GNLP0014

I object to this proposed area for development because it is a long way from the main village of Barford. It also lacks a safe pedestrian route along the B1108 to the distant footpath (trod) that lies between the Wramplingham turn-off and Barford. Furthermore, such a development is very likely to have a negative impact on the undeveloped, open nature of the valley.

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 are 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 - Barford sewage system is already at capacity as has been regularly demonstrated by sewage egress into residents gardens.
* Flooding - the lower part of the site may have the potential to be flooded.

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