GNLP2041

Showing comments and forms 1 to 30 of 35

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 16972

Received: 08/11/2018

Respondent: Mrs Carol Thorpe

Representation:

We need to keep Tivetshall as a village not a town so the less building is done the better.

The roads are insufficient for more traffic.

The bends are sharp and getting more dangerous.

School buses are coming through.

More villagers will only increase the problem.

Agricultural vehicles are getting bigger and lorrys are increasing causing major havoc for pedestrians.

Drainage and Water Pressure is insufficient

Access in general is very poor

Full text:

We need to keep Tivetshall as a village not a town so the less building is done the better.

The roads are insufficient for more traffic.

The bends are sharp and getting more dangerous.

School buses are coming through.

More villagers will only increase the problem.

Agricultural vehicles are getting bigger and lorrys are increasing causing major havoc for pedestrians.

Drainage and Water Pressure is insufficient

Access in general is very poor

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 17221

Received: 20/11/2018

Respondent: Mrs Helen Burton

Representation:

The proposed area would double the size of the village and a site this site is neither needed nor wanted. The village has no facilities or employment opportunities and to increase it by such a size as the proposed site indicates would be a disaster for all concerned.

Full text:

The proposed area would double the size of the village and a site this site is neither needed nor wanted. The village has no facilities or employment opportunities and to increase it by such a size as the proposed site indicates would be a disaster for all concerned.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 17566

Received: 01/12/2018

Respondent: Mr Norman Shilling

Representation:

I object to this development for the following reasons:
1. Inadequate roads.This area is only serviced by Narrow Farm Roads.
2. Inadequate sewerage.The system is already overloaded and frequently has blockages.
3. Inadequate water pressure.The water pressure is inadequate for those already living here and will not support any more demand.
4. There is no public transport.
5. There are no life support facilities such as shops or other services.
6.

Full text:

I object to this development for the following reasons:
1. Inadequate roads.This area is only serviced by Narrow Farm Roads.
2. Inadequate sewerage.The system is already overloaded and frequently has blockages.
3. Inadequate water pressure.The water pressure is inadequate for those already living here and will not support any more demand.
4. There is no public transport.
5. There are no life support facilities such as shops or other services.
6.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 17585

Received: 02/12/2018

Respondent: Mr and Mrs Andy and Carol Paterson

Representation:

1. Access - no stipulation on plans as to where access to the site would be - cannot be into Star Lane, village roads are inadequate to cope with extensive housing and number of additional cars. Potential for a rise in accidents.
2. Less drainage and more concrete could cause more flooding issues.
3. No information on how many properties would be planned.
4. Lack of facilities in village, no public transport, no shops etc.
5. Broadband cannot cope now - would grind to halt with more houses.

Full text:

1. Access - no stipulation on plans as to where access to the site would be - cannot be into Star Lane, village roads are inadequate to cope with extensive housing and number of additional cars. Potential for a rise in accidents.
2. Less drainage and more concrete could cause more flooding issues.
3. No information on how many properties would be planned.
4. Lack of facilities in village, no public transport, no shops etc.
5. Broadband cannot cope now - would grind to halt with more houses.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 17653

Received: 08/11/2018

Respondent: Mrs Carol Thorpe

Representation:

Sharp beds on Rectory Road which are extremely hazardous/

No pavements and no faciltiies.

Internet connection is awful.

Drainage is poor flooding is an issue.

Water pressure is a problem.

Increased school buses going through village although needed for children will have a major impact if the village is enlarged.

There is no mains gas

Sewerage is tight and toilets etc get blocked easily

This is a historical and rural village.

There are Bats nesting in various places and there are great crested newts in the ponds as well as a Roman villa remains and the historical Ruin church of St Mary.

The transport links are poor and if more houses are built and everyone has another car this will endanger the lives of the existing villages and walkers that already use the village.

Full text:

Re the above sites I strongly object to the proposed plans due to the following reasons

Sharp beds on Rectory Road which are extremely hazardous given the amount of buses, lorrys and vehicles using it as a cut through.

No pavements due to the rural and size of the hamlet/village and no faciltiies.

Internet connection is awful so would not service any more development or needs of younger residents

Drainage is poor flooding is an issue.

Water pressure is a problem.

Increased school buses going through village although needed for children will have a major impact if the village is enlarged.

There is no mains gas

Sewerage is tight and toilets etc get blocked easily

This is a historical and rural village.

There are Bats nesting in various places and there are great crested newts in the ponds as well as a Roman villa remains and the historical Ruin church of St Mary.

The transport links are poor and you need a car as the bus links to Norwich means you have to walk nearly a mile to catch a bus, therefore people without cars or disability issues would find it difficult and if more houses are built and everyone has another car this will endanger the lives of the existing villages and walkers that already use the village.

Once of the sites I have also been led to believe was originally common land so should never be built on as should be used for the purposes of the villagers.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 17670

Received: 15/11/2018

Respondent: X Paul&Sally Lovett

Number of people: 2

Representation:

Issues raised include: A140, Commuting Location, Road Through Village, Public Transport, Sales of New Properties, Water Pressure / Sewage, Electricity / Gas, Ditches, Broadband, Doctors / Dentists / Hospitals, Schools, shops / supermarkets / amenities, Wildlife / Public Footpath and Location.

