GNLP0315

The village has had 2 large residential developments in the last 16 years and the village cannot cope with much more. The village suffers from flooding and development of the surrounding farmland will make this worse. The village infrastructure can barely cope now. It take 30mins to get to Harford lights, the school and dr's struggles to accommodate the demand. Buses have to mount the pavement to get through the village. Mulbarton is a traditional Norfolk village surrounded by wonderful countryside and I would be heartbroken if the fields behind our family home were turned into a housing estate

Mulbarton has already had approximately 1000 new homes built in over the last decade. The village has 'done its bit' as far as development goes. Already it is impossible to get a doctors appointment within a month, the local dentist will not take on anyone else, the village is awash with cars, poor roads, litter, dog mess and is hanging onto the fact that is is only just still able to call itself a village. The surrounding countryside leading down to the tas valley is one of the last escapes to nature we have left and further development in this area will spoil the valley for good. The road into norwich (b1113) is very narrow in places and poorly maintained, it regularly floods, ques at peak times can be 2 miles long to the junction with ipswich road because of the ridiculously timed traffic lights, and finally the road bears witness to regular serious road accidents. Any further development in Mulbarton will kill the village for ever and it will become another urban sprawl of compressed and unsightly development.

"Policy 15 of the joint core strategy identifies Mulbarton and Bracon Ash as a service village in which land will be allocated for small scale housing growth ..... within the range of 10-20 dwellings subject to form, character and servicing constraints". This enormous site, if developed, would ruin the village for ever. Residents of Mulbarton have chosen to live in a village, accepting small scale growth, and I strongly feel that huge sites like this should be allowed for development in towns only.
This site would be contrary to all evidence collected in the Neighbourhood Plan, formally approved by South Norfolk Council and adopted.
Access has been deemed as "suitable" which I cannot accept. Rectory Lane, at several points is wide enough for only one vehicle. Accessing the A140 from this site and these roads is near on impossible, with the constant flow of traffic from both sides. With the development due to take place in Long Stratton, this will only become considerably worse. This site is outside the development boundary and extremely close to a conservation area.
The infrastructure in the village is failing, due to the considerable amount of new building that has already taken place without any improvement to the infrastructure. It is now not unusual to wait 5 weeks for an appointment at the doctors and the roads are in an appalling condition, with some potholes and sunken drains taking almost a year to repair.

The loss of open space and a network of footpaths would be irreversible and I can only force that if development like this takes place, those of us that choose to live in a village will be forced to move further out, in order to maintain village life, without our formerly beautiful home being turned into a concrete town. Leave mass development like this to the towns.

This development is on a site that will restrict vision on a dangerous bend. The hedge and fence have been removed to improve safety and now it is suggested that buildings with another access roads will be fine!!! The B1113 is at or above capacity.

Land south of Rectory Lane was allocated for housing when Bluebell Road estate was built in the early 1970s (hence the access points from the E end of Bluebell Road and Alder Close
BUT currently the village does not have the infrastructure to cope with yet more people and yet more cars on narrow roads - especially those going east to A140.
Land north of Rectory Lane - any development there will impinge on rural views from The Common and the historic cluster of houses = The Lodge; Lodge Farm; the Old Rectory with barn and adjacent cottages.

Lack of infrastructure to support this development. Mulbarton has expanded significantly and causes traffic problems on narrow single track country lanes. Traffic through adjoining villages to access A140 already causing problems.
This development further damages what is a rural Norfolk village community and begins to create a creeping dormitory suburb of Norwich.Please take the long view, once established it cannot be reversed.

This large area proposed for development would create a massive impact on the surrounding villages. This impact would see a reduction in open green spaces, including much used footpaths and tracks. It would negatively impact upon the levels of traffic seeking access to main road along roads which are currently single track. Necessary amelioration involving road and rail crossings construction would further degrade the countryside. The level of development proposed would further aggravate the strain placed on local services and amenities. The scale of this proposal would in effect create a separate village without any services and minimal infrastructural support.

