GNLP2051

Having lived almost opposite the proposed entrance to the site this road has gone from a quiet lane to a race track. The speed of vehicles a long here is unbelievable (despite the pinch point which seems to make vehicles try to see who can get through first). To consider a road entrance where the bungalow is to be knocked down is unthinkable as it would enter Taverham Road without sufficient visibility to the right towards Drayton. An accident waiting to happen.

How would this narrow road cope with all this extra traffic. It could'nt. As anyone who uses this road regularly will tell you it is impossible to pass lorries, school buses etc without stopping and hugging the verge. To get out of the road at Drayton where it meets the Fakenham Road is another major hurdle, not just two ways to look but traffic comes at speed from Costessey Lane and the garage.


Neither of the Doctors' surgeries could cope with this sort of influx as it takes a month to get an appointment now. Also the schools are over subscribed.

For these, and other numerous reasons, I would like to register my opposition to this plan.

I would like to object to the proposed development for the following reasons:

- Dangerous access on to the highway from the proposed site.
- The proposed site will have a severely restricted view turning onto the
Highway (Even with splays) as it is currently on an uphill camber.
- One narrow pavement hardly wide enough in place for people to pass.
- There should be no more encroachment in the the fringes of the Wensum Valley past the current settlement boundary, affecting wildlife and the enjoyment of an open space for local residents.

This proposed development is ill considered and totally unsuitable for the location on the following grounds:
- it suggests unspecified numbers of houses that would mostly fall outside the agreed settlement boundary which must be maintained
- access and traffic problems abound already along the narrow Taverham Road any increase in housing would make this worse : the is one pavement is very narrow : school traffic is chaotic
- the negative environmental impact would on the Wensum Valley would be major
- the amenity value of the valley and Macks Lane to local residents would be hugely diminished

I wish to object to this proposal, primarily for ecological reasons. Currently the site is a habitat to an abundance of wildlife. It is home to a widw variety of creatures both large and small, fro deer to hedgehogs and all manner of birdlife. If the diggers move in to the site this habitat will be lost and with it the wildlife will be driven out. True a few may find new habitats, but many will perish. This is too high a price to pay for a site which, if developed, will at most contribute only 20 or 30 new dwellings to the overall plan. Aside from the ecological concerns I would doubt that it can be cost effective for the local Authority to oversee the development of multiple small sites rather than focussing on a few larger ones. Ultimately the costs of overseeing these projects will fall upon local home owners and businesses in the form of council taxes and business rates. In these times of austerity we should all be concerned to ensure prudence in public spending.
Finally, a general point regarding this and other developments in the Taverham area is the inadequacy of local infra-structure, roads, schools and doctors surgeries are all stretched to breaking point and are not in a good position to support a further influx. I understand that this is outside the brief of the local plan, but clearly it requires some joined up thinking if local plan is to be sustainable in future.

I am writing to OBJECT to Taverham Site GNLP2051 which has being submitted at Stage B Regulation 18 New, Revised and Small Sites Consultation for the GNLP .

1. More than half of this site should be dismissed on the grounds that it is working, arable land .It is the farm land component of this site, beyond the existing settlement boundary, that should not be included for development. I would normally have had no objection to Mr. Roberts developing on his property with him having regard to the existing surrounding ecology and character of development on Taverham Road . However, as he has put this entire site forward as an integrated whole, therefore I feel I must object to it in its entirety.

2. The best practice for permissions regarding development of sites along this road have kept the harmony and character of a much recognised area which is enjoyed by not only its residents but all of Taverham, visitors and passers by .A feature of concern about this site is that no number of houses has been specified. I would suggest that this is because of the speculative nature of the entire site. It would and could very easily be a "cherry picking" site. Without too much effort it is not difficult to see how accepting this site would be detrimental, and when it comes to it not much value in meeting need for affordable and social housing.

3.The acceptance of this site would be detrimental because it would give carte blanche to a host of developments- exactly the same - where the farmer sells off pieces along the remaining part of this field as far as possible to Drayton. This site sets a precedence. Does anyone really want to embark on this assault into the Wensum Valley?

4.The Wensum is recognised as a priority habitat within the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) and as a designated Special Area of Conservation(SAC). Do our local planners still respect, recognise and abide by the necessary duty- of- care that these designations depend on? I hope so.

5. Countless number of species (plant species and rich invertebrate fauna) have been recorded in the vicinity of the Taverham Mill and the Taverham Road area. Since 1993, 71 km of the Wensum have been designated a SITE OF SPECIAL SCIENTIFIC INTEREST(SSSI). Even what seems like a small development site in an area like this is no more or less than the proverbial hole in the dam.

6. Taverham has steadily declined in the esteem of its residents over a number of years. Over-development has put an enormous strain on its infrastructure of roads. Services such as school places and doctors' appointments, class sizes, waiting times and pollution at major intersections, safety on roads, amenities for youth and young people, disappearance of green spaces...all of these have have all noticeably declined. The Northern Distributor Route brought further traffic flowing through Sandy Lane and The Street in Taverham on there way to the A47.

Why is Taverham suffering such an onslaught with so many sites for development? We are nearly 7 miles away from Norwich. Concentrate on developing much closer to Norwich so that their is some balance in the picture. Please do not intrude into sensitive areas like GNLP2051 is asking to do.

Please do not allow what is left of the very unique character of Taverham, mainly to the south of Taverham Road and hugging the Wensum Valley (to the river very near by) to be vandalised by "creeping development". A feature of concern about this site is that no number of houses have been specified. I would suggest that this is because of the speculative nature of the entire site.

As I do not have a computer and therefore cannot access the internet or :receive emails I have only just become aware of the Taverham Road Action Group.
Therefore I have not attended any of their meetings or been able to comment on the above site which has been put forward for possible development.
I would be extremely sorry to see this given approval as I feel it would open the floodgates to development the whole way along the road. It is a beautiful area and so very few green spaces are left.
There is already too much development in Taverham, Drayton and Hellesdon. The traffic is terrible now. How would Hospitals, Doctors, Schools etc. cope with any more?
Small sensitive developments in areas further afield would safeguard them against closure of Schools and post offices etc.
It is a great shame when some land owners profiteer at the expense of other people's enjoyment of life?

I object in principle to any development being permitted on the following sites, for reasons of damage to the local landscape, loss of open green space, damage to wildlife habitat and further intrusion into and despoilation of the countryside in / around the existing settlements:-

0290
2027 (which appears to be the woodland 'garden' at the top of the hill running perpendicular to Fakenham Road? If so, whoever owns this ought to be ashamed of promoting it for development)
0457
0159
0062
2051
2012
0465
2106 (which is a 3.3 hectare site south of Taverham Rd, which was once a nursery but has been derelict for at least 50 years. The site is on chalk just below topsoil level and as such is likely to be of botanical interest. The fact that natural succession has been taking place over this site for so long means that it will almost certainly have acquired a large and diverse flora and fauna. Full ecological surveys must be carried out here. In addition to general ecological surveys, specific surveys for reptiles, amphibians and bats should be undertaken. The site is of great value as undisturbed green open space and should be preserved as such.

0284 (Old Costessey, 'Mann's' field - must be retained as green open space.
0206 (land adjoining) also must be retained as green open space
2004 - this seems to be part of the Tud marshes and shouldn't even be remotely considered for any kind of development, as shouldn't any of the rest of the Tud marshes (either on / adjacent to the golf course or between Longwater Lane and Townhouse Road).