GNLP0349

Showing comments and forms 1 to 6 of 6

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 12948

Received: 08/02/2018

Respondent: mr keith cowley

Representation:

The number of houses proposed is excessive for the current and future facilities available in the village. Also the extra traffic that would be generated would be unsuitable for a site which only has access onto a single width lane. Power distribution in the village is generally by overhead cables which are vulnerable and the village experiences regular power outages. There is also already very poor broadband service which additional housing would simply exacerbate.

Full text:

The number of houses proposed is excessive for the current and future facilities available in the village. Also the extra traffic that would be generated would be unsuitable for a site which only has access onto a single width lane. Power distribution in the village is generally by overhead cables which are vulnerable and the village experiences regular power outages. There is also already very poor broadband service which additional housing would simply exacerbate.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 13246

Received: 23/02/2018

Respondent: Mrs Jenny Turner

Representation:

This site is accessed via a very narrow country lane. So many extra households would have a serious negative impact on traffic in Burston which is already extremely high for such a small village, mainly due to the heavy commercial traffic for the Mill. It would also add to the congestion in Diss which is already a considerable problem. Public transport facilities in Burston are minimal.

Full text:

This site is accessed via a very narrow country lane. So many extra households would have a serious negative impact on traffic in Burston which is already extremely high for such a small village, mainly due to the heavy commercial traffic for the Mill. It would also add to the congestion in Diss which is already a considerable problem. Public transport facilities in Burston are minimal.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 16045

Received: 22/03/2018

Respondent: Mr Tim Cowan

Representation:

In an area dominated by arable farmland, grass fields such as this are important for wildlife and should be retained. Barn owls hunt in this field and the surrounding hedgerows support a population of house sparrows and have been used by turtle doves (both red listed on the Birds of Conservation Concern list).

Full text:

In an area dominated by arable farmland, grass fields such as this are important for wildlife and should be retained. Barn owls hunt in this field and the surrounding hedgerows support a population of house sparrows and have been used by turtle doves (both red listed on the Birds of Conservation Concern list).

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 16293

Received: 16/03/2018

Respondent: Mrs Norma Ajdukiewicz

Representation:

0386 and 0349 are described as close to local school but there is no continuous pedestrian pavement to the school and very few throughout the village with no space to create new ones

Some enlargement of the village would be beneficial but 61+ an unspecified number" households are not a practical proposition. Small developments on all of these sites except 0560 would be feasible.

Full text:

0386 and 0349 are described as close to local school but there is no continuous pedestrian pavement to the school and very few throughout the village with no space to create new ones.
0560 abuts on Green Lane which is not a road, is an unpaved track and footpath less than 4 metres wide (see OS map) with a significant drain underneath it making it unsuited to heavy traffic. Access to Diss Road would have to be via 0561
Where are the new residents in 61 households plus "an unspecified number" in 0386 in Rectory road going to work? The roads in the village are narrow. The grass verges have been steadily eroded by heavy farm vehicles and lorries delivering to the For Farmers site. Additional commuter traffic will add to this problem. The only roads out of the village are the Diss Road and Shimpling Road leading to the A140 and both would become seriously congested at peak times.
The bus service is inadequate for commuters. Last service to the village is in the early afternoon.
Some enlargement of the village would be beneficial but 61+ an unspecified number" households are not a practical proposition. Small developments on all of these sites except 0560 would be feasible.

Support

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 16694

Received: 22/03/2018

Respondent: Thelveton Farms

Agent: Savills

Representation:

Our client is pleased that the site has been identified as suitable within the HELAA and make the following comments.
Burston is an 'Other Village' within the JCS, upgraded to a 'Service Village' within Appendix 3 of GNLP. There is a primary school within walking distance of the site. There are regular bus services to Diss and no known constraints on the site which would make development difficult or unacceptable. It is not located within Greenbelt, AONB or Flood Zones 2 and 3. A PROW runs across the northern boundary.
The access off Gissing Road (30mph)could be upgraded and the site is adjacent to Burston's settlement boundary.

SEE FULL TEXT ON ATTACHMENT

Full text:

Our client is pleased that the site has been considered, and identified as suitable within the HELAA. We have reviewed the assessment of the site provided within the Site Proposals Document and HELAA, and make the following comments in relation to the site's delivery. [references to NPPF and its consultation, Housing White Paper, NPPG]
Below, the site is considered against the tests within the NPPG2, confirming that the site is suitable, available and achievable for development purposes:
Suitable
Development in rural areas is considered vital to the long term sustainability of rural communities.
Encouraging growth in sustainable settlements within rural areas is considered to be in accordance with Paragraph 55 of The Framework, which also notes that residential development in such settlements can make a significant contribution to the maintenance and continuing provision of local services and facilities for community use (Section 3: Supporting a Prosperous Rural Economy).
The site is considered to be a suitable location for residential development. Burston is identified as an 'Other Village' within the adopted Joint Core Strategy (2011), whilst it has been upgraded to a 'Service Village' within Appendix 3 of the GNLP recognising the level of services, facilities and infrastructure available there within. These include a public house/restaurant and a primary school within walking distance of the site. The village also benefits from regular bus services to the market town of Diss where further amenities are available.
There are no known physical limitations or constraints on the site which would make development of the site difficult or unacceptable. The site is not located within protected areas such as Greenbelt, AONB or Flood Zones 2 and 3. A PROW runs across the northern boundary of the site.
The site benefits from an existing access off of Gissing Road (30mph) which could be upgraded, if necessary, as part of any development.
The site is immediately adjacent to Burston's settlement boundary. The main body of Burston is located directly to the south of the site whilst frontage development is located to the east. Development of the site would not appear out of character with the existing built form, providing a natural extension to this part of the settlement.
The site is neatly bounded by extensive trees and hedging along its northern and western boundaries which largely screen the site from the surrounding countryside. Whilst having some intrinsic value, due to the site's largely enclosed nature, it is considered that it does not make a significant contribution to the wider landscape character.
The site could therefore present a suitable location for the managed growth of Burston, particularly given its relationship with the existing village. It is of an appropriate scale in relation to the form of the village, and as such, this site presents an opportunity to create an attractive and sympathetic development within a sustainable settlement.
Available
The site is considered available for development being within the control of a single owner. Should the site be accepted by the Council as a location for housing development, Savills would be able to act on our client's behalf to take the site forward with a view to identifying a suitable development partners as soon as possible.
Achievable
As noted above, there are no known technical constraints relating to the site and therefore it is considered its development would be economically viable.
Services including electricity, mains water, foul sewerage and telecommunications are easily connectable and readily available. It is noted that Burston currently has sewerage infrastructure constraints. This is an issue reflective across the entirety of Burston. It is not considered that foul drainage would prohibit new development from being delivered.
There are no other factors that mean development of the site would be difficult or unacceptable.Therefore, it is clear that the site presents a deliverable option for housing in Burston and would make a material contribution to the housing targets of the District.
Site Proposals Document Assessment
The site proposal document identifies land at Rose Farm off Bungay Road, Scole as GNLP0349, and in respect of its deliverability no obvious constraints are identified.

HELAA Assessment
A HELAA was undertaken in December 2017 and forms part of the evidence base for the site proposals document. [Images of HELAA assessment]. Our clients comments on the HELAA are as follows:

Accessibility Comment: The site benefits from an existing access off of Gissing Road which could be upgraded, if required, as part of any development. There is adequate land within the boundary of the site to form a new access and to widen Gissing Road. Equally there would appear to be land either aside of Gissing Road within the ownership of the Highways Authority which may allow for some widening to occur, should this be necessary. The existing junction to Station Road is considered sufficient with good visibility available. Station Road is a main road through the village with sufficient capacity to accommodate development of the site. Footpaths are available throughout the village which could be connected to as part of the development. The NPPF makes it clear that development should only be prevented on highways grounds where it can be demonstrated that the residual cumulative impacts of development would be severe . A Transport Assessment would be produced, if required, by a qualified Highways Engineer prior to submission of any planning application. However, it is not anticipated at this stage that highway impacts relating to the development of the site would be severe.

Access to services comment: As previously noted, Burston has been upgraded to a 'Service Village' within Appendix 3 of the GNLP recognising the level of services, facilities and infrastructure available there within. These include a public house/restaurant and a primary school within walking distance of the site. The village also benefits from regular bus services to the market town of Diss where further amenities are available.

Flood risk comment: Environment Agency surface water flood mapping indicates that a small section of the site is susceptible to surface water flooding, this being an area of land running north to south towards the centre of the site. There is also an are susceptible to surface water flooding along the western boundary. Further investigation into site specific drainage issues would be undertaken, however there are no known reasons why a Sustainable Urban Drainage System (SUDS) could not be incorporated, thus addressing any pressures on the current drainage network. Development could be designed to incorporate soft edges.

Landscape comment: The site is located within land designated as Waveney tributary farmland, a locally significant landscape area. However, the site is well located to the main body of Burston directly to the south of the site whilst frontage development is located to the east. Development of the site would not appear out of character with the existing built form, providing a natural extension to this part of the settlement. The site is neatly bounded by extensive trees and hedging along its northern and western boundaries which largely screen the site from the surrounding countryside. Whilst having some intrinsic value, due to the site's largely enclosed nature, it is considered that it does not make a significant contribution to the wider landscape character. Furthermore, appropriate landscaping could be implemented as part of any development of the site.

Utilities capacity comment: As previously stated, it is noted that Burston currently has sewerage infrastructure constraints. This is an issue reflective across the entirety of Burrton. It is not considered that foul drainage would prohibit new development from being delivered.

