GNLP0415

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

Vision Statement
The vision for Honingham Thorpe is based on a holistic approach towards growth by delivering abalanced sustainable community predicated on three main elements - employment, residential and
leisure.
The principle of development in this area has, in part, been established through current strategic
planning policy which has promoted the concept of a Food Enterprise Park. This initiative would be
embellished by further employment uses along the northern section of the proposed settlement.
Alongside the employment proposals, it is proposed that a phased residential area is established. The
initial first two phases will be 400 residential units each, giving a total of 800 units in years 1 to 4
constructed by the promoters of the proposed settlement, Clarion Homes. This will be sufficient to
trigger the first primary school in the new development. The intention is for the residential areas to grow
organically based around neighbourhood local centres that will provide Primary schools, shops and
community facilities.
The third element of the proposed settlement is to provide a Country Park based on the section of land
related to the River Yare valley. The intention is to provide an early delivery of this Park through a
carefully phased public access into the area. In addition to providing public access, there will be
restricted areas to protect the inherent natural features of the area.
The proposed settlement is intended to be based on its agricultural and countryside roots, and this
theme will be developed further through this document. In addition, it is considered that the proposed
settlement will not operate in isolation and it will link to other existing and emerging features in the area.
In terms of scale, it is proposed that the settlement will consist of the following:
* 72 hectares of employment space
* 198 hectares of residential development of a minimum 3,900 units with the potential of 3,600
units in future years beyond the plan period.
* 81 hectares of Country Park with extensive frontage and access to the River Yare
* 3.5 hectares of nature reserve
It is intended that these uses would be combined to create a self-sufficient, low-carbon community, with
walkable neighbourhoods and close links to the surrounding area, including other local settlements and
the farming hinterland. The new settlement would thus be firmly rooted in local agricultural and rural
traditions. These themes will be developed further through this document.

I would like to put on record my opposition to the new settlement proposed at Honingham.

I believe this is not the right location for such a mass of houses. It would be far better to disperse the housing across the whole GNDP area, particularly utilising Brownfield Sites.

General comments:
All allocations need to be considered in relation to the Greater Norwich GI Strategy and the emerging Norfolk GI maps, in relation to both opportunities and constraints.
As for previous consultations, our comments on site allocations relate to information that we hold. This relates mainly to impacts on CWS. These comments are in addition to previous pre-consultation comments on potential allocations. However, we are not aware of all impacts on priority habitats and species, or on protected species and further constraints may be present on some proposed allocations. Similarly, we have flagged up impacts on GI corridors where this is related to CWS but there should be an assessment of all proposed allocations against the emerging GI maps for Norfolk, which should consider both locations where allocations may fragment GI and areas within allocations that could enhance GI network. As a result, lack of comment on sites does not necessarily mean that these are supported by NWT and we may object to applications on allocated sites, if biodiversity impacts are shown to be present?

We are aware that the GNLP process will be taking place at the same time as Natural England work on licensing with regard to impacts of development on great-crested newt. This work will include establishment of zones where development is more or less likely to impact on great-crested newt. We advise that this ongoing work is considered as part of the evidence base of the GNLP, if practicable to do so in the time scale.

Broadland
Coltishall:
0265 There is a substantial block of mature trees within this proposed allocation which we understand provides nesting site for common buzzard and is part of wooded ridge. Although not protected under schedule 1 of the Wildlife & Countryside Act, in our view this should be seen as a constraint on development and wooded ridge should be protected.

Drayton
0290: In our view development within the Drayton Woods CWS is not acceptable and this site should not be allocated.
We agree with constraints due to proximity to CWS that are assessed for other proposed allocations in Drayton

Frettenham:
0492 we are pleased to see that impact on CWS is recognised as a major constraint and the need for area within CWS to be recognised as GI, if there is any smaller development outside of CWS

Hevingham:
Adjacent CWS represents a potential constraint as has been recognised.

Honingham:
We note that the presence of CWS and river valley are recognised as constraints, although assessment is that impacts on these areas can be avoided by becoming green space in a larger development. If taken forward, plans would need to include a buffer to all CWS and assessment of biodiversity value of each CWS to establish whether they have particular sensitivity. At this stage, NWT take view that 0415 should not be allocated, even if part of a large development.

