GNLP0413

This area of land is distinctly unsuitable for large scale development as suggested. The road is a small, essentially single track which exhibits severe difficulties in access and often blocks when traffic increases (e.g. accident on A140. The area is also prone to flooding and loss of such a large area of soakaway would be extremely detrimental to Lower Tasburgh. There are no facilities in the village and already amble and well used open space.

Of the 3 options this would be the preferred site. It meets the aim of point 3 in Tasburgh Parish Council's Development Policy 'any development should unite Upper and Lower Tasburgh and not further polarize it'

Conditions
ensure vehicular access and improvements to Grove Lane to accommodate the increase in traffic.

ensure the development incorporates details of Surface Water Drainage proposals.

ensure the Heritage site an area of historical interest (opposite) being pursued by Norfolk Archaeological Trust is not disturbed.

ensure a mix of well-designed affordable housing to include flats, and bungalows in keeping with the character of the village.

I feel this site has some potential but is too large as submitted. The site has some value in the landscape and on land that separates the lower and upper parts of the village.The level of facilities in the village cannot cope with 50 additional dwellings.There are already two sites in the village committed for housing which will be enough to meet the needs of this service village.

Grove Lane is little more than a single track road with very little scope to widen. It is already very busy and can be quite dangerous, especially during the peak periods. It is not possible for two cars to pass without pulling into someones drive. To widen the road the natural hedging would have to removed destroying wildlife habitat and also removing privacy for the houses overlooking the proposed site. The upper part of the road leads into a blind bend where you are often forced to reverse. The lower end of Grove Lane leads to already dangerous bends that have no scope at all for widening due to lack of available land. Attempts to path this part of the road to increase safety have never come to fruition due to lack of available land so road widening can surely not be possible either. In addition to this there are already sustantial failings in the drainage system along the road, even a small amount of rainfall causes flooding at the bottom of the road. The recent snowfall caused a complete blockage of the road for days. To solve these issues would be a a major investment.
Access onto and off of the A140 in either direction from the main Tasburgh junction is very difficult and can take a ridiculous length of time. To make this junction safer and more efficient there would need to be major road improvements, such as a roundabout. With all this new infrastructure does it really make it a viable option?
In addition to this how do we know it will stop at 50 houses, what happens if 50 are built and then 50 more are applied for? We run the risk of turning this village into Mulbarton, which certainly does not seem to cope well with its growth.

Of the sites submitted this appears to be better positioned however the overall scale of the proposal is too large for the village. It would also mean that the two separate parts of the village - Upper Tasburgh and Lower Tasburgh - would not be as well defined and this is one of the key features of the village. The proposed site is prominent within the landscape due to the open nature of the site therefore any development here would have a visual impact on the valley setting.

Ways in which the application departs from the approved development plan for the area
*This site in no way meets the aim of point 3 in Tasburgh Parish Council's Development Policy 'any development should unite Upper and Lower Tasburgh and not further polarize it' It would not unite upper and lower Tasburgh as it would only extend it a further 100m closer to upper Tasburgh at the most and would still very much be classed as "Lower Tasburgh".
*Henry Preston School is not able to accommodate for the planned level of development here and is already unable to meet the required demand on it.
*The current allocated parcel of land for 20 homes is yet to be taken up by any of the numerous developers that have shown only a partial interest, this is due to the fact that apart from the school there are no local amenities in the village and anyone without transport is very much isolated, especially in Lower Tasburgh.
*The road network is unable to meet the current demands already put on it and is further put under strain by heavy use of traffic in the event of an accident on the A140. Although the road is a 30 mph limit, traffic is often seen and recorded, I believe on (SAMS) doing in excess of 70mph.


How the plan fails to fit in with their surroundings in terms of their design and use.
*Tasburgh in every way is a rural village with lots of open space and agricultural land. The addition of 50 homes in Lower Tasburgh is in no way "in keeping with the character of the village" as the plan would suggest.

Impact on parking, traffic and road safety
*Grove Lane is a single track road with extremely dangerous corners which is supported by the parish council and demonstrated by the recent addition of road safety display boards at a cost of £10,000. If the national average statistics of two vehicles per household is used, this proposed development could add 100+ additional vehicles to the road. This would make the dangerous corners even more dangerous for pedestrians as there is no footpath. The addition of more traffic using Church Road to access the A140 would cause even more delays (currently 5-8 vehicles can sit at the junction for 15 - 20 minutes) and increase the risk of frustrated drivers taking chances to get out of the junction. On days when the village hall is being used it is often seen that vehicles are parked on verges all along Grove Lane further restricting safe access/passage.