Historic environment comment: In relation to the historic environment, this is addressed within Chapter 12 of the Framework. Paragraph 132 notes:
"When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset's conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification."
Paragraphs 134 set out what the considerations should be when determining an application which impacts designated heritage assets. It states:
"134. Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use."
The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 in Section 66 adds that:
"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."
Section 72 adds that it is a duty, with respect to any buildings or land in a conservation area, to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area.
It is not considered that the proposal would have a detrimental impact or result in any harm to the setting of any listed buildings or the Burston conservation area. In addition, when considering the impact on heritage assets, it is considered that the public benefits associated with the development of this site would weigh strongly in favour of its development..
Work and employment would be created for both individuals and businesses involved in the construction elements of the development and sourcing of materials. It is also considered that any construction workers and local trades will make use of local services and facilities during the construction period. In the long-term it is likely trades people will be required to help maintain any properties. Additionally, it is considered that the occupiers of any development would make use of local services and facilities ensuring their vitality, viability and longevity thus contributing to the local economy.
A heritage impact assessment would be produced, if required, prior to submission of any planning application should the site be allocated. Furthermore, appropriate archaeological surveys could be conditioned should planning be pursued on the site.

Biodiversity/geodiversity comment: In respect of any potential impact upon the SSSI. This would be addressed by way of appropriate protected species surveys and the implementation of appropriate mitigation, undertaken and produced by a CIEEM registered ecology consultants. Where possible, biodiversity net gains would be sought in line with the NPPF.

Conclusion
It is considered that the land to the west of Gissing Road (GNLP 0349) is sustainable and deliverable as defined by the NPPF, and a suitable location for residential development. The site, within the ownership of Sir Rupert Mann Bt, represents an attractive option for housing growth within the District.
Should the site be accepted as an allocation within the Local Plan, Savills would be able to act on our client's behalf to take the site forward with a view to identifying a suitable development partner as soon as possible.

SEE ATTACHED LETTER FOR FULL REPRESENTATION

Attachments:

Comment

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 16697

Received: 21/03/2018

Respondent: Burston and Shimpling Parish Council

Agent: Burston and Shimpling Parish Council

Representation:

This site is probably one of the better proposals, but is joined to the rest of the village by a 'no pavement' narrow road. The number of houses is excessive bearing in mind the facilities that the village has to offer,

Full text:

[General comment made in respect of all site proposals commented upon - see also response to Growth Options document question 24]
Burston has been wrongly classified as a service village. Burston does NOT have a village hall. At present the nave of the Church is made available for meetings, but the congregation is dwindling, and if the Church is declared redundant it seems most likely that the present arrangement will stop. There is a bus service to Diss, but the last bus back is shortly after lunch, and so travelling to work in Diss by bus is totally impracticable. Travelling to Norwich takes over an hour and costs £7 a day return. Having Burston as a 'dormitory' for Norwick is ludicrous. We do not have any pre-school facilities. Job opportunities in the village are limited to say the least. The only employers are the pub, who have the odd waiter/waitress job, Tucks Mill, who have just moved all their administration posts to Bury, and Burston House secure hospital, who have the occasional vacancy for a zero hours minimum wage 'bank worker'.
Broadband in the village is not good, and any development will put the present provision under strain. The roads in the village are inadequate for the present number of residents, being relatively narrow, and with very few pavements for pedestrians. The principal road through the village is used by lorries going to and from Tucks Mill - and in a typical day the number of lorry movements is measured in hundreds. Walking along the parts of this road with no pavement is a real risk. The power supply to the village is 'overhead' and prone to failures.

[Other comments on specific sites]
Site GNLP0349
This site is probably one of the better proposals, but is joined to the rest of the village by a 'no pavement' narrow road. The number of houses is excessive bearing in mind the facilities that the village has to offer,


Site GNLP0386
No number of homes has been specified...one imagines 30 to 40...increasing the number of homes in Burston by over 20% in one fell swoop.

There are no real facilities to support this number of additional residents. The site is joined to the village along a single trach no pavement road. The development would infill between Burston and the presently distinct development of Audley End.

Site GNLP0560
The site has no access to the highway apart from along a single track Green Lane which is a footpath but not even a byeway. The site is beyond the present boundary of the village.

GNLP0561
30 homes would increase the number of the houses in the village by 30%. The only access to the village is along a busy road with no footpath that is relatively narrow. People in starter homes may not be wealthy, and so have to rely on the public transport to get anywhere, and the public transport is not sufficient to get to and from work. Starter homes would bring young families to the village, which might swamp the primary school.

GNLP0562
This site is for a single dwelling. It is a 'greenfield' site, whereas the adjacent farmyard might make a better 'brownfield' site.

GNLP1028
This site is really beyond the present village boundary, and the only access is along a relatively narrow no-pavement stretch of road which experiences hundreds of lorry movement a day.