GNLP0552

Within the Tiffey Valley; which poses certain flooding problems. Will affect local wildlife. The infrastructure of the village is well below what is needed to support this sort of development. More traffic; the junctions to get on and off the Watton Road are dangerous.

There are number of reasons for my objection to this site. Barford has about 240 houses now and increasing the size of the village by 50% is unrealistic, due to many reasons firstly, the sewage farm at the eastern end of the village is at capacity. The rain water run off is a major problem throughout the village and extra houses will reduce the area for water to leave, and this water has to go somewhere and will end up in the river which has burst its banks a number of times in the last 12 months. 117 homes will probably have 1 to 2 children per house and the village school has a total capacity for around 110 pupils, which no room for expansion and is nearly full now so were are 100 to 200 children going to go. The road safety impact with a possible 4 new junctions on to the B1108 is also a worry as it is already a very dangerous road through the village, with many accidents occurring each year, the road maintenance in around Barford is not the best as with most of Norfolk. The proposed leisure and amenity area on the Barford side of the river Tiffy would be a nice think to have but who will pay for the upkeep of this large area.

Having lived in Barford for two years, I agree with the current comments that the current infrastructure and the landscape will not allow for the development being proposed. The flood plains extend into much of the land that is being proposed on the Wramplingham border. The previous floods caused most of the fields to become very waterlogged for weeks afterwards.

The B1108 going into Norwich also cannot cope with the current amount of traffic so adding more houses and therefore cars to this road will cause further issues getting into Norwich past the hospital.

Flooding in the Tiffey valley will not be helped by 117 houses.Barford sewage system cannot cope now.This is a wildlife corridor supporting red listed birds, Green plover , woodcock as well as kingfisher
, gold crests nuthatch, snipe The grassland supports crested newts, grass snakes frogs and toads, many types of hawk, and Little Grebes which nest on Wramplingham pond.
All of these creatures use this corridor including some of the land on this site.The influx of people from housing into this area will mean they will all disappear. There must be less environmentally sensitive areas for building.

The scale of the development being suggested here will urbanise an area of unspoilt open countryside and completely alter the character of the area. More specifically it will destroy an important wildlife habitat and have a significantly adverse effect on the protected Tiffey valley. Part of the proposed site is in a flood zone and it is generally accepted that the effect of global warming is to raise water levels that can cause land to flood that has hitherto been unaffected and therefore in this case a large area is vulnerable. Facilities in Barford are limited and insufficient to cope with the magnitude of the proposed development. In addition there is the question as to whether the main drainage system and water supply have sufficient capacity to accommodate a large number of additional houses. The development would be contrary to planning policy and is entirely inappropriate.

When the village was first shown proosals for this site in 2016, the emphasis was on it being a park "Accessible by foot and by motor car" for the "wider growth areas" ... but with no car parking facilities, and no indication of how pedestrians would access across the dangerous blind bend on the B1108 around The Cock Inn. We were told then that there would be 50 houses, now it is 177. The original plans show all the southern part of the area as recreational land ... presumably a water park as this is the flood plain of the River Tiffey and floods regularly.
The sewage pumping station at the end of Style Loke can barely cope with the existing numbers of houses. At times of heavy rain, as Anglian Water records will show, sewage is forced out of the manhole in my garden and my neighbours. Development on the scale of 177 would require radical new sewage removal proposals. Not happy at the thought of having it in my garden.
The village plan of 2010 recognised the need for a small development of about 10 affordable houses. nothing we have seen about this scheme suggest that this site is likely to fulfil those needs.

This very large development would nearly double the footprint of the village, although this includes a certain amount of GI. In terms of scale, it is completely out of keeping with the current infrastructure.
The village would be split across the B1108 and this adds greatly to the likelihood of road traffic accidents.
Currently, there is an open view of the Tas Valley and this would be lost.
We are concerned as to whether the flood risk can be managed within the development.

Having lived in Barford for over 25 years, a development of 117 houses in this area would be wholly inappropriate for the size of village. Any development in this area would negatively impact on the already poor drainage and sewage issues, with some even now experiencing sewage spills into their gardens. For much of the winter, much of the land currently proposed for building is underwater. The dangerously poor access from the B1108 into Cock St and Back Lane would inevitably increase the risk of accidents. Also, the traffic from Barford to the Park and Ride and the A47 through Marlingford would inevitable increase and some parts are single lane only. Again there are safety issues. The village lacks pavements and street lighting so increased traffic would impact on the safety of us all. Our bus service to Norwich is hourly but as the last one from Norwich is at 5.45, it is unlikely to be useful for those working in the city. We do need more affordable houses for local people but not a huge development in this area.

