GNLP2176

Showing comments and forms 1 to 30 of 40

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 16821

Received: 29/10/2018

Respondent: Mrs Kimerley Dewah

Representation:

Strong objection to this site. Spoils the village and countryside views and sounds from our home. Would change the whole feel of our surroundings for the worse. No no no.

Full text:

As a resident of Dereham Road Honingham, I strongly object to this site. It would spoil the reason I bought my house with views across the countryside. Houses across the road would not only raise the noise level on top of the noise of the new road plans, but would spoil the countryside view and tranquility of our home. The road cannot take the extra traffic or support the construction vehicles. Honingham is not a place to create new housing developments. We are a village not a city. The residents of Honingham would be extremely disturbed by this and so would the wildlife! A very strong objection.

Support

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 17033

Received: 13/11/2018

Respondent: Parish Cou David Bishop

Representation:

It is time for Honingham Village to move into the 21st century but not with 100s of new houses but with a nice little development as this is.

Full text:

I think this is the right size development in the right place in the village.
But there needs to be a few things that need doing to make it not look out of place. The earth bank between the Norwich Road and the field must not be removed in fact a tree line about 3 meters thick should be put on to the top of the bank to shield and hid the houses opposite the field. If not because the field goes up hill the new house at the top of the site would over look the old house across the road. A fence of some sort be put around the two cottages on the edge of the site. Finally I feel Affordable Housing should make up 20% of the total houses built. It has been said that the new site could be started straight away so get on with it.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 17154

Received: 18/11/2018

Respondent: Mr Raymond Smith

Representation:

This the wrong location it would have an adverse impact on Honingham. Limited amenities in the village any increase in housing of this magnitude would be unsustainable. There is no doctors surgery, school, shop, Post Office, increasing housing in the village would add significantly to the pressure on those facilities in neighbouring areas.

Bus service is irregular and could not be relied upon for people to commute
Additional traffic from the development would be detrimental to the quality of life of the existing residents of Honingham
This is not an appropriate development for Honingham and should be rejected as such

Full text:

I object to this proposal
The location is wrong and if permitted, this development would have an adverse impact on the village
There are limited amenities and an increase in housing of the magnitude proposed, would be unsustainable
There is no school or doctors surgery in Honingham and any additional housing would add significantly to the pressure on those facilities in neighbouring areas
There is no shop or Post Office
The bus service is irregular and could not be relied upon for people to commute to and from work, there are no cycle lanes, therefore cars would be relied upon
The additional traffic movements generated from this development would be a nuisance to existing residents and cause polution
This is not an appropriate development for Honingham and should be rejected as such
Far better for brown field sites to be allocated for development than high grade food producing land such as this

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 17214

Received: 20/11/2018

Respondent: Mr David Hooker

Representation:

The proposal for 55 houses would completely swamp the village which has almost no facilities. It would also destroy the rural nature of the area and continue the development of a dormitory sprawl to the west of Norwich along the A47.

Full text:

The proposal for 55 houses would completely swamp the village which has almost no facilities. It would also destroy the rural nature of the area and continue the development of a dormitory sprawl to the west of Norwich along the A47.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 17406

Received: 26/11/2018

Respondent: Mrs Diane Savage

Representation:

our village is to small to have theses amount of houses to be built on this piece of land.
our one road would not be able to cope with extra vehicles.
we have no amenities in our village for families with children.
The loss of village life.
The loss of habitat for animals to breed that is already declining in our area.
There must be better places to build houses in this area rather squeezing them in Honingham.

Full text:

I object to new housing being built on this land in Honingham.
We are a small village with no amenities for families with children and to build more houses in our village would swamp the houses already here, our one road would not be able to cope with the the extra demand of vehicles using it, and the village life would be non existence,and yet again no thought for the wild life that need the habitat to breed before it become extinct and our children and grandchildren will never meet, therefore if new housing need to be built around this area I am sure there is more better places to build than trying to squeeze them into Honingham.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 17511

Received: 29/11/2018

Respondent: Mr Alan Smith

Representation:

I STRONGLY OBJECT TO THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
I have lived and worked in Honingham for over 70 years
This development is not wanted, this is the wrong location, there would be an adverse impact on our beautiful village.
More traffic, pollution and disruption to our way of life is not welcome
This agricultural field should be retained for food production and protected from loss of wildlife habitat
The village has limited amenities, an increase of nearly 50% of the housing in the core of the village would be an unsustainable imposition on Honingham which is countryside and should remain so

Full text:

I STRONGLY OBJECT TO THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
I have lived and worked in Honingham for over 70 years
This development is not wanted, this is the wrong location, there would be an adverse impact on our beautiful village.
More traffic, pollution and disruption to our way of life is not welcome
This agricultural field should be retained for food production and protected from loss of wildlife habitat
The village has limited amenities, an increase of nearly 50% of the housing in the core of the village would be an unsustainable imposition on Honingham which is countryside and should remain so

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 17764

Received: 04/12/2018

Respondent: Mrs Julie Turner

Representation:

This is overdevelopment in this village - There are NO facilities, no shop, no garage(agents are misrepresenting a private specialised Worksop business- there is no garage as such). No post office, no school,
No bus service through the village - only along the busy unlit Mattishall road. At least half a mile strenuous walk from proposed development so not family friendly.
Utilities do NOT include gas - high pressure mains through the site but does not service the village.
Potentially dangerous siting family houses so close to A47 - air pollution, noise and an accident blackspot.

Full text:

This is overdevelopment in this village - There are NO facilities, no shop, no garage(agents are misrepresenting a private specialised Worksop business- there is no garage as such). No post office, no school,
No bus service through the village - only along the busy unlit Mattishall road. At least half a mile strenuous walk from proposed development so not family friendly.
Utilities do NOT include gas - high pressure mains through the site but does not service the village.
Potentially dangerous siting family houses so close to A47 - air pollution, noise and an accident blackspot.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 17775

Received: 04/12/2018

Respondent: Mr Steve Balls

Representation:

Honingham is a small village and this development would increase it's size by nearly 50%, the village already has problems with flooding on Hall Drive, there are no shops or buses, the road is small and quiet. I think a development of this size would be unsustainable, increase the risk of flooding, not to mention traffic.
I feel this would spoil the village fèl

Full text:

Honingham is a small village and this development would increase it's size by nearly 50%, the village already has problems with flooding on Hall Drive, there are no shops or buses, the road is small and quiet. I think a development of this size would be unsustainable, increase the risk of flooding, not to mention traffic.
I feel this would spoil the village fèl

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 17778

Received: 04/12/2018

Respondent: mr phil prangnell

Representation:

not enough ammenities, no shop, no surgery, no post office, existing surface water flooding. development would bring in too many car movements as bus service to infrequent and unreliable to allow people to commute.

Full text:

I moved to this village to get away from the hurly burly where there were inadequate road and facilities.
This villages roads are not capable of taking the amount of traffic this would generate, there is no shop, no surgery or post office, the busses run infrequently and cant be relied on for commuting meaning that cars would be a necessity probably 2 to 4 for each household. Parking would be practically impossible, you only have to look at the recent developments in costessey such as queens hills to see that 55 houses would not have enough parking on such a small site.
We already suffer from flooding at the bottom of Hall Drive where further development would only worsen this, again I moved from a house that now regularly has garden flooding and the new properties built against my better judgement flood as I forecast and i don't want to be in that situation again.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 17799

Received: 05/12/2018

Respondent: Mr Stuart Clark

Representation:

Honingham doesn't want or need any more houses, we have no amenities in the village and it would put a huge strain on all services,

Full text:

I highly object to this application. Honingham is a beautiful quiet village and should be kept this way. It doesn't have any amenities at all, no shop, doctors etc, it would also put a strain on all the services. Also with this many proposed houses in our village would create extra traffic and pollution, and with the site being at Berry's Lane end of Honingham would mean that the residents of the new houses would probably use the Berry's Lane entrance into Honingham which is a notorious accident black spot. I think it is ludicrous to even consider this application for someone just to make a quick buck. Honingham doesn't need or want any more development, please keep Honingham a village.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 17802

Received: 05/12/2018

Respondent: Mrs Vanessa Elliott

Representation:

Strongly object - to increase the population of the village so drastically will destroy the village community. There is absolutely no infrastructure in place to increase the population so dramatically

Full text:

Strongly object - to increase the population of the village so drastically will destroy the village community. There is absolutely no infrastructure in place to increase the population so dramatically

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 17870

Received: 06/12/2018

Respondent: Ms Natasha Cargill

Representation:

Detrimental cost to the environment, drainage and traffic costs and loss of land.

