GNLP0400

Showing comments and forms 1 to 7 of 7

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 12922

Received: 06/02/2018

Respondent: Mrs Susan Barfe

Representation:

Objection based on the grounds of road safety issues leading into and out of the village, either via Slade Lane or Burgate Lane into Poringland. Both of theses roads are unsuitable due to the roads being very narrow and have some 90 degree bends with no visabilty and passing is only an option in certain places on the side of the road.

Full text:

Objection based on the grounds of road safety issues leading into and out of the village, either via Slade Lane or Burgate Lane into Poringland. Both of theses roads are unsuitable due to the roads being very narrow and have some 90 degree bends with no visabilty and passing is only an option in certain places on the side of the road.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 13684

Received: 08/03/2018

Respondent: Mrs Sharon Black

Representation:

Access: the site is between two sharp bends and two minor junctions. It is difficult to see how access could be safe whilst building or for residents.
Flooding: this site is a natural soakaway for the fields, despite this it regularly overflows flooding the main access into the village in more than one place.
Infrastructure: main drainage and broadband are currently poor and need addressing to accommodate current and committed housing.

Full text:

Access: the site is between two sharp bends and two minor junctions. It is difficult to see how access could be safe whilst building or for residents.
Flooding: this site is a natural soakaway for the fields, despite this it regularly overflows flooding the main access into the village in more than one place.
Infrastructure: main drainage and broadband are currently poor and need addressing to accommodate current and committed housing.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 14542

Received: 19/03/2018

Respondent: Audrey Chappell

Representation:

This is too many houses in a village already stretched to capacity and in danger of becoming just a mass of housing with few facilities. The roads are dangerous and unpleasant to walk along already.

Full text:

This is too many houses in a village already stretched to capacity and in danger of becoming just a mass of housing with few facilities. The roads are dangerous and unpleasant to walk along already.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 15005

Received: 21/03/2018

Respondent: Alpington with Yelverton Parish Council

Representation:

This is not sustainable development planning. There are numerous reasons why introducing more vehicle movements into a small village that has very few footpaths and no lighting is a dangerous idea. The character and form of the village would be irrevocably damaged by this development and it must not be allowed.

Full text:

Alpington and Yelverton Parish Council objects to this site on a number of grounds:
1. The site is outside the development boundary of the village.
2. By adding further development the character and structure of the village will be materially and irrevocably affected.
3. The highway and surrounding road infrastructure was not designed for the volumes it currently has to deal with and therefore further pressure on the roads and junctions leading to significant safety issues and further congestion.
4. Existing roads around the village are having hedgerows, ditches, verges and bankings damaged by vehicles being forced to the edges in a bid to pass on narrow sections. This is as a result of too much traffic.
5. The village has no street lights and very few footpaths. Walking around the village where there are no footpaths is quite a dangerous pastime already due to the volumes of traffic; this would become more dangerous and probably cause some parishioners to stop walking and either stay at home or take their cars for the short journeys instead. This is not what village life is about.
6. The village has a very restricted bus service that is inconsistent and not conducive to a plausible travel plan. Additional new housing would not boost the potential passenger numbers sufficiently to warrant additional services and therefore every new house would add further vehicle movements to the roads by necessity. This is not sustainable development planning.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 15533

Received: 22/03/2018

Respondent: Mr David Whitehead

Representation:

I object because - It is outside the development boundary. - A substantial development like this would severely impact on the highways and roads that are not adequate to support the extra traffic. This would give safety issues and congestion. - The village has no street lighting and very few paths so extra traffic would be a danger to pedestrians. - It would detrimentally impact on the character and structure of the village.

Full text:

I object because - It is outside the development boundary. - A substantial development like this would severely impact on the highways and roads that are not adequate to support the extra traffic. This would give safety issues and congestion. - The village has no street lighting and very few paths so extra traffic would be a danger to pedestrians. - It would detrimentally impact on the character and structure of the village.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 15666

Received: 22/03/2018

Respondent: Mrs Renata Thornber

Representation:

This site is totally inappropriate taking into account its location and lack of drainage. It would involve removing more areas where wildlife reside and its is close to a busy junction and access would be dangerous

Full text:

This site is totally inappropriate taking into account its location and lack of drainage. It would involve removing more areas where wildlife reside and its is close to a busy junction and access would be dangerous

Comment

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 16726

Received: 21/03/2018

Respondent: Otley Properties

Agent: John Long Planning

Representation:

The Alpington Settlement Summary's acknowledges that site GNLP0400 is sympathetic to the form and character is welcomed. As is the HEELA's conclusion that the site is considered suitable for development.
However, the Settlement Summary's conclusion that the site is more constrained than site GNLP0433 is incorrect. The Constraints Analysis for GNLP0400 included in the HEELA incorrectly categorises certain issues as Amber. For instance Accessibility to Services is shown as Amber, despite the conclusion confirming that the site is well related to services. Also, Planning Application 2014/2608 confirmed that the Highways Authority did not object in principle to the proposed development of the site on highways grounds. They did suggest the widening of Church Road, and upgrade to bus stops and minor haunching work at the junction with Back Lane. These are all deliverable (and relevant to other sites in the village), and for this reason and the conclusion that the issue can be reasonably mitigated would suggest that the assessment should be Green.