1. Serious concerns around safety of both vehicular and pedestrian access due to the lack of footpath and the Watton Road being such a fast, busy and dangerous road (due to the blind bend coming in to Barford).

2. Increased run-off from a new development would exacerbate an already severe problem that the village has with flooding. A large part of the site is located on a flood plain.

3, The local pumping station is not coping adequately with the existing village population.

4. The only core facility that Barford currently has is a small primary school, and so is not suitable for significant additional development.

5. Massive impact on a very important nature corridor in the Tiffey corridor.

My main objections are as follows:

1. A substantial amount of money was spent in Barford recently to try and alleviate the significant flooding problem it has. To build houses on this plot, being the highest point in Barford, would erase the work that has been done.

2. Access onto the Watton Road from both Back lane and Cock Street is already hazardous, with the amount of traffic that this amount of houses would create, lives would certainly be at risk!

3.The school doesn't have the capacity to accommodate a substantial increase in children.

4. Loss of habitate to wildlife

1.Too big, urbanising rural village.
2.Narrow roads. Infrequent bus service. Dangerous access to and from busy B1108. Increased traffic.
3.Flooding already a problem. Building on higher ground (N of B1108) will exacerbate flooding; as will damage to flood plain/water meadows in river valley (S of B1108).
4.Significant impact on Tiffey valley landscape, habitat and wildlife- open river valley, water meadow, valuable wildlife habitat AND corridor.
5.Sewage problems exacerbated.

I object to the proposal because :
1. it will detrimentally impact on the landscape of the Tiffey valley
2. It will exacerbate flood risk to properties in Barford (site lies in the flood plain)
3. It will interrupt the continuity of the valley wildlife corridor.
4. There are already safety issues with adjacent road junctions onto to B1108 - more traffic won't help.
5. The proposal is contrary to adopted strategies (protection for the landscape and biodiversity of river valleys; no building on floodplains).
6. The site is cut off by the B1108 from village amenities (village hall, school)

We wish conditionally to support this site proposal with the following proviso.
We note that the area of GNLP 0552 includes the Barford Borehole Site of geological interest, listed in the Norfolk Geodiversity Audit as Site SNF07. It is the location of a British Geological Survey borehole proving the presence of a deep buried channel (up to -34.7 m OD) cut into Chalk bedrock containing Pleistocene glacial deposits overlain by lake deposits of Hoxnian interglacial age (the Barford Formation). The Hoxnian deposits are rare and are the subject of ongoing palaeo-environmental research. If development took place at GNLP 0552 we request it be made conditional upon samples and results of site investigation boreholes being sent to the British Geological Survey archive.

The scale and position of the development is likely to:
* Irreparably damage the Tiffey valley wildlife corridor;
* Increase run-off and therefore the nature and extent of flooding (which is already an issue), both in the vicinity and downstream;
* Lack the necessary schooling and other facilities;
* Lack safe and viable cycling routes into Norwich;
It has been proposed that the world needs to double food production by 2050. Therefore, it would be prudent to minimise building on green-belt farmland until all brownfield sites and those with permission already, are exhausted.

The proposal
1 would contradicts The GNLP sustainability appraisal which protection river valleys (Tiffey)and their setting; gaps between settlements(Barford and Wramplingham;undeveloped approaches to Norwich.
2 Unsustainable transport links;limited to using a private car;Barford has a limited bus service which does not connect to the local town of Wymondham and its facilities and employment opportunities.
3 There are no local shops located in the village boundary and there's no pathways from the proposed development and village school which after recent expansion is a capacity.
4 The village water management system;recently completed; wouldn't cope with such a large scale development.

In addition to the damage that is likely to be caused to the wildlife corridor, the proposed development is likely to irretrievably impair the unique, undeveloped and open character of the river valley, which currently separates the two villages of Barford and Wramplingham.

