GNLP0366

Showing comments and forms 1 to 13 of 13

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 13107

Received: 19/02/2018

Respondent: Mr Paul Partridge

Representation:

Access road into the development is a very busy side road. Further housing on this site would undoubtedly add to this issue.

Extensive development would be needed to instigate water, electricity and drainage before building could continue. Drainage is a continued problem affecting Church Farm Close as is still in the process of being rectified.

The impact of development would disrupt a fragile environmental area with wildlife affected, including owls, bats, deer, pheasants and a variety of wild birds.

Presence of grade 2 listed property bordering the site. No design would be in keeping with this structure

Full text:

Objection to land planning application GNLP-0366
I strongly object to the planning application above for the following reasons.

Background
Bramerton is a small linear village running mainly along the The Street and into Framingham Lane. Housing is on either side of these two streets with a small proportion of residential housing set back from the roadway. Two of these are Church Farm barns and Church Farm Close both of which are very close to the proposed planning and would share the already busy access road.

Bramerton is not serviced by any commercial or retail businesses. There is no convenience store, no public house or indeed no school. The public house and the chandlers mentioned in the planning review are in Woodsend a twenty minute walk from the centre of Bramerton. The two larger villages either side of Bramerton - Surlingham and Rockland St Mary both have primary schools and stores with a doctors surgery at Rockland and other business/ commercial interests. Any new building development in this small village would adversely affect the nature of the village and its surroundings.

Recent developments of housing have been undertaken at Church Farm barns and Church Farm close, Church Farm barns was for the most part a conversion of disused farm buildings into residential housing.
Church Farm Close developed a disused commercial site which had been left empty for sometime.

The above planning application would be on agricultural land which has been used to grow hay, although has recently been given garden status.There are no utilities on this land and extensive development would be needed to instigate water, electricity and drainage before building could continue. Drainage is a continued problem affecting Church Farm Close as is still in the process of being rectified.

Access.
The only access road into the proposed development is at present a very busy side road running from The Street serving Church Farm barns and Church Farm Close. Further housing on this site would undoubtedly add to this issue. I have read your investigation with regards to exiting the access road onto the street and disagree with your finding (that there is sufficient viewing distance when turning onto the street.) The front wall and railing at the front of the White House considerably hinders the view to the left when turning right. You state that there is sufficient view to the right which would allow a vehicle to pull slightly out into the road to gain a better view. If a vehicle considers this manoeuvre it would leave itself stranded in the middle of the road if a vehicle is seen thus causing an obstruction to vehicles travelling from the right.

A second hazard occurs when vehicles are allowed to travel along the access road and onto the proposed residential development where they will have to turn left. At present there is a blind junction turning right from the access road into Church Farm barns. Cars have had to break heavy when meeting each other at this point. The new left turn onto the development will add to this issue and is also obstructed by the brick wall and would lead to an increased danger of vehicles colliding at this junction. There are no pathways near these junctions and pedestrians also run the risk of serious injury.

Environment.
The proposed development is on a green field site and borders a conservation area and high class agricultural land. The impact of further development in this location would only serve to disrupt what is a fragile environmental area with numerous species of wildlife being affected, including barn owls, bats,deer, pheasants and a variety of wild birds.

The land in question has recently won a planning application for it to be granted garden status from agricultural, I do however feel this was cynical approach by the land owner to hoodwink the planning authorities as to the change of use. There have been several refused planning applications to build residential housing on this land and I refer you to the remarks and objections in these applications. (2016/1163, 2014/0025)

Orchard house which borders the development has grade 2 listed status and has under gone an extremely sympathetic redevelopment. The new housing, no matter what design would never be in keeping with this house or surrounding houses and would have a negative impact on the area.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 13519

Received: 04/03/2018

Respondent: Mr Richard Barker

Representation:

Poor access
Poor drainage
Rejected on many earlier occasions
Unsafe proposal

Full text:

This site has been the subject of many rejected proposals and rightly so. The access from the highway is barely wide enough for 2 passing cars and the proposed access to the site is a bind corner from Church Farm Close. The proposed access is also very tight as there is parking for social housing and surely not safe to be used. There has also been very significant drainage issues with Church Farm Close and thus the loss of further green land would add to potential flooding issues of the surrounding area. I strongly object to this proposal as it would impact greatly on the surrounding area and put the safety of residents at risk, particularly children.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 13659

Received: 08/03/2018

Respondent: MRS LYNN SMEDLEY

Representation:

This particular piece of land has already been the subject of 4 planning applications since 2014.Only the last application, to allow the owner to create a garden,has been accepted:"The land hereby approved for change of use...shall be used for no other purpose than being incidental to the dwelling known as Orchard House."
Bramerton is in a conservation area:development would fail to preserve the character or appearance of the Conservation Area;there is no road access to the proposed site;any proposed development will increase traffic movements at an access point onto The Street that has substandard visibility;it will adversely affect local wildlife.