Full text:

Re: Plots GNLP2103, GNLP2041, GNLP2042 including GNLP0317, 0318, 0319

Listed below are points and where relevant any comments in relation to the above sites for consultation development within the villages of Tivetshall.
The Tivetshall villages are rural villages and have been for a long period of time, the infrastructure is not in place and therefore we personally feel that all the below comments contribute towards reasons for NOT putting these plans forward for any further action.
* A140
Junction into the village has poor accessibility in and out
Turning Right out of the village during the busy periods such as rush hour, it is quicker to go left, round the roundabout and back towards Diss as the A140 is ever increasing in volume of traffic. The speed of the traffic makes it difficult to turn right out of the junction.
Turning left into the village from the Direction of Diss to Norwich, the junction is very tight and on several occasions the following vehicle/s either brake very hard, or swerve out to overtake the turning vehicle heading into the path of oncoming traffic, accidents have occurred and with the proposal of extra housing this is a potential serious accident waiting to happen.
* Commuting Location
Commuting to Norwich from the Tivetshalls is very timely with the single carriageway of the A140, heavy traffic and frequent accidents this could deter potential buyers.
Commuting to Wymondham / Attleborough etc - it would be expected that village traffic travels along A140, across A47 and then A11 but from experience / knowledge people drive through village and join onto the B1134 - the village road is single track in many places therefore any additional traffic would cause significant disruption / road safety concerns.
* Road Through Village
The road through the village is single track in many places, the corners are blind, there are no paths, no street lights. There are no notable passing places for 2 way traffic. On occasions residents park on the street which causes congestion at peak times with 2 way traffic. Residents currently walk, exercise dogs, cycle through village and the current traffic flow is dangerous, so the potential of extra properties would result in congestion and possible accidents, on several occasions whilst walking through village we have had to jump onto people's lawns to avoid being contacted when 2 vehicles are passing in different directions. (We do wear High Vis when dusk / dark but this is sometimes ignored, but many residents do not and dark clothed people are simply just not visible) The road is just wide enough for farm / agricultural machinery but in places they encroach onto peoples land as road to narrow, therefore the additional construction vehicles that would be required for any developments would cause a huge disruption / impact on the village road/s.
* Public Transport
Public Transport is very limited and very far between and mainly has to be caught from the A140 at the top of the village which requires walking through the village - refer to the previous heading Road Through Village.
* Sale of New Properties
Currently there are 5 properties up for sale in the Tivesthalls that I know of (possibly more, these have been empty / for sale for several months so is Tivestshall a desired location for potential future purchasers?
* Water Pressure / Sewage
The current water pressure is diabolical, when showering if someone else in the property flushes the toilet, switches on the washing machine ... the pressure drops so you get scolded by the increase of hot water or it trickles out the shower head.
The Sewage system is very dated and at times does not cope with the current amount of properties in the village - no need to explain the implications / issues!
The drainage of any excess of water is very poor in wet weather - from experience when we have heavy rain we have had to lift man hole cover in our drive way to assist with lowering the height of the water level to prevent flooding.
Any potential future properties considered the whole infrastructure of water, drainage / sewage would need serious investment - not just for new properties but for existing ones also.
* Electricity / Gas
The Electricity supply is dated in the Tivetshalls and is prone to power cuts in bad weather conditions.
There currently is no gas in the village.
* Ditches
The Ditches through the village need constant maintenance to keep them clear as they are all prone to filling / flooding when wet weather conditions persist.
My garden has on several occasions has partially flooded due to over flowing ditches and high water levels - poor drainage of the surrounding ground / area.
Additional housing would only cause more drainage issues
* Broadband
The Internet speeds are very poor in the Tivetshalls, currently there is plans for a Community funded Broadband but I believe this is still seeking investment.

* Doctors / Dentists / Hospitals
All local Doctors surgeries are already fit to bursting with minimum 3 week waits for routine
appointments. There are no local Dentists Accepting NHS patients. The nearest Hospital is the Norfolk & Norwich which is approx. 25 miles away
* Schools
All the local popular primary schools are full, the village primary school is relatively small and possibly could cope with some new admissions but again the road infrastructure prevents it being safe to walk children to school and parking near the school is relatively tight.
The local High Schools - Long Stratton (4 miles), Harleston (7 miles), Diss (8 miles) are all a distance away which requires children to catch buses from the village to and from school Currently children catch the buses from outside Roger Martins Garage which is absolute carnage in the mornings at 7:45am with parents driving up to drop the children off, children crossing the road to the buses, there would be no chance a child could walk from the bottom of the village to the bus stop at the top of the village without the risk of being injured - Again refer to Road Through Village
* Shops / Supermarkets / Amenities
There are no shops in the village, the nearest small convenience shops are located in Pulham Market (2.5 miles), Dickleburgh (3 miles) or Long Stratton ( 4 miles) The nearest Supermarkets are either in Diss (8 miles) of Norwich (16 miles) There are no facilities within the Tivetshalls other than a village Post Office that has basic General Post Office Facilities and sells a few cards. There is one public house situated on the Main A140 and the Village Hall which holds small village events.
* Wildlife / Public Footpaths
There is significant wildlife in the Tivetshalls, any significant developments would be detrimental to them. We frequently walk the public footpaths which from the plans are bordering, if not on some of the proposed sites which would affect natural habitats. We have witnessed, owls, bats, squirrels, rabbits, deer, birds of prey, birds, butterflies, frogs, toads, newts, ducks, pheasants, rabbits, hares and many other species.
* Location
The reason for purchasing our house was based on the Location, being rural with views of the countryside, no light pollution, no noise pollution, the distance away from the hustle and bustle of town / city life. A small (less than 20) residential properties possibly would fit in with the ethos of the village but anything large scale would not be in keeping.
* Conclusion
All in all we personally feel that the infrastructure and location in the Tivetshalls would not sustain any large building / housing developments and as such should be ruled out of any consultations where major / large scale development would be considered and trust all the above comments will be taken into consideration.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 17712

