,potential loss of protected trees
unsafe location on road junction,
known flooding on both sites,overflowing ditches and flooding onto road.
inadequate drainage issues Hall Rd.
Outside Development Boundary,
conflicts 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,the site is not connected to footway links which are sporadic,public transport services are very limited resulting in an over reliance on the car contrary to sustainability objectives',
School inaccessible and insufficient capacity.







Full text:

1.This is a site which can take a lot more than 12 dwellings and is disproportionate to the status ,size and aspect of the village it does not relate to and is not contiguous to the existing settlement..

2.Unsuitable location due to rural landscape setting.We have been advised that there are TPO's in force along this stretch of the road and a likely impact on wildlife in this area.

3.Part 2 of the site is an unsuitable location at the junction with Hall Rd with regard to traffic safety.

4. There is known flooding on these two sites and overflowing ditches with flooding on the junction with Hall Rd.The Hall Rd area of the village is known for longstanding and continuing flooding and unresolved drainage problems which are widespread throughout Hainford.
.It is current planning policy to direct development to areas with the lowest probability of flooding.

5. 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.

6.The site lies outside the Development Boundary.

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 Hainford's Parish Plan.

9. Wider development in this location would be unsustainable due to lack of adequate infrastructure services, general facilities, limited power supplies with a reliancee upon oil and frequent power cuts and limited 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. There would be a reliance upon narrow rural roads to access the site.
The narrow 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
11. 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
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. we have been advised that the site is restricted to buildings or replacement buildings of an agricultural nature HOU9

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 14781

Received: 20/03/2018

Respondent: Mr Sean Harvey

Representation Summary:

Single track road, rural countryside, only ten dwellings.

Twelve dwellings = 120% increase.

Disproportionate increase in traffic.

Not sustainable with existing infrastructure, no street lighting, no footpaths.

More traffic will make the lane more congested and dangerous particularly for pedestrians.

Displacement of wildlife, loss of trees/woodland detrimental to the area.

Contravenes HOU9 restrictions.

Outside main settlement.

Contravenes the Development Boundary.

Drainage system inadequate with constant flooding.

The sewerage system cannot cope, regularly blocked, toilets backfilling, overflowing, sewage spilling out within the curtilage of houses.

No gas,reliant on oil,electricity by antiquated overhead power cables, regular power cuts, not conducive with development.

Full text:

Single track road, rural countryside, only ten dwellings.

Twelve dwellings = 120% increase.

Disproportionate increase in traffic.

Not sustainable with existing infrastructure, no street lighting, no footpaths.

More traffic will make the lane more congested and dangerous particularly for pedestrians.

Displacement of wildlife, loss of trees/woodland detrimental to the area.

Contravenes HOU9 restrictions.

Outside main settlement.

Contravenes the Development Boundary.

Drainage system inadequate with constant flooding.

The sewerage system cannot cope, regularly blocked, toilets backfilling, overflowing, sewage spilling out within the curtilage of houses.

No gas,reliant on oil,electricity by antiquated overhead power cables, regular power cuts, not conducive with development.
I have registered my comments on the GNLP Have Your Say WebPage ID: 14781 however it is very constrained allowing only one hundred words. I have therefore appended below a more complete view of my objection to site GNLP0512 for consideration.


In respect of GNLP0512, 2 Plots on Lady Lane/Hall Road with a proposal for 12 houses this is clearly not sustainable given the location it sits and I strongly object to the proposed development.

Lady Lane is a single track road, sparsely populated, rural countryside setting with currently only ten residential dwellings thereon together with large areas of arable farmland (two fields being subject to this development application) and open countryside and woodland. The proposal for an additional twelve dwellings will mean an extortionate 120% increase in properties in Lady Lane together with the resultant increase in traffic flow which would not be sustainable with the existing road infrastructure, lack of street lighting and footpaths.

Lady Lane is currently an idyllic village setting and within its open countryside contains an abundance of thriving wildlife which would be lost if this development was approved. There are currently many trees in woodland areas to enjoy, some of which are subject to TPO's. The displacement of such wildlife and loss of trees or woodland would clearly be detrimental to the area and the village of Hainford as a whole.

The land in question is and always has been agriculture land. It is my understanding that development in this location is restricted to HOU9 being buildings or replacement buildings of an agricultural nature. Building of groups of residential property, which are not for the purpose of habitation of farm workers, would be in contravention of HOU9.

This land is well outside of the existing main settlement of Hainford and also contravenes the Development Boundary as approved by the Parish Plan. It is the opinion and want of the majority of village residents and the Parish Council that the Development Boundary is not compromised and large scale building of residential property does not take place.

Lady Lane being a single track road has consistent problems for even small vehicles passing each other in the lane and the grass verges are constantly churned up and damaged with mud strewn across the road even with the existing level of traffic. When larger vehicles and lorries currently travel along Lady Lane due to the narrowness of the road they have no option when passing but to mount the verges and cause damage. An increased level of vehicles will exacerbate this problem and increased traffic flow will undoubtedly make the lane more congested and dangerous particularly for pedestrians.

A particularly busy junction even with the current limited residences is that at Lady Lane/Hall Road where one of these two sites is proposed and in the absence of any footpaths, street lighting or the ability to easily get off the carriageway there will almost certainly be accidents in this area.

There aren't currently any footpaths along the entire length of Lady Lane or Hall Road and this area is also in close proximity to the Village Hall bringing increased foot traffic to the area. Furthermore there is not any street lighting in Lady Lane or Hall Road in the vicinity of the proposed development. If these developments go ahead they will bring a further increase in the residential population walking and the amount of traffic without the services and infrastructure in place to maintain public safety.

The drainage system is inadequate for dealing with surface water and Lady Lane, and in particular at the junction with Hall Road, there is constant flooding whenever there is rain or snow and the surface water takes a number of days to subside. This floodwater in itself causes safety issues for people having to negotiate it whilst walking in the road with no footpaths so again the increase in traffic from increased development will bring increased danger to the public.

The drainage ditches are insufficient to deal with the flooding and the road drainage system is always blocked due to mud on the road, from vehicles mounting the verges, finding its way into the drainage openings.

The utilities in this area are woefully insufficient and underfunded

The sewerage system cannot cope with the ten existing houses on Lady Lane and sewer pipes are regularly blocked with toilets backfilling and overflowing and untreated sewage spilling onto the grass and driveways within the curtilage of houses. A simple check with Anglian Water will show the amount of blockages they have had to deal with and confirm that this is an ongoing problem that will only get worse with an increase in residential development.

There is no mains gas supply available in the area and properties remain reliant on oil, which is not conducive with large scale and increased residential development. All new urban developments have mains gas supply and it would not be considered to build a new urban residential area reliant solely on oil as the main heating fuel.

Electricity to the area is still supplied by old-fashioned overhead power cables. The supply is very unreliable with power cuts being a very regular occurrence. Again such an erratic and antiquated supply is not conducive with the expansion in development until the supply problems are addressed.

All in all there are many reasons why development should not take place in the area of Lady Lane/Hall Road and in fact for many of the same reasons development should be severely restricted across the whole Parish of Hainford.

I have strong objections in relation to Hainford being upgraded to a 'Service Village' from the existing 'Other Village' status.

Hainford clearly lacks the facilities and infrastructure to fit the defined criteria of 'Service Village' and such an upgrade would contradict the GNLP definition of 'Service Village'.

One of the main criteria that must be met is that of having a Primary School that is wholly accessible from all parts of the village by footpaths. This is not the case with Hainford Primary School as footpaths are very few and far between in the village, in fact almost being non-existent in many areas and certainly not providing full access to the school from all parts of the village.

By definition in the GNLP, if the criteria is to be adhered to, this lack of safe accessibility to the school is in itself alone, sufficient to deem that Hainford should remain as an 'Other Village'.

In addition to this main defined criteria not being met the village lacks basic facilities such as a shop, Post Office, regular and reliable public transport, relevant community group, street lighting and with a very limited and poor infrastructure consisting of many single track roads could not sustain expansion of development which would undoubtedly come with the upgraded status of a 'Service Village'.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 14847

Received: 21/03/2018

Respondent: Mrs D Fuller

Representation Summary:

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 are unsuitable for increased traffic. We have limited power supplies, a sporadic bus service and no local facilities.
All the existing services and infastructure 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 are unsuitable for increased traffic. We have limited power supplies, a sporadic bus service and no local facilities.
All the existing services and infastructure would be overloaded by more development; only small scale housing within the development boundary would be suitable

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 14861

Received: 20/03/2018

Respondent: Mrs Debbie Harvey

Representation Summary:

Hainford is lacking in many vital services which will not support major development. Lady Lane for instance is a semi-rural lane with 2 proposed sites. Two way traffic struggles to pass along this narrow lane using residents driveways as passing points.
Will this small school cope with greater demand? With very few pavements and no street lighting, is this safe?
The utilities will need to be upgraded to cope. The sewers hardly cope, the drains flood whenever it rains, overhead electric cables frequently fail. Public transport is limited so private traffic will increase. More oil deliveries as no gas services.