Horsford:
0469 and 0251 should be recognised as having CWS or priority habitat constraint. There should be no development on CWS and should be a buffer to CWS.

Postwick:
0571 This would be a new settlement and we are pleased to see that a biodiversity constraint is recognised. However, Witton Run is a key GI corridor linking to Broads National Park. It is essential that impacts on GI corridors, such as Witton Run, are recognised even when not made up of designated sites, if the Greater Norwich GI strategy is to have any value.

Reepham:
1007: This is STW expansion. If expansion is necessary at this STW, there will need to be mitigation and/or compensation with regard to impacts on CWS
1006: There are potential impacts on CWS 1365, which need to be considered

Sprowston:
0132 We are pleased to see that GI constraints and opportunities are recognised. However, need to ensure that allocation allows for protection and enhancement of GI corridor.

Taverham:
0563: Recognition of impact on CWS is recognised but need to ensure no development within CWS, plus buffer to the CWS, if this is taken forward.
0337: Buffer to Marriott's Way CWS needs to be recognised

Thorpe St Andrew:
0228 and 0442: Pleased to see that the impact on CWS 2041 and GI corridor seen as a major constraint and that all sites proposed will have an adverse impact. These sites should not be allocated.

Norwich:
Deal ground 0360: Previous permissions allow for protection and enhancement of Carrow Abbey Marsh CWS. There is great potential for restoration of this CWS as a new nature reserve, associated with the development and a key area of GI linking the city with Whitlingham Park. This aim should be retained in any renewal of the allocation and new permissions

0068: Development should not reach up to riverside but allow for creation of narrow area of natural bankside semi-natural vegetation to link with similar between adjacent river and Playhouse. This will help to deliver the (Norwich) River Wensum Environment Strategy

South Norfolk

Barford:
0416: We are pleased to see that biodiversity constraints are recognised but there is a need to mitigate for impacts on adjacent CWS 2216 though provision of buffer.
1013: There are potential biodiversity constraints, with regard to semi-natural habitats
 
Berghapton:
0210: We are pleased to see that impacts on CWS, existing woodland and protected species seen as major constraint.

Bixley:
1032: There may be biodiversity constraint in relation to habitats on site

Bracon Ash:
New settlement 1055: We are pleased to see that affects CWS and priority habitats are recognised. There is potential for significant additional impact on Ashwellthorpe Wood SSSI. This site is open to the public but is sensitive and not suitable for increased recreational impacts, owing to the wet nature of the soils and the presence of rare plants, which are sensitive to trampling. We are also concerned about increased recreational impacts on of a new settlement on Lizard and Silfield CWS and on Oxford Common. These sites are already under heavy pressure owing to new housing in South Wymondham. Unless impacts can be fully mitigated we are likely to object to this allocation if carried forward to the next stage of consultation.

Broome:
0346: We are pleased to see recognition of constraints relating to adjacent Broome Heath CWS

Caistor
0485: see Poringland

Chedgrave:
1014: There may be biodiversity constraints with regard to adjacent stream habitats

Colney
0253: Constraints relating impacts on existing CWS 235 and impacts on floodplain may be significant and should also be recognised as factors potentially making this allocation unsuitable for the proposed development

Costessey
0238: We are pleased to see constraints in relation to CWS and flood risk are recognised.
0266: We are pleased to see constraints recognised. The value of parts of this porposed allocation as a GI corridor need to be considered.
0489: We are pleased to see that constraints relating to river valley CWS recognised. This site should not be allocated

Cringleford
0461: The whole of 0461 consists of semi-natural habitat, woodland and grazed meadow and should not be allocated for development. In addition adjacent land in the valley bottom is highly likely to be of CWS value and should be considered as such when considering constraints
0244: This site is currently plantation woodland and part of the Yare Valley GI corridor. It should not be allocated, for this reason

Diss:
We support the recognition that constraints regarding to biodiversity need to be addressed. Contributions to GI enhancement should be considered. 1004, 1044 & 1045 may cause recreational impact on CWS 2286 (Frenze Brook) and mitigation will be required.