Full text:

This particular piece of land has already been the subject of 4 planning applications since 2014.Only the last application, to allow the owner to create a garden,has been accepted:"The land hereby approved for change of use...shall be used for no other purpose than being incidental to the dwelling known as Orchard House."
Bramerton is in a conservation area:development would fail to preserve the character or appearance of the Conservation Area;there is no road access to the proposed site;any proposed development will increase traffic movements at an access point onto The Street that has substandard visibility;it will adversely affect local wildlife.

Comment

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 13666

Received: 08/03/2018

Respondent: Mr Brian Ansell

Representation:

This a backland development without a good access to the main road. The site is now within the curtiledge of a Grade 3 listed building which has had no less than 3 planning applications turned down by planning Inspectors on appeal.

Full text:

This a backland development without a good access to the main road. The site is now within the curtiledge of a Grade 3 listed building which has had no less than 3 planning applications turned down by planning Inspectors on appeal.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 13697

Received: 09/03/2018

Respondent: Mr John Anderton

Representation:

Access would be via an already very busy route from the main road - any further traffic would render this access quite dangerous. This site has already had several planning proposals refused and the same reasons would apply to this new application. Significant works would be necessary and would be extremely disruptive to not only the local residents, but also to the wildlife in the area. Drainage has been, and still continues to be, a problem here and is not resolved yet - any further development would only add to the problem.

Full text:

Access would be via an already very busy route from the main road - any further traffic would render this access quite dangerous. This site has already had several planning proposals refused and the same reasons would apply to this new application. Significant works would be necessary and would be extremely disruptive to not only the local residents, but also to the wildlife in the area. Drainage has been, and still continues to be, a problem here and is not resolved yet - any further development would only add to the problem.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 13808

Received: 12/03/2018

Respondent: Mr John Barnes

Representation:

The land in question has already had several planning applications refused, one of the reasons being that it lies outwith the village boundary. If however, development is being considered, the proposed access to the site would seem to be totally unsuitable. It would add traffic to a very narrow exit onto the mail road where there are numerous near misses between traffic leaving and entering. road The proposed accessIt would appear to use the space immediately outside the three affordable housing units, meaning these residents and children from these houses would have to exit directly onto a roadway.

Full text:

The land in question has already had several planning applications refused, one of the reasons being that it lies outwith the village boundary. If however, development is being considered, the proposed access to the site would seem to be totally unsuitable. It would add traffic to a very narrow exit onto the mail road where there are numerous near misses between traffic leaving and entering. road The proposed accessIt would appear to use the space immediately outside the three affordable housing units, meaning these residents and children from these houses would have to exit directly onto a roadway.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 13810

Received: 12/03/2018

Respondent: Mr John Barnes

Representation:

The land in question has already had several planning applications refused, one of the reasons being that it lies outwith the village boundary. If however, development is being considered, the proposed access to the site would seem to be totally unsuitable as It would add traffic to a very narrow exit onto the mail road where there are numerous near misses between traffic leaving and entering.
The proposed access would appear to use the space immediately outside the three affordable housing units, meaning these residents and children from these houses would have to exit directly onto a roadway.

Full text:

The land in question has already had several planning applications refused, one of the reasons being that it lies outwith the village boundary. If however, development is being considered, the proposed access to the site would seem to be totally unsuitable as It would add traffic to a very narrow exit onto the mail road where there are numerous near misses between traffic leaving and entering.
The proposed access would appear to use the space immediately outside the three affordable housing units, meaning these residents and children from these houses would have to exit directly onto a roadway.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 13839

Received: 12/03/2018

Respondent: Mrs Jessica May

Representation:

In January 2015 first Appeal APP/L2630/A/14/2226538, was dismissed by Inspector Williams.

In April 2016 second Appeal APP/L2630/W/15/3136375, was dismissed by Inspector Parker.

