GNLP2128

GNLP2128 - A140/B1134
A garage is being planned for Scole. Is another one really required albeit with retail units?
Whilst appreciating homes need to be built, surely it would be better if homes were built on this site which would then have little impact on Tivetshall St Mary.

Whilst this site is proposing a petrol station and retail units I think it would be better to perhaps do some residential properties along side a couple of small retail units. There is a petrol station being built at Scole and this area could not support another one, but the area could utilise small retail units as there are no local shops. Perhaps building flats above would be an affordable housing option that could also be considered?

I refer to the four new sites which are being proposed for possible development within the villages of Tivetshall St. Margaret and Tivetshall St. Mary.

First of all, I am sure you are aware that the Tivetshalls have no GP practice (our nearest ones being Pulham Market or Long Stratton) and with the amount of building being carried out in and around Long Stratton, it will no doubt put extreme pressure on both practises if there is a considerable build in the Tivetshalls. As it is I am having to wait two weeks to get an appointment (non-urgent) at the Pulham Market practise and the dispensary there is already struggling to keep up with the levels of prescriptions it has to deal with.

Referring to the plans, particularly GNLP2128, now that the recycling centre has closed, it would make good sense to use that site for housing, given its location on the A140 which has a direct route into Norwich with a P & R centre on the roundabout at Harford. Once Long Stratton is bypassed and the roundabout is in situ at the Hempnall Crossroads, housing on The Pulham roundabout site would provide a very efficient commute. Given that a petrol station is proposed on the A143/A140 roundabout at Scole, there is absolutely no reason to site another petrol station on the Pulham roundabout, nor is there need for a shop which will take trade away from both Pulham and Cherry Lane Garden Centre. A shop at the Pulham roundabout is still too far for Tivetshall villagers without a car so helps no-one as there will be an M & S shop on the A143/A140 roundabout at Scole, (useful for motorists travelling towards Norwich) leaving the Pulham shop and Cherry Lane with a reasonable chance of survival.

I am totally opposed to a petrol station and shop at the Pulham roundabout. However, a small housing development would seem to be a far better plan.

I am also totally opposed to plans GNLP2041 and GNLP 2042 as the country lanes in The Tivetshalls are too narrow and windy to cope with the increased traffic brought about, in the first instance, by construction plant and secondly, by the new home owners. The majority of homes now run two+ vehicles and the increased traffic will only add to the wear and tear on the lanes which are already in need of attention. We have very few passing places in the lanes surrounding the villages and with drainage ditches running alongside the grass verges, and nowhere to pull in, it is very hazardous when meeting a vehicle head on. A substantial increase in traffic would almost guarantee accidents, especially in the wet weather or winter time with ungritted, unsalted surfaces to contend with. Perhaps the Council could guarantee these very minor roads would see a gritter on a regular basis if the housing were to go ahead. These two sites need to be thought through very carefully but in my view, both are untenable.

The majority of homes in The Tivetshalls are bungalows. Should any building work within the actual villages (excluding the A140 roundabout) be undertaken, one assumes houses would not be built directly behind bungalows so that current residents are overlooked. If either site 2041 or 2042 goes ahead, bungalows are likely to be looked upon more favourably than houses. One would hope the Committees would appreciate that homeowners in any area do not wish to have their bungalows downgraded when it comes to selling because they are directly overlooked from someone's upstairs window. How would they feel!

I am not averse to building in our village but I am concerned that due consideration may not be given to all aspects and the impact that considerable housing will have on the environment, wildlife, roads, doctors' surgeries, schools and village life in general. This village has no shop, no pub within walking distance (the Old Ram is 1.5++ miles from Tivetshall St. Margaret depending on whether you live near the railway crossing or directly in the village) but we do have a good community spirit and we help each other. With dozens of new dwellings, especially with people who do not 'get' village life, the dynamics will change considerably and that would be disastrous.

Inappropriate to have another fuelling station on this site as one is currently being built at Scole on same road - A140.
A convenience store could adversely affect the local businesses at Pulham Market village, Dickleburgh and at the Cherry Lane Garden Centre.
The location of this site seems ideal for housing for commuters.