Hethersett
0177: We are concerned that constraints with regard to impacts on CWS 2132 and 233 are not recognised. These two CWS require continued grazing management in order to retain their value and incorporation as green space within amenity green space is not likely to provide this. Development of the large area of 0177 to the south of the Norwich Road would provide an opportunity for habitat creation and restoration

Marlingford:
0415: We are concerned with the biodiversity impacts of development along Yare Valley and on CWS and habitats on the valley slopes (including CWS in Barford parish). If this area is allocated it should only be as a semi-natural green space that is managed as semi-natural habitat

Poringland:
0485: We are pleased to see recognition of constraints relating to CWS. Any country park development should ensure continued management and protection of

Roydon
0526: There is potential for recreational impacts on Roydon Fen CWS. This impact needs to be considered for all proposed allocations in Roydon and if taken forward mitigation measures may be required. We are also concerned about water quality issues arising from surface water run-off to the Fen from adjacent housing allocations and these allocations should only be taken forward if it is certain that mitigation measures can be put in place. Roydon Fen is a Suffolk Wildlife Trust nature reserve and SWT may make more detailed comments, with regard to impacts.
Although appearing to consist mainly of arable fields this 3-part allocation contains areas of woodland and scrub, which may be home to protected species. These areas should be retained if this area is allocated and so will represent a constraint on housing numbers.

Toft Monks:
0103: We are pleased to see that a TPO constraint recognised and value as grassland habitat associated with trees should be considered.

Woodton
0150: Buffer to CWS could be provided by GI within development if this allocation is taken forward.
1009: Impacts on CWS 94 may require mitigation.

Wymondham:
Current allocations in Wymondham have already led to adverse impacts on CWS around the town, through increased recreational pressure. Although proposals for mitigation are being considered via Wymondham GI group, further development south of town is not possible without significant GI provision. This applies particularly to 0402. Similarly, there is very limited accessible green space to the north of the town and any development will require significant new GI. 0354 to north of town includes CWS 215, which needs to be protected and buffered from development impacts and CWS 205 needs to be protected if 0525 is allocated.

General comments:
All allocations need to be considered in relation to the Greater Norwich GI Strategy and the emerging Norfolk GI maps, in relation to both opportunities and constraints.
As for previous consultations, our comments on site allocations relate to information that we hold. This relates mainly to impacts on CWS. These comments are in addition to previous pre-consultation comments on potential allocations. However, we are not aware of all impacts on priority habitats and species, or on protected species and further constraints may be present on some proposed allocations. Similarly, we have flagged up impacts on GI corridors where this is related to CWS but there should be an assessment of all proposed allocations against the emerging GI maps for Norfolk, which should consider both locations where allocations may fragment GI and areas within allocations that could enhance GI network. As a result, lack of comment on sites does not necessarily mean that these are supported by NWT and we may object to applications on allocated sites, if biodiversity impacts are shown to be present?

We are aware that the GNLP process will be taking place at the same time as Natural England work on licensing with regard to impacts of development on great-crested newt. This work will include establishment of zones where development is more or less likely to impact on great-crested newt. We advise that this ongoing work is considered as part of the evidence base of the GNLP, if practicable to do so in the time scale.

Broadland
Coltishall:
0265 There is a substantial block of mature trees within this proposed allocation which we understand provides nesting site for common buzzard and is part of wooded ridge. Although not protected under schedule 1 of the Wildlife & Countryside Act, in our view this should be seen as a constraint on development and wooded ridge should be protected.

Drayton
0290: In our view development within the Drayton Woods CWS is not acceptable and this site should not be allocated.
We agree with constraints due to proximity to CWS that are assessed for other proposed allocations in Drayton

Frettenham:
0492 we are pleased to see that impact on CWS is recognised as a major constraint and the need for area within CWS to be recognised as GI, if there is any smaller development outside of CWS

Hevingham:
Adjacent CWS represents a potential constraint as has been recognised.

Honingham:
We note that the presence of CWS and river valley are recognised as constraints, although assessment is that impacts on these areas can be avoided by becoming green space in a larger development. If taken forward, plans would need to include a buffer to all CWS and assessment of biodiversity value of each CWS to establish whether they have particular sensitivity. At this stage, NWT take view that 0415 should not be allocated, even if part of a large development.

Horsford:
0469 and 0251 should be recognised as having CWS or priority habitat constraint. There should be no development on CWS and should be a buffer to CWS.

Postwick:
0571 This would be a new settlement and we are pleased to see that a biodiversity constraint is recognised. However, Witton Run is a key GI corridor linking to Broads National Park. It is essential that impacts on GI corridors, such as Witton Run, are recognised even when not made up of designated sites, if the Greater Norwich GI strategy is to have any value.