Housing application SNC 2016/1163, was refused by the Council on 14 July 2016.

Change of use application SNC 2017/1668 was approved, without permitted development rights, on 5 September 2017.



Full text:

Bramerton - Draft Local Plan Representations, Site Reference GNLP0366 - OBJECTION

I wish to object in the strongest possible terms to the proposal to allocate this site for residential development as it would appear that the planning history of the site is not fully reflected in the settlement summary.

The site has been the subject of two previous planning appeals, one for residential development and the second for a photo voltaic panel array. In dismissing the residential appeal in a letter dated 7 January 2015, ref APP/L2630/A/14/2226538, Inspector Williams in paragraph 18 stated:

"I conclude that the appeal proposal would fail to preserve the setting of Orchard House. The conservation Area covers much of the historic core of the village and includes Orchard House. Historic buildings and their settings make a positive contribution to its character and appearance. In that context, taking into account the harm to the setting of Orchard House, the development would also fail to preserve the character and appearance of the Bramerton Conservation Area."

In dismissing the later, photo voltaic panel array, appeal in a letter dated 13 April 2016, ref APP/L2630/W/15/3136375, Inspector Parker in paragraph 9 stated:

"I therefore conclude that the proposal would fail to preserve the setting of the Grade 2 listed building, Orchard House, and the Bramerton Conservation Area. As such the proposal would be contrary to Policy 4.10 of the DMPD which, amongst other aims, seeks to ensure that considerable weight must be given to the desirability of preserving listed buildings, their settings and the character and appearance of conservation areas."

A third application SNC 2016/1163 for development of this site, this time for three bungalows, was subsequently submitted to the South Norfolk Council on 19 May 2016 and refused by the Council on 14 July 2016 stating that:

"The open undeveloped nature of the site, which enhances the setting of the listed Orchard House and its connection to open countryside, make a significant contribution to the setting of the Conservation Area, the setting of the listed building and the site contributes to the characteristics this area. The proposed development would be significantly harmful to its immediate setting and the listed building, to the Conservation Area and would also be demonstrably harmful to the defining characteristics of this part of South Norfolk. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy 2 of the Joint Core Strategy, DM4.10 and DM4.5 of the South Norfolk Local Plan Development Management Policies Document. As the proposal would result in harm to the significance of the heritage assets through inappropriate development in their setting, it is contrary to S66 (1) and S72 of Listed Buildings Act 1990. In view of the identified harm, the proposal is not considered to be sustainable development"

A further application SNC 2017/1668 requesting change of use from agricultural to garden use was submitted on 11 July 2017 and granted, subject to certain conditions, by the Council on 5 September 2017. However the Council stated that

"The land hereby approved for change of use, as shown on the approved location plan submitted on 11 July 2017, shall be used for no other purpose than being incidental to the dwelling known as Orchard House."

"The land hereby approved for change of use will form part of the curtilage of the listed farmhouse and therefore all permitted development rights the house would normally have under Classes ABCDE&G (C/e) are removed. Any development of the land will therefore require a formal planning permission."

Circumstances have not changed since the decisions of the two appeal inspectors and the South Norfolk Council, which are referred to above, were made and l therefore urge the Council not to progress the proposed allocation any further.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 13841

Received: 12/03/2018

Respondent: Mr Christopher Hawes

Agent: Mr Christopher Hawes

Representation:

There are two previous planning appeals on GNLP 0366 and two further applications.

In January 2015 first Appeal APP/L2630/A/14/2226538, was dismissed by Inspector Williams.

In April 2016 second Appeal APP/L2630/W/15/3136375, was dismissed by Inspector Parker.

Housing application SNC 2016/1163, was refused by the Council on 14 July 2016.

Change of use application SNC 2017/1668 was approved, without permitted development rights, on 5 September 2017.

Circumstances have not changed.

Full text:

FULL SUBMISSION

Bramerton - Draft Local Plan Representations, Site Reference GNLP0366 - OBJECTION

I wish to object in the strongest possible terms to the proposal to allocate this site for residential development as it would appear that the planning history of the site is not fully reflected in the settlement summary.