Appalling and unsustainable for a village this size.

Full text:

This is an absolute travesty. In no way can Honingham support this development, it is done out of pure greed and opportunism.

We don't have the infrastructure within Honingham to cope with this development and it would destroy the look and the feel of the village. Build on the outskirts of the village maybe but not in the heart where we have no bus service, no surgery, no school and no shop. It would cause massive flood problems to the village and cause huge run off, with a potential devastating effect on the houses opposite and down the road. Losing agricultural land which can never be regained is a big worry to the future of our farming culture. The traffic, which would almost certainly involve another 110 cars on the road due to the lack of regular bus service, with the bus stop being too far away for most people to contemplate using, would be ridiculous in a village this size with the road widths as they are.one road leading in and out of the village, the tail backs and traffic generated will be horrendous.

I oppose this vehemently and will fight it tooth and nail and with every ounce of strength I have.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 17887

Received: 06/12/2018

Respondent: Mr Terry Rees

Representation:

Disgusted and angry

Full text:

What a travesty this will be, the land around here is farming and beautiful. The wildlife will be shoved aside and who knows where they will go. The village will double in size and the traffic will be phenomenal. Berry's Lane is busy enough and many accidents occur at the crossing with Mattishall Road, this will double those putting a strain on all the services.where will all these people go to the doctors and hospital both of which are stretched to breaking point. This area cannot take any expansion as the roads cannot cope now. This is foolhardy at least. Modern houses do not sit well. In a village and the water table will be compromised.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 17897

Received: 06/12/2018

Respondent: Mr Brian Winchester

Representation:

I strongly object to this proposal as it will increase this small village by 50% and destroy the current village. Where will there be extra facilities to support this (and other large developments) such as Doctors, schools etc. There will also be more traffic from this area going on to an already overcrowded A.47 as most people living in this area will have jobs elsewhere. In other words too much development for the village to accommodate especially with the proposed areas north of the Mattishall Road, in Colton and Honingham Thorpe

Full text:

I strongly object to this proposal as it will increase this small village by 50% and destroy the current village. Where will there be extra facilities to support this (and other large developments) such as Doctors, schools etc. There will also be more traffic from this area going on to an already overcrowded A.47 as most people living in this area will have jobs elsewhere. In other words too much development for the village to accommodate especially with the proposed areas north of the Mattishall Road, in Colton and Honingham Thorpe

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 17902

Received: 06/12/2018

Respondent: Mr Sheridan Brennecke

Representation:

We do not want to see over a 50% increase in the size our village (Honingham).
This development would have an adverse impact on our village. There would be an immense detrimental cost to the natural landscape and the environment. The irrevocable loss of agricultural land is of serious concern. Additional housing would add significantly to pressure on our roads, drainage, utilities, medical and education services.

The village has no shop or post office and limited amenities, the bus service is irregular and could not be relied upon for people to commute to and from work.

Full text:

We do not want to see over a 50% increase in the size our village (Honingham).
This development would have an adverse impact on our village. There would be an immense detrimental cost to the natural landscape and the environment. The irrevocable loss of agricultural land is of serious concern. Additional housing would add significantly to pressure on our roads, drainage, utilities, medical and education services.

The village has no shop or post office and limited amenities, the bus service is irregular and could not be relied upon for people to commute to and from work.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 18003

Received: 03/12/2018

Respondent: Mr Keith Simpson

Representation:

The location is wrong and if permitted, this development would have an
adverse impact on the village
There are limited amenities and an increase in housing of the magnitude
proposed, would be unsustainable
There is no school or doctors surgery in Honingham and any additional
housing would add significantly to the pressure on those facilities in
neighbouring areas
There is no shop or Post Office
The bus service is irregular and could not be relied upon for people to
commute to and from work, there are no cycle lanes, therefore cars would be
relied upon
The additional traffic movements generated from this development would be a
nuisance to existing residents and cause polution
This is not an appropriate development for Honingham and should be rejected
as such
Far better for brown field sites to be allocated for development than high
grade food producing land such as this