Received: 04/12/2018

Respondent: Joanne Powell

Representation:

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.

Full text:

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.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 17737

Received: 17/11/2018

Respondent: B.T & G.M Morris

Representation:

We have no Objection in principal to houses being built in amongst existing houses in the Village, where there are quite a lot of fill in spaces. But not to build these enormous Estates as suggested. Certainly not to build behind existing houses. What are needed are starter homes for the young and retirement bungalows. To free up some existing properties to local families. Where the young and elderly do not have to move away from their roots. Instead of Executive properties which out price local people,
We have chosen to live in a small village which had been classified as Hamlet. Even the Council's expense of erecting expensive oak posts denoting 'This is a quiet lane'. To add 'Housing Estates' would completely change this picturesque village. Since the opening of the Pullham crossroads roundabout. Tractors and through traffic are using the Village continuously as a run through. Which these tiny single track lanes cannot sustain and is an accident waiting to happen. Further large development can only add to this danger.

Full text:

We have no Objection in principal to houses being built in amongst existing houses in the Village, where there are quite a lot of fill in spaces. But not to build these enormous Estates as suggested. Certainly not to build behind existing houses. What are needed are starter homes for the young and retirement bungalows. To free up some existing properties to local families. Where the young and elderly do not have to move away from their roots. Instead of Executive properties which out price local people,
We have chosen to live in a small village which had been classified as Hamlet. Even the Council's expense of erecting expensive oak posts denoting 'This is a quiet lane'. To add 'Housing Estates' would completely change this picturesque village. Since the opening of the Pullham crossroads roundabout. Tractors and through traffic are using the Village continuously as a run through. Which these tiny single track lanes cannot sustain and is an accident waiting to happen. Further large development can only add to this danger.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 17875

Received: 06/12/2018

Respondent: Mr Robert Alleguen-Porter

Representation:

Access is by single track
No mains gas
Mo main sewage
Very poor water pressure
Would change the whole feel of the village
Wildlife would be lost, Bats, newts, buzzards, Field fairs, Sky larks.

Full text:

The proposal refers 'taking access from School Road'. At this point the road narrows to single track. Assuming the average of two vehicles per property minimum this would cause a high level of traffic up a single track road or past the primary school where the majority of pupils and accompanying parents cross over the road as pedestrians to access the school.

There is no mains gas in the parish. The mains sewerage system flows into a holding tanks either at the corner of Bonds Road, and Ram Lane or the corner of Green Lane and Hall Road. Before pumping to Dickleburgh It fails frequently and results in raw effluent backing up into the nearby properties, and into the land drainage ditches. Several properties currently use a Klargister system and if and when the need to update the residents may take up the right to connect to the main sewer. Increasing its flow. Very low water pressure is already experienced by many householders residing in The Street currently. In as much as it rarely reaches showers on first floor of properties.

Any development of the whole site would completely change the character of the parish with its linear structure with all existing properties adjoining open farmland. There are public rights of way across the proposed site and this facility is used regularly by residents exercising their dogs. The circular walk to Pullham is adjacent. All of these currently traverse open farm land. There are ponds on the site and in addition to the flooding issue and requirement for extensive drainage arrangements, the fauna and flora which inhabits needs to be accommodated.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 17924

Received: 30/11/2018

Respondent: Christopher Lambert

Representation:

1) The sites have been designated agricultural land for over 32 years

2) The land forming much of GNLP 2041 was sold in the last 5 years bearing an agricultural designation.

3) With a complete lack of amenities since the closure of the village shop over 20 years ago, there is clearly insufficient - one could say non-existent- infrastructure in the village to support the development of housing on either/any of these sites.

4) The road infrastructure through the village is already quite hazardous and this would be severely augmented by the development of housing on either of these sites, not to mention the danger posed by increased traffic in a village with no pavements with already 5 seriously hazardous turns.

5) The already poor turning off the A140 into Rectory Road would become even more dangerous

Full text:

1) The sites have been designated agricultural land for over 32 years and are part of the Tivetshall green belts; by that long standing designation they are not suitable for housing.