The site has been the subject of two previous planning appeals, one for residential development and the second for a photo voltaic panel array. In dismissing the residential appeal in a letter dated 7 January 2015, ref APP/L2630/A/14/2226538, Inspector Williams in paragraph 18 stated:

"I conclude that the appeal proposal would fail to preserve the setting of Orchard House. The conservation Area covers much of the historic core of the village and includes Orchard House. Historic buildings and their settings make a positive contribution to its character and appearance. In that context, taking into account the harm to the setting of Orchard House, the development would also fail to preserve the character and appearance of the Bramerton Conservation Area."

In dismissing the later, photo voltaic panel array, appeal in a letter dated 13 April 2016, ref APP/L2630/W/15/3136375, Inspector Parker in paragraph 9 stated:

"I therefore conclude that the proposal would fail to preserve the setting of the Grade 2 listed building, Orchard House, and the Bramerton Conservation Area. As such the proposal would be contrary to Policy 4.10 of the DMPD which, amongst other aims, seeks to ensure that considerable weight must be given to the desirability of preserving listed buildings, their settings and the character and appearance of conservation areas."

A third application SNC 2016/1163 for development of this site, this time for three bungalows, was subsequently submitted to the South Norfolk Council on 19 May 2016 and refused by the Council on 14 July 2016 stating that:

"The open undeveloped nature of the site, which enhances the setting of the listed Orchard House and its connection to open countryside, make a significant contribution to the setting of the Conservation Area, the setting of the listed building and the site contributes to the characteristics this area. The proposed development would be significantly harmful to its immediate setting and the listed building, to the Conservation Area and would also be demonstrably harmful to the defining characteristics of this part of South Norfolk. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy 2 of the Joint Core Strategy, DM4.10 and DM4.5 of the South Norfolk Local Plan Development Management Policies Document. As the proposal would result in harm to the significance of the heritage assets through inappropriate development in their setting, it is contrary to S66 (1) and S72 of Listed Buildings Act 1990. In view of the identified harm, the proposal is not considered to be sustainable development"

A further application SNC 2017/1668 requesting change of use from agricultural to garden use was submitted on 11 July 2017 and granted, subject to certain conditions, by the Council on 5 September 2017. However the Council stated that

"The land hereby approved for change of use, as shown on the approved location plan submitted on 11 July 2017, shall be used for no other purpose than being incidental to the dwelling known as Orchard House."

"The land hereby approved for change of use will form part of the curtilage of the listed farmhouse and therefore all permitted development rights the house would normally have under Classes ABCDE&G (C/e) are removed. Any development of the land will therefore require a formal planning permission."

Circumstances have not changed since the decisions of the two appeal inspectors and the South Norfolk Council, which are referred to above, were made and l therefore urge the Council not to progress the proposed application any further.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 14344

Received: 18/03/2018

Respondent: Mr Peter Shaw

Representation:

This developer has repeatedly attempted to get permission for this development in spite of the inappropriatness of its scale in relation to:
1. the additional traffic that would be generated on this narrow access lane, which is not wide enough for a pavement, creating a danger for pedestrians, particularly children
2. The impact on this Conservation Area of a substantial development
3. The development of 10 houses, granted planning permission in 2013, has been beset by problems because of the builder's disregard of fundamental infrastructural requirements such as land drainage.This developer has previously looked to co-develop with the same builder.

Full text:

This developer has repeatedly attempted to get permission for this development in spite of the inappropriatness of its scale in relation to:
1. the additional traffic that would be generated on this narrow access lane, which is not wide enough for a pavement, creating a danger for pedestrians, particularly children
2. The impact on this Conservation Area of a substantial development
3. The development of 10 houses, granted planning permission in 2013, has been beset by problems because of the builder's disregard of fundamental infrastructural requirements such as land drainage.This developer has previously looked to co-develop with the same builder.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 15921

Received: 22/03/2018

Respondent: Bramerton Parish Council

Representation:

Bramerton Parish Council have responded via the Parish Clerk directly to South Norfolk Council on the unsuitability of this site for development on previous occasions. The issues are poor vehicle access, proximity to a listed building in a Conservation Area and over development of the village 'backland'.

Full text:

Bramerton Parish Council have responded via the Parish Clerk directly to South Norfolk Council on the unsuitability of this site for development on previous occasions. The issues are poor vehicle access, proximity to a listed building in a Conservation Area and over development of the village 'backland'.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 16170

Received: 06/03/2018

Respondent: Mr Christopher Hawes

Representation:

There are two previous planning appeals on GNLP 0366, one for residential development the other a solar farm. Also two applications for housing and change of use.

