GNLP0030
Object
Site Proposals document
Representation ID: 13747
Received: 09/03/2018
Respondent: Fwbo Surlingham
I would like to underline the issues already raised in the outline assessment of this site. It is completely out of keeping with the precedent of linear development in the village.
I would like to underline the issues already raised in the outline assessment of this site. It is completely out of keeping with the precedent of linear development in the village.
Object
Site Proposals document
Representation ID: 13879
Received: 12/03/2018
Respondent: mrs Helen Selleck
If this land was to be built on it would fundamentally change the nature of the village as there is no backfill development.
The land is in the 100 yr flood area.
There is conservation property near The Old Chapel is Grade 2 listed
The drainage is not good and the sewage at that end of the village can not cope with present demand.
The roads are at points single lane.
facilities in the village are limited and the school at capacity.
extra leisure land in the village is not required
The land has been neglected
If this land was to be built on it would fundamentally change the nature of the village as there is no backfill development in the village. The land is in the 100 yr flood area even though the application states it is not. There is conservation property around the site = The Old Chapel is Grade 2 listed with special interest. The drainage is not good and already the sewage at that end of the village can not cope with present demand. The roads into the village from Norwich are at points single lane with passing points. The facilities in the village are limited and the school at capacity. He states he has tried to sell the land for agricultural use but I do not believe this to be the case and he has let the land grow wild. He states he would provide extra leisure land in the village but thes is not necessary - we already have a good play area a school playing field and allotments
Object
Site Proposals document
Representation ID: 13917
Received: 13/03/2018
Respondent: Eur Ing Paul Swift
STRONGLY OBJECT to a simple grab for money and setting of estate development precidence by the landowner who probably doesn't live in Surlingham and doesn't care if he ruins the environment. Cheap trick of offering a 'community space' makes me more annoyed.
This site is TOTALLY out of character with development in Surlingham village. It is also outside the development line contained in the "Surlingham Settlement Policy" document (map 20).
At least 2 previous planning applications containing estate development in Surlingham have been rejected and this development (should it go ahead) will set the precedent for estate development that the current settlement policy document expressly prevents. This is nothing more then a money making scheme that will ruin the character of a village with special scientific interest sites and nature reserves that preserve a fragile environment.
I cannot help thinking that allowing this development is a gift to any landowner in Surlingham desperate to make a lot of money by ruining the ambiance that attracts people to Surlingham in the first place. Granting permission for this development will open the flood gates for any parcel of land in the village to be developed effectively trashing the existing plan.
Not only is this development inappropriate, it is in-conceived and the sop or a community area is a ploy to attract support. Surlingham doesn't need a community space the whole village is one already!
Object
Site Proposals document
Representation ID: 13924
Received: 13/03/2018
Respondent: Dr Louise Swift
Development on these sites would not be in character with the linear, ribbon nature of this village and access would be difficult. Further, the village is rural. It lies on the Norfolk Broads, on the river Yare, and has three nature reserves. The Wherryman's way long distance footpath and the N1 cycle route run through the village. As such,Surlingham provides a quiet, natural environment for visitors from Norwich and beyond, as well as locals and any significant development would completely change the nature of the village.
Development on these sites would not be in character with the linear, ribbon nature of this village and access would be difficult. Further, the village is rural. It lies on the Norfolk Broads, on the river Yare, and has three nature reserves. The Wherryman's way long distance footpath and the N1 cycle route run through the village. As such,Surlingham provides a quiet, natural environment for visitors from Norwich and beyond, as well as locals and any significant development would completely change the nature of the village.
Object
Site Proposals document
Representation ID: 13974
Received: 14/03/2018
Respondent: Mrs Caroline Ellis
Site 0030A/0030B This greenfield site is not suitable for development as the existing linear form and character of the village would be destroyed without providing enough new housing to make a significant difference to the shortage in the Norwich area. Not only would access to the site itself off The Street be inadequate but Surlingham does not have the necessary infrastructure to be considered for additional housing, including road access to Norwich via Bramerton.
Site 0030A/0030B This greenfield site is not suitable for development as the existing linear form and character of the village would be destroyed without providing enough new housing to make a significant difference to the shortage in the Norwich area. Not only would access to the site itself off The Street be inadequate but Surlingham does not have the necessary infrastructure to be considered for additional housing, including road access to Norwich via Bramerton.
