GNLP0580

Showing comments and forms 1 to 3 of 3

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 14924

Received: 20/03/2018

Respondent: Hempnall Parish Council

Representation:

These sites were considered not suitable for development because they are outside the existing development area and many of the problems identified in respect of site GNLP0147 above also applied at these locations.

Full text:

These sites were considered not suitable for development because they are outside the existing development area and many of the problems identified in respect of site GNLP0147 above also applied at these locations.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 16663

Received: 09/03/2018

Respondent: Hempnall Parish Council

Representation:

Sites GNLP0178 and GNLP0580 are not considered suitable for development because they are outside the existing development area and many of the problems identified in respect of site GNLP0147 also apply at these locations.

Full text:

[Representations made 24/11/16, in response to sites initially promoted through the Call for Sites in 2016 - these are treated as an additional submission made by the Parish Council through the current consultation as they are attached to the March 2017 submission in respect of the sites proposed at a later stage, viz GNLP1015. 1016, 1017 and 1018]

Hempnall parish council considered the following sites at its meeting on 15 November 2016. We appreciate that consolation is at an early stage but our District Council, Mrs Alison Thomas, impressed upon us the importance of an early response.

GNLP0147 - Land Around Alburgh, Road and Silver Green, Sycamore Farm, 17 Alburgh Road, Hempnall Green - Mixed use development, led by residential development of an unspecified number, with potential for light industrial or small office units.

This would be a large scale development and even at this early stage it has provoked large scale local opposition and many objectors attended our recent parish council meeting.

They identified the following reasons why this was not a suitable area for development:

* general lack of infrastructure for the existing dwellings, let alone further development
* foul sewage - not on mains
* persistent problem in this area with sewage systems which has led to previous planning applications being refused. Problems included:

o a high water table
o ditch clearances needed at least annually
o surface water drainage inadequate

* SNC records will show 12 to 14 yrs ago pipe improvements were made on this on this land area to ease the problem but it did not fully resolve it
* Three Horseshoes PH flooded 3 times in last 5 years
* rural nature of area would be spoilt
* internet service poor
* low mains water pressure already inadequate to service existing homes
* roads not suitable for level of predicted traffic
* poor access points off Alburgh Rd
* impact on Hempnall School spaces
* impact on already over-subscribed doctor's surgeries
* impact on wild life - owls, bats, hedgehogs and newts
* the plan of the site is inaccurate as it included half of a parishioner's garden that has not been put forward by the owner
* outside current development area

The parish council voted unanimously to oppose development on this site for the reasons given above and because it contravened the parish council's planning policies which aim to restrict development to within current development boundaries and which discourage large scale developments of this nature. Mrs Thomas agreed to make representations on behalf of the parishioners and the parish council in opposition to this site.


GNLP0220 - Land at Millfields for 15 dwellings
This site was put forward by SNC. It is adjacent to the Millfields, a small scale development of bungalows for the independent elderly. The site was originally intended for use as an extension to Millfields and was referred to as Millfields Phase 2 on plans submitted at the time. The parish councillors expressed regret that this fact appears to have been overlooked by SNC. The parish council unanimously decided that it is not a suitable site for residential development other than for an extension of Millfields. A number of reasons were given, including:
* Access to the site is via a small residential road through Millfields and given the elderly nature of resident this is clearly not a desirable route for extra vehicle movement.
* There was a more pressing need for the provision of additional one-bedroom accommodation for the elderly than for additional 3 to 4 bedroom houses - there are currently a number of these for sale in the village.
* A moderately sized residential development adjacent to elderly accommodation is not a good mix

We understand that SNC is unaware of the original intention for this site which purpose we would support as the number of elderly people in the village is increasing.

Mrs Thomas supported the use of this site for an extension of care for the elderly.

GNLP0178 - Land Adjacent Tween Oaks, Alburgh Road for 4 dwellings and GNLP0580 - Land at Home Farm, Alburgh Road, Hempnall Green - 5 to 6 dwellings

These sites were considered not suitable for development because they are outside the existing development area and many of the problems identified in respect of site GNLP0147 above also applied at these locations.

Please see below our planning policies relevant to the above decisions:

2a) Norwich Policy Area
HPC supports retaining the Norwich Policy Area (NPA) with its current boundaries (as defined in the Joint Core Strategy to 2026) for inclusion in the emerging GNLP to 2036. The distinction between the Norwich Policy Area and the Rural Policy Area (RPA) should not be abolished in the new local plan and the area covered by the NPA should not be extended.

HPC wishes to remain within the Rural Policy Area and asks that current JCS policies that protect the rural parts of Broadland and South Norfolk from excessive development (i.e. all places outside the NPA including Hempnall) should be retained in the GNLP to 2036. New development proposed for inclusion in the 2036 plan should be concentrated in the already suburbanised parts of the NPA.