Full text:

GNLP0400 Land at Church Meadow Alpington;
The Alpington Settlement Summary's acknowledges that site GNLP0400 is sympathetic to the form and character is welcomed. As is the HEELA's conclusion that the site is considered suitable for development.
However, the Settlement Summary's conclusion that the site is more constrained than site GNLP0433 is incorrect. The Constraints Analysis for GNLP0400 included in the HEELA incorrectly categorises certain issues as Amber. For instance Accessibility to Services is shown as Amber, despite the conclusion confirming that the site is well related to services. Also, Planning Application 2014/2608 confirmed that the Highways Authority did not object in principle to the proposed development of the site on highways grounds. They did suggest the widening of Church Road, and upgrade to bus stops and minor haunching work at the junction with Back Lane. These are all deliverable (and relevant to other sites in the village), and for this reason and the conclusion that the issue can be reasonably mitigated would suggest that the assessment should be Green.

GNLP0405 Land to the north and South of Brooke Road, Seething;
The Seething Settlement Summary's acknowledgement that site GNLP0405 is suitable for small-scale residential development is welcomed. The HEELA's conclusion that the site is considered suitable for development is also welcomed. In terms of the HEELA's conclusion, issues such as access, utilities, water infrastructure/drainage, heritage and biodiversity issues are being considered. Discussions with the School in respect of the new car park also continue to be progressed.

GNLP0406 Land to the west of Seething Street, Seething;
The Seething Settlement Summary's acknowledgement that site GNLP0406 is suitable for small-scale residential development is welcomed. The HEELA's conclusion that the site is considered suitable for development is also welcomed. The HEELA suggest that combined sites GNLP0406; GNLP 0507 and GNLP0588 could deliver 29 homes is an over estimate of housing numbers. The actual number would be a lot lower than this. Taking into account local character considerations, the combined number for these 3 sites would be up to 10 dwellings. A lower number would also take into account the issues over the suitability of the local road network to accommodate traffic arising from the 3 sites. Issues including access, drainage and sewerage are being considered in more detail.

GNLP0587 Land to the west of Seething Street; Seething;
The Seething Settlement Summary's acknowledgement that site GNLP0587 is suitable for small-scale residential development is welcomed. The HEELA's conclusion that the site is considered suitable for development is also welcomed. The HEELA suggest that combined sites GNLP0406; GNLP 0507 and GNLP0588 could deliver 29 homes is an over estimate of housing numbers. The actual number would be a lot lower than this. Taking into account local character considerations, the combined number for these 3 sites would be up to 10 dwellings. A lower number would also take into account the issues over the suitability of the local road network to accommodate traffic arising from the 3 sites. Issues including access, drainage and sewerage are being considered in more detail.

GNLP0588 Land to the west of Seething Street; Seething;
The Seething Settlement Summary's acknowledgement that site GNLP0588 is suitable for small-scale residential development is welcomed. The HEELA's conclusion that the site is considered suitable for development is also welcomed. The HEELA suggest that combined sites GNLP0406; GNLP 0507 and GNLP0588 could deliver 29 homes is an over estimate of housing numbers. The actual number would be a lot lower than this. Taking into account local character considerations, the combined number for these 3 sites would be up to 10 dwellings. A lower number would also take into account the issues over the suitability of the local road network to accommodate traffic arising from the 3 sites. Issues including access, drainage and sewerage have been adequately dealt with in a recent planning application 2017/1442 for 2 dwellings. The main reason for the application's refusal was that it constituted development in the Countryside, which had at the time a 39.6 years housing supply, although since the application was considered the Council have confirmed that there is no longer a 5 year housing supply in the South Norfolk Rural Area.

GNLP1035 Land South of Wheelers Lane, Seething;
The Seething Settlement Summary's does not include site GNLP1035 in the list of sites that are considered to be suitable for small scale development. This is at odds with the HEELA conclusion for the site, which suggest that the site is considered suitable. The Seething Settlement summary should be amended to reflect the fact the site abuts the village's playing fields and is adjacent newly constructed properties and should be considered suitable, as established in the HEELA.

GNLP0589A&B Land North and South of Pigot Lane, Framingham Earl.
The Poringland/Framingham Earl Settlement Summary's acknowledgement that sites GNLP0589A&B are sustainable locations for development is welcomed. The HEELA's conclusion that the site is considered suitable for development is also welcomed.
The Constraints Analysis for site GNLP0589B suggest that the site was a former RAF camp and could be subject to contamination is incorrect. The RAF camp was a satellite accommodation area, and built development was focussed on land at Long Road, and did not extend into this site. Issues including access, drainage and sewerage are being considered in more detail.