Object
Site Proposals document
Representation ID: 14747
Received: 20/03/2018
Respondent: ms j g
This is out of keeping with the linear nature of the village. This is a rural village with nature reserves and additional housing would change the nature of this. Wheatfen is of significant important national interest and this would impact negatively with increased traffic and pollution. Wheatfen is not funded as a visitor attraction and as such does not seek to benefit from increase in local population. I'm not aware that there has been local consultation on whether new recreational facilities are actually needed. The road to Norwich is not suitable for increased traffic.
This is out of keeping with the linear nature of the village. This is a rural village with nature reserves and additional housing would change the nature of this. Wheatfen is of significant important national interest and this would impact negatively with increased traffic and pollution. Wheatfen is not funded as a visitor attraction and as such does not seek to benefit from increase in local population. I'm not aware that there has been local consultation on whether new recreational facilities are actually needed. The road to Norwich is not suitable for increased traffic.
Object
Site Proposals document
Representation ID: 15055
Received: 21/03/2018
Respondent: Mr Neil Lewis
The proposal is outside the existing village "envelope". Access to and from the site is too narrow to be safe for pedestrians, bicycles and other traffic.The general services - water, sewage and drains- are already an issue in the village.
This farmland development would not be in tune with the nature of this village set in the river valley. The Parish Council already maintains a children's play area. A local children's football club already has playing fields at the local school. Such questionable facilities do not enhance the proposed development which is not sympathetic to the village or the environment.
The proposal is outside the existing village "envelope". Access to and from the site is too narrow to be safe for pedestrians, bicycles and other traffic.The general services - water, sewage and drains- are already an issue in the village.
This farmland development would not be in tune with the nature of this village set in the river valley. The Parish Council already maintains a children's play area. A local children's football club already has playing fields at the local school. Such questionable facilities do not enhance the proposed development which is not sympathetic to the village or the environment.
Object
Site Proposals document
Representation ID: 15127
Received: 21/03/2018
Respondent: Mrs Karin Rundle
The reasons not to build or develop this piece of land are well documented. It is not suitable due to flooding issues, would cause environmental damage in a conservation area let alone the significant lack of infrastructure. the roads are already dangerous, single track, sharp bends with no pavements or street lighting. Planning have made a reasonable assessment there are better sites if necessary in Surlingham which should only be infill. The impact of the existing development has not been assessed yet as there will be extra traffic and strain on sewers and increased risk to flooding. No!
The reasons not to build or develop this piece of land are well documented. It is not suitable due to flooding issues, would cause environmental damage in a conservation area let alone the significant lack of infrastructure. the roads are already dangerous, single track, sharp bends with no pavements or street lighting. Planning have made a reasonable assessment there are better sites if necessary in Surlingham which should only be infill. The impact of the existing development has not been assessed yet as there will be extra traffic and strain on sewers and increased risk to flooding. No!
Object
Site Proposals document
Representation ID: 15160
Received: 21/03/2018
Respondent: Mr NEIL BALDWIN
The village cannot support further housing due to a single small road circling the village and lack of access to the proposed plot.
Recently due to the snow the village was cut off for 3 days - our infra structure will not cope with extra cars.
The access to this plot is extremely narrow and only suitable for a single small car-it will not give a car enough visibility to pull out onto The Street safely nor cars or children or elderly people moving along The Street to see any car emerging from the field.
The village cannot support further housing due to a single small road circling the village and lack of access to the proposed plot.
Recently due to the snow the village was cut off for 3 days - our infra structure will not cope with extra cars.
The access to this plot is extremely narrow and only suitable for a single small car-it will not give a car enough visibility to pull out onto The Street safely nor cars or children or elderly people moving along The Street to see any car emerging from the field.
Object
Site Proposals document
Representation ID: 15303
Received: 21/03/2018
Respondent: Miss Alice Merrywest
I strongly object to any further infill development in the village.
There is already an existing play area and organised access to village field at the school.The majority of people have gardens adequate for children to play as we are a rural location.
The roads are thoroughly unsuitable for any heavy increase in traffic due to their narrow winding nature (which this would cause) with few passing places and existing traffic struggling to negotiate.