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:
* Traffic - increased traffic with any development will be detrimental to the Parish which is predominantly served by narrow rural roads. There is no safe cycling route between the site and the main village centre.
* Pedestrian access - there are very limited footpaths in the Parish and no footpath from the site to the main village centre.
* There is a lack of facilities within the village and poor public transport links. This will increase the use of cars and commuting which will affect many other areas as well as our parish.
* Flooding - Whilst this site is not at risk of flooding, any water run off (which will be considerable), goes into the flood amelioration system in the village or into residents back gardens. Any development would therefore increase the risk of flooding within the area
* Flooding - Barford sewage system is already at capacity as has been regularly demonstrated by sewage egress into resident's gardens.
* The suggestion is also for a country park. The area is often waterlogged which makes it a very poor choice of site and there is the potential to add significant extra vehicles. Any ongoing maintenance costs would need to be considered to ensure that it did not become a liability to the community.
* The proposed development (including the so-called "country park") will have a very negative impact on the biodiversity and wildlife corridor of the Tiffey valley and will completely destroy the undeveloped and open character of the river valley, which currently separates the two villages of Barford and Wramplingham. We will thus lose the special rural characteristics of this area as defined by the South Norfolk Landscape Assessment 2001.

This is far too big a development for a small settlement. It should be rejected out of hand.

Following a recent village leaflet drop I became aware of the GNLP development plans, unfortunately due to recent work commitments I have been unable to put my thoughts into writing.

It was pointed out to me that today was the deadline for objections or supporting comments to be made, but I was unable to register on the official site until tonight only to find the site stopped taking comments as of 17:00.

The comments I can see relating to the above specific proposal do not appear to capture any potential impact on neighbouring Wramplingham.

My observation can be expressed in simple terms just Sir Isaac Newton said, 'Every action has an equal and opposite reaction', and relates to the fact that a large area of the site falls within a flood risk area.

I expect if development of the site was to be undertaken, that flood prevention measures would be put in place to stop the new development from be flooded. This would cause the flood water to spread elsewhere and my fear being it would spread across and put Wramplingham under significantly more risk than it is already.

I would ask that this point be considered irrespective of whether or not it is too late to lodge a formal objection, although it is for the above reason that I would like my view to be lodged as a formal objection if possible?

Many thanks for your conisation

Our main comments focus on sites GNLP 0552, GNLP1013, GNLP 0014 and GNLP0416.
* GNLP0416 is by the Church and would have significant impact on the immediate area around this Grade II listed building.
* GNLP 0014 is an area which is always damp and would require significant drainage work.
* GNLP1013 would extend an area already due for development of 10 dwellings.
* GNLP 0552 is a huge proposal which would destroy the character of the two villages and put a huge burden on the infrastructure in the villages.

Relevant to all these proposed sites is the fact that Barford is a small village between two rivers - the Yare and Tiffey.
Already when it rains much of the surface drainage runs from the top of the village down Park Avenue heading for the Tiffey.
Flooding and running surface water does still occur in the lower end of the village.
Should any of these developments proceed we suggest it would pose insurance difficulty and issues for people living in the properties being so close to water courses.
Much of the land between Barford and Wymondham acts as a flood plain and Wymondham is already under pressure in many respects as it takes up 2650 developments.
The roads running through Barford are already unfit for purpose being narrow and bounded by hedges or fields. The B1108 is particularly difficult dealing with increased traffic to the
UEA, hospital, Science Park and commuters heading for Norwich from an ever expanding Hingham and Watton.
According to the proposed sites shown in the villages surrounding Barford there would be significant infilling between the villages and this may cause them to merge resulting in the potential for
flooding as green land would be covered by buildings.
Infill that includes Colton Woods would be a disaster for local wildlife and impact drainage yet again.

The issue of roads, schools, Doctors, shops, public transport in such a rural area are well known and need to be given serious consideration in conjunction with our personal comments.


We understand that many designated areas already approved are still awaiting development. Surely these need to be completed and their impact assessed before further radical developments take place.

Richard Mann/Valerie Broomhead

This representation is prepared and submitted on behalf of Silfield Limited for a site on the western side of Barford for promotion as a residential development site which delivers a significant area of green infrastructure as part of the Greater Norwich Local Plan.
This submission builds upon the information that was submitted as part of the Call for Sites stage in July 2016. Since that time additional technical input has been undertaken to inform an updated
indicative masterplan.
This site would be seeking to deliver a country park which could include new walkways, tree planting, play equipment and recreational spaces. New pedestrian links through the park will be designed to increase connectivity between the villages of Barford and Wramplingham. This area is in the region of 29ha. This is a significant public benefit which would deliver a piece of infrastructure which is in great demand in the Greater Norwich area.
The site has now been subject to a number of technical assessments and demonstrates that there are no fundamental constraints to the development of the site for residential and it is therefore considered SUITABLE for development.

Refer to attached supplementary submission document for full detail