2) The land forming much of GNLP 2041 was sold in the last 5 years bearing an agricultural designation. This plan would mean the new owner of that land would be in line for a very substantial financial reward and may have meant that that sale would have contested quite differently; obviously that is highly unfair and might be subject to a legal challenge.

3) With a complete lack of amenities since the closure of the village shop over 20 years ago (there is now only a post office which i understand is scheduled for closure upon the retirement of the postmistress), there is clearly insufficient - one could say non-existent- infrastructure in the village to support the development of housing on either/any of these sites.

4) The road infrastructure through the village is already quite hazardous and this would be severely augmented by the development of housing on either of these sites, not to mention the danger posed by increased traffic in a village with no pavements with already 5 seriously hazardous turns.

5) The already poor turning off the A140 into Rectory Road would become even more dangerous and would pose a much greater risk of accident if either of these sites was further developed for housing due to the obviously increased traffic demand.

For these reasons alone, development of either GNLP 2041 or GNLP 2042 should be not be considered further. This further applies to the smaller scale proposed developments at GNLP 0317, 0318, 0319 and 2103 though the scale would be less given that these are much smaller in scope.

Comment

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 17997

Received: 03/12/2018

Respondent: mr Donald Carmichael

Representation:

Several comments have been made that include:
- the proposed sites is well in excess of housing that exists in the village grouping
- extremely small sewage disposal facility
- failing electrical power system
- Inadequate telephone
- Poor surface drainage
- Inadequate road structure
- Past refusal of planning authorities
- Access Points
- Poor public transport
- Farm land

Full text:

* In general the proposal for new sites that might be developed for housing in the Tivetshalls is well in excess of the housing that exists in this village grouping and will thus subsume the original village structure and destroy much of the historical identity. To date South Norfolk Planning has taken great care to ensure that the layout of development around the original village greens has been maintained. The proposed developments would destroy this.
* The villages have an extremely small sewage disposal facility, which has failed on a regular basis since installation, and can barely cope with the addition of the existing small housing developments which have been allowed to occur, let alone housing development on the proposed scale.
* Similarly the electrical power system, being a 240 Volt circuit, is already one that regularly fails.
* Telephone network in many parts of the villages continues to be wholly inadequate to support broadband, to the extent that the villagers are now undertaking their own scheme, which is not designed for this size of development.
* Water pressure in these villages and the surrounding area is extremely poor and does not have the capacity, nor the leak integrity, to be upgraded for such a number of houses.
* Land surface drainage is poor throughout the villages, with many historical ditches being piped and backfilled to allow for increased field continuity, and these pipes and road crossings are regularly blocked due to vegetation, etc. For instance approximately one half of site GNLP 2041 was originally 5 fields, which included many ditches and a field pond all of which contribute to increased difficulty in land drainage through the very few remaining open ditches. Development on the scale proposed could put at risk the existing houses of the village, both modern and ancient.
* The road infrastructure is already inadequate for the traffic generated within the villages, when shared between delivery vehicles, farm equipment and private cars. Road widths have slowly increased, not by design but by erosion of the verges, due to the use of heavy vehicles. This has then been filled and tarmaced in a manner that causes large amounts of ponding throughout the villages.
* Over the last 15 years a number of small housing developments have been proposed, such as on Bonds Road, and refused by planning authorities, due to the inadequate road infrastructure.
* The main access points from GNLP 2041 and 2042, onto The Street and Rectory Road, being the main route through the village, and School Road / Star Lane, are wholly inadequate to cope with a high volume of traffic, both due to blind corners and the narrowness of these roads. Star Lane in particular would need to be completely redeveloped.
* Access from Tivetshall St Mary to the A140 is already extremely difficult, due to the increasingly high volume of traffic on this main trunk road. A 5 minute delay to gain access is quite common. The A140, as it has never been dualled, could not cope with further traffic on the scale proposed for our villages, let alone all the other developments in other South Norfolk villages.
* GNLP 2041 access onto School Road/ Star Lane would then decant its traffic onto the B1134. This road has several difficult corners and an area which frequently floods, next to GNLP2128, before meeting the Pulham roundabout and any additional traffic on this road would again create significant congestion on the A 140.
* Public transport servicing is extremely poor, to almost non-existant, with the villages access points to bus routes being without exception on narrow roads with no public pavements. Especially on wet dark winter days school children and adults, both young and elderly, seeking to use public transport are significantly at risk from these unlit heavily ponded narrow roads, as they cannot walk on the verges.
* All these aspects of infrastructure, but especially that of increased vehicle traffic will be extremely detrimental to the environment of a rural ribbon village development, such as the Tivetshalls. Not only will this create noise pollution in what is a very quiet area, but it will also create significant risks on the narrow road infrastructure and lead to a very significant increase in air pollution in this area.
* In using prime farm land within these 2 small villages, to build significant further housing, in an area which has extremely poor transport infrastructure would appear completely contrary to our nations's policy, that needs to improve its self-sufficiency in delivery of farmed products. Further, the lack of public transport facilities, requires at least one vehicle per new house, if not two, for people to be able to access schools, workplace, shopping etc. This in itself is totally contrary to central government policy to reduce our dependence on private transport. Even if electric cars eventually become the norm, the electricity requires generation and transmission and as said earlier, these villages system would not be competent for such a high draw down.
* We note that there are comments about developers taking some responsibility for infrastructure improvement. We also note that comments have been made by our local representatives suggesting a staggered development. In neither case does this guarantee the assurances of infrastructure are actually provided and developers are notorious for eventually omitting these from their plans. Staggered development would allow them to avoid any infrastructure improvements at all, the worst of all worlds.
* However, sites 2103, 0317, 0318 and 0319, might be appropriate for low density developments and affordable housing as they are peripheral to the core of the villages, have some immediate services available to them, however inadequate, and would thus not cause excessive disruption to the villages as a whole. That said, lessons should be learnt from the development of 4 affordable houses on the Street a few years ago, where significant disruption to traffic flow through the village was created over a fairly prolonged period, with apparently no control over the developer's activities.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 18028