Reepham:
1007: This is STW expansion. If expansion is necessary at this STW, there will need to be mitigation and/or compensation with regard to impacts on CWS
1006: There are potential impacts on CWS 1365, which need to be considered

Sprowston:
0132 We are pleased to see that GI constraints and opportunities are recognised. However, need to ensure that allocation allows for protection and enhancement of GI corridor.

Taverham:
0563: Recognition of impact on CWS is recognised but need to ensure no development within CWS, plus buffer to the CWS, if this is taken forward.
0337: Buffer to Marriott's Way CWS needs to be recognised

Thorpe St Andrew:
0228 and 0442: Pleased to see that the impact on CWS 2041 and GI corridor seen as a major constraint and that all sites proposed will have an adverse impact. These sites should not be allocated.

Norwich:
Deal ground 0360: Previous permissions allow for protection and enhancement of Carrow Abbey Marsh CWS. There is great potential for restoration of this CWS as a new nature reserve, associated with the development and a key area of GI linking the city with Whitlingham Park. This aim should be retained in any renewal of the allocation and new permissions

0068: Development should not reach up to riverside but allow for creation of narrow area of natural bankside semi-natural vegetation to link with similar between adjacent river and Playhouse. This will help to deliver the (Norwich) River Wensum Environment Strategy

South Norfolk

Barford:
0416: We are pleased to see that biodiversity constraints are recognised but there is a need to mitigate for impacts on adjacent CWS 2216 though provision of buffer.
1013: There are potential biodiversity constraints, with regard to semi-natural habitats
 
Berghapton:
0210: We are pleased to see that impacts on CWS, existing woodland and protected species seen as major constraint.

Bixley:
1032: There may be biodiversity constraint in relation to habitats on site

Bracon Ash:
New settlement 1055: We are pleased to see that affects CWS and priority habitats are recognised. There is potential for significant additional impact on Ashwellthorpe Wood SSSI. This site is open to the public but is sensitive and not suitable for increased recreational impacts, owing to the wet nature of the soils and the presence of rare plants, which are sensitive to trampling. We are also concerned about increased recreational impacts on of a new settlement on Lizard and Silfield CWS and on Oxford Common. These sites are already under heavy pressure owing to new housing in South Wymondham. Unless impacts can be fully mitigated we are likely to object to this allocation if carried forward to the next stage of consultation.

Broome:
0346: We are pleased to see recognition of constraints relating to adjacent Broome Heath CWS

Caistor
0485: see Poringland

Chedgrave:
1014: There may be biodiversity constraints with regard to adjacent stream habitats

Colney
0253: Constraints relating impacts on existing CWS 235 and impacts on floodplain may be significant and should also be recognised as factors potentially making this allocation unsuitable for the proposed development

Costessey
0238: We are pleased to see constraints in relation to CWS and flood risk are recognised.
0266: We are pleased to see constraints recognised. The value of parts of this porposed allocation as a GI corridor need to be considered.
0489: We are pleased to see that constraints relating to river valley CWS recognised. This site should not be allocated

Cringleford
0461: The whole of 0461 consists of semi-natural habitat, woodland and grazed meadow and should not be allocated for development. In addition adjacent land in the valley bottom is highly likely to be of CWS value and should be considered as such when considering constraints
0244: This site is currently plantation woodland and part of the Yare Valley GI corridor. It should not be allocated, for this reason

Diss:
We support the recognition that constraints regarding to biodiversity need to be addressed. Contributions to GI enhancement should be considered. 1004, 1044 & 1045 may cause recreational impact on CWS 2286 (Frenze Brook) and mitigation will be required.