Proposal for re-use of the currently un-used Waste Station for a petrol station / retail development would appear in keeping with county requirements and add to pricing competition on the otherwise unpopulated A140 as far as service stations are concerned. The Shell service station is scheduled to close in Long Stratton and a new station here, ideally sited on the Pulham roundabout will not impact on traffic flow and provide for local use as an alternative to current travel into Diss for fuel; a 14 mile round trip.

This site has recently been used as a waste transfer site and is adjacent to the A140 and B1134 with good access, although access could be improved if there was direct access via the roundabout.
The proposal to build a fuel station and retail units has to be questioned as construction on a petrol station and retail units has recently started off the A140 at Scole, just 4.5 miles south of this site. There are already good retail businesses which service TheTivetshalls at Cherry Lane Garden Centre (which also sells convenience goods), Pulham Market Stores, Dickleburgh Stores and Goodies Food Hall. This site is not close enough to nearby villages to provide access to convenience shops without a car and there is no need for a second fuel station in such close proximity.
This site is not within the current settlement boundary for Tivetshall St Mary or St Margaret, nor Pulham Market and development of the site should be limited to light industrial or commercial use rather than for homes.
If the site were to be developed there are a number of mature trees and vegetation surrounding the site which should be retained to protect the wildlife habitat and provide screening from the roads.

Development here would just be more creeping urbanization of the countryside.

Unnecessary additional hazard from entering and leaving traffic.

Only for benefit of passing traffic - no benefit to village - too far to walk to and no pavements, so too dangerous for pedestrians.

The waste transfer station was enclosed and hidden by a thick belt of woodland. Destruction of significant woodland would be required to provide access.

Would reduce the viability of businesses in local towns, damaging the existing local economy.

There is no need for a petrol station every few miles.

I support development of this waste site but would it not be better utilized for housing development.... retail is not really needed & a fuel station is already in operation in Long Stratton....

GNLP2128
This was given permission for a waste transfer station and would be suitable for an ongoing industrial use as it has been in the past. It is questionably not suitable for housing nor retail due to the closeness of the roundabout and for housing would be in an isolated area.
Comment: To be used for semi-industrial use as has been allowed in the past.
GNLP2103
This site could take a small amount of housing as it is near the centre of the village school, village green and village hall and playing field and itÕs facilities.
Comment: No objection if sensitive housing development.
GNLP0317
This would extend Òribbon developmentÓ and would create even more linear development in the Tivetshalls. Object to this site.
GNLP0319/GNLP0318
A sensitive small housing development would enhance this area with possibly a tree belt to give a buffer space to existing bungalows. The site is relatively close to the village school, village green and village hall and playing field facilities.
Comment: No objection if sensitive housing development.

GNLP2041
Such development of this site would change the village forever. It would be not only intrusive to existing properties but completely out of character with the existing village landscape. There are no facilities to cope with such a large development, the agricultural land is part of the Claylands Living Landscape of the South Norfolk District. It is prime agricultural land and has within it a pond and wildlife habitat. Drainage/sewers would not cope with such a development and to make it viable a developer would have to have a large number of dwellings to pay for large infrastructure costs. Roads would not cope and just because near the A140 this would increase commute traffic which on a highway is very much overloaded at present. This should remain as prime farmland for growing crops and this site should be rejected.
Objections:
-Part of the Claylands of South Norfolk
- Development would change the characteristics of the Tivetshalls forever.
- Should remain as prime food growing land.
- Facilites cannot cope with such large development. Such as sewer/roads etc.

GNLP2042
Again such development of this site would change the village character forever. It would be not only intrusive to existing properties but completely out of character with the area. Fadens map (see below) shows clearly that this area was covered by a common from Bonds Road to the A140 and Rectory Road to Ram Lane and on the on all sides there are historical cottages adding character to what is a sensitive rural landscape. Again there are no facilities to warrant such a large development. Drainage, sewers would not cope and there would have to be a large development to allow for this. It should remain as prime agricultural land for growing crops. As above it is part of the Claylands Living Landscape of South Norfolk and should be retained as such. Development would change rural aspect forever and this site should be rejected.
Just because Tivetshall St. Mary is near to the A140 does not mean it has to have large developments such as GNLP2041/42 which will increase a lot of traffic onto what is an overloaded road network. This should remain as prime farmland for growing crops and this site should be rejected.

