GNLP0415

Barnham Broom objects this proposal. Our village would become an increased, 'rat run' for those avoiding the A47, (which is already a problem).
This development would have a huge impact on a rural setting and increase current traffic issues. It is not the right site for such a settlement.

The proposed development will destroy a quiet and beautiful part of rural Norfolk - The reasons why people choose to live and holiday in Norfolk. There is absolutely no infrastructure in place for such a development and the implementation of such will further destroy the surrounding area.

I chose to live here because of the tranquility and natural beauty of the area. Aready this is being spoiled by the future development of the food hub. I strongly object to any more development in this area.

Honingham is an historic rural village, designated as part of the Countryside in the Joint Core Strategy (policy 17)
This proposal would have severe implications on this parish
The scale of development proposed is immense, the impact on the landscape would be irrevocable, also to lose so much agricultural land from food production must be a grave concern, particularly at this time of uncertainty over the outcome of Brexit, the potential for tariffs on imports must surely mean that we should maintain optimum home protection,and safeguard our ability to produce food in an economic way.

In previous strategic development plans, large scale developments, similar to that proposed, have not been the most effective method of delivering new housing, far better to spread the housing across the whole GNDP area, in smaller groups, also allowing small and medium sized house builders to build out sites
Honingham is a parish too far!

The inappropriateness of the proposal of a new settlement to the south of the A47 is the destruction of the character of Honingham and Colton, and the spread of the urban area of Norwich too far west. I believe there should be a green belt around Norwich which would be an appropriate way of protecting our villages and the surrounding area of natural beauty and wildlife, both of which bring tourists to this area.

The inappropriateness of the proposal of a new settlement to the south of the A47 is the destruction of the character of Honingham and Colton, and the spread of the urban area of Norwich too far west. I believe there should be a green belt around Norwich which would be an appropriate way of protecting our villages and the surrounding area of natural beauty and wildlife, both of which bring tourists to this area.

A new village settlement is not in keeping with a rural area and will spoil our village. If this proposal is accepted we will become a suburb of Norwich. Past developments have failed to provide sufficient infrastructure. This development would encourage infiltrate land to be further building.

The development of this size is too large for the existing rural communities, and would severely change the character of this rural village. History of new developments is historically poor, as the public still want to retain their cars, as the public transport system is inadequate ., and whatever the promises, fail to deliver.

I strongly object to this scale of development in such a rural area . The village of Honingham will be consumed by such a large development.we chose to live in a quiet rural village protected by Norwich green belt, where has the protection gone? This development must not be allowed.

Strongly object to this development plan. All brownfield sites currently existing in and around Norwich and the NDR should first be properly considered for housing. Yet again Norfolk is being badly served by major projects which hugely impact on the County - the NDR, dualling the A47, Easton Food Hub and now this GNLP, NOT being properly considered TOGETHER. Norwich is heading for massive urban sprawl. We need green belts before its too late. This huge development is on "high grade" agric. land. There are little or no facilities or services which the residents will need -the residents of the villages concerned are already faced with years of uncertainty and the A47 dualling is likely to turn us into a building site. Listen to us please!

This is prime agricultural land which will be much needed following Brexit. What is the point of a food hub extolling virtues of Norfolk agriculture if it is surrounded by concrete? There are ancient woods here and good conservation work encouraging wild life to prosper, this cannot be lost. Mattishall Rd access to A47 is already too busy. Drainage issues for Honingham village as when fields flood all the water makes its way through to the village flooding gardens by the river. It has to affect the water table despite platitudes by developers.

I strongly object to this proposal. The scale and of this development would be totally inappropriate in this rural setting. It would not be a sustainable development, as there is insufficient infrastructure to support it. Most importantly it goes against Government planning policy as set out in the NPPF which discourages building on high grade agricultural land. It would consume the villages of Honingham, Colston and Easton making this new development a suburb of the city. Causing the destruction of a large swathe of countryside and contributing to urban sprawl.

