GNLP2184

Housing would be an excellent use for this site. HOWEVER the following must be considered:

Any housing development must be on a mains sewage system in order to protect the River Wensum and ground water.

Any housing development must contain a significant proportion of social housing/affordable housing.

As residents living close to the proposed site, we would agree with the HELAA capacity assessment in that this proposed site is unsuitable for development.

The road access to the site, either from the Fakenham Road in Lenwade, or Hall Road in Alderford is unsuitable for any increase in volume of traffic. The assessment references access from Hall Road -in several places, this road is suitable for a single vehicle only, with several blind bends and very limited passing spaces. Proximity of existing properties to the road means improving the road would not be possible.

Access via Fakenham Road in Lenwade is also not suitable. There is a single track bridge which is already under constant strain from the volume of HGVs servicing the Bernard Matthews site. The crossroads/junction at Fakenham Road is also very busy and hazardous - with several accidents occurring in recent times.

The site borders on the villages of Great Witchingham and Alderford. There are no footpaths, nor is there any access to any public transportation services within easy reach. The Reepham Road end of the village is served by one bus service per day in one direction. Access to Fakenham Road bus routes would be approx 1 mile from the site and inaccessible via foot.

The lack of a final section to the NDR would potentially lead to further rat-running through villages such as Weston Longville and Hockering.

Access to mains utilities requires investigation. Mains water is not widely available in the village, there is no mains sewerage facilities and the area is not served by a natural gas connection.

The residents of Alderford are already in regular contact with Environmental Services and Bernard Matthews over the noise and cooking smells emitting from the plant. Proximity of the proposed site to the plant would inflict these conditions onto any residents - to an even greater extent to that experienced by current residents.

The village itself consists a small number of period properties, several of which are Listed and are assumed to date back to being part of the original Gt Witchingham estate. Any new development would be a blight on the existing landscape and is unlikely to be complimentary to the historic nature of the existing residential dwellings.

It can be assumed that this proposal is being presented in the short term interests of Bernard Matthews owners' balance sheet rather than the permanent blot on the landscape the resulting scheme would generate.

In summary, the proposed site is in a rural area, unfit for volume residential development with no access to public transport and served by roads that are already unfit for purpose.

This proposal is unsuitable for the following reasons

Access - the only route eastwards is on Hall Road, a narrow lane with passing places and a 7.5t weight limit. There are no footpaths on either Hall Road (East) nor Hall Road (West) and Porters Lane and no possibility of providing them. Hall Road (East) would not be able to cope with the traffic generated by the development. Access via Porters Lane leads to the A1067 junction which is already overloaded and dangerous.

Services - there no accessibility to core services and is remote from Lenwade

Alderford, the parish in which most of the development would fall is a small rural hamlet with important listed properties which would be swamped by such a development. The proposed site is well outside any previously considered housing development area.

The historic and influential nature of the former Bernard Matthews company is the only reason why any development was permitted on the site: no development such as this would be considered now.

Correction: in my previous submission I say "green field" site when I should have said "brown field".

Please look at the parish boundary map: nearly all of the South side factory (the proposed site for development) and all of the North side factory are within Alderford, not Great Witchingham. Alderford is listed as a small rural community within your Growth Options and has not been designated as an area for possible growth.

I would like to object to the proposal for 150 houses at the Bernard Matthews at Great Wichingham, in particular to the use of Hall Road, s road with narrow width weight and speed restrictions, also the danger to people walking down Hall Road with no Path.

Access - the only route eastwards is on Hall Road, a narrow lane with passing places and a 7.5t weight limit. There are no footpaths on either Hall Road (East) nor Hall Road (West) and Porters Lane and no possibility of providing them. Hall Road (East) would not be able to cope with the traffic generated by the development. Access via Porters Lane leads to the A1067 junction which is already overloaded and dangerous.
Services - there is no accessibility to core services and the site is remote from Lenwade.
Alderford, the parish in which most of the development would fall is a small rural hamlet with important listed properties which would be swamped by such a development. The proposed site is well outside any previously considered housing development area.
The historic and influential nature of the former Bernard Matthews company is the only reason why any development was permitted on the site: no development such as this would be considered now.

We live at xxxxxxx, xxxxxx, Alderford, opposite xxxxxxx.
We are surprised that there are plans to use part of the Bernard Matthews site for housing. Although we are some distance from the site, there are only a pair of semidetached properties between our house and the proposed development.
Our objections to the proposal are the following:
1. Hall Road is a narrow lane with a 30 mph speed limit, parking bays and a weight-limit on commercial vehicles. The council has erected a number of safety barriers on the road outside our house since it is directly on Hall Road. The result is there is just enough room for two cars to pass but not larger vehicles. There is a tight left bend about 20 yards from our house which has been the site of numerous accidents in the past. It is clear that the road will not be able to take an increase in traffic flows.
2. At the Lenwade junction with the Fakenham road there is a dangerous traffic bottleneck. This is after crossing two bridges with priority driving.
3. It is clear that the existing road system is totally inadequate to sustain the proposed development and this is our major objection.
4. In addition, the absence of a significant infrastructure ( shops, schools etc) would mean that residents will have to travel to Lenwade, Reepham or Drayton for services.

This proposal is unsuitable for the following reasons

Access - the only route eastwards is on Hall Road, a narrow lane with passing places and a 7.5t weight limit. Hall Road (East) would not be able to cope with the traffic generated by the development. Access via Porters Lane leads to the A1067 junction which is already overloaded and dangerous.
There are no footpaths on either Hall Road (East) nor Hall Road (West) and Porters Lane and no possibility of providing them.
Services - there is no accessibility to core services and the site is remote from Lenwade /Great Witchingham

On behalf of Amber REI Holdings Limited, we are pleased to submit representations to the Greater Norwich Local Plan Regulation 18 Stage B Consultation on new, revised and small sites.

We write these representations to respond to the Suitability Assessment prepared by the Greater Norwich Development Partnership relating to the Bernard Matthews South Site, Great Witchingham (ref: GNLP2184). Amber REI are the owners of the site and are keen to work with the Council to find an alternative use for this substantial vacant brownfield site.

Documents attached:
*Representations report
*Red Line Plan
*Design Concept Plan

We object to certain elements of the Suitability Assessment that wrongly discount the site, the Representations submitted provide further detail on why we consider this to be the case. The enclosed Design Concept provides a visual idea of how the site can be laid out for development, which is a significant improvement compared to the existing vacant brownfield site.

See Attachments