Full text:

The location is wrong and if permitted, this development would have an
adverse impact on the village
There are limited amenities and an increase in housing of the magnitude
proposed, would be unsustainable
There is no school or doctors surgery in Honingham and any additional
housing would add significantly to the pressure on those facilities in
neighbouring areas
There is no shop or Post Office
The bus service is irregular and could not be relied upon for people to
commute to and from work, there are no cycle lanes, therefore cars would be
relied upon
The additional traffic movements generated from this development would be a
nuisance to existing residents and cause polution
This is not an appropriate development for Honingham and should be rejected
as such
Far better for brown field sites to be allocated for development than high
grade food producing land such as this

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 18057

Received: 07/12/2018

Respondent: Mrs Janice Smith

Representation:

A development of 55 dwellings would have an adverse effect on a village of ,at present, 100 houses. The proposed site is elevated so the character of the village would be destroyed as would the loss of agricultural land.Another concern is the extra traffic through the village.

Full text:

A development of 55 dwellings would have an adverse effect on a village of ,at present, 100 houses. The proposed site is elevated so the character of the village would be destroyed as would the loss of agricultural land.Another concern is the extra traffic through the village.

Comment

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 18066

Received: 07/12/2018

Respondent: Marlingford and Colton Parish Council

Representation:

Entirely unsuitable sites and unneeded. Norfolk already has much more land allocated for housing than it could possibly need up to 2036 and the most recent ONS statistics on household creation show a reduction of 51,000 households per year (210,000 to 159,000).
It would be irresponsible, therefore, for any local authority to encourage the 'land-banking' which would be the inevitable consequence of adoption of any additional sites, including all those in phase one (600, I believe) and the current phase of this Reg 18 consultation. No further sites should be allocated until the (vast) existing 'bank' has been fully used.

Full text:

Entirely unsuitable sites and unneeded. Norfolk already has much more land allocated for housing than it could possibly need up to 2036 and the most recent ONS statistics on household creation show a reduction of 51,000 households per year (210,000 to 159,000).
It would be irresponsible, therefore, for any local authority to encourage the 'land-banking' which would be the inevitable consequence of adoption of any additional sites, including all those in phase one (600, I believe) and the current phase of this Reg 18 consultation. No further sites should be allocated until the (vast) existing 'bank' has been fully used.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 18074

Received: 07/12/2018

Respondent: Sally Lloyd

Representation:

Honingham is a unique rural quaint village. Please do not make it a sprawling housing estate. 55 dwellings would completely change the dynamics of the village, we need clear open spaces between these rural villages. The impact on the local infrastructure would be immense, roads, schools, Doctors surgeries. The A47 is already overwhelmed. Please please rethink.

Full text:

Honingham is a unique rural quaint village. Please do not make it a sprawling housing estate. 55 dwellings would completely change the dynamics of the village, we need clear open spaces between these rural villages. The impact on the local infrastructure would be immense, roads, schools, Doctors surgeries. The A47 is already overwhelmed. Please please rethink.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 18096

Received: 08/12/2018

Respondent: Miss Julie Wvendth

Representation:

These developments would have an adverse impact on our village and residents way of life. People live here to experience the natural landscape and environment but this proposal will ruin village life as we know it. Our current facilities would simply not cope with such increasing numbers and the additional traffic resulting would cause serious road safety issues for villagers.

Full text:

These developments would have an adverse impact on our village and residents way of life. People live here to experience the natural landscape and environment but this proposal will ruin village life as we know it. Our current facilities would simply not cope with such increasing numbers and the additional traffic resulting would cause serious road safety issues for villagers.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 18127

Received: 09/12/2018

Respondent: Mrs Maureen Sapey

Representation:

I strongly object to the proposal it would spoil what is now a very peaceful village. The village has no shop, post office, school and certainly no bus service.

Full text:

I strongly object to the proposal it would spoil what is now a very peaceful village. The village has no shop, post office, school and certainly no bus service.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 18135

Received: 09/12/2018

Respondent: Mrs Linda Human

Representation:

Facilities as described do not exist in Honingham, makes it a far more attractive proposition than reality. Road infrastructure poor and will potentially damage sensitive areas like Berrys Lane. Schools and GP surgeries already oversubscribed and not as viable as suggested. Public transport very poor and again not as suggested in report.