2b) Settlement Hierarchy
HPC considers that the existing Settlement Hierarchy (as defined in the JCS) should be retained in the GNLP to 2036 and re-states its resolve to remain a Service Village and to resist any attempt to be elevated up the hierarchy in the new plan, e.g. to the next level currently known as Key Service Centre.

2c) Development Area Boundary
HPC opposes any development of the village outside the currently defined development boundary. We support infill of small groups of dwellings and small scale businesses and services inside the development area demarcated by this boundary but oppose large scale housing estates.

Definitions
JCS -The Joint Core Strategy for Broadland, Norwich and South Norfolk to 2026
GNLP - The emerging Greater Norwich Local Plan (to 2036)
HPC - Hempnall Parish Council

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 16804

Received: 10/08/2018

Respondent: Mr Andrew Driver

Representation:

Alburgh Road is not a well developed road and it is too far from major services to be developed. Proposal does not meet the pressing need for affordable homes. Site is nearly two miles from the village and affordable homes would be better placed in Hempnall where there are better services. Proposed access is onto a fast road used by farm and lorry traffic. Access from a cul-de-sac could be problematic on road safety grounds. Site regularly floods and waste water disposal is a problem. Broadband reception is poor. There would be significant abnormal costs associated with developing this site and statements about viability of the site are untrue.

Full text:

GNLP 0147:
The submission by Broadland Architectural claims that all the land belongs to his client - Sycamore Farm. I have heard that some land belonging to someone else may be included in the proposal. The land is regularly used both by cattle and horses. Whilst the land is not of the highest quality for agriculture, it is not wasted land as claimed. The form claims the land is "in the centre of the village". This is not true. It is in fact nearly two miles from the village. It does not have good access and does not have some essential services (sewage, gas and drainage). Silver Green is a single track road with no real passing places. It is not suitable for any traffic and would certainly not be an appropriate access road for a major development. Alburgh Road is not wide enough for two large vehicles to pass and is not suitable for the increased level of traffic this proposal would lead to. The entrance to the proposed site is on a bend and could be dangerous for road and people's safety and is not suitable for a major development. There are a significant number of mature trees on the site - not a few minor ones. Bats are regular visitors to the site. The statements in section 7b. are untrue. The site is not in a flood risk area. It does however regularly flood and is waterlogged for several months of the year. There are real drainage problems with this site and the surrounding area. The statements made in section 7d are designed to mislead you. There are both mature trees and water on the site. The proposals are likely to have a major and negative impact on the neighbourhood including lack of adequate access. poor services, flooding. This is a major proposal for development in a rural agricultural area. Unless there were major changes - mains drainage, gas supply, major road works and public transport improvements, the scheme would not work. The high costs of these would make the scheme unviable. The suggestion to close a pig farm at a time when more not less food needs to be produced locally is not satisfactory.
There is no mains sewage in the area. There is also no gas supply. The public highway is not suitable. The broadband internet locally is still very poor. All these statements in section 8a are lies designed to mislead you. The land is used for grazing both for horses and cattle. There are major infrastructure costs for this scheme. The site is not viable for the proposal. This scheme is not suitable for the area in which it is proposed. Submission includes a number of misleading statements

GNLP 0580
Alburgh Road is not a well developed road. There are a number of farms and agricultural dwellings with some housing. It is too far from major services to be developed. Four bedroom houses do not meet the pressing need for social housing, rented accomodation and affordable homes. The village is nearly two miles from this site. There could be scope for development of some affordable, social and rented homes in Hempnall village where there are better services. Indeed I understand there was provision, not yet built, in the previous plan and the Parish Council are in favour of some development but in the village and not in Alburgh Road which is unsuitable. The suggested access is on to a fast road used by farm and lorry traffic. Access from a cul-de-sac could be problematical on road safety grounds. The statement that the land has not flooded is a lie. It floods regularly several times a year. In fact the local people who sometimes hire it to keep their horses have had to take them off on many occasions when the land becomes waterlogged and unsuitable. It was also briefly used for grazing sheep and again they had to be removed because of flooding. The proposal would have some negative impact on the area in terms of traffic, road safety, sewage disposal and flooding. The broadband reception is poor in the area. Flooding is a risk and waste water disposal is a major problem. There is already a substantial problem with waste water and sewage with the existing dwellings in the road. There is no capacity for additional properties. Indeed South Norfolk Council have had to turn down even small scale developments (one house) because of these problems. I would imagine the applicant may be aware of this and failing to disclose this to you.
The field is still used for grazing but as previously noted waterlogging makes this problematic. The field is not in the middle of a developing area - this is a disingenuous statement designed to mislead. The area is not expanding and has been stable for many decades.The services are poor and it is an agricultural area with some housing. There would be significant abnormal costs - road safety improvements, sewage disposal and flood amelioration expenses. The statements about viability of the site are untrue. The area has had no new building since the 1980s and the level of communications is poor.

I also note that you have received another proposal - GNLP 2046 - for the site next to 0580. Whilst you have yet to release the details of the proposal, I would suggest that similar arguments to those above would make the site unsuitable and would ask that you also reject it.