Received: 07/12/2018

Respondent: Denise Leonard

Representation:

Access issues on single track roads, one containing a ford which sometimes blocks access.
Safety concerns with poor visibility and narrow roads.

Full text:

Roads into and out of the village are narrow and not suitable for extra traffic. Single track with limited passing places on two exit roads and a ford on one of them.

Safety issues for pedestrians and vehicles particularly School Road with poor visibility and narrowness of roads.

No public transport through the village. The A140 service is inadequate for commuting. The long walk home from the bus stop to the furthest properties would be hazardous especially in poor light and bad weather.

An estate-type development would be out of keeping with the character of the village. Linear development of single storey dwellings would be more suitable.

There is a footpath through the site and any development would result in loss of publicly accessible open space. Even if a path remained its nature would have been altered.

Low water pressure is currently a problem for many households and more properties would worsen the situation.

There have been flooding problems in School Road so major improvements would be required to prevent further flooding issues.

Broadband speeds are appalling and would deteriorate further if the site were to be developed.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 18035

Received: 07/12/2018

Respondent: Denise Leonard

Representation:

All roads in/out of village are narrow, some single track with limited passing places, one has a ford.
Safety issues for pedestrians and vehicles. Junction of School Road particularly, with poor visibility, a bend and narrow roads.
No public transport through village. The long walk from bus stop to furthest home is hazardous especially in poor conditions.
Estate-type development is out of character of village which is linear.
Public Footpath would no longer give access to open space.
Water pressure is low for many households. Major improvements required.
Broadband speed appalling.
Flooding issues in School Road. Major improvements required.

Full text:

All roads in/out of village are narrow, some single track with limited passing places, one has a ford.
Safety issues for pedestrians and vehicles. Junction of School Road particularly, with poor visibility, a bend and narrow roads.
No public transport through village. The long walk from bus stop to furthest home is hazardous especially in poor conditions.
Estate-type development is out of character of village which is linear.
Public Footpath would no longer give access to open space.
Water pressure is low for many households. Major improvements required.
Broadband speed appalling.
Flooding issues in School Road. Major improvements required.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 18294

Received: 10/12/2018

Respondent: Mr Eric Kirby

Representation:

Very limited direct traffic access onto and from existing roads surrounding the site in land ownership. Other routes are privately owned.

Sewage / water systems to village already over subscribed. Increased risk of local flooding - some already apparent.

BT phone and broadband facilities currently inadequate - will impact further.

Limited village social facilities (Primary School and Post Office, which will be closing upon retirement of post mistress)

Local medical facilities already over-subscribed

There are no public transport facilities through village. Closest serve A140 only.

Loss of agricultural land.

Major disruption to village during construction.

Full text:

GNLP 2041

Outside of the contained village development boundary.

Limited access to vehicle traffic routes. Ownership land only accesses directly onto The Street (to the west) and/or to School Road / Star Lane (to North-east). Star Lane access to B1134 is severely limited (part single track) although providing most direct route to A140. Extra traffic onto School Road is not appropriate and a danger to child pedestrians. The Street is two lane (barely) but will impact on traffic flow through the village to an unsustainable level. All other possible road access routes pass through private land in the ownership of Thorander (onto Rectory Rd); Rose Farm / Rose Barn (onto Rectory Rd) and via Tivetshall House (also onto Rectory Rd).

We have been told previously that Tivetshall sewage systems are already at capacity. We already experience local flooding in The Street following limited development of further housing (2017-18). This scheme would have far greater impact.

Water supply within the village, already with limited pressure, will be made worse. BT systems are also stretched with broadband speeds unacceptable - will be made worse.

There is a sparsity of facilities in the village apart from Primary School, Village Hall and owner occupied Post Office. Post Mistress is due to retire shortly, so then that facility will close.

There are no public transport facilities to or from the village apart from those directly servicing the A140

Doctors surgeries are already over-subscribed at Pulham and Long Stratton.

There would be a need for additional social facilities to cope with this size development.

There would be mayor disruption in village during construction with heavy traffic, plant and machinery.