Full text:

The 100 word count is insufficient to respond fully so I have summitted my objections in full via email.
I have concerns about all the proposed development areas in the Hainford area based on several criteria.
Hainford, albeit a wonderful village to reside, is lacking in many vital services which will not support major development in the area. Lady Lane for instance is a semi-rural lane with 2 proposed sites. At present, two way traffic struggles to negotiate passing each other along this narrow lane having to use residents driveways for passing points. This lane would struggle to cope with more traffic and the safety of pedestrians without pavements is a concern.
The school? Will this small school cope with greater demand? With very few pavements in the village and local government encouraging youngsters to walk to school, how does this work with the amount of children presently, let alone with more youngsters negotiating the narrow lanes that cannot be paved .... and without street lighting, is this safe for our children?
The utilities will need to be upgraded to cope. Having spoken to those most affected I gather the sewers at best struggle to cope with the number of properties it serves currently ..... we, in fact have had to call out Anglian Water several times already in the short time we've lived here to deal with blocked sewers caused by large tree roots growing through the pipework. Will investment to upgrade these sewers be made to be able to cope with major development? Whilst I am not adverse to the idea of better facilities in our village I fail to see how sufficient improvements can be made to the currently infrastructure to accommodate building development. The approach roads to Hainford from all directions would struggle to support more traffic and with the extra demand from oil deliveries as Hainford does not benefit from gas ..... can we accommodate greater demands from the oil delivery companies and their large vehicles? Power cuts! Overhead cables ..... if we have adverse weather such as a large gust of wind, the power goes off ..... will these all be upgraded? And talking of adverse weather, will the drains be upgraded? Localised flooding happens in key areas whenever we have rainfall whereby the drains cannot cope with the extra volumes of water. The drains and drainage ditches overflow in the same places every time we have sustained rainfall, not helped by the fact that Hainford is sited on a high water table. More strain on these existing drains will only exacerbate the problems we currently already experience.
The proposed developments will bring in significant numbers of new residents all making more demands on the current services. New residents would have to consider the limited provision of public transport and if these services are not sufficient for them to commute to other areas then extra private transport is going to be bought in to the village hence another strain on the narrow lanes.
All in all, I feel Hainford is not best placed for major development due to the impact on the existing services and facilities as detailed above and unless these services can be upgraded sufficiently to cope with the new demands made upon them, I object to the proposed plans made under the GNLP.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 15402

Received: 21/03/2018

Respondent: Adrian Fletcher

Representation Summary:

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.

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.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 15410

Received: 21/03/2018

Respondent: Mr. Kevin Saggers

Representation Summary:

REJECT:
1. Flooding at most all sites due to high water table,
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. TPOs around proposed sites,
8. Almost at extreme end of village,
9. Nearby properties have problems with sewage system.

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,
7. A number of TPOs in place around the village, several understood to be on/around these two proposed plots,
8. These two plots almost at the extremity of the village, therefore poorly-sited for what few amenities we have,
9. Nearby properties round the corner in Hall Road suffer from backing up of the sewage system, which is clearly insufficient for the existing level of properties let alone any new buildings in this corner of the village.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 15417

Received: 21/03/2018

Respondent: Mr Stephen Bevan

Representation Summary:

hainford is a small quiet rural village will limited services. Adding more housing will affect the current balance of wildlife , farming and quality of life for those that live here. More housing is not going to improve hainford, it will have the opposite effect. The current infrastructure is not suitable for increased traffic loads.

Full text:

hainford is a small quiet rural village will limited services. Adding more housing will affect the current balance of wildlife , farming and quality of life for those that live here. More housing is not going to improve hainford, it will have the opposite effect. The current infrastructure is not suitable for increased traffic loads.

Comment

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 15430

Received: 21/03/2018

Respondent: Mr Christopher Danby

Representation Summary:

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, disproportionate in size and known for serious flooding. There are many TPOs in this stretch of road and development would impact on the wildlife of the area. It is outside the development boundary and in conflict with the parish plan. 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 increased traffic movement, being single track with passing spaces in most cases. Loss of rural amenity.
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."