In January 2015 first Appeal ref APP/L2630/A/14/2226538, was dismissed by Inspector Williams.

In April 2016 second Appeal ref APP/L2630/W/15/3136375, was dismissed by Inspector Parker.

Housing application SNC 2016/1163, was refused by the Council on 14 July 2016.

Change of use application SNC 2017/1668 was approved without, permitted development rights, on 5 September 2017.

Circumstances have not changed since these decisions were made and l urge the Council to reject the proposal.


Full text:

I wish to object in the strongest possible terms to the proposal to allocate this site for residential development as it would appear that the planning history of the site is not fully reflected in the settlement summary.

The site has been the subject of two previous planning appeals, one for residential development and the second for a photo voltaic panel array. In dismissing the residential appeal in a letter dated 7 January 2015, ref APP/L2630/A/14/2226538, Inspector Williams in paragraph 18 stated:

"I conclude that the appeal proposal would fail to preserve the setting of Orchard House. The conservation Area covers much of the historic core of the village and includes Orchard House. Historic buildings and their settings make a positive contribution to its character and appearance. In that context, taking into account the harm to the setting of Orchard House, the development would also fail to preserve the character and appearance of the Bramerton Conservation Area."

In dismissing the later, photo voltaic panel array, appeal in a letter dated 13 April 2016, ref APP/L2630/W/15/3136375, Inspector Parker in paragraph 9 stated:

"I therefore conclude that the proposal would fail to preserve the setting of the Grade 2 listed building, Orchard House, and the Bramerton Conservation Area. As such the proposal would be contrary to Policy 4.10 of the DMPD which, amongst other aims, seeks to ensure that considerable weight must be given to the desirability of preserving listed buildings, their settings and the character and appearance of conservation areas."

A third application SNC 2016/1163 for development of this site, this time for three bungalows, was subsequently submitted to the South Norfolk Council on 19 May 2016 and refused by the Council on 14 July 2016 stating that:

"The open undeveloped nature of the site, which enhances the setting of the listed Orchard House and its connection to open countryside, make a significant contribution to the setting of the Conservation Area, the setting of the listed building and the site contributes to the characteristics this area. The proposed development would be significantly harmful to its immediate setting and the listed building, to the Conservation Area and would also be demonstrably harmful to the defining characteristics of this part of South Norfolk. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy 2 of the Joint Core Strategy, DM4.10 and DM4.5 of the South Norfolk Local Plan Development Management Policies Document. As the proposal would result in harm to the significance of the heritage assets through inappropriate development in their setting, it is contrary to S66 (1) and S72 of Listed Buildings Act 1990. In view of the identified harm, the proposal is not considered to be sustainable development"

A further application SNC 2017/1668 requesting change of use from agricultural to garden use was submitted on 11 July 2017 and granted, subject to certain conditions, by the Council on 5 September 2017. However the Council stated that

"The land hereby approved for change of use, as shown on the approved location plan submitted on 11 July 2017, shall be used for no other purpose than being incidental to the dwelling known as Orchard House."

"The land hereby approved for change of use will form part of the curtilage of the listed farmhouse and therefore all permitted development rights the house would normally have under Classes ABCDE&G (C/e) are removed. Any development of the land will therefore require a formal planning permission."

Circumstances have not changed since the decisions of the two appeal inspectors and the South Norfolk Council, which are referred to above, were made and l therefore urge the Council not to progress the proposed allocation any further.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 16174

Received: 09/03/2018

Respondent: MRS LYNN SMEDLEY

Representation:

Object to the development of the site on the following grounds:
- access, the site cannot be accessed from the public highway.
- would have an adverse impact on the Conservation area
The land has been subject to 4 planning applications since 2014, all bar the most recent having been denied. The most recent application was for change of use specifically for the owner of Orchard House to create a garden

Full text:

This comment is in regard to the proposal to include the land to the rear of Orchard House, The Street, Bramerton, for inclusion in the GNLP plan, for the building of an unspecified number of houses. The 100 characters allowed on your website is inadequate, so I am sending more detailed objections from my husband and myself via this email.

This particular piece of land has already been the subject of 4 planning applications since 2014:

1. Retention of change of use of agricultural land to residential curtilage: Ref. No: 2017/1668 Received: Tue 11 Jul 2017

2. Residential Development of 3 dwellings, garages and associated external works: Ref. No: 2016/1163, Received: Fri 13 May 2016

3. Erection of 140kw solar photovoltaic panel array: Ref. No: 2015/1438 Received: Tue 23 Jun 2015

4. Proposed 8 no residential units, with associated garages, parking, garden and related infrastructure. Ref. No: 2014/0025 Received: Mon 06 Jan 2014

All applications bar the most recent, 2017/1668, have been denied.

