GNLP0439

Showing comments and forms 1 to 4 of 4

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 13887

Received: 13/03/2018

Respondent: Mr Matt Barrett

Representation Summary:

1. This site fails 2 of the 3 key points of the development plan policy (affect on local listed properties and sewage).
2. This site increases danger to "protected" wildlife species.
3. This site causes an over reliance on the use of the car.
4. This site is accessed by a road unsuitable for doubled traffic flow.
5. There is no demand for additional properties in the village.

Full text:

This planning fails on 2 key parts of the development policy. Firstly in point 2, that it should avoid harmful impact on the "setting" of the nearby listed property. Any development will fail on this point. There have been precedents set most notably in the case of Barnwell vs East Northamptonshire DC where they enacted section 66(1) of the planning (listed building and conservation) act 1990 that "Decision makers should give considerable importance and weight to the desirability of preserving setting of the listed buildings. The new development was blocked in this case. Also, the planning inspectorate rejected an appeal in Market Bosworth near Nuneaton "APP/K2420/A/14/2214789 where a grade II property (the same grade as Plough End) would have its "Setting" affected by new development, this inspectorate decision took in to consideration many positive and negative factors including the need for new homes and previous modernisation of the listed property.
My support for the setting of the listed property comes from this 17th century pub being chosen for protection by Historic England when it closed its doors to the public in 1981. The history and its successes were reliant on its "setting" and therefore its ability to be seen from the Old mill house, the steam mill and the several farms on Upgate street, these traditional industries employed the communities that served the pub well for many years and those local workers walked across the fields to reach the Plough Inn pub that they could see from the farms and mill. These traditional views and "setting" will be completely obscured by any new development on the land designated as CAR1 in the development policy.

In addition, there are 2 more strong points that also have legal precedent.
1, a recent Ecological report confirms the presence of Water Voles, in the drainage ditch, there have been many sightings of this endangered British species this summer along with newts and these must be protected. Also, Skylarks and bats in the trees, all mentioned in the report, there is also a nesting barn owl on the land of Plough End. As such any development will endanger further and disturb these species. There are many cases of precedents blocking development in these instances.
2, There is a very limited public transport service in the village, and this development will create an over reliance on the car. The development in the planning policy known as CAR2 is more accessible from Bunwell where transport links are better. It is also nearer to amenities of the bus route and the school.
3. There is no practical ability to link this site to the sewage treatment works, creating even more issues for land susceptible to flooding.
4. the narrow lane is not suitable for the cars and additional service vehicles that would be brought by an addition of 10 houses. It would be reasonable to expect 2 cars per property, so adding this much traffic to a narrow lane with minimal passing places is unpractical for existing residents.
Finally, There have been a variety of properties in Carleton Rode that have been on the sales market for at least 6 months and some much longer and a recent availability of a council property had very little interest, indicating that there is no appetite for existing properties, let alone the addition of a proposed 36 additional properties under 3 local proposals.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 14787

Received: 20/03/2018

Respondent: Mrs Janet Major

Representation Summary:

1. Rode Lane - single track, mile long, blind corners, few passing places, deep ditches, much large farm traffic. 10 houses equates in reality to use by 20 more cars. Lane unsuitable.
2. Residents dependent on car for essential needs such as shopping, attending medical practice, primary school
3. Public bus stop - 2 to Norwich early am, 3 return during afternoon Monday to Friday. Car needed to get to local towns.
4. Current houses have septic tanks or own sewage system - emptying puts additional strain on single track road.
5. No gas, oil deliveries similarly 'block' road.

Full text:

1. Rode Lane - single track, mile long, blind corners, few passing places, deep ditches, much large farm traffic. 10 houses equates in reality to use by 20 more cars. Lane unsuitable.
2. Residents dependent on car for essential needs such as shopping, attending medical practice, primary school
3. Public bus stop - 2 to Norwich early am, 3 return during afternoon Monday to Friday. Car needed to get to local towns.
4. Current houses have septic tanks or own sewage system - emptying puts additional strain on single track road.
5. No gas, oil deliveries similarly 'block' road.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 14863

Received: 20/03/2018

Respondent: Mrs Margaret Smith

Representation Summary:

Over-development of greenfield site. Houses out of keeping with existing bungalows on this side of Rode Lane, which is mainly single track, few passing places and no pedestrian footway. Back development, with rear of houses facing onto lane. ?any proven need for this type of housing. Poor surface drainage, no mains sewerage. Destruction of habitat for brown hares, barn owls, skylarks. Road infrastructure inadequate for 20+ extra vehicles. Car usage essential for schools, shops, healthcare, employment. No public transport to Wymondham or Attleborough, and very poor to Norwich.

Full text:

Over-development of greenfield site. Houses out of keeping with existing bungalows on this side of Rode Lane, which is mainly single track, few passing places and no pedestrian footway. Back development, with rear of houses facing onto lane. ?any proven need for this type of housing. Poor surface drainage, no mains sewerage. Destruction of habitat for brown hares, barn owls, skylarks. Road infrastructure inadequate for 20+ extra vehicles. Car usage essential for schools, shops, healthcare, employment. No public transport to Wymondham or Attleborough, and very poor to Norwich.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 15327

Received: 22/03/2018

Respondent: Mr David Watson

Representation Summary:

Proposer's submission increases area of this existing site per map by a factor of about 3. OPP already obtained for 3 houses on existing site; this new submission calls for 10. Density inappropriate in rural area, plan doesn't continue linear pattern, extends into open countryside contrary to SNC policy.

Full text:

Proposer's submission increases area of this existing site per map by a factor of about 3. OPP already obtained for 3 houses on existing site; this new submission calls for 10. Density inappropriate in rural area, plan doesn't continue linear pattern, extends into open countryside contrary to SNC policy.