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 15790

Received: 22/03/2018

Respondent: Mrs Teresa Watker

Representation Summary:

Strongly object to building more houses on Lady Lane... it's a lane which will not support higher volumes of traffic, being down to single file in some areas. Building will also spoil the outlook of this village as it is on a corner plot with views over fields. Lots of people go 'around the block'(Chapel Rd, Hall Rd, Lady Ln & Newton Rd) so it would make it dangerous for runners, walkers, cyclists and horse riders.

Full text:

Strongly object to building more houses on Lady Lane... it's a lane which will not support higher volumes of traffic, being down to single file in some areas. Building will also spoil the outlook of this village as it is on a corner plot with views over fields. Lots of people go 'around the block'(Chapel Rd, Hall Rd, Lady Ln & Newton Rd) so it would make it dangerous for runners, walkers, cyclists and horse riders.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 16196

Received: 19/03/2018

Respondent: Mrs Pamela Capel

Representation Summary:

GNLP0512 - Development in Lady lane whist the land is not wet, any drainage flows down to newton road. On the corner of the junction with Lady Lane and Newton road there is already a problem with the drainage ditches which can not run away because of the overload of water and the saturation of the land around.
The water table is very high in Hainford and the drainage ditches cannot get rid of the excess water, putting large areas under concrete will make matters worse.

Full text:

GNLP0582 - Development here would not be a good idea as chapel road already has flooding issues after prolonged heavy rain and the ground next to the entrance in newton road also gets underwater. The gardens of the houses on the east side of the road get flooded. The land behind there is basically a swamp and the wooded area is underwater in winter. The drainage system in Hainford is inadequate at the moment so further development here would be adding to the problem.

GNLP0512 - Development in Lady lane whist the land is not wet, any drainage flows down to Newton road. On the corner of the junction with Lady Lane and Newton road there is already a problem with the drainage ditches which can not cope in wet weather and the ditches stand full of water and cannot run away because of the overload of water and the saturation of the land around.
The water table is very high in Hainford and the drainage ditches cannot get rid of the excess water, putting large areas under concrete will make matters worse.

GNLP0190
This area I presume will be entered off Grange Road opposite Grange Farm. This is a large area with regard to drainage. If this development went ahead I would hope that the drains would go in the direction of Buxton Road if on the other hand the drainage was directed to Grange road. This would be a huge problem for the existing road and properties at the end near the village green. As the ditches here can barely cope and flooding has occurred. The woodland around the old hall is underwater most of the winter.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 16267

Received: 06/03/2018

Respondent: Mr David Bennett

Number of people: 2

Representation Summary:

Letter & Papers enclosed just to let you see relevance to proposed development site GNLP0512 and GNLP0512 and to back everything up I have put in my letter of which we greatly oppose - see scanned response.

Full text:

Letter & Papers enclosed just to let you see relevance to proposed development site GNLP0512 and GNLP0512 and to back everything up I have put in my letter of which we greatly oppose.

Dear Sir
Firstly I am astonished at the lack of communications given to the good people of hainford in regard to proposed plans for property development in Lady Lane it is our human right that every home in our village should have been issued a letter and given the chance to have there say in this matter. This makes me wonder if this was deliberate so less people get to air there views. We are a very close-knit community. 1. the water table is very high and a building site covering a large area in concrete could and would have dramatic affect ie flooding even contamination. 2.Lady Lane is outside the settlement limits policy ROU9. 3.we have crested newts, adders, that are protected also muntjac deer that roam across to this land so they will be affected. 4.The large oak trees that canopy the road at Lady Lane are protected by T.P.O. order. So no digging permitted because of root disturbance canopy of trees determine distance of protected area which would be considerate area. 5.Drainage or lack of it along the road. Again T.P.O. would stop installation of deep drainage pipes. 6.Infrastrticture there in very few and would not sustain this huge increase of population ie tiny school no shops. 7.HOU9 states land can only be built on for farmworkers to live in when tending there land. 8. ENV2 policy states that consideration should be given to the appearance and treatment of spaces between and around building and the wider setting of development taking in the existing character of the surrounding policy GS3 also requires that the privacy and amenities of neighbours are adequately safeguarded. Policy ENVS protection of semi rurel features such as trees hedges were appropriate ie T.P.O. flanking Lady Lane and neighbouring property. we were told by Broadland District Council the land to our left would never be built on when we rebuilt trees (footings had gone) we were only allowed like for like governed roof height and floor area only one replacement property even though plot is an acre in size so would this mean the same would apply to these two large plots of land? a low small chaletbungalow per acre I some how dont think so you can not have one rule for us and another for large development sites traffic would be horrendous would never get out of our driveway refuge bins along the road hazardous no pathways accident waiting to happen the delicate balance of the village environment severely compromised. I believe there are pockets of land already earmarked ie Waterloo Road are for development of sustainable amount in place without destroying our farm land needed to feed our community we strongly object to this development and will all pull together to stop it.