Loss of good agricultural land.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 18295

Received: 10/12/2018

Respondent: Diane Goodwin

Representation:

I am adamant that this site is not suitable for the planning of houses. This field reaches up to my garden and when the property was too bright we brought the home assured that there would be no building in this field. I overlook properties at the front of the house.
As a pedestrian I find that walking up the street has become more and more dangerous. The form machinery has become larger and wider for this narrow road. In the winter the street has water flooded from the fields, on each side which means one has to walk in the centre of the road. The road has pot holes which have been patched up but a year later they still have to be mended again . There is no public transport to take you our of the village and I have to use a taxi to get anywhere.
Walking to the post office this morning, this morning there was a jam of 3 horses, 2 were free and on each side huge farm vehicles wanting to pass- but thee was no way. I was stuck in the middle with more traffic coming round the corner.

This peaceful area will be ruined by what you intend to do.

Full text:

I am adamant that this site is not suitable for the planning of houses. This field reaches up to my garden and when the property was bought we were assured that there would be no building in this field. I overlook properties at the front of the house.
As a pedestrian I find that walking up the street has become more and more dangerous. The form machinery has become larger and wider for this narrow road. In the winter the street has water flooded from the fields, on each side which means one has to walk in the centre of the road. The road has pot holes which have been patched up but a year later they still have to be mended again . There is no public transport to take you our of the village and I have to use a taxi to get anywhere.
Walking to the post office this morning, there was a jam of 3 horses, 2 were free and on each side huge farm vehicles wanting to pass- but there was no way. I was stuck in the middle with more traffic coming round the corner.

This peaceful area will be ruined by what you intend to do.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 18391

Received: 10/12/2018

Respondent: Mrs Marion Playford

Representation:

This site if developed would change the character of Tivetshall St. Mary forever. It would be intrusive to other properties, no major facilities to cope with a large development and it is prime agricultural land. To make this viable there would have to be large investment in sewers, roads etc. and that alone would destroy the character of such a small village.

Full text:

This site if developed would change the character of Tivetshall St. Mary forever. It would be intrusive to other properties, no major facilities to cope with a large development and it is prime agricultural land. To make this viable there would have to be large investment in sewers, roads etc. and that alone would destroy the character of such a small village.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 18404

Received: 10/12/2018

Respondent: Ros Hill

Representation:

Size of proposed development is out of scale & character with the village
Loss of privacy and amenity for properties adjoining site
Insufficient infrastructure
Roads are not adequate to cope with additional demand
Inadequate utilities and services
Prime arable land should be retained
Open spaces used for residential amenity should be protected
Wildlife considerations

Full text:

This very large site is wholly unsuitable for development, it is totally out of scale with the existing settlements within the village and out of character with the current linear style of residential development. A development of this nature would permanently change the village.
The local road network is not adequate to provide safe access to a site of that size, nor cope with the additional amount of traffic a site of that size would bring. Developing this site would result in properties in The Street and Rectory Road being overlooked and a loss of their privacy and amenity.
In a rural village like Tivetshall our residential amenity is centred on the beautiful walks we can enjoy and the wild open spaces we have access to. This site has a public footpath running across it and this is frequently used by parishioners and ramblers. We would not wish to lose access to and the enjoyment of this open space.
This open landscape supports a wide variety of wildlife and is adjoining mature woodland, with a number of ponds also in the vicinity. In my view an environmental impact assessment would need to be carried out for this site.
This land is currently used for arable farming and should be retained for that purpose.
There is not sufficient infrastructure in place to accommodate residential development of this scale; the roads are narrow and access to main routes would be along these by ways, the nearest bus route would be along the A140 and this only offers an infrequent service and there is no convenience store within walking distance. Utilities are not currently able to cope with demand, there is low water pressure in The Street and sewerage treatment would need considerable development.

The junctions of Rectory Road and Ram Lane with the A140 are already dangerous, especially when turning right out of these roads towards Diss or when turning right into these roads off the A140 from the Norwich direction. Increasing traffic at these junctions would exacerbate the danger unless steps were taken to mitigate the risks.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 18437

Received: 11/12/2018

Respondent: Mr Nigel Towner

Representation:

My concern is if there is continuing development the natural habitat and wildlife which is little left will be even more diminished. Hedges taken out in the 60's the flora and fauna changed, it is only now 40 years later hedges have been re-established and flora and fauna is now returning especially wild birdlife. This has equal importance as housing particular as this would change the character of Tivetshall St. Mary forever. As site 2042 amenities would have to be estblished and road network would not cope with extra increase of traffic.

Full text:

My concern is if there is continuing development the natural habitat and wildlife which is little left will be even more diminished. Hedges taken out in the 60's the flora and fauna changed, it is only now 40 years later hedges have been re-established and flora and fauna is now returning especially wild birdlife. This has equal importance as housing particular as this would change the character of Tivetshall St. Mary forever. As site 2042 amenities would have to be estblished and road network would not cope with extra increase of traffic.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 18445

Received: 11/12/2018

Respondent: Ms Bobby Gardiner

Representation:

This field would destroy the character of Tivetshall St. Mary forever. It is good agricultural land for growing crops here in South Norfolk and should be rejected. The facilities are not here in the village and it would cause major upheaval to the sewage and road network. It would destroy the outlook for existing dwellings and become a dormitory of commuters to Norwich again plying more traffic onto the A140. The area abounds with wildlife and this should be taken into consideration.