Full text:

I am not at all happy with the glowing reports of facilities available for this development. There isn't a garage in the village, there is a small (very good) unit that does vehicle repairs - certainly not the sort that supplies fuel, papers, milk etc. In fact we have an excellent pub, but that's about it. No street lights, no shops, very limited public transport - it's a good walk up a hill to get a bus, the service is infrequent, buses frequently missed out, and does not operate after 5pm. Each house to be built would probably have 2, maybe more cars, that will increase traffic in and out of Honingham to an unacceptable level - the road infrastructure (especially Berrys Lane) is just not suitable for this. Schools are too far away and are already over subscribed, as is the local GP surgery at either Mattishall or The Roundwell. Totally unsuitable and unnecessary development.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 18260

Received: 05/12/2018

Respondent: Mr Austen Allen

Representation:

We are opposed to the new housing development planned for Honingham. There are not enough facilities here and will spoil our tranquility , also I think it's too close to the main road .

Full text:

We are opposed to the new housing development planned for Honingham. There are not enough facilities here and will spoil our tranquility , also I think it's too close to the main road .

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 18440

Received: 11/12/2018

Respondent: Honingham Parish Council

Representation:

Honingham Parish Council object to this site as being wholly unsuitable and inappropriate for a village of this size. This is not a suitable location for such a large number of houses. The services indicated in the report as making this site suitable are inaccurate. It will have a detrimental effect on the current village, threatening its character. The impact on the village of Honingham would be significant and the Parish Council object to this proposal.

Full text:

Honingham Parish Council object to site GNLP2176. It should be noted that the boundary line of the site is incorrect on the map and does not line up with the edge of the village hall but is set further back towards the current A47. The map is therefore not a true representation of the proposed site.

The introduction of an additional 55 houses would be a considerable increase to the current village, growing it by approximately a third. This would have a significant impact on the village. The site proposal makes many suggestions as to the appropriateness of the site, none of which are viewed by the Parish Council to be accurate. It is regularly referred to as a sustainable location, which given its current lack of services is not viewed to be a true reflection of the proposed site.

The bus service referred to stops at a dangerous site away from the centre of the village, with access being via an unlit and narrow country lane. The bus service is irregular and unreliable and we highly doubt that any new residents would use this as a way to commute to local services or work. The bus route was also recently under threat of being lost due to funding cuts, this is not a sustainable source of public transport.

An increase of houses of this size in the centre of the village will severely increase traffic and associated pollution. It is not unrealistic to believe this could bring in a further 100 cars to the village, almost all of which are likely to be used on a daily basis to commute to work, schools and use services in other nearby parishes. Honingham already suffers from regular traffic problems as drivers use it as a rat run. It would make more sense to wait until the proposals for the dualling of the A47 and possible extension of the Norwich Western Link have been decided before planning further development in the area.

We have further concerns that the additional site identified on the map as being next to site GNLP2176, also off Dereham Road and being 3.007ha in size, would also subsequently be put forward for further development which would further swamp the village.

The site is sloped upwards from Dereham Road towards the current A47. Development of this site would lead to those houses already situated on Dereham Road to become overlooked.

Honingham Parish Council object to this site as being wholly unsuitable and inappropriate for a village of this size.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 18695

Received: 12/12/2018

Respondent: Mr Mark Kenney

Representation:

The proposal is far too large for the village and is simply seeking maximum exploitation of the land.
It would completely change the visual face of Honingham. The village does, in fact, at present have very coherent visual 'edges' from both the east and west approaches and this substantial proposal would be highly destructive of that. Honingham would not benefit in any way by having this mass imposition of 'noddy' houses.

Full text:

The proposal is far too large for the village and is simply seeking maximum exploitation of the land.
It would completely change the visual face of Honingham. The village does, in fact, at present have very coherent visual 'edges' from both the east and west approaches and this substantial proposal would be highly destructive of that. Honingham would not benefit in any way by having this mass imposition of 'noddy' houses.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 18789

Received: 12/12/2018

Respondent: Mrs Sally Blyth

Representation:

I object due to the high number of homes which would dominate a small village which has no basic facilities.The increase in traffic would be a problem.A sea of modern homes is unattractive.