The drainage is already poor and further development would cause greater problems and flooding risk in the surrounding area.
I strongly object to any further infill development in the village.
There is already an existing play area and organised access to village field at the school.The majority of people have gardens adequate for children to play as we are a rural location.
The roads are thoroughly unsuitable for any heavy increase in traffic due to their narrow winding nature (which this would cause) with few passing places and existing traffic struggling to negotiate.
The drainage is already poor and further development would cause greater problems and flooding risk in the surrounding area.
Object
Site Proposals document
Representation ID: 15591
Received: 22/03/2018
Respondent: Mr Norman Prain
This land falls outwith the existing linear nature of the Local Plan. Access is inadequate. There are current facilities within the village for recreation and children's play. The solution to the housing issue within South Norfolk should not be to destroy the rural nature of villages such as Surlingham. Any future development should be within the area outlined in the existing Local Plan which would retain the linear nature of the village.
This land falls outwith the existing linear nature of the Local Plan. Access is inadequate. There are current facilities within the village for recreation and children's play. The solution to the housing issue within South Norfolk should not be to destroy the rural nature of villages such as Surlingham. Any future development should be within the area outlined in the existing Local Plan which would retain the linear nature of the village.
Object
Site Proposals document
Representation ID: 15734
Received: 22/03/2018
Respondent: Mr David Allen
I do not believe that this site is suitable for any housing as it would not in anyway fit in with the current linear layout of the village.
Furthermore, the access between the two houses would be very small, making a dangerous, blind, unsafe entrance point onto The Street.
The village cannot support any additional housing in this area as there is a risk of flooding near to this plot and also the village itself does not have the infrastructure to cater for extra traffic, sewerage, water etc.
I do not believe that this site is suitable for any housing as it would not in anyway fit in with the current linear layout of the village.
Furthermore, the access between the two houses would be very small, making a dangerous, blind, unsafe entrance point onto The Street.
The village cannot support any additional housing in this area as there is a risk of flooding near to this plot and also the village itself does not have the infrastructure to cater for extra traffic, sewerage, water etc.
Object
Site Proposals document
Representation ID: 15797
Received: 22/03/2018
Respondent: Mrs Vanessa Sewell-Allen
Agree with all objection reasons mentioned, in addition:village roads are already blighted with speeding cars making it unsafe to walk on them.
Who wants yet more ugly buildings planted on beautiful fields? Where else is wildlife to go if you keep building on it?
I want to look out of my windows and see trees and sky, not a housing development. I don't care if this makes me a NIMBY - I moved to Surlingham because it is RURAL. The person that owns this land bought it purely for development and does not live in the village.
Surlingham as a village is entirely unsuitable for further housing development for the following reasons:
Lack of local facilities - the school is full to capacity and there are no other facilities of note.
Poor infrastructure - the roads around the village are already blighted with speeding cars making it unsafe to walk on them, and the main road out of the village (Bramerton Road) is a deathtrap - narrow, high-sided, unsuitable for HGV's, and again full of speeding drivers. The last thing this road needs is more vehicles using it. Further, what about drainage? It's already a struggle for water to drain in Surlingham without yet more pressure on the drainage system.
The look of the village - Surlingham is a linear village and "filling in the gaps" with housing will completely spoil it how it looks.
Nature - stop using Norfolk's green fields and meadows to build housing. Who wants yet more ugly brick buildings planted on beautiful fields? There are many sites around Norwich to use for this purpose, i.e. ones that are already developed. Why not use brownfield sites? Stop destroying the habitat of flora and fauna with yet more houses. Where else is wildlife to go if you keep building on it?
Environment - this land is in the flood area zone so it's hardly an ideal place to build houses.
NIMBY-ism - I want to look out of my windows and see trees and sky. I don't want to look out onto a housing development. I don't care if this makes me a NIMBY - I'm proud to be a NIMBY if it means stopping this crude, unnecessary development. I moved to Surlingham because it is RURAL. If I wanted to be surrounded by houses, people and facilities I would have moved to Poringland.
All about the money - let's be honest here: the person that owns this land bought it purely for development and as I understand it he does not live in the village. He clearly has no respect for the village and his main objective is to make money. Another NIMBY to my NIMBY?
Access to the site - it is very narrow and inadequate for a housing developemnt.