Objections:
¥ Historically a Common with cottages surrounding the area.
¥ Part of the Claylands of South Norfolk
¥ Development would change the characteristics of the Tivetshalls forever.
¥ Should remain as prime food growing land.
¥ Facilites cannot cope with such large development. Such as sewer/roads etc.

New sites put forward for The Tivetshalls GNLP 2041 - 2042 - 2128

I would like to strongly object to the development of the sites listed above.
I choose to live in a small village over 30 years ago,not a town or any other.
The government and councils never take the blame when things go wrong, such as flooding due to the proposed development of these large amount of new properties ( TARMAC CONCRETE ) covering land which has natural draining.
We are described as a village / hamlet, the council even placed large expensive posts with signage stating quite lanes, restricting large vehicles as well.
My objections to this proposed development is:
l Massive increase in traffic numbers in this village, and major problems for traffic joining and leaving A140, also the higher risk of more accidents at the Rectory Road and Ram Lane junctions, these two junctions already have claimed many victims.
2 Development has been rejected in the past due to the narrow lanes, it was stated roads would have to be splayed and other issues over the roads were raised.
3 Pulham Market Doctors surgery, is under pressure with the current numbers of people they have at the present time.
The local TV Look East ran an item about pressures being put on our rural doctors, the above surgery was interviewed and they were finding it difficult to employ more doctors ( like many others ) result is that we have to wait to get an appointment, please advise how adding many many more patients to this surgery is going to work
4 Hospitals in this and many other regions are also under pressure as in reports every day, breaking point for hospitals is not around the corner its here.
5 The village school was built for as described a village not a larger population.
6 ? Where will food be grown in the future.
I have worked in agriculture for over 50 years, linked with cereal farming. Its shocking to see good quality farm land that provides food for all of us being taken up for building thousands of houses, this is happening all over the country the outlook is very bleak for villages and village life.
I say NO to this proposal, we should not be destroying our lovely county side removing tree, hedges and loosing wild life.

The government tell us we need 20,000 houses every year ? Where are all these homeless people living at the present time.
The future should be looking after our planet and feeding the people on it.


Re: Greater Norwich Local Plan, New sites put forward for the Tivetshalls
GNLP2041, GNLP2042 & GNLP2128
I am opposed to the development of the GNLP plans as listed above.
The Council designated Tivetshall St Mary as a 'Hamlet' as it does not have any amenities and went to considerable expense to install wooden posts with signs stating that various roads around the village were 'Quiet Lanes'
Traffic getting on and off the A140 from the village has difficulties now and more housing would mean more accidents at the junctions. The roads in the village are not made to carry many more vehicles than they do now.
Water pressure in the village is very low.
Patients needing an appointment at the Pulham Surgery are having to wait up to two weeks to see a Doctor if their need is not urgent. How long will they have to wait with more housing?
The land mentioned is agricultural and should stay agricultural. What are we going to do for food in the future if good agricultural land keeps being taken for housing. You should be looking at using sites which have been used before and have not been used for a long time. There are many properties standing empty for months and years and a way should be thought of how they can be used for housing.

Strongly object to removal of much needed area of trees giving benefit to wildlife and the environment.
Access to petrol station on A140 too close to the roundabout, and on the B1134 too close to already dangerous bend

Having reviewed the available literature I have a number of concerns & objections to the proposals put forward for consideration relating to the Tivetshalls, which are listed, in no particular order, below:

* A number of parents/children walk along The Street to the school; these proposals increase the danger to them from traffic, likely to result in accidents, since there is little in the way of pavements
* Horses are ridden along The Street, facing similar issues
* The school will need investment to cope with the sudden increase in pupils (more teachers and other facilities)
* Likely increase in the number of cars travelling to/from & parking at the school
* Impact to high schools in the wider area (presumably they will also have their own expansion plans to deal with?)
* Speeding through village is already an issue at times
* The road infrastructure in/out of the village is not sufficient for the increase in traffic
* What economic benefit will be added to the village from these proposals?
* Affordable housing
o There is no local shop
o Nor local amenities
o Bus services from either A140 or the Maltings are intermittent (e.g. 3 buses to Norwich 7-8 am, then nothing until after 10, then 2.40 pm, then 5.10)
o All residents will therefore require cars, increasing emissions locally, with the potential to affect the health of everyone - and so not really affordable
* Environment
o In addition to the above emissions
o The local soil contains clay, requiring deeper foundations and so more concrete; these proposals will therefore mean thousands of additional tonnes of CO2 being emitted into the atmosphere, remote of these locations
* Will there be a requirement for the sustainability of other building materials to mitigate?
o Where will rainwater run-off go which would have been soaked up by soil?
* What assessments will be made of the increased flood risk?
o Local drainage generally is not adequate to cater for hundreds of additional properties
o What green spaces will be incorporated into plans?
o How will disruption from construction traffic be managed?
o Wildlife
* The previous owner of my property had planning permission denied several times - one reason being that newts were moving to and from the fields covered by GNLP0317/318/319
* Bats use the same fields for feeding
* As do a variety of birds of prey
* At least six hedgehogs use the same fields for passage and/or nesting
o South Norfolk Council's own Environmental team has concerns over contamination in the soil of same fields
o Additional street lighting will be needed for the proposed estates; what assessments and guarantees will be given against light pollution?
* Mains water pressure is already low and certainly not able to cope with the additional load
* The mains sewerage system is likewise inadequate
* BT infrastructure is already near capacity and will need investment
* Where do landowners live and what is the motivation for putting forward their land (esp. large sites which are outwith the extent of village - GNLP2041/2042/2103)?
* Impacts to South Norfolk Council (e.g. bin collections, etc.)
* What amenities/facilities will be provided for increased population (e.g. expanded playing field)?
* Turning at A140 into/out of The Street brings significant risk of accidents
* Access at very busy roundabout for residents (GNLP2128)
* Increased pressure on local services (such as GPs) which are not scaled to cope with the increase
* Impact to local house prices - we chose to live here specifically because of the rural nature of the village and local walks/views

See attachment

I am writing in response to the recent meetings that I attended of our local Parish Council where information was given in regard to the proposed sites for housing development in the villages of Tivetshall St. Margaret and Tivetshall St. Mary.

My comments deal with the unsuitability of most of the proposed sites within the village for the following reasons:

1. The bulk of the habitation of the two villages is located on a single road that connects the A140 at one end to the B1134 at the other. At the St Margaret end the road narrows to a single track road with a few Passing Points and drainage ditches on either side adjacent to the surrounding farmland. This road is most unsuitable for the addition of extra traffic. It is difficult enough when one confronts another vehicle coming the opposite way. This is especially tricky when coming face to face with a farm vehicle involving sometimes considerable reversing and manoeuvring. Access to the village from Star lane is also difficult with the additional hazard of a ford to contend with! The only reasonable access is from the A140 at Rectory Road, but even this turns into a narrower road at the 30mph limit and has several blind bends in it. It is within a short distance of these roads that the proposed sites are located.

2. The sewerage system does have issues with being inefficient at several points throughout the village. Likewise the water supply is not very high pressure and can be a problem at peak times.

3. There is no shop.

4. The two public houses are located at the extreme and opposite ends of the village and for most people a car ride to get them there.

5. Most of the surrounding lanes are designated Quiet Roads and are used frequently by dog walkers, horse riders and cyclists. Plus some of these lanes are in need of attention having been used by farm traffic breaking down the verges and in some instances subsidence.

6. The addition of excess extra housing would change the atmosphere and charm that the village now possesses.

7. The suitability of most of the proposed sites does have to be brought into question, due to the infrastructure, the access and effect on wildlife.

8. On the plus side, there is a School and a very good active Village Hall.

9. There is a proposal to use the old waste disposal site at the Pulham Roundabout for commercial development in the form of a garage (Filling station) and retail premises. I fail to understand why this is necessary as there is a similar site in planning at the Scole A140 Junction. Far better to use the Old waste site for extra housing where there is easy access to the A140 both north and south


I am not averse to the addition of extra housing in our village on a limited basis and I feel that any decisions should be taken with a great deal of consideration and care.

This site should be retained as a semi-industrial site well screened from the area (as it is) and not developed as suggested for a petrol station. Night Lights and entry/exit from the site would be questionable. It was allowed as a semi-industrial site and should be retained as such for that useage.

Please see attached the response from Tivetshall Parish Council in responses to the consultation on the proposed sites under Regulation 18.

Tivetshall Parish Council voted to object to sites GNLP2103, 2041 and 2042.

With regards to GNLP 2128 councillors did not support the development of a fuel station and retails units but agreed the site may lend itself to development of residential dwellings.