I wish to put the following points in objection to the current Greater Norwich Development Plan regarding the further urban development of the village of Mulbarton. Whilst I recognise the need for further housing in Norfolk there are a number of issues pertaining to the further development of the village of Mulbarton in particular:
* Both proposed developments are very large and Mulbarton already acts as a service village to several smaller settlements which are being further developed for housing with no increase in the provision of services in Mulbarton.
* There is already the development of Oakley Park in Mulbarton some one hundred and eighty new dwellings which impact on the already stretched local services. It seems irresponsible to plan more housing while the full impact of the new homes is not yet experienced by the village. There is already the necessary disruption caused by a large building site which is accessed along a country lane and through the village.
* In the past the village has developed steadily not with impact of large scale developments which exceed its capacity. Services such as broadband are already lagging behind the demand in the village.
* Services such as education and medical provision are stretched in Mulbarton. With the increasingly aged population and the possible influx of young families in new housing these would be in danger of failing the village through lack of capacity. With the siting of the medical practice and the school there is no logical room for development of either.
* Local amenities such as retail, leisure and social would all be affected to the detriment of the villagers due to lack of capacity. The village's historic core would suffer both visually and with congestion.
* The economic impact of the village community will be poor. Developers funding in the past has been mainly spent outside the village and new promised amenities disappear with the final plan. As a dormitory settlement of Norwich most of the inhabitants "spend" will be in Norwich, especially as scarce local facilities become even more overused.
* Communication links and transport. The B1113 is already congested in the village and at the A140 junction more houses would increase this providing an unwarranted increase of pollution and road maintenance.
* Transport in the village is already congested with a large influx of parked cars from the outlying villages and serving the shop, school and medical facilities. Buses in particular find navigating the roads difficult.
* The significant impact on the ecological balance of the area including surface flooding on the heavy clay base the village is situated on. The report states that this would be hard to mitigate.
* These are greenfield sites where not all the brownfield sites in greater Norwich have been developed or are targeted at other use such as student accommodation rather than meeting local needs. Developers have also land banked sites which could be used sooner.
* The CPRE points of the need for actual strategic housing in the particular area, Mulbarton is also situated in the countryside with the green belt buffer between the village and urban Norwich this is being eroded reducing its economic and environmental benefits.
* Finally the residents of Mulbarton chose to live in a village community with a particular lifestyle and benefits due to its location and nature. If they wanted an urban lifestyle they would not reside here, they value the traditions, values and norms of the village which will be eroded and then destroyed with further largescale development.

Re: GNLP 0315 & GNLP0496
I wish to put the following points in objection to the current Greater Norwich Development Plan regarding the further urban development of the village of Mulbarton. Whilst I recognise the need for further housing in Norfolk there are a number of issues pertaining to the further development of the village of Mulbarton in particular:
*Both proposed developments are very large and will double the size of the current village. The current services and infrastructure can not support such a development. Mulbarton already acts as a service village to several smaller settlements which are being further developed for housing. The local services such as the schools, surgery and shops are already struggling to accommodate the number of residents. With an ageing population and the possible influx of young families in new housing these would be in danger of failing the village through lack of capacity. With the siting of the medical practice and the school there is no logical room for development of either.
*The most recent development of Oakley Park in Mulbarton which on completion will have one hundred and eighty new dwellings already poses significant impact on stretched local services. It seems irresponsible to plan more housing while the full impact of these new homes is not yet fully experienced by the village.
- In the past the village has developed steadily and gradually, not with the immediate impact of large scale developments which exceed its capacity.
*Local amenities such as retail, leisure and social facilities would all be affected to the detriment of the villagers due to lack of capacity. The village's historic core would suffer.
*The economic impact on the village community will be poor. Developers funding in the past has been mainly spent outside the village and new promised amenities disappear with the final plan. As a dormitory settlement of Norwich most of the inhabitants "spend" will be in Norwich, especially as scarce local facilities become even more overused.
*Communication links and transport are not adequate to support further growth The B1113 is already congested in the village and at the A140 junction more houses would increase this pressure resulting in an unwarranted increase of pollution, road maintenance requirements and a higher potential for accidents.
*Transport in the village is already congested with a large influx of parked cars from the outlying villages using the shop, school and medical facilities. Buses and refuse collection lorries find navigating the roads difficult.
*Further development would have significant impact on the ecological balance of the area including the likelihood of increased surface flooding on the heavy clay base the village is situated on. The report states that this would be hard to mitigate.
*The proposed sites are greenfield. Currently, not all the brownfield sites in greater Norwich have been developed, many are targeted at uses such as providing student accommodation rather than meeting local needs. Developers have also land banked sites which could be used.
*Mulbarton is situated in the countryside with the green belt buffer between the village and urban Norwich, this is being eroded, reducing its economic and environmental benefits.
*Finally the residents of Mulbarton chose to live in a village community with a particular lifestyle and benefits due to its location and nature. If they wanted an urban lifestyle they would not reside here, they value the traditions, values and norms of the village which will be eroded and then destroyed with further large scale development.

We wanted to write before the deadline, to express our grave concerns at proposals to develop such great swaths of land in and around Mulbarton - Site references GNLP0315, 0496 & 0195 in particular.

There were approximately 1200 homes in our beautiful village at the turn of the Century - since when there has already been a development of almost 400 houses, and currently one of another 180 in the process of development (which has caused no end of upset and disruption to locals and visitors alike with road closures, burst water mains etc. etc. necessitating much correspondence with local councils as well as the developers!)

So, this village has grown by almost 50% since 2000AD and barely any more infrastructure has been put in place - regarding medical facilities, social/sporting activities, road improvements etc. to accommodate the increase in traffic, footfall etc., not to mention planning permission having been granted for at least 20 new properties in Bracon Ash, and about 40 in Swardeston, our neighbouring villages, and those moving in may well be needing / wanting to join waiting lists for Mulbarton Surgery, School, Clubs and Organizations.