I am totally horrified by these proposals and would like to express my objection. As a resident of the village of Honingham and a regular walker in the area, I am mortified that these plans involve the destruction of green belt land. I can understand the need for additional houses but there must be better locations than here. People, myself included, move to small rural villages because they are proud of their history and all they stand for. I am sure villagers of both Honingham and Colton will feel the same in this and this proposal clearly ruins both villages. Norfolk authorities should look to conserve what is left of such naturally beautiful areas and reduce the risks to inhabitants such as bats, deer and endangered newts. In addition the villages simply do not have the infrastructure to support this type of growth. Highways are unsuitable and as such congestion and the associated pollution will without doubt follow

Our community is set in a rural location with an abundance of wildlife including many red-status birds, newts, deer, badgers, bats and hare (which mainly live on high ground) which will all be threatened. At present we have no street lighting and so have no light pollution which will also be threatened. There simply is not the infrastructure here to accommodate such a project, new roads would encourage more traffic and completely destroy the identity of our village. I would hope that these points would be considered, they were ignored because of the LocalDevelopmentOrder during the consultation of the FoodHub/Zone/Park.

A development on the scale proposed is completely inappropriate with the then reality of urban Norwich swallowing the villages of Colton and Honingham. Whilst some appropriate further development of Colton and Honingham may be required this needs to be of a scale and style appropriate to the villages concerned, building on and respecting their character. This area west of Norwich needs to be preserved as green belt to contain and define the urban area of Norwich.

Honingham is an small historic village, of 140 homes, with an attractive landscape in the River Tud valley surrounded by high quality agricultural land which seems to be productive and constantly cropped. Whilst authoritative opinion constantly inform the public that more housing is required, the same could be said of the requirement to produce food for the nation and a balance must be found.
The designation of Honingham in this settlement hierarchy seems to have changed from a village in the countryside, with no settlement limit to that of a fringe parish, without consultation, which surely is paramount on such a major change

The Parish Council strongly object to this new settlement, GNLP0415 A to G on Honingham's doorstep as it would completely change the character of this sleepy village to its detriment.


There is also the fear that a new settlement once imposed would create the risk of further development between it and the existing village thereby further blighting the existing landscape.

With regard to this extensive new settlement proposal, it should be noted that the site contains areas of ancient woodland and conservation areas which ought to be preserved.

There is already a present problem in wet weather with surface water run off from fields around Colton Road which all drain down to the River Tud at the bottom of the village which risk flooding to the existing houses, which further development would undoubtedly exacerbate.

It is this Parish Council's view that the overriding principle should be to disperse new developments throughout the Greater Norwich area, rather than imposing a huge new settlement as is suggested by this proposal.

Honingham and Colton are rural villages. Please note those two words. "Rural" and "village". A development on this scale would take away the very essence of these communities. There are all too few places where a true community exists and is these developments were to go ahead, it would be another nail in the coffin of such places.

I walk my dog and take my camera around a lot of the area covered, and the impact on wildlife would be massive. Red Kites, Buzzards, Owls, Sparrowhawks and Kestrel patrol these fields, together with roe deer, foxes, badgers and many numerous small rodents. The area is a haven for frog and toads too. This habitat would be destroyed by the proposals and certainly not mitigated by the tiny token nature reserve and "country park" to the extreme south. Wildlife needs space to survive and flourish We cannot keep taking it away just so developers and landowners can make money

No doubt part of the plans will include upgrading the roads, building a new school and amenities and will emphasize the employment it will bring. With amenities and employment comes a lot of extra traffic. Any roads that are currently a relatively safe place to walk will become far more dangerous due to the extra usage. These roads will have to be used as the state of rural public transport in Norfolk is so poor. Far better to site such developments closer to a conurbation where public transport is more viable.

There must be far more suitable areas for a development of this scale. Why ruin two rural communities for a development of limited worth.

* Loss of prime farm land should be looking at brownfield sites and safe guarding future food growth
* Alter nature of quiet ancient village of Colton and Honingham to become a conurbation of Norwich
* Loss of view across fields for both Colton and Honingham
* Loss of circular walk to Green Farm and back to Honingham with loss of the ancient green lane/track along with ancient woodland, found on the left and half way along that lane
Loss of ancient woodland and animal life
* Heavier traffic flow on narrow country lanes by people living in the new developments causing destruction of peace and quiet as well as road surface
* Increasing pressure and congestion on roads into Norwich particularly at Longwater roundabout and Dereham road which is already struggling with increased capacity from new developments
* Further increasing commute time along Dereham Road which is already an hour at 8am due to weight of traffic
* Increased run off into River Tud from concreting over farm land plus widening of A47 risking more frequent flooding for homes along River Tud
* No bus service through Colton causing increased traffic from people taking children to school and to work. Young people will have to drive and therefore have a car to get to college or to work increasing number of cars and pollution in the area
* Pressure to road system with the rerouting and building of A47 from east Tuddenham to Easton will be further exacerbated by building new homes near Honingham and Colton with extra traffic, noise and fumes from lorries