Hethersett
0177: We are concerned that constraints with regard to impacts on CWS 2132 and 233 are not recognised. These two CWS require continued grazing management in order to retain their value and incorporation as green space within amenity green space is not likely to provide this. Development of the large area of 0177 to the south of the Norwich Road would provide an opportunity for habitat creation and restoration

Marlingford:
0415: We are concerned with the biodiversity impacts of development along Yare Valley and on CWS and habitats on the valley slopes (including CWS in Barford parish). If this area is allocated it should only be as a semi-natural green space that is managed as semi-natural habitat

Poringland:
0485: We are pleased to see recognition of constraints relating to CWS. Any country park development should ensure continued management and protection of

Roydon
0526: There is potential for recreational impacts on Roydon Fen CWS. This impact needs to be considered for all proposed allocations in Roydon and if taken forward mitigation measures may be required. We are also concerned about water quality issues arising from surface water run-off to the Fen from adjacent housing allocations and these allocations should only be taken forward if it is certain that mitigation measures can be put in place. Roydon Fen is a Suffolk Wildlife Trust nature reserve and SWT may make more detailed comments, with regard to impacts.
Although appearing to consist mainly of arable fields this 3-part allocation contains areas of woodland and scrub, which may be home to protected species. These areas should be retained if this area is allocated and so will represent a constraint on housing numbers.

Toft Monks:
0103: We are pleased to see that a TPO constraint recognised and value as grassland habitat associated with trees should be considered.

Woodton
0150: Buffer to CWS could be provided by GI within development if this allocation is taken forward.
1009: Impacts on CWS 94 may require mitigation.

Wymondham:
Current allocations in Wymondham have already led to adverse impacts on CWS around the town, through increased recreational pressure. Although proposals for mitigation are being considered via Wymondham GI group, further development south of town is not possible without significant GI provision. This applies particularly to 0402. Similarly, there is very limited accessible green space to the north of the town and any development will require significant new GI. 0354 to north of town includes CWS 215, which needs to be protected and buffered from development impacts and CWS 205 needs to be protected if 0525 is allocated.

[Representation text in respect of specific sites and Sustainability Appraisal as under - see also Growth Options - general comments on plan approach are logged against Q66. The full submission letter is attached]

Honingham Thorpe (site GNLP 0415 A to G)
This site is located to the immediate south of the A47 between the small settlements
of Honingham and Easton.

There do not appear to be any known designated heritage assets within the site
directly but given the scale of the map it is hard distinguish precise boundaries. There are however a number of designated heritage assets near the site which will need to be taken into account as part of the allocation process. These include the Grade I listed Church of St Peter and the Grade II* listed Church of St Andrew. Given the high grading of these two designated heritage assets Historic England will be a statutory consultee in any prospective planning application affecting the setting of the churches. There are also seven Grade II listed buildings surrounding the site. These include Church Farm House, the Barn at Church Farmhouse, Malthouse, The Old Hall, the Barn at The Old Hall, The Old Horse and Groom and Greenacres Farm
House.

The site allocation is largely undeveloped open land, there are also two records
indicating the presence of ring ditches within the site area. As the area has not been
developed before, therefore the relative lack of recorded evidence should not be
interpreted to mean that the site has no heritage interest rather than no one has had to undertake any investigation of the site. Therefore it will be important to consider the possibility that the site may contain undiscovered archaeology and to ensure that the impacts on potential archaeological remains within the site are considered. Consideration may also need to be given to other local designated and undesignated heritage assets, but the local and county conservation/historic environment services will be best placed to provide advice on this. The Site Proposals document makes no reference to the presence of designated heritage assets. We are however pleased to see that the Site Proposals document recognises the need for a very significant amount of further work to be carried out in order to investigate the opportunities and constraints of the site. We agree with this assumption and request that extra work involves the production of a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) and an exploration of potentially undesignated or undiscovered heritage in the form of archaeology. The HIA should consider landscape implications, the setting of heritage assets and how they relate to their surroundings. These findings should inform the site allocation process.

West of Hethel, Stanfield Hall Estate (site GNLP 1055)
The site contains the Grade II* listed Stanfield Hall and the associated Grade II listed bridge across the moat east of Stanfield Hall. It is not exactly clear from the maps but it appears that the Grade II listed Limetree Farmhouse also all within the site boundary. There are a number of other Grade II listed buildings around the north and western boundaries of the site which could also be affected; these are generally farm buildings, cottages, a schoolhouse and Browick Hall. The rural setting and relationship of the properties to the surrounding land will therefore be important aspects of these buildings' significance.
The site also contains a number of historic features which have not been designated
but maybe of local importance. A large expanse of land to the east of Stanfield Hall
and between St Thomas' Lane to the north and Wymondham Road to the south is a
former World War Two military airfield, Hethel Airfield. The airfield was used by the
United States Army Air Force as a heavy bomber base. In 1964 part of the site was
taken over as test track and factory for Lotus Cars. Also running through the site to
the south of Hall Farm is the route of the 1881 Wymondham and Forncett Branch
Railway - the track was lifted in 1952.