By your own admission the Site GNLP0315 if it were allowed to proceed, would have a significant impact on the built environment and would swamp the existing villages. Access to main roads, in particular the A140 Ipswich Road, would be extremely difficult.

Reference GNLP0496 - this would impinge on the rural aspect of our village at the northern entrance on the B1113 and although this site appears to be close to community facilities (which as mentioned above are already in-adequate) access by pedestrians would only be via non-tarmacked rural pathways across our Common.

Site reference GNLP0195 though a much smaller area, would cause incredible disruption during and following any development, because of its location and access onto the B1113 at an already VERY dangerous junction.

The GNLP should also take into account the proposed windfarm on-shore grid station development in Swardeston which, if it goes ahead, we have heard could lead to large numbers of lorry movements per day during the building phase, which would no doubt take a considerable number of years to complete.

We are also concerned about the on-going proposals for a possible industrial area near the Harford Bridges junction on the A140 with the B1113 - the design of which doesn't lend itself well to cope with current traffic movements.

Developments of this large nature are just likely to make Mulbarton and the surrounding areas dormitory locations for commuters to Norwich, London or Cambridge etc., losing their village appeal and leading to an eroding of the area in this part of South Norfolk.

To whom it may concern,

Having seen the Mulbarton map book of proposed new sites for development (http://www.gnlp.org.uk/assets/parishes/Mulbarton%20CP_mapBook.pdf) I would like to make some comments about the proposed sites.
Please refer to section 3.1 of the Mulbarton Neighbourhood Plan (2015-2030) referred to henceforth as MNP for the views of the entire village in regards to scale and location of new residential development
https://www.south-norfolk.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Mulbarton_Neighbourhood_Plan_0.pdf


GNLP0195
Small scale and reasonably well situated in relation to other housing, but issues I foresee are
* land is a flood plain - in heavy rain the stream has overflowed and the land on Partridge Drive is higher so the water spills onto the proposed GNLP0195 site (see S7.3 and Policy ENV4 of MNP).
* access via the B1113 - new entrance would be required by the crossroads, essentially on a blind corner as you can't see the entrance when driving from the North.
* there is currently a footpath and many people (especially but not exclusively dog walkers) use it as a cut through to/from Cuckoofield Lane via the allotments
GNLP0299
Small scale and not badly situated in relation to other housing, but issues I foresee are
* Housing being pushed further from the traditional centre of the village - see S3.1 and Policy HOU1 of MNP.
GNLP0496
Web page below lays out plans for land on named site to east of the B1113 but there is no information regarding the plans for land on named site to west of the B1113.
http://www.lanproservices.co.uk/mulbarton/
Satisfactory location but concern regarding the scale
* Pressure on village services - facilities for education and healthcare are very stretched already - would require significant investment to sustain additional load
* All housing being built on greenfield site

GNLP0315
This is the site I object to most strongly
* The scale is huge - far bigger than the whole of the existing village which has taken decades to develop organically would suddenly more than double in size
* It would ruin the rural feel of the exiting village - no longer being surrounded by fields. All new housing being built on greenfield sites.
* It would be like creating a whole new village from scratch - the site would need all it's own services as there is no way the exisiting facilities in Mulbarton could sustain the additional population.
* Exiting transport links would be woefully inadequate - access to the A140 via Swainsthorpe would need to be massively improved - already difficult enough trying to join at that junction. Junction of B1113 and A140 at Harford Bridge aleady under pressure with tailbacks at peak times - would need improvment. See section 5.1, 5.4 and Policy TRA1 of MNP.


Yours Sincerely,
Ian Haigh

We wish to strongly object to the proposed 'call for sites' outlined on the Mulbarton map. The proposed areas would double the existing village and put immense strain on the infrastructure, the roads are inadequate and the school, doctors etc are at capacity. GNLP0315 is especially large, and there is no access to 0195 which is on common land and a valuable green space for the village.
Celia was born in Mulbarton and is dismayed at the rate of growth which is completely unsustainable. In Partridge Drive we have had 3 floods due to drains overflowing, this will only be exacerbated by more houses. There will also be more pollution and waste.

Please find attached comments from Mulbarton Parish Council on all of the proposed site allocations for the area in and around Mulbarton. We have provided comments against each of the individual sites. We disagree with the proposed site allocations and the underlying assumptions.

Our general view is in line with the comments provided by CPRE Norfolk, which you will be familiar with. Your earlier letter of 29th October 2018 stated that "growth will be carefully planned to ensure it is located in the most appropriate locations and will be supported by appropriate and timely infrastructure provision". We disagree that the proposed site allocations and individual site assessments follow this approach.

See attached file.