Full text:

This field would destroy the character of Tivetshall St. Mary forever. It is good agricultural land for growing crops here in South Norfolk and should be rejected. The facilities are not here in the village and it would cause major upheaval to the sewage and road network. It would destroy the outlook for existing dwellings and become a dormitory of commuters to Norwich again plying more traffic onto the A140. The area abounds with wildlife and this should be taken into consideration.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 18486

Received: 11/12/2018

Respondent: Mrs Marilyn O'Sullivan

Representation:

This site would change the character of the village of Tivetshall St. Mary forever. As said on the other site GNLP2042 there are no facilities, nor could the sewage system cope with such a large amount of housing. It should be rejected on the grounds that this is prime farmland here in South Norfolk and apart from anything else the road network could not support this. Traffic would just add to the daily commute to Norwich. Why build on what is prime agricultural land.

Full text:

This site would change the character of the village of Tivetshall St. Mary forever. As said on the other site GNLP2042 there are no facilities, nor could the sewage system cope with such a large amount of housing. It should be rejected on the grounds that this is prime farmland here in South Norfolk and apart from anything else the road network could not support this. Traffic would just add to the daily commute to Norwich. Why build on what is prime agricultural land.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 18495

Received: 11/12/2018

Respondent: Mr Lee Novak

Representation:

Prime arable farmland, this crowded island cannot feed itself, needs food production security.

Distant from jobs, shopping, entertainment in the cities - increased traffic, pollution, global warming.

GNLP itself says "out of scale with the existing village"

Residents selected properties for their rural nature and have right to consistent planning policy, hitherto protecting farmland.

Crossfield footpath and adjacent mature woodland.

Small plots 3017, 3018, 3019, 2103 are sufficient contribution to area housing needs.

A small rural community 15 miles from Norwich is not part of "Greater Norwich" Please do not abuse us to provide the city's housing needs.

Full text:

The promoter of this field gave incorrect answers to 2 questions.

Question 7a - there is a cross field footpath (right of way) running from N to S which bisects the site. This is an important rural amenity for villagers and visiting ramblers, especially in a village without paved sidewalks. A path through a housing estate would be of little recreational value.

Question 7f - land is indeed adjacent to mature woodland, a 2 hectare area (of which I am the owner and have maintained as a rare wildlife refuge within the sterile farming environment) clearly visible on maps and Google aerial view. The inevitable disturbance from noise, light pollution, trespass from people, dogs and cats, would have a negative impact on the many species that currently enjoy an almost undisturbed environment. Owls, bats, muntjack deer, other deer species, woodpeckers and many others.


1 - This field is prime arable land. Planning policy has for decades been that rural farmland was not appropriate for housing development. We are a crowded island that cannot feed itself and the need for food production security is even more important after Brexit.

2 - This is the wrong place for significant new housing - Too far from jobs, shopping and entertainment in the cities - resulting in increased traffic, pollution and global warming.

3 - The proposed developments are of far too large a scale and would fundamentally change the character of the village. A point clearly made in the GNLP new sites document which states "GNLP2041 and 2042 could be considered out of scale with the existing village, and are perhaps less suitable". Additionally citing ecological and townscape impacts.

4 - Residents chose their properties for their rural nature and have a right to reasonably consistent and predictable development policies. Housing development here would seriously diminish the value of many properties both for continued occupation and at resale.

5 - Previously proposed plots 3017, 3018, 3019, together with the newly proposed 2103 represent sufficient contribution of Tivetshall St Mary towards any perceived housing needs in this area.

6 - We are a small rural community 15 miles from Norwich - we are not part of "Greater Norwich" and should not be abused to provide the city's housing needs.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 18569

Received: 12/12/2018

Respondent: Mr Paul Ward

Representation:

Roads unsuitable.
Amenities unsuitable.
Damage to wildlife, including protected species

Full text:

The roads in the area cannot support a large development. As mentioned on other objections, the ford at Star Lane already causes a lot of issues when it frequently floods with cars unable to pass or turn on the country lane. A number of cars break down in the ford whilst trying to pass every year. Further traffic from this development will create a 'rat run' through Star Lane and will be disastrous when the ford is flooded. The other roads in the village have a number of blind bends and the current traffic and speed of makes it very dangerous for people walking or cycling on the roads. The loss of wildlife, including protected species, from the area will be huge, and the nature of the village will change with such a large development. Local schools are near capacity, including the village school with 2 classes for 6/7 years of pupils and the strain added to these from large scale development will cause issues.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 18796

Received: 12/12/2018

Respondent: Mr Andrew Bannister

Representation:

I dont believe such a large area of good arable farm land should be lost to housing development when we have other more suitable areas of waste land to consider.