Full text:

To build 55 homes in Honingham would swamp the existing village and have a detrimental effect on the area. This housing estate would dominate a small village. Honingham does not have a shop,post office, doctor's surgery,school or a bus service that is fit for commuters to Norwich/Dereham.The last bus from Norwich leaves before most people have finished work! Therefore the amount of cars using the road through the village would greatly increase.The bus stops on the Mattishall Road anyway which is not very convenient for the majority of villagers, and is certainly a long walk from the proposed site.
However,I am in favour of new homes being built in existing villages rather than creating a new settlement. Perhaps a more reasonable amount of houses would be 10 to 15.

Support

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 18795

Received: 12/12/2018

Respondent: 1951 Paul Blyth

Representation:

My initial response, it is good for the village, bringing more people in to use local businesses eg gardeners, cleaners, builders, 'The Buck' etc.
Maybe the village hall will benefit, maybe also we can have a bus through the village and maybe a new shop/post office.
Perhaps we may also benefit with a modified drainage/runoff system from the village hall area.
One technical point I raise, the drawing shows no area allowance for existing overflow village hall car park arrangements up to the newly erected fence, as agreed with the landowner.

Full text:

My initial response, it is good for the village, bringing more people in to use local businesses eg gardeners, cleaners, builders, 'The Buck' etc.
Maybe the village hall will benefit, maybe also we can have a bus through the village and maybe a new shop/post office.
Perhaps we may also benefit with a modified drainage/runoff system from the village hall area.
One technical point I raise, the drawing shows no area allowance for existing overflow village hall car park arrangements up to the newly erected fence, as agreed with the landowner.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 18803

Received: 13/12/2018

Respondent: Mr Tristan Smith

Representation:

I object to this proposal - My reasons are that this increases the amount of houses in Honingham by 50%, which will be to the detriment of the existing residents.
I am also concerned about the pollution that the development will cause both in construction and on completion.

As this is currently a greenfield site surrounded by hedges and wildlife habitat, development of this land would have an adverse effect on the landscape in our beautiful village.


There are limited services in the village, with the addition of this development the pressure on schools and GP services would be stretched.

Full text:

I object to this proposal - My reasons are that this increases the amount of houses in Honingham by 50%, which will be to the detriment of the existing residents.
I am also concerned about the pollution that the development will cause both in construction and on completion.

As this is currently a greenfield site surrounded by hedges and wildlife habitat, development of this land would have an adverse effect on the landscape in our beautiful village.


There are limited services in the village, with the addition of this development the pressure on schools and GP services would be stretched.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 19035

Received: 13/12/2018

Respondent: Mr Tony Roberts

Representation:

1. It will increase the size of the village by 50%.
2. Sustainable transport is non existent. There is an unreliable hourly bus service that does not run into the evenings. This could lead to potentially having an extra 100 cars travelling through the village.
3. Infrastructure - our village would not be able to sustain such an increase.
4 According to your own criteria this development does not meet them.

Full text:

1. It will increase the size of the village by 50%.
2. Sustainable transport is non existent. There is an unreliable hourly bus service that does not run into the evenings. This could lead to potentially having an extra 100 cars travelling through the village.
3. Infrastructure - our village would not be able to sustain such an increase.
4 According to your own criteria this development does not meet them.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 19046

Received: 13/12/2018

Respondent: Mrs Sue Roberts

Representation:

Our village will increase by half.

No decent bus service. Once an hour. In a dangerous place with no shelter or pavement. Does not run into the evenings and unreliable for residents travelling to work in Norwich. This will also increase the amount of traffic travelling through the village up to 100 extra vehicles.

Affect the outlook and village feel to the houses on Dereham Road.

Infrastructure not in place for additional residences eg. shops, schools, GP's

Full text:

Our village will increase by half.

No decent bus service. Once an hour. In a dangerous place with no shelter or pavement. Does not run into the evenings and unreliable for residents travelling to work in Norwich. This will also increase the amount of traffic travelling through the village up to 100 extra vehicles.

Affect the outlook and village feel to the houses on Dereham Road.

Infrastructure not in place for additional residences eg. shops, schools, GP's