The most recent application in 2017 was for a change of use, i.e., to change the land designation from agricultural to residential, specifically, for the owner of Orchard House to create a garden.

I quote from his accompanying letter:
"The proposal is for a formal change of use of the land described, from agricultural to garden land...The proposed area differs from the rest of Orchard House land - which is accepted as garden land - only by virtue of the way it has been maintained..."

"The change of use application includes no proposals for development other than those typical for use as a garden."

"The owners wish to be able to develop a new landscaping regime for this land which will be low maintenance, and could include a large pond, wild flower area, and extensive shrub and tree planting. Garden structures might be included, such as summerhouse, pergolas, etc. No permanent structures are envisaged."

The decision of the South Norfolk planning department was:
"The land hereby approved for change of use, as shown on the approved location plan submitted on 11 July 2017, shall be used for no other purpose than being incidental to the dwelling known as Orchard House."

As there have been no further planning applications for the land East of Orchard House that are visible on the South Norfolk planning department's website, we are therefore astonished that this land should now be included for the GNLP proposal for redevelopment.
All previous planning applications for residential development have been turned down, with many objections to these applications. It is impossible to have "a large pond, wild flower area...and no permanent structures" at the same time as building an unspecified number of houses. To include this land as part of the overall redevelopment plan just months after the owner, and the local planning office specifically stated that there would be no such building development completely undermines the whole planning process, and residents' faith in it.

Bramerton village is in a conservation area, which has been one of the reasons to refuse the previous planning applications. The recent development adjacent to the land at Orchard House was of an existing brownfield site at Church Farm Close, which had been the site of Herbert Parker's Seeds, and which had been derelict.

We would refer you to the accompanying comments from other Bramerton residents who objected to previous planning application 2016/1163.
In the letter from Michael Haslam Associated Ltd, on behalf of Mr.Hawes of Squirrels Drift, Bramerton, there is the following paragraph, which quotes the Planning Inspectors:

"...the appeal proposal would fail to preserve the setting of Orchard House. The Conservation Area covers much of the historic core of the village, and includes Orchard House. Historic buildings and their settings make a positive contribution to its character and appearance. In that context, taking into account the harm to the setting of Orchard House, the development would also fail to preserve the character or appearance of the Bramerton Conservation Area."


Statutory duties relating to Listed Buildings, setting of Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas:

S66(1) Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 provides: "In considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, the local planning authority, or, as the case may be, the Secretary of State shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses."

S72 Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 provides: "In the exercise, with respect to any buildings or other land in a conservation area, of any functions under or by virtue of [the Planning Acts], special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area."


There is no direct access by road to the land area proposed. The only access would have to be through Church Farm Close, and which would go through the parking spaces currently provided for the three social houses, thereby removing any parking for the three properties.
The rest of the road is a single track narrow lane, which has limited visibility to and from The Street, and is used by residents at Church Farm Close and Church Farm Barns. There have already been concerns raised with regard to health and safety because of its narrowness, and poor visibility. The NCC highways letter of 10th February 2014 to South Norfolk council stated:

"Bramerton: Proposed 8 no residential units, with associated garages, parking, garden and related infrastructure BRAMERTON Land East Of Orchard House The Street Bramerton Norfolk NR14 7DW
Further to the formal request for extra time dated 4th February 2014, The highway Authority has completed its consideration of this application.
It is the Highway Authority's view that the proposed development will increase traffic movements at an access point onto [The Street] that has severely substandard visibility. At a set back of 2.4m visibility to the left is only 20m which is only 40% of the Manual for Streets requirement. Such substandard visibility will have a 'severe' impact on highway safety and so the development fails the appropriate test set out in the National Planning Policy Framework
The Highway Authority recommends a highway objection on the following grounds:
SHCR 12 Inadequate visibility splays are provided at the junction of the access with the County highway and this would cause danger and inconvenience to users of the adjoining public highway."

My husband and I therefore strongly object to the inclusion of this piece of land in the GNLP, not only because of its unsuitability, but because of its impact on local wildlife, which is under pressure because of the local intensive farming.