GNLP2005

Showing comments and forms 1 to 6 of 6

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 17620

Received: 02/12/2018

Respondent: Mr Chris Freemantle

Representation:

I object for the following reasons.
1. The current sewage drainage is not capable of taking additional housing.
2. A road entrance onto Woodrow Lane at this point would be dangerous. There is a right angle bend at the southern end of Woodrow Lane and Vehicles pulling out onto the road here would endanger themselves and other traffic.
3. Further loss of open countryside.

Full text:

I object for the following reasons.
1. The current sewage drainage is not capable of taking additional housing.
2. A road entrance onto Woodrow Lane at this point would be dangerous. There is a right angle bend at the southern end of Woodrow Lane and Vehicles pulling out onto the road here would endanger themselves and other traffic.
3. Further loss of open countryside.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 18167

Received: 09/12/2018

Respondent: Mrs Christine Douglass

Representation:

I object to the land indicated for development in GNLP2005 for the following reasons
1)The location is a mile from the village school with no footpaths or street lighting for pedestrians.
2)Central sites in Great Moulton/Aslacton have planning approval,are not developed
3)More suitable central sites on the current GNLP in Great Moulton/Aslacton
4)Visual amenity
5)Adequacy of parking/loading/turning
6)Traffic generation
7)Noise and disturbance resulting from use
8)Loss of trees
9)Road access
10)Nature conservation

Full text:

I object to the land indicated for development in GNLP2005 for the following reasons
1)The location is a mile from the village school with no footpaths or street lighting for pedestrians.
2)Central sites in Great Moulton/Aslacton have planning approval,are not developed
3)More suitable central sites on the current GNLP in Great Moulton/Aslacton
4)Visual amenity
5)Adequacy of parking/loading/turning
6)Traffic generation
7)Noise and disturbance resulting from use
8)Loss of trees
9)Road access
10)Nature conservation

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 18168

Received: 09/12/2018

Respondent: Mr Darren Douglass

Representation:

I object to the land indicated for development in GNLP2118 for the following reasons
1)The location is a mile from the village school with no footpaths or street lighting for pedestrians.
2)Central sites in Great Moulton/Aslacton have planning approval,are not developed
3)More suitable central sites on the current GNLP in Great Moulton/Aslacton
4)Visual amenity
5)Adequacy of parking/loading/turning
6)Traffic generation
7)Noise and disturbance resulting from use
8)Loss of trees
9)Road access
10)Nature conservation

Full text:

I object to the land indicated for development in GNLP2118 for the following reasons
1)The location is a mile from the village school with no footpaths or street lighting for pedestrians.
2)Central sites in Great Moulton/Aslacton have planning approval,are not developed
3)More suitable central sites on the current GNLP in Great Moulton/Aslacton
4)Visual amenity
5)Adequacy of parking/loading/turning
6)Traffic generation
7)Noise and disturbance resulting from use
8)Loss of trees
9)Road access
10)Nature conservation

Comment

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 18960

Received: 11/12/2018

Respondent: E Fielding

Representation:

I refer to your Greater Norwich Local Plan Regulation 18 Consultation and the plan I was given recently indicating where new building may take place locally. I would like to raise a number of issues which I believe are very relevant to the proposed developments indicated by the codes GNLP2118 and GNLP2005.

Issues raised include:
*Country lanes unsuited to traffic, no footpaths or street lighting
*Nature of housing envisaged is not indicated
*Age-range occupants of new houses, influx of young adults would bring increased birth rates and demand for more school places.
* Neither Aslacton or Great Moulton has shop, post office or banking provision
* Will there be an improved bus service alongside any building development?

Full text:

I refer to your Greater Norwich Local Plan Regulation 18 Consultation and the plan I was given recently indicating where new building may take place locally. I would like to raise a number of issues which I believe are very relevant to the proposed developments indicated by the codes GNLP2118 and GNLP2005.
A general point, which is relevant to both proposed developments, is that both are situated in a rural area primarily serviced by country lanes which are essentially unsuited to much of the traffic they presently carry. Sneath Road and the roads that feed into it have no footpaths or street lighting and many are generally not wider than approximately 4-5 metres wide. During the day and evening they carry mixed traffic which comprises largely trucks vans and cars. All year round, but particulary in the summer months, large tractors pulling wide/heavy loads of farm crops regularly use the lanes. Dog walkers and others are frequently put at considerable risk of harm. Aditional housing as shown as GNLP21 l 8 could only substantially add to the use of the road
Your plan does not indicate the nature of housing you envisage. What are the needs that you see the Authority having to meet and how does the building of houses in a country setting match with these requirements? For the eleven years I have lived in the area, the field alongside Sneath Road has produced a series of healthy crops and that behind the houses to the north of the road has frequently carried animals. Is the need for local housing so great that we can justify the loss of good agricultural land rather than reuse reclaimed building land as is apparently available in Aslacton village.
Related to the above paragraph is the question of the age-range of the occupants of any new houses. I feel that the area around Sneath Road is predominantly occupied by older people. Any influx of young adults would bring with it an increase in the birth-rate and demand for more school places. One has to ask whether the present school provision in the village is adequate or appropriate should more pupils require access. Given the present road system I would not like to see any child walking from Sneath Road to Aslacton village with the distance and all the dangers this would involve.
Neither Aslacton or Great Moulton has any shop, post-office or banking provision. Are any or all of these envisaged in the proposed development or will even more cars have to travel to Norwich, Diss, or other small town to access these services with the related consequence of more pollution in the environment? The present bus service to Norwich or Diss is pretty minimal. Do we expect to see an improved 'bus service in the area alongside any building development?

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 18962

Received: 13/12/2018

Respondent: Aslacton Parish Council

Representation:

Object. Beyond the Development Area of the Parish; Not proportionate, sewage system already a problem with flooding of raw sewage into the street, houses and gardens.

Full text:

You have listed this Proposal under Great Moulton and we were therefore not advised of it, I just happened to see Sneath Common in the Eastern Daily Press.
Sneath Common in not a village it is a few fields that were previously part of Tibenham Aerodrome during the war and it is sometimes referred to as Sneath Common when South Norfolk District Council consider planning applications. In 1982 the Parish decided that development should take place organically spreading out from the church and the school; this has been upheld in all later Local Plan Consultations and, in the past, South Norfolk Planning Department has specifically excluded the area of Sneath Common from future development as they regard it as an aberration by the old Depwade RDC being spread between Aslacton, Great Moulton and Tivetshall with no apparent connection to any of them. This application is outside the parish boundaries and does not conform to the expressed wishes of the Parish Council, which SNDC have accepted, for development in the heart of the Parish. In Church Road we have 15 houses with planning permission and an identified site for up to 40 more when the 15 have been built. In the last Census we had 193 dwellings; the planning permission for 15 houses and potentially 40 more bring the total of possible new dwellings to 55. Local Plans state that all development should be proportionate and adding more at this time would certainly not meet that test. In addition our sewerage system is overloaded with sewage coming up through a manhole in The Street, in the bathroom of a neighbouring property and in the gardens of several residents.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 18967

Received: 13/12/2018

Respondent: Aslacton Parish Council

Representation:

Does not conform to the manner in which the Parish has elected to develop
Outside the Development Boundary set by South Norfolk Council
Sewage system is already overloaded before the houses already given planning permission have been built
Disproportionate

Full text:

You have listed this Proposal under Great Moulton and we were therefore not advised of it, I just happened to see Sneath Common in the Eastern Daily Press.
Sneath Common in not a village it is a few fields that were previously part of Tibenham Aerodrome during the war and it is sometimes referred to as Sneath Common when South Norfolk District Council consider planning applications. In 1982 the Parish decided that development should take place organically spreading out from the church and the school; this has been upheld in all later Local Plan Consultations and, in the past, South Norfolk Planning Department has specifically excluded the area of Sneath Common from future development as they regard it as an aberration by the old Depwade RDC being spread between Aslacton, Great Moulton and Tivetshall with no apparent connection to any of them. This application is outside the parish boundaries and does not conform to the expressed wishes of the Parish Council, which SNDC have accepted, for development in the heart of the Parish. In Church Road we have 15 houses with planning permission and an identified site for up to 40 more when the 15 have been built. In the last Census we had 193 dwellings; the planning permission for 15 houses and potentially 40 more bring the total of possible new dwellings to 55. Local Plans state that all development should be proportionate and adding more at this time would certainly not meet that test. In addition our sewerage system is overloaded with sewage coming up through a manhole in The Street, in the bathroom of a neighbouring property and in the gardens of several residents.