Full text:

Development of this site, in my view, would destroy the village. Its a too bigger
site for the village infrastructure to support and would ruin a tranquil rural community. Development on such a large scale here should be rejected as i dont believe it would actually benefit the parish and surrounding community. It would just be development for developments sake to benefit only the land owner. We have
an increasing shortage of good farmable arable land so please, lets keep on farming what we have & not destroy it. We have plenty of usable areas of waste land / plots that should be considered instead.

Comment

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 18883

Received: 07/12/2018

Respondent: Mr Paul Playford

Representation:

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.

Full text:

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.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 18900

Received: 10/12/2018

Respondent: Mr and Mrs Paul & Frana Dack

Representation:

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.

Full text:

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.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 18908

Received: 13/12/2018

Respondent: LYNDA SULLIVAN

Representation:

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.

Full text:

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.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 18926

Received: 10/12/2018

Respondent: Tim Ward

Representation:

A number of concerns raised for the Tivetshalls, particularly GNLP2041/2042/2103/2128

See Full Text

Full text:

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

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 18971

Received: 11/12/2018

Respondent: Mr Lee Novak

Representation:

I wish to object, in the strongest possible terms, to the proposed designation for development of 2 large fields of arable farmland in Tivetshall St Mary.
I object to GNLP 2041 (East of village centre) which adjoins 200m of the Western boundary of my property.
I object to GNLP 2042 (South of Rectory Rd) which adjoins the entire 140m Southern boundary of my property.
I have (relatively) no major objection to the smaller proposals 0317 0318 0319 2103 other than the increased road traffic along Rectory Rd - any objection appears minor compared to my absolute opposition to development of the 2 large fields of farmland. I suggest that these smaller plots, by themselves, represent a more than adequate contribution by Tivetshall St Mary to regional housing needs.
See full text of submission

Full text:

OBJECTION TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ON FARMLAND IN TIVETSHALL ST MARY
I wish to object, in the strongest possible terms, to the proposed designation for development of 2 large fields of arable farmland in Tivetshall St Mary.
I object to GNLP 2041 (East of village centre) which adjoins 200m of the Western boundary of my property.
I object to GNLP 2042 (South of Rectory Rd) which adjoins the entire 140m Southern boundary of my property.
I have (relatively) no major objection to the smaller proposals 0317 0318 0319 2103 other than the increased road traffic along Rectory Rd - any objection appears minor compared to my absolute opposition to development of the 2 large fields of farmland. I suggest that these smaller plots, by themselves, represent a more than adequate contribution by Tivetshall St Mary to regional housing needs.
I would first wish to point out that the promoter of GNLP 2041 gave incorrect answers to 2 questions.
Question 7a - there is indeed a cross field footpath (right of way) running from N to S which bisects the site. This is an important rural amenity for villagers and visiting ramblers, especially in a village without paved sidewalks. A path through a housing estate would be of little recreational value.

Question 7f - land is indeed adjacent to mature woodland, a 2 hectare area (of which I am the owner and have maintained as a rare wildlife refuge within the sterile farming environment) clearly visible on maps and Google aerial view. The inevitable disturbance from noise, light pollution, trespass from people, dogs and cats, would have a negative impact on the many species that currently enjoy an almost undisturbed environment. Owls, bats, muntjack deer, other deer species, woodpeckers and many others.
GENERAL OBJECTIONS
The proposed developments are of far too large a scale and would fundamentally change the character of the village. A point clearly made in the GNLP which states "GNLP2041 and 2042 could be considered out of scale with the existing village, and are perhaps less suitable". Additionally citing ecological and townscape impacts.
Surely this is the wrong place for additional housing - it is far too far from jobs, shopping and entertainment in Norwich or Ipswich or the much smaller town of Diss.
Placing housing here would cause more traffic to the cities - extra pollution and global warming. The dangerous junction from Rectory Road to the A140 has very poor visibility to the left. Turning right off of the A140 is perilous. An increased number of lives would be at risk, not just of villagers but also of passing A140 traffic.
The HELLA suitability assessment, incorrectly states that "no loss of high quality farmland would occur" - these fields are clearly prime arable land. Surely it has been consistent planning policy for decades, that development should not take place on prime agricultural land. We live on an increasingly crowded island that is unable to grow enough food to feed itself. The need for security in food production must be even greater after Brexit.
People make the major decision of where to live based on a reasonable expectation that planning policies will continue without major change. House purchasers have "searches" conducted, because concerns over transformative developments and impairments are a crucial issue. That concept should extend to the longer term as well as the short.
We supposedly live in an age of greater consideration for the different lifestyle choices of citizens - some of us chose to live in a quiet rural environment and it is an abuse to inflict large scale housing development upon us. Living in a remote rural location has disadvantages as well as advantages. Some of us are willing to put up with the disadvantages - but if you take away the advantages, there is no longer any value in being here.
The HUMAN RIGHTS ACT states that we have a right to the "peaceful enjoyment of our property". Citizens must have a right to reasonable consistency and predictability in planning policy. Some dozens of village properties which currently back onto farmland would instead be surrounded by a modern housing estate. In all past local plans, these fields have been considered to be outside the settlement