GNLP2075

Showing comments and forms 1 to 6 of 6

Comment

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 16842

Received: 29/10/2018

Respondent: Mrs Judy Holland

Representation:

Site access on 60 mph road
Blind bend to north
No footpaths
Poor access to south of Reepham
Limited parking in the town
Loss of agricultural land

Full text:

This site is situated just beyond a blind bend with traffic travelling at national speed limit of 60 mph right up to and often beyond the 30 mph sign, there is no current access to the site from Cawston Road and no foot paths either side of the road. To access the schools, traffic will need to cross the town at the extremely tight Townsend Corner crossroads. A planning application for wind farm cabling has also been submitted for part of this site which could conflict with building here. As a key service center Reepham is poorly served with poor public transport and just one ATM outside the Spar. There is already a need for more parking in the town. With Brexit just around the corner we need to retain agricultural land to feed everyone.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 16872

Received: 01/11/2018

Respondent: Mr Jaime Mallett

Representation:

This same site was considered and rejected as unsuitable before. It remains unsuitable for the same reasons:
1. Loss of greenfield and valuable agricultural land when brownfield sites remain available for exploitation in Reepham.
2. Size of site and development entirely unsuited to a small market village/town settlement. Negative impact on townscape and local natural and built environment.
3. Lack of suitable local infrastructure: poor road access at site and in Reepham itself; sewerage facilities at capacity; schools at capacity.
4. Distance from shops and other services increases likelihood of single-occupancy car use and car dependency amongst families.

Full text:

This same site was considered and rejected as unsuitable before. It remains unsuitable for the same reasons:
1. Loss of greenfield and valuable agricultural land when brownfield sites remain available for exploitation in Reepham.
2. Size of site and development entirely unsuited to a small market village/town settlement. Negative impact on townscape and local natural and built environment.
3. Lack of suitable local infrastructure: poor road access at site and in Reepham itself; sewerage facilities at capacity; schools at capacity.
4. Distance from shops and other services increases likelihood of single-occupancy car use and car dependency amongst families.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 16976

Received: 08/11/2018

Respondent: Mr Michael Wyard

Representation:

Constraints identified for this location include the capacity of the local road network, site access, lack of footpaths, flood risk, townscape impacts and loss of Grade 2 agricultural land

It is another try on despite its previously identified unsuitability

Full text:

Constraints identified for this location include the capacity of the local road network, site access, lack of footpaths, flood risk, townscape impacts and loss of Grade 2 agricultural land

It is another try on despite its previously identified unsuitability

Comment

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 17292

Received: 12/07/2018

Respondent: Mr Graham Everett

Representation:

The additional site Ref GNLP2075, Cawston Road, Reepham must be dismissed at an early stage as the cable route of the Norfolk Vanguard project, Vattenfall's offshore wind farm project that has just been submitted to to the Planning Inspectorate for DCO crosses this proposed site. I understand from previous discussions with Vattenfall that planning permission cannot be granted for any housing development that would be built on top of the HVDC cable routes.

I am sure you are both aware of the Vattenfall, Vanguard and Boreas projects that will hit landfall at Happisburgh and cross Norfolk to Nacton Grid near the A47.

Similarly Orsted are going through a DCO process for their offshore wind farm project which goes from Weybourne to Norwich South Grid at Mangreen,off the A140.

Both companies routes have to cross Norfolk somewhere and unfortunately that is just outside Reepham!

Full text:

I appreciate that the additional sites are not for consideration/discussion yet.

However, I feel I must point out at an early stage that the additional site Ref GNLP2075, Cawston Road, Reepham must be dismissed at an early stage as the cable route of the Norfolk Vanguard project, Vattenfall's offshore wind farm project that has just been submitted to to the Planning Inspectorate for DCO crosses this proposed site. I understand from previous discussions with Vattenfall that planning permission cannot be granted for any housing development that would be built on top of the HVDC cable routes.

I am sure you are both aware of the Vattenfall, Vanguard and Boreas projects that will hit landfall at Happisburgh and cross Norfolk to Nacton Grid near the A47.

Similarly Orsted are going through a DCO process for their offshore wind farm project which goes from Weybourne to Norwich South Grid at Mangreen,off the A140.

Both companies routes have to cross Norfolk somewhere and unfortunately that is just outside Reepham!

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 17413

Received: 26/11/2018

Respondent: Mr Hugh Ivins

Representation:

Unsuitable location with significant landscape impact and more suitable 'deliverable' housing sites already identified and assessed earlier this year under the GNDP and under the Broadland Local Plan 2016

Full text:

This site has been previously assessed and rejected by Broadland under their Local Plan 2016, it was initially submitted back in 2013 and not included in subsequent consultations leading to the Site Allocations DPD of 2016. The reasomns for not including this site in the GNDP process remain the same, it will have a significant visual impact on the landscape, will impact on the road network and is some distance from the town services and facilities. Also the GNDP has designated Reepham as a 'Key' Service Centre, where around 100 homes could be allocated (As part of the 10 Main Towns and Larger Villages allocation of 1000 houses) and this 'unspecified' site would accommodate well in excess of that nuof mber. There are better and more suitable sites already identified under thye earlier Reg 18 Consultation of Jan- March 2018 such as GNLP0183 which was supported by Broadland in their penultimate Site Allocation "Preferred Options' Submission, prior to the Broomhill Lane site coming forward at such a late stage and getting adopted, for 100-120 houses despite the significant number local objections. Indeed the Broomhill Lane Site is so far behind its sceduled development phase that it can be classed as 'undeliverable'. This brings into focus two of the sites that have been put forward under the GNDP 'Settlement Summary' for Reepham GNLP0183 and GNLP0180 for a combined allocation of around 100 houses that would satisfy the housing requirements of the GNDP proposals for Reepham, particularly as the Six Options for the remaining 3,300 houses provide for no additional houses in Reepham.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 18663

Received: 12/12/2018

Respondent: Reepham Town Council

Representation:

Reepham Town Council object to this site as it is the furthest away from the centre of Reepham and even further from the schools. There are no footpaths or access to the Town Centre. There would be an increase in traffic as a result. The site has already been earmarked as a cable route for the wind farm project so would be restricted for development. The Town Council have already identified better sites for development in Reepham.

Full text:

Reepham Town Council object to this site as it is the furthest away from the centre of Reepham and even further from the schools. There are no footpaths or access to the Town Centre. There would be an increase in traffic as a result. The site has already been earmarked as a cable route for the wind farm project so would be restricted for development. The Town Council have already identified better sites for development in Reepham.