GNLP1017

I object very strongly to the proposed development on Broaden Lane Hempnall. This is outside the agreed development plan, and sites within the plan should be used before destroying open countryside and enlarging the village. We moved here nearly 40years ago, mainly because we had unspoilt views across the valley which should be protected. Broaden Lane is also constantly abused by speeding traffic and another junction here would be an accident spot waiting to happen. It makes no difference
that it is within the speed limit as the vast majority of drivers ignore this and the Highways Department stubbenly refuse to do anything about it. We now have great difficulty getting out of our driveway safely so please do not make this even more dangerous

The parish council voted unanimously to oppose development on this site because it contravenes the parish council's planning policies which aim to restrict development to within current development boundaries and which discourages large scale development.

Residents are concerned about the traffic problems this development would cause and the fact it is on a green field site.

With reference to the above site put forward for housing development, I comment as follows:
1) Forming an adequate entrance and visibility splay will involve removal of a considerable length of established hedging and possibly trees also;
2) There is no footpath along Broaden Lane from the village war memorial northwards to give pedestrian access and little or no available grass verge along this road which carries a considerable volume of traffic;
3) The proposed site is isolated from the centre of development in the village and is surrounded by agricultural land to the south, west and north;
4) Surface water issues are a concern regarding run-off from properties, driveways and roads. The land slopes gently to the south and I own the adjoining field to the south which is pasture and used for grazing livestock. There is no natural watercourse available for drainage. The dry ditch to the west of my own land is not a watercourse and does not have an outlet to the south at Fairstead Lane. It therefore does not have the capacity to carry drainage water from roads and properties. Excess water is an issue already in Fairstead Lane at the entrance to Kron's Manor which is a listed property.
5) I am concerned regarding possible disturbance to livestock both during and after construction of any properties.
6) I maintain substantial deciduous hedging on my northern boundary which gives valuable winter shelter for livestock. Beyond the shallow dry ditch at the boundary is further hedging forming the southern boundary of the proposed development site. This boundary is shown on maps dating back to at least 1842 and I consider that it is of sufficient antiquity that it should not be disturbed or affected by any development.

At its meeting on 27 February 2018, Hempnall parish council considered the following sites proposed by landowners for housing development in the GNLP.

GNLP1015 - Land adjacent to the primary school, the Street, Hempnall
GNLP1016 - Land at Busseys Loke, Hempnall
GNLP1017 - Land at Broaden Lane, Hempnall
GNLP1018 - Land south of Millfields, Hempnall

The parish council voted unanimously to oppose development on all of these sites because they contravene the parish council's planning policies which aim to restrict development to within current development boundaries and which discourage large scale developments. In addition 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


The parish council also supports the CPRE pledge and considers that existing sites allocated in the Joint Core Strategy should be built out before any new sites are made available for development.

We would also like to draw your attention to our earlier response in respect of four other sites which were included in the original GNLP site proposals map - please see attached email.

With regard to GNLP0220 - Land owned by SNC as you will see from the attached email, we are keen this site is developed for social housing and we have entered into a discussion with Sam Watts of Saffron Housing Association as to how this might be possible.

Submission made in respect of the following sites at Hempnall:

GNLP 1015 - Land adjacent to the Primary School
GNLP 1016 - Land at Bussey's Loke
GNLP 1017- Land at Broaden Lane
GNLP 1018 - Land south of Millfields

The proposer has indicated that in view of the findings of the HELAA assessment for sites GNLP1016 and GNLP1017, the GNDP is asked to consider sites GNLP1015 and GNLP1018 only, for which additional evidence is submitted.
See attachments for details.