The plans for the development both inside the village and so very close to the present edge of the present homes of the village of honingham.Firstly the question of planning consent that is currently being sought for by various developers on land behind present homes on Fellowes Rd.This road is actually a dead end short road.So the developers seeking access to the parcel of land they have for some years wished to put new homes on-which i now believe has been achieved by the person atempting to build.This development will on an enormous amount of points reduce the quality of life for those who presently live in this tiny overcrowded road,in Honingham.
This village is tiny with no amenitys,it should NOT be merged with Easton and/or Colton for any of the many different long term diverging continual long term pushing of development that the -big business-people and large present farmland owners are bulldosing through and have been pressuring through for such a long time,the pushing of new home building and the food hub plans will have very bed impact on a beautiful area.
Honingham should not be pushed through with the-food hub plans and NOT be drawn into them at all.Or the homes building plans for within our present village size.Fellowes road is NOT suitable and would render our already massively busy crowded road worse.
The big landowners who are wishing to delibrately link up Easton and Honingham by filling the farmland between with housing and thus turning Honingham village and Colton village too,into one big sprawling suburb is SO WRONG.The deliberate using of the proposed improving of our close by A47,by widening etc is being delibrately exploited negitively,to exploit the major proposed artery rd project,in order to delibrately use the present crop land for housing specificaly to infill and open up tiny villages with NO infrastructure.This proposed change of use of the planned large block of-what is presently farm land should not be passed through.This land around here should be green belt land.This area would be significantly blighted if the vast changes re housing,food hub are completely bad,change of land use should not be passed.There should be a specific green belt area around the present village/villages.

I am strongly opposed to building on prime green-belt agricultural land in this area. This area is not only a absolutely vital agricultural asset, providing local-grown food for this region and beyond. But it is also a beautiful natural landscape. Being so close to Norwich, and many smaller towns and villages, it provides wonderful countryside walks for many local people. I moved to this area to enjoy the peace and tranquility that a small Norfolk village offers. To build so many additional housing - in addition to the unfortunately proposed Food-Hub - would be an absolute disaster for this beautiful & tranquil agricultural area.

Also, the importance to the nation as a whole is blindingly obvious surely? After all, every acre of prime agricultural land is a precious local & national resource and once it has been built on it is effectively lost forever, thereby increasing our dependency on imported food, eroding our national independence and pointlessly increasing our carbon-footprint for all time! These proposed housing developments are quite literally mis-conceived and I urge you NOT to allow it to happen. After all, once it's gone it IS GONE - FOREVER!

Given that the sites allocated for housing in the existing plan (the Joint Core Strategy or JCS) should mean that at the current rates of house building there is already enough land allocated to last for the next 20years, I fail to see why such a large area would need to be considered for development. Also this HUGE proposal would swamp the surrounding villages - especially Colton - which is a quiet rural village with no services and completely urbanise this stretch of beautiful countryside.

I wholly and fully oppose this ruination of at least 3 small and very individual villages, to create a sprawling mass of developments. I have never believed in your 'garden developments' as they never turn out to be anything other than an urban sprawl. Honingham is a small village with not many amenities, but this is the way the villagers like it. It has a history and a character and we all wish it to remain that way. The Food Hub is a development that was allowed by Broadland Council, and that should be the only development.

I strongly object to a development of this size which will merge Honingham with Colton & Easton & spread the urban sprawl of Norwich engulfing open countryside. The required extra development in the District should be spread around in smaller packages concentrating on brownfield sites. We have already slipped into an approval for the Food Enterprize Zone where anything loosley associated with food will get an approval. Time only will tell how obnoxious some of these uses may be !!

