GNLP0299

The parish council discussed the 5 sites currently put forward within Bracon Ash.
GNLP0549
The site has been put forward for 9 houses but there have already been 3 separate planning applications for this site, all were refused. The last one for 5 houses was turned down for a number of reasons including objections from the highways department due to the inadequacy of the road, the lack of footpaths in Hawkes Lane and the B1113 to Mulbarton, plus the unsuitable exit into the B1113.
The parish council objects to this being included in a local plan because of the inadequate road and lack of footpaths but also because the site is extremely wet and there are no riparian rights to enable surface water drainage.
GNLP0299
This site already has planning permission for 15 houses. There is approved planning permission for 7 houses therefore there are already an additional 8 houses that could be built over and above the 7 approved.
The parish council objects to this being included in a local plan
GNLP0195
This site is on the Bracon Ash and Mulbarton boundary. The access to this site would have to be via the existing housing in Mulbarton.
It would be very separated from Bracon Ash and residents would feel more affiliated to Mulbarton. The parish council agreed that this site should not be included because there should be a strategic gap maintained between the two villages, Mulbarton and Bracon Ash.
The parish council objects to this being included in a local plan
GNLP0026
The parish council does not object to this being included in a local plan.
GNLP1055
The parish council was totally opposed to this site due to the size. It is a huge development on a green field site impacting directly on the grade 2* listed Stanfield Hall. This building is an outstanding landmark and it would be severely impacted by building all around it.
This proposed site would impact on several parishes creating significant traffic on unsuitable country lanes. The B1113 would be unable to cope with the additional traffic throughout its length from Wymondham to Harford Bridge.
There were serious concerns that one of the largest industrial employers, Lotus Cars, had been subject to repeated complaints due to excessive noise pollution from its test track. The environmental health team has been involved on a number of occasions and the people currently affected by the noise nuisance are located much further away from the track than the proposed development. It would be a significant detriment to anyone living so close to either the factory or the test track.
Lotus Cars has many confidential projects and these are tested on their track; the need for privacy and isolation is necessary to protect the company, any intrusion could have a negative effect on the longevity of the company in this location.
The parish council objects to this being included in a local plan
The parish council remains deeply concerned that South Norfolk Council seems to be getting an unacceptable proportion of development and Norwich City Council has very little.
The plan is named the Greater Norwich Local Plan but the reference in the title does not seem to apply to the city of Norwich itself.

To whom it may concern,

Having seen the Mulbarton map book of proposed new sites for development (http://www.gnlp.org.uk/assets/parishes/Mulbarton%20CP_mapBook.pdf) I would like to make some comments about the proposed sites.
Please refer to section 3.1 of the Mulbarton Neighbourhood Plan (2015-2030) referred to henceforth as MNP for the views of the entire village in regards to scale and location of new residential development
https://www.south-norfolk.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Mulbarton_Neighbourhood_Plan_0.pdf


GNLP0195
Small scale and reasonably well situated in relation to other housing, but issues I foresee are
* land is a flood plain - in heavy rain the stream has overflowed and the land on Partridge Drive is higher so the water spills onto the proposed GNLP0195 site (see S7.3 and Policy ENV4 of MNP).
* access via the B1113 - new entrance would be required by the crossroads, essentially on a blind corner as you can't see the entrance when driving from the North.
* there is currently a footpath and many people (especially but not exclusively dog walkers) use it as a cut through to/from Cuckoofield Lane via the allotments
GNLP0299
Small scale and not badly situated in relation to other housing, but issues I foresee are
* Housing being pushed further from the traditional centre of the village - see S3.1 and Policy HOU1 of MNP.
GNLP0496
Web page below lays out plans for land on named site to east of the B1113 but there is no information regarding the plans for land on named site to west of the B1113.
http://www.lanproservices.co.uk/mulbarton/
Satisfactory location but concern regarding the scale
* Pressure on village services - facilities for education and healthcare are very stretched already - would require significant investment to sustain additional load
* All housing being built on greenfield site

GNLP0315
This is the site I object to most strongly
* The scale is huge - far bigger than the whole of the existing village which has taken decades to develop organically would suddenly more than double in size
* It would ruin the rural feel of the exiting village - no longer being surrounded by fields. All new housing being built on greenfield sites.
* It would be like creating a whole new village from scratch - the site would need all it's own services as there is no way the exisiting facilities in Mulbarton could sustain the additional population.
* Exiting transport links would be woefully inadequate - access to the A140 via Swainsthorpe would need to be massively improved - already difficult enough trying to join at that junction. Junction of B1113 and A140 at Harford Bridge aleady under pressure with tailbacks at peak times - would need improvment. See section 5.1, 5.4 and Policy TRA1 of MNP.


Yours Sincerely,
Ian Haigh

Please find attached comments from Mulbarton Parish Council on all of the proposed site allocations for the area in and around Mulbarton. We have provided comments against each of the individual sites. We disagree with the proposed site allocations and the underlying assumptions.

Our general view is in line with the comments provided by CPRE Norfolk, which you will be familiar with. Your earlier letter of 29th October 2018 stated that "growth will be carefully planned to ensure it is located in the most appropriate locations and will be supported by appropriate and timely infrastructure provision". We disagree that the proposed site allocations and individual site assessments follow this approach.

See attached file.