Residents impact
*The current housing on Grove Lane would be overlooked by any proposed development due to the land height and would also disrupt the views of residents that drew them to live here in the first place. Consideration needs to be given to those that live in the area and have chosen to live there with particular health conditions that require peace and quiet.


Environmental impact
*Grove Lane already has an issue with flooding as demonstrated recently in the heavy rain and snow (the snow also blocked the road for 5 days). With any type of rain, you will frequently see a river running by your door and the loss of this crucial natural drainage would create further flooding hazards. This can be further demonstrated by the high amount of sand and stone that has historically been deposited down the road and around the "dangerous" corners after heavy rain that has been drawn out of the drainage channels along both sides of the road dug by Norfolk County Council.
The large area of the proposed development site also often floods and has in the past shifted large amounts of soil down the hill, but has always stopped before reaching the road.
*Wildlife - The field of the proposed site is favoured by numerous species of animals including bats and barn owls. It would be a great shame to deprive such species of their natural habitat and would ensure their steady decline.

*The proximity of the proposed site to the Heritage site is of concern as various recorded and unfortunately numerous unrecorded significant finds have been recovered from this site. It would be a shame to cover over and lose history dating from early Iron age to Anglo Saxon periods.

Ways in which the application departs from the approved development plan for the area
*This site in no way meets the aim of point 3 in Tasburgh Parish Council's Development Policy 'any development should unite Upper and Lower Tasburgh and not further polarize it' It would not unite upper and lower Tasburgh as it would only extend it a further 100m closer to upper Tasburgh at the most and would still very much be classed as "Lower Tasburgh".
*Henry Preston School is not able to accommodate for the planned level of development here and is already unable to meet the required demand on it.
*The current allocated parcel of land for 20 homes is yet to be taken up by any of the numerous developers that have shown only a partial interest, this is due to the fact that apart from the school there are no local amenities in the village and anyone without transport is very much isolated, especially in Lower Tasburgh.
*The road network is unable to meet the current demands already put on it and is further put under strain by heavy use of traffic in the event of an accident on the A140. Although the road is a 30 mph limit, traffic is often seen and recorded, I believe on (SAMS) doing in excess of 70mph.


How the plan fails to fit in with their surroundings in terms of their design and use.
*Tasburgh in every way is a rural village with lots of open space and agricultural land. The addition of 50 homes in Lower Tasburgh is in no way "in keeping with the character of the village" as the plan would suggest.

Impact on parking, traffic and road safety
*Grove Lane is a single track road with extremely dangerous corners which is supported by the parish council and demonstrated by the recent addition of road safety display boards at a cost of £10,000. If the national average statistics of two vehicles per household is used, this proposed development could add 100+ additional vehicles to the road. This would make the dangerous corners even more dangerous for pedestrians as there is no footpath. The addition of more traffic using Church Road to access the A140 would cause even more delays (currently 5-8 vehicles can sit at the junction for 15 - 20 minutes) and increase the risk of frustrated drivers taking chances to get out of the junction. On days when the village hall is being used it is often seen that vehicles are parked on verges all along Grove Lane further restricting safe access/passage.


Residents impact
*The current housing on Grove Lane would be overlooked by any proposed development due to the land height and would also disrupt the views of residents that drew them to live here in the first place. Consideration needs to be given to those that live in the area and have chosen to live there with particular health conditions that require peace and quiet.


Environmental impact
*Grove Lane already has an issue with flooding as demonstrated recently in the heavy rain and snow (the snow also blocked the road for 5 days). With any type of rain, you will frequently see a river running by your door and the loss of this crucial natural drainage would create further flooding hazards. This can be further demonstrated by the high amount of sand and stone that has historically been deposited down the road and around the "dangerous" corners after heavy rain that has been drawn out of the drainage channels along both sides of the road dug by Norfolk County Council.
The large area of the proposed development site also often floods and has in the past shifted large amounts of soil down the hill, but has always stopped before reaching the road.
*Wildlife - The field of the proposed site is favoured by numerous species of animals including bats and barn owls. It would be a great shame to deprive such species of their natural habitat and would ensure their steady decline.

*The proximity of the proposed site to the Heritage site is of concern as various recorded and unfortunately numerous unrecorded significant finds have been recovered from this site. It would be a shame to cover over and lose history dating from early Iron age to Anglo Saxon periods.