The proposals 415A,415G,415B together with 415C are too large for this rural environment. 415C will get the go ahead as the A47 dualling and the need for a link to the NDR will make this an inevitability.Development along the A47 has seen a virtual ribbon development between Norwich and Easton and this is where it must stop to allow a reasonable "Green Belt" for this part of rural Norfolk. A balance between the rural and environment needs to be maintained before central Norfolk becomes a concrete jungle. An urban/rural mix must be maintained for a quality of life

Barford & Wramplingham Parish Council held two public meetings which were both very well attended with over 40 residents attending each meeting. The Parish Council created a Parish Plan in 2010 and the views of the residents within this are still valid and should be considered. Further concerns raised are as follows:

1) Poor roads in the vicinity, particularly narrow rural road making it difficult/dangerous for traffic from this site to reach the Watton road- mainly single track and hilly which is a problem in icy weather. Also route not suitable for pedestrians or cycles

2)Water run off will go into the river in the valley between in the Upper Yare area. It will put a significant amount of water in at a point where there are already significant problems. Barford bridge is too small to cope with the flow and there are ongoing historic issues with Marlingford Mill which is privately owned and therefore not within the control of the Authorities. There has also been a change in river management which has reduced the capacity to hold water. These 3 things are causing flooding of the highway and potential to flood residential property already without adding to the problem.

3)Development in Wymondham is increasing the water flowing along the River Tiffey. This river takes the overflow from the Barford flood system and then joins the River Yare at Swans Harbour, just before Marlingford Mill. Additional water in the Yare will have an impact on the Tiffey causing it to back up. This would jeopardise the Barford flood defence and also increase the risk of residential flooding in Wramplingham.

The documents makes mention of the "country park". We are opposed to this idea as we can see no merit in a country park on an area that is generally water-logged and which the Parish Council could not afford to maintain.

Prime farm land, which can never be replaced, is being used lost forever.
The nature of adjacent historical villages will fundamentally be damaged.
Green belt is vital for improving the quality of life and air for the citizens of Norwich, the A47 should be the boundary.
Carbon emissions will significantly increase from the development and its future continued use, carbon capture from the existing use will be lost.
Brownfield sites in Norwich, and other housing capacity measures s/be fully exhausted first.
Infrastructural problems on the "time expired" roundabout at Longwater, and the routes into Norwich, raising carbon emissions.

I strongly object to this proposal. We currently have three beautiful villages which would undoubtedly turn into an urban sprawl. Increased pollution levels would be an issue and precious countryside and farmland would be destroyed along with many wildlife habitats. We have a rich variety of birds and wildlife which is not something that can be replaced. The residents have chosen village life and this should be respected. A few houses in keeping with the character of each village would be manageable but no more.

I strongly object to the proposed devlopment which would develop the agricultural land between Easton, Colton and Honingham, extending the urban sprawl from Norwich all the way to and include Honingham.
Dispersal of the new homes around the whole Greater Norwich Local Plan area, in my view, would be a much more appropriate solution, than a new settlement in this location.
The character of Honingham and Colton would be considerably changed from a rural village.

This proposal is completely wrong for Honingham and would change our beautiful village forever!
New settlements of the size proposed are an extreme way to deal with new housing requirements.
Agricultural land would be lost forever, can we afford to lose the means to produce the food we need?
We need a green belt to protect our precious countryside

Two residents have contacted me directly requesting that I submit their feedback on their behalf as they were not able to navigate the system successfully. There feedback is as follows:


The proposed West of Norwich Development of land mainly in the Village of Honingham(which currently consists of around 140 houses) is totally out of the question for a number of reasons.
1. It is ajacent to the proposed food hub, therefore the land should remain agricultural.
2. The ancient , bridalway Grange Lane, East of Colton Road, together with Grange Wood currently a Conservation Area will be totally engulfed. Grange Lane has been made impassable by the current Land owner the surrounding fields have Environmental Stewardship Margins.
3. Priority for housing development should be concentrated on the brown field, and former military sites ect.
4. There is already a problem with traffic access to the A 47 west of Norwich which will be made worse in the near future by housing developments already, or being approved in the Easton/Costessey area. .
5. It is considered that if green sites have to be developed they will be better located North/Northwest of Norwich with access to theNDR

Susan & Ray Grant


If you require any further information to verify this feedback please let me know.

I hope that you will consider the situation carefully and enable this feedback to be registered against sites GNLP0415 A-G.

Honingham Parish Council