GNLP2174

Surface water flood risk across northern and western parts - approx. 60-70% of the site. depths between 300mm & 900mm with some pockets above 900mm. Surface water flood risk affects the whole of the northern and western boundaries

foul sewer pumping station against the western boundary

I would like to strongly object to the proposal for this site to be used to develop housing. Kirstead Green is a very small village with no infrastructure or facilities to support such a development. Previous applications for infill properties have been refused in Kirstead Green and the following is directly taken from one of the applications which was refused and this was one reason given.

'Kirstead Green a small, isolated rural community without a defined settlement boundary in the development plan. Kirstead Green has limited facilities to meet the day-to-day needs of residents. Accordingly the settlement falls under the ambit of Policy 17 of the Joint Core Strategy for Broadland, Norwich and South Norfolk 2011 (and amended 2014) (the JCS) as a smaller rural community in the countryside where only a limited range of development which essentially requires a countryside location will be supported'

Given this was the position previously given for refusal of a 2 bedroom bungalow which would be within the village. I cannot see how the proposal for 20 plus houses can be agreed. This would fundamentally change the village and more or less double the village in its current size.
The application states that Brooke is easily reachable from Kirstead Green however to do this on foot is very dangerous. You have to walk along a pavement on a busy road which in places is very narrow. This would mean increased use of cars in the village to access local facilities, which I would contest are not really suitable in Brooke so the nearest place would be Poringland. In another passage taken from a previous refusal the following was observed:

'I noted the bus stops on the B1332 but these are only accessible from the appeal site via a narrow, dark and overgrown connecting path from the unlit footway in Kirstead Green. Accordingly, I am not persuaded that it would form a particularly attractive transport option'

Given that the application highlight the availability of the buss route, I find it strange that previous applicants have been told this is not an attractive option for transport from Kirstead Green.
The increased speculative development on open countryside is not acceptable and is damaging rural communities and wildlife. Hence the reason for this objection.

I strongly object because I feel that approval of this site will dramatically alter the character of our small village. I recently relocated my family to Kirstead (a lifetimes commitment - with modern prices) specifcally because it is an isolated location.

The landowner i'm sure will understand, having purchased the land to avoid exactly such a development on it. An approved development here will, regrettably, greatly impact those of us that remain in Kirstead.

This is not a good location for further housing, with few facilities and poor service provision, specifically including sewerage, which is inadequate for the village already.

A small village such as Kirstead does not have the infrastructure or amenities to absorb a housing development on this scale.

Drainage in this area is very poor due to the heavy clay soil, any additional development will only make the risk of flooding worse.

Due to the remoteness of Kirstead the only modes of transport would be by car or the infrequent bus service. The road into Norwich is already becoming clogged with traffic and this development would only exasperate the situation.

This proposal is on a ridiculous scale for such a small rural village. The proposal is to double the size of the existing village but on one small site.

The site and surrounding area is at high risk of flooding as it is low lying and on very heavy clay soil, this proposed development would only exasperate the situation.

There is very limited infrastructure and limited public services(infrequent bus service is about it!)

Proposing to double the size of Kirstead with a housing estate is a ridiculous and out of scale proposal.

This site should not be granted permission as it is on low lying ground that is already at high risk of flooding, the area is on clay soil with little ability to absorb surface water or to drain away.

Apart from a part time bus service there are no amenities to support any development on this scale. The development would only add yet more cars and pollution on the road into Norwich.

i) There are no facilities in KIRSTEAD Green and none planned for the foreseeable future ie. no shop, no play area for children.

ii) KIRSTEAD Green is a very quiet, tiny village: the building of 20 dwellings on the specified plot would significantly change the village's character and ambiance: this would be to the detriment of the village and its residents.

iii) There would be an increase in traffic from the 20 new dwellings. When a previous application was made by the residents of Green Man Lane to open up the north end of KIRSTEAD Green, which was originally the main road between Norwich and Bungay, it was refused. There is only one exit onto the B1332 from residents of KIRSTEAD Green; more dwellings would mean more traffic.

iv) It should be known that this plot of land was bought by the current landowner several years ago from the then land owner, with the sole intention of ensuring that it was not sold to Saffron Housing who were intent on building properties on the site, which included 'affordable housing'. The current landowner made it know to some KIRSTEAD Green residents that he had done this in order to protect the village from any further housing.

v) With reference to para 4 above, it would appear that the current landowner is now intent on ensuring that planning permission should be given to build on this plot, irrespective of the original intention.