Attachments:

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 16288

Received: 12/04/2018

Respondent: Mr Terry Tong

Representation Summary:

Opposed to the proposals, it would appear to have a total disregard for local people, government guidelines and the democratic process. Proposed areas are: poorly serviced: the roads are narrow with no vehicle passing places: subject to a shallow water table: electrical supply frequently fails: inadequate sewage system; and, have significant adverse effect on wildlife in particular, Adders, Grass Snakes, Greater Crested Newts and other wildlife such as stoats, deer, owls and Buzzards. Hainford PC has agreed a parish plan that allows for expansion in areas that can be serviced by roads/utilities companies

Full text:

Totally opposed to the proposals submitted in the GNLP proposals shown as GNLP 0512. This proposal would appear to have a total disregard for local people, government guidelines and the democratic process.
The scheme only came to our attention when we received the parish magazine on 27/02/18.
The scheme is contrary to the Government's proposals and guidelines that clearly state: 'that the answer to the housing crisis does not lie in tearing up the Green Belt.' 'Councils can only amend Green Belt boundaries if they can prove that they have fully explored every other reasonable option'.
The areas highlighted in GNLP 0512 are subjected to such building restrictions. The only building allowed is for farming buildings specified in Policy HOU9 and restricted replacement dwellings. These restrictions make sense they preserve the countryside.
Hainford Parish Council has agreed with the local people and relevant authorities a parish plan that clearly allows for building expansion in areas that can be serviced by roads and the utility companies.
The GNLP proposed areas are poorly serviced, the roads are narrow with no vehicle passing places, (particularly in Lady Lane where vehicles encroach on private property to pass) also the area is subject to a shallow water table, an electrical supply that frequently fails, a sewage system that barely copes with existing users, the adverse effect on wildlife in particular, Adders, Grass Snakes, Greater Crested Newts and other wildlife such as stoats, deer, owls and Buzzards. The scheme proposed by Hainford Parish Council makes sense! The GNLP0512 would be a disaster.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 16448

Received: 22/03/2018

Respondent: Mr Stephen Rogers

Representation Summary:

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.

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: 16631

Received: 21/03/2018

Respondent: Mr Terry Tong

Representation Summary:

This site is subjected to building restrictions. The only building allowed is for farming buildings as specified in policy HOU9 and restricted replacement dwellings.
Hainford PC has agreed a parish plan that clearly allows for village building expansion in areas that can be serviced by roads and the utility companies.
This site is poorly serviced, roads are narrow with no passing places, also the area is subject to a shallow water table, an electrical supply that frequently fails a sewage system that barely copes with existing users. This development would also have an adverse affect on the local wildlife.

Full text:

We are totally opposed to the proposals submitted in the GNLP proposals shown as GNLP 0512.
This proposal would appear to have a total disregard for local people, government guidelines and the democratic process. The scheme only came to our attention when we received the Parish Magazine on 27/2/18.
The scheme is contrary to the government's proposals and guidelines that clearly state:
"That the answer to the housing crisis does not lie in tearing up the green belt" "councils can only amend green belt boundaries if they prove they are fully explored every other reasonable option".
The areas highlighted in GNLP 0512 are subjected to such building restrictions. The only building allowed is for framing buildings as specified in policy HOU9 and restricted replacement dwellings. These restrictions make sense they preserve our valued countryside.
Hainford Parish Council has agreed with the local people and relevant authorities a parish plan that clearly allows for village building expansion in areas that can be serviced by roads and the utility companies.
The GNLP proposed areas are poorly serviced, the roads are narrow with no vehicle passing places, (particularly lady lane where vehicles encroach on private property to pass) Also the area is subject to a shallow water table, an electrical supply that frequently fails a sewage system that barely copes with existing users. The adverse effect on wildlife in particular adders, grass snakes, greater crested newts and other wildlife such as deer, owls and buzzards.
The scheme proposed by Hainford Pcc makes sense! The GNLP 0512 would be a disaster!