Given the high grading of Stanfield Hall, Historic England will need to be a statutory
consultee as part of any prospective applications for planning permission. Stanfield
Hall itself dates from 1792, the moat with its Grade II listed bridge is thought to be an 18th century ornamental landscape feature. The abridged version of Norfolk County Council's Historic Environment Record (HER) indicates that Stanfield Hall has
medievl origins with the current structure being built upon the site of an earlier manor.
A great deal of the historic significance of Stanfield Hall is connected with the two
principal phases of building in 1792 and the early years of the 19th century that
resulted in major early gothic interiors and the house's exterior elevation and
landscaping. The latter includes mature planting and incorporates a gate lodge on
the main road. The principle windows of the Hall command views to the south, it is
unclear if the site was actively managed as part of the Hall's designed setting it does
lie within principle views. The allocation site constitutes the wider setting of the
building and makes a particular contribution to its historic significance. The
development of this site will result in harm to the significance of the building's wider
setting and this should be taken into account when considering the allocation of this
site. The site allocation entirely surrounds Stanfield Hall and this is of concern.
The Site Proposals document makes no reference to the presence of designated
heritage assets. We are however pleased to see that the Site Proposals document
recognises the need for a very significant amount of further work to be carried out in
order to investigate the opportunities and constraints of the site. We agree with this
assumption and request that extra work involves the production of a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) and an exploration of potentially undesignated or undiscovered heritage in the form of archaeology related to the medieval origins Stanfield Hall as well as more recent archaeological finds associated with the railway and airfield. The HIA should consider landscape implications, the setting of Stanfield Hall and how it relates to its surroundings. These findings should inform the site allocation process.

Comments on Interim Sustainability Appraisal
The historic environment should be considered as part of the sustainability appraisal
process. We recommend that these comments should be read alongside our Advice
Note 8, available here: https://historicengland.org.uk/imagesbooks/
publications/sustainability-appraisal-and-strategic-environmental-assessmentadvice-
note-8/
Key Sustainability Issues
We would suggest that the starting point for considering Key Sustainability Issues for the Historic Environment should include:
- Conserving and enhancing designated and non-designated heritage assets
and the contribution made by their settings
- Heritage assets at risk from neglect, decay, or development pressures;
- Areas where there is likely to be further significant loss or erosion of
landscape/seascape/townscape character or quality, or where development
has had or is likely to have significant impact (direct and or indirect) upon the
historic environment and/or people's enjoyment of it
- Traffic congestion, air quality, noise pollution and other problems affecting the
historic environment
We would expect to see consideration of opportunities. It is considered that the
historic environment can make a significant contribution to the success of
development and there may be opportunities for the enhancement of the historic
environment which comes from sustainable development proposals. It is considered
that the Sustainability Appraisal should highlight these opportunities. Examples of
the sorts of opportunities that can be used can be found in our guidance notes in the
links above.

With regards to the proposal for around 4000 houses at Honingham Thorpe (GNLP0415 A-G), my reasons for being opposed to this development are as follows:

The increased traffic will make it too dangerous for me to walk around the village. I am blind and walk either with someone or by myself and use a white cane for guidance. The amount of traffic is already increasing through Marlingford and 4000 extra houses will only add to this. 905 houses have already been given the go ahead in Easton, 68 in Little Melton, 14 in Bawburgh and 1295 in Hethersett and this will inevitably lead to more traffic in the area; this is before the Honingham Thorpe development has been given the go ahead. There are no pavements in Marlingford for me to walk on. With the introduction of electric and hybrid cars this is a further problem to me as they do not make any audible noise. I would not know if there were any cars on the road, which would be incredibly dangerous, particularly when crossing the road. I would always have to rely on cars avoiding me, rather than climbing onto the grass banks, which I currently do in order to get out of the way of passing cars. Apart from eye sight problems, I suffer from a range of health problems, including ME, IBS and panic attacks. I also have a range of hearing issues after reacting badly to prescribed medication; these include tinnitus, hearing distortion and noise sensitivity. The increased traffic noise would make it unbearable living here as they exacerbate the symptoms. We already have the constant drone of traffic noise from the A47 and this would only add to it. I have found that walking and being outdoors are the only things that ease any of my symptoms so it would impact overwhelmingly on my quality of life. Because of my disabilities I do not have the option of driving or cycling somewhere else for a walk, so I would feel incredibly trapped if I was unable to walk in our village. I also need to live here as it is close to the Norfolk and Norwich University hospital, where I have to make frequent visits, so I could not move away even if I wanted to. It is also close to essential amenities which I use, including health services, and is close to Wymondham and Norwich, where I attend important health and social groups with the Norfolk and Norwich Association for the Blind and the Wymondham Chiropractic clinic.
The greater amount of traffic on the roads would make it even more difficult to attend these groups, particularly the ones in Norwich. It is already a nightmare getting in to and out of the city along the Dereham and Earlham roads and this would only add to the congestion. The only option for me is to travel in by car and not being able to attend these groups because of the traffic difficulties would lead to me feeling increasingly isolated. I do not feel there is sufficient infrastructure to cope so feel the proposed site is unsuitable.
If the proposed development at Honingham Thorpe did go ahead then I feel it would completely ruin the peace and tranquillity of the area. It would be impossible to enjoy the remaining countryside, whether it was walking round our village, sitting in the conservation area or spending time by the river if Marlingford and the surrounding area were to be subjected to continuous noise and air pollution.
This area is also a hotbed for rare and interesting wildlife, particularly birds of prey. If the Honingham Thorpe development did go ahead then it is inevitable that this would impact heavily on birds of prey, particularly kestrels, barn owls and red kites, as there would be much less suitable hunting ground for them to use. As numbers of barn owls and kestrels have declined significantly in the last ten years it is important that they are protected and encouraged as much as possible. Uncommonly seen birds such as the Hawfinch, cuckoo and grey wagtail, which are found in Marlingford and are on the RSPB red list for severely threatened birds, would also be effected by negative changes and losses to the local environment.

5 dwellings proposed for Marlingford GNLP0425

I am opposed to the five dwellings being proposed for development in Marlingford. It would be out of keeping with the natural feel and greenery of the village, thus changing the whole characteristics of the village. The area proposed for development borders the conservation area on one side and a garden on the other. It would be completely out of keeping with this part of the village and would represent an inappropriate form of development in a rural area. The area of land in the centre of Marlingford, which is surrounded by Mill road, Barford road and Church road, is largely made up of ancient woodland, the conservation area, a few gardens, cricket pitch and farmland. There are only a few houses dotted around this area. Any more dwellings would start to change this largely rural and undeveloped area, so that it was more built up like the surrounding edges of Marlingford.
If it was given the go ahead then I fear that it would only encourage more houses to be built in this section of Marlingford; further destroying the peace and tranquillity of the area, as well as impacting adversely on local wildlife and the Green Belt.

This area, and Marlingford in particular, is incredibly damp, resulting in many houses and much of the village being hit by frequent drainage problems over the last ten years. Many houses close to the suggested site have standing water in their gardens for much of the year and standing water on the roads and fields is an ever increasing problem. The proposed site is also in close proximity to a drainage ditch which is often full and over flowing with water. It would be crazy to build on this as the ground is so soft and sodden, as the water table is so high, and would only add to the existing drainage difficulties. Not only would this effect the new proposed houses but would exacerbate the existing drainage problems that many people are already suffering from.
Most households in Marlingford use septic tanks and many people are already experiencing problems with these, due to the high water table. Untreated sewage is running into open ditches and extra water content in the village is only going to worsen this problem. There is already insufficient infrastructure to cope with the current drainage requirements so more houses and more water is only going to add to these issues.

Extra houses would also put a greater strain on other services, such as broadband internet, which is currently not up to standard and unable to meet the demands of the village.
More houses will also mean more noise pollution from essential activities such as cutting grass, hedges and other household and garden maintenance, further impacting on the peace and tranquillity of the area.

In essence I, and many other people, enjoy Marlingford and the surrounding area for the rural, environmentally friendly part of Norfolk that it is. I wish it to remain a village and not become a part of Norwich. I believe that we should do everything we can to protect environmental areas such as this, not just for people today but for future generations as well. I would be incredibly grateful if this area was not approved for development and was allowed to remain beautiful and rural. Thank you.