vi) For all the reasons listed above, I object in full to this application for planning permission being granted.

vii)I also feel very strongly indeed that, as there has been no communication whatsoever with local residents by the GNLP or the current landowner, or the posting of a public notice of intent with regard to this application whatsoever, it has not provided the residents of KIRSTEAD Green with the opportunity to make any objections or give support to this application. In consequence, and in addition, there has been no opportunity for residents to respond before the stated deadline to object or support. I feel that this should be addressed and that the applicant, landowner and the GNLP should reject this application and demand that it be resubmitted and make the application public to the residents of KIRSTEAD Green, who can then respond appropriately and within the given time. As most residents of KIRSTEAD Green are not aware of this application, the responses will be very low.

i) There are no facilities in KIRSTEAD Green and none planned for the foreseeable future ie. no shop, no play area for children.

ii) KIRSTEAD Green is a very quiet, tiny village: the building of 20 dwellings on the specified plot would significantly change the village's character and ambiance: this would be to the detriment of the village and its residents.

iii) There would be an increase in traffic from the 20 new dwellings. When a previous application was made by the residents of Green Man Lane to open up the north end of KIRSTEAD Green, which was originally the main road between Norwich and Bungay, it was refused. There is only one exit onto the B1332 from residents of KIRSTEAD Green; more dwellings would mean more traffic.

iv) It should be known that this plot of land was bought by the current landowner several years ago from the then land owner, with the sole intention of ensuring that it was not sold to Saffron Housing who were intent on building properties on the site, which included 'affordable housing'. The current landowner made it know to some KIRSTEAD Green residents that he had done this in order to protect the village from any further housing.

v) With reference to para 4 above, it would appear that the current landowner is now intent on ensuring that planning permission should be given to build on this plot, irrespective of the original intention.

vi) For all the reasons listed above, I object in full to this application for planning permission being granted.

vii)I also feel very strongly indeed that, as there has been no communication whatsoever with local residents by the GNLP or the current landowner, or the posting of a public notice of intent with regard to this application whatsoever, it has not provided the residents of KIRSTEAD Green with the opportunity to make any objections or give support to this application. In consequence, and in addition, there has been no opportunity for residents to respond before the stated deadline to object or support. I feel that this should be addressed and that the applicant, landowner and the GNLP should reject this application and demand that it be resubmitted and make the application public to the residents of KIRSTEAD Green, who can then respond appropriately and within the given time. As most residents of KIRSTEAD Green are not aware of this application, the responses will be very low.

Kirstead Green is a small village with no amenities, and as a resident for more than 23 years I second the comments made by Miss Gibson, and would add that the local residents were led to believe that the purchase of this land from the original owner by a resident of St Christophers Close was to prevent exactly this type of development from being proposed and built.

Objection in respect of GNLP2174 - Kirstead Green
The proposed development of 20 properties on an area of 0.76H is objected to on the following grounds.
1) 20 properties on a small area is completely out of context with the rest of the village
2) There is one road in and out of the village which is narrow and barely suitable for the traffic that presently uses it so would not cope well with the extra volume that would be using it in the event of a further 20 properties being built. Living at the south end of the village it is already a lottery getting in and out of our drive and this would make it even more dangerous.
3) Kirstead is a small village with no shops, restaurants, school or hostelries. There is not the infrastructure to support such a development.

Previously there was a suggestion by South Norfolk District Council that several houses should be built on this piece of land and the present owner purchased the land in order to prevent this happening. The proposal for 20 houses is, I believe, a greater number of properties than was suggested then and that was objected to on the grounds that the properties were out of context. This would be even more so.

The site is unsuitable for the porposed 20 houses as that would increase its size by 25%. There are NO amenities, restricted vehicle access to large vehicles from one end of the village. The site has a drainage ditch running alongside which is liable to flooding. Road access could only be gained by removing mature trees and disturbing wildlife. There is no footway in the village at this point so increased traffic would be a danger to those walking.

I strongly object to this proposal because approval of this site will have a huge impact on the small village of Kirstead Green. 20 properties on this small area is completely out of character/context and is a significant increase relative to the number of homes already in Kirstead Green nearly doubling the village.

This is not a good location for further housing not having the infrastructure to support such a development with poor services and no nearby facilities or amenities, the nearest being in Poringland.

There has also been no communication whatsoever with local residents about this proposal.

I have only just been informed of this planning proposal (the evening before the deadline for comments) I feel that there has been no information whatsoever conveyed to our village regarding this proposal and that we have therefore been given very little time to form our arguments. The proposal is disproportionate and inappropriate. It would contravene all basic planning policy as it is in open countryside.

At 20 dwellings this site density is twice the density of the neighboring St Christopher's close. It will not integrate well with the surroundings.
Demand is not strong for homes in Kirstead. 3 houses have been up for sale in the last year without finding buyers.
Adding this site to the GNLP with one day to the consultation deadline is seen as a deliberately antagonistic move designed to eliminate comment.
Given the understandable need for comments to undergo moderation, It is unlikely my comments will go public and be read by anybody else visiting this website before the deadline.

Kirstead is a hamlet and should remain so. It does not have any facilities to support additional dwellings.

Kirstead is a small village and it is not equipped to take any further housing developments. It should remain as a village,there is far to much development taking place and ruining our villages.

I object to the proposed development at Kirstead Green as this is a small village with no infra-structure to support any further dwellings. There is limited access to the village, with the northern access particularly difficult therefore producing a bottleneck at the southern access point. The village has poor drainage and often floods, so with further developments would only make this worse. There are no facilities for children, especially as the playing site also has a building proposal against it. Ecologically this is damaging to the countryside, and especially the habitats of the wild animals that are abundant around the village. During severe winters there is no access out of the village. The village has no amenities to support a further development. Future plans would destroy a quaint, quiet Norfolk village, and would severely devalue the existing properties in the village.

I feel that this development should not go ahead due to the lack of infrastructure to support this increase in traffic and people. I feel this development would have a negative impact on the village as a whole.

I believe that the owner specifically purchased this land as he never wanted any dwellings built behind his house, I find it obsurd that he is now changing his mind. He also has numerous neighbourhood disputes and I believe he is also trying to do this to upset further the people in the village.

there are no facilities for individuals. there would be further strain on an already busy quiet road - there is also only one way in and out to the village.

this rural location does not have easy access to the local school or bus service and I believe would be dangerous for families to get to the bus services on the main road.

I strongly object to the owner applying for permission as I believe his motives not to be for the greater good but to create a bad feeling within the village which I understand he is due to leave!

This site is an area of open countryside and entirely inappropriate for the proposed development. The village has no infrastructure suited to these additional residences. The site access is alongside a beck which takes surface water from the whole village up hill of the site via a gulley, and to build onto a field beside this area would reduce surface water drainage increasing the risk of the flooding in adjacent homes and fields alongside. I therefore object both to the nature of this proposal, and also the way in which it has been hidden here without notification to residents affected.

The site is unsuitable and incapable of supporting this development. The quantity of dwellings proposed is grossly excessive. There is inadequate infrastructure and amenities to support this. This is small rural village and the preservation of wildlife habitats and the natural environment is paramount.

There has been a failure to adequately notify all affected or interested residents of these plans.

Kirstead doesn't have suitable amenities for such a development i.e. no shop/pub, no recreation/play area, roads are lower than 'B' classification.

A number of resulting issues:

1. Lack of amenities increases car use on a country road infrastructure. In recent years a car ended upside down in a field beside the village entry/exit road - uneven with no footpath. Dog walkers, young families use this daily, more traffic (and no correction to the road/path) will increase risk to personal safety.

2. Years of anti-social behaviour/damage to property by children with nowhere suitable for outside recreation - police intervention was needed.

My husband and I feel that if the proposed housing development goes ahead it will change the character of our village. We do not have any services which would benefit from additional housing and the burden on further houses will put sewage at risk not to mention additional pressures for local practices travelling to see patients in isolated areas. We strongly feel that there is no benefit from the use of land to be converted into housing but can see many negative outcomes.

I am concerned about the impact of further housing to a small village and if the area is able to cope with the additional needs for services and traffic. The vicinity road seems unable to manage an increase of up to 40 cars with a 20 home development and there are no immediate services in the area to manage the needs of new occupants

This site does not seem appropriate to hold 20 new homes. The access to the site is limited and there are no facilities or amenities to support this potential development. 20 new homes would almost double the size of the village and change its character beyond recognition.

Agree with previous comments. In addition bus service already struggles for early runs to City affecting school children (already full before reaching Kirstead). Planning application notes benefits to Brooke, we understand Brooke already being extended by additional 120+ dwellings? We understand Brooke Primary school noted as potential for closure? Additional traffic will add to an already 'timely' journey through Poringland - an overstretched infrastructure. Where will this end - people have settled in Kirstead to get away from over developed, over commercialised areas, to enjoy the beauty and tranquillity of the countryside. Previously advised land purchased to prevent this happening.