GNLP2039

Showing comments and forms 1 to 11 of 11

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 17063

Received: 14/11/2018

Respondent: Dr Sarah Harrison

Representation:

Since housing development has been in practice entirely disconnected from the development of services to support normal life, Mulbarton has absorbed as much growth as it can handle. More households will simply further degrade access to services within the village for both current residents and newcomers. Congestion is already an issue at school opening and closing hours; local roads are too small for the traffic they are expected to carry; surgery appointments are difficult to come by; litter and anti-social behaviour are noticeably increasing. None of these aspects will be improved by the addition of new households.

Full text:

Since housing development has been in practice entirely disconnected from the development of services to support normal life, Mulbarton has absorbed as much growth as it can handle. More households will simply further degrade access to services within the village for both current residents and newcomers. Congestion is already an issue at school opening and closing hours; local roads are too small for the traffic they are expected to carry; surgery appointments are difficult to come by; litter and anti-social behaviour are noticeably increasing. None of these aspects will be improved by the addition of new households.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 17206

Received: 19/11/2018

Respondent: Mr robert mills

Representation:

Mulbarton is already suffering as a result of significant expansion in housing over the last 10 years. Further development would stretch the existing services too far. The road access into this site is narrow and unsuitable for further development.

Full text:

Mulbarton is already suffering as a result of significant expansion in housing over the last 10 years. Further development would stretch the existing services too far. The road access into this site is narrow and unsuitable for further development.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 17241

Received: 21/11/2018

Respondent: Anne Rayner

Representation:

Highways access unsuitable - Rectory Lane only wide enough for one vehicle in several points.
Development of this size would be completely contrary to the approved and adopted Neighbourhood Plan.
Infrastructure cannot cope with the existing population.
Countryside access to very well used public footpaths, linking with the Tas Valley Way, would be lost forever.

Full text:

Completely unsuitable.
Rectory Lane is, in several parts, wide enough for only one vehicle. There is frequently a backlog of traffic sitting in Rectory Lane waiting to pass from the other direction. this is exacerbated at school pick up and drop off times when a large volume of vehicles park along Rectory Lane.
A development of this size is completely contrary to the approved and adopted Neighbourhood Plan.
With one large development already taking place in the village and another potentially going ahead, the infrastructure simply cannot cope - doctors, schools and roads are all struggling to cope.
These fields access a series of very well used public footpaths which link with the Tas Valley Way. It would be an absolute travesty to ruin the enjoyment of this countryside for the current residents and future generations.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 17344

Received: 23/11/2018

Respondent: Mr Paul Frost

Representation:

Again to much development has taken place in Mulbarton what a mess this is disjointed planning only when its to late will you stop! The traffic though Swainsthorpe has already reach an excess for road capacity and has caused a dangerous situation for the village with only half the village with pavements walking though our village is stressful.

Full text:

Again to much development has taken place in Mulbarton what a mess this is disjointed planning only when its to late will you stop! The traffic though Swainsthorpe has already reach an excess for road capacity and has caused a dangerous situation for the village with only half the village with pavements walking though our village is stressful.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 17381

Received: 24/11/2018

Respondent: Mr Robin Parkinson

Representation:

The unspecified number of houses probably means maximum density development. The impact of this development will be loss of agricultural land, massive increase in traffic using the C grade road causing gridlock where this traffic seeks to access main road junctions. The impact of the two parcels proposed will be to further increase traffic without any reference to how these problems will be ameliorated or any improvement of the services available within Mulbarton and the surrounding villages.

Full text:

The unspecified number of houses probably means maximum density development. The impact of this development will be loss of agricultural land, massive increase in traffic using the C grade road causing gridlock where this traffic seeks to access main road junctions. The impact of the two parcels proposed will be to further increase traffic without any reference to how these problems will be ameliorated or any improvement of the services available within Mulbarton and the surrounding villages.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 17386

Received: 24/11/2018

Respondent: Mrs Elaine Parkinson

Representation:

Mulbarton is not suitable for any more large scale housing. The local facilities are beyond their capacity, why take them to breaking point? The road infrastructure is inadequate, already traffic through Swainsthorpe creates a 'rat run' to the A140 causing queues and dangerous behaviour.

Full text:

Mulbarton is not suitable for any more large scale housing. The local facilities are beyond their capacity, why take them to breaking point? The road infrastructure is inadequate, already traffic through Swainsthorpe creates a 'rat run' to the A140 causing queues and dangerous behaviour.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 17896

Received: 06/12/2018

Respondent: Mr Michael Srokowski

Representation:

I strongly object to the proposal, which is clearly linked to GNLP0315. The
development would drastically change the character of the open farming
landscape that currently surrounds our property, where we have lived in
rural tranquillity since 2004. The current road infrastructure is wholly
inappropriate and would need to be radically changed to support a
development of this size. Should this development be allowed to proceed, it
would, without doubt increase levels of traffic noise, air pollution, light
pollution and cleanliness, which would force us to change the way we live
our lives and cause a significant loss of amenity.

Full text:

I strongly object to the proposal, which is clearly linked to GNLP0315. The
development would drastically change the character of the open farming
landscape that currently surrounds our property, where we have lived in
rural tranquillity since 2004. The current road infrastructure is wholly
inappropriate and would need to be radically changed to support a
development of this size. Should this development be allowed to proceed, it
would, without doubt increase levels of traffic noise, air pollution, light
pollution and cleanliness, which would force us to change the way we live
our lives and cause a significant loss of amenity.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 18679

Received: 12/12/2018

Respondent: Mr Stuart Bartram

Representation:

Proposed development of Mulbarton sites puts the village under severe threat of ruining the rural aspect of the village and turn it into something comparable to a small town. Rural villages should be protected. There are other better sites within South Norfolk and around Norwich with infrastructure better prepared for developments such as is proposed here.

Full text:

Proposed development of Mulbarton sites puts the village under severe threat of ruining the rural aspect of the village and turn it into something comparable to a small town. Rural villages should be protected. There are other better sites within South Norfolk and around Norwich with infrastructure better prepared for developments such as is proposed here. Rectory Lane is totally unsuitable for this size development and would require a massive installation and/or upgrade of service facilities. Already the village facilities such as the doctor's surgery and school are at capacity and there is no clear indication as to how these proposed new developments would solve this issue - they would only seem to add to the problem.

Support

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 18766

Received: 12/12/2018

Respondent: Norfolk FA

Representation:

Norfolk FA are supportive of residential development in Mulbarton, associated to the proposed S106 agreement which could provide an offsite contribution to support local football provision. Mulbarton Wanderers FC are a growing football club and have plans to try to redevelop their existing facility.

Full text:

Norfolk FA are supportive of residential development in Mulbarton, associated to the proposed S106 agreement which could provide an offsite contribution to support local football provision. Mulbarton Wanderers FC are a growing football club and have plans to try to redevelop their existing facility.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 19245

Received: 14/12/2018

Respondent: Mr Stephen Cartlidge

Representation:

Further development in Mulbarton would simply put increased pressure on an already poor traffic situation in and around the village. The village roads were simply not designed for the current level of population in the village and increasing the residency will just exacerbate the issue. The main road through the village and towards Norwich is also already running at capacity and building more houses and putting in traffic islands will simply make the job of driving past or out of the village even more difficult.

Full text:

Further development in Mulbarton would simply put increased pressure on an already poor traffic situation in and around the village. The village roads were simply not designed for the current level of population in the village and increasing the residency will just exacerbate the issue. The main road through the village and towards Norwich is also already running at capacity and building more houses and putting in traffic islands will simply make the job of driving past or out of the village even more difficult.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 19306

Received: 12/12/2018

Respondent: Mulbarton Parish Council

Representation:

North of Rectory Lane
We dispute the RAG assessment which we does not accurately reflect the constraints and impacts of developing this site
The unclassified roads serving the site are inadequate to serve the proposed development. Development on this site would give rise to conditions detrimental to highway safety.
Limited access to area due to single track road, which has width of 2.8 metres, has a weight limit of 7.5 T and has dwellings either side. Access to either B1113 or A140 poor and both roads running at capacity levels without the extra housing at Long Stratton, Hempnall and Swainsthorpe. See latest CPRE comments re above and particularly section 4.
If 30 per hectare, then 140 houses

Full text:

Please find attached comments from Mulbarton Parish Council on all of the proposed site allocations for the area in and around Mulbarton. We have provided comments against each of the individual sites. We disagree with the proposed site allocations and the underlying assumptions.

Our general view is in line with the comments provided by CPRE Norfolk, which you will be familiar with. Your earlier letter of 29th October 2018 stated that "growth will be carefully planned to ensure it is located in the most appropriate locations and will be supported by appropriate and timely infrastructure provision". We disagree that the proposed site allocations and individual site assessments follow this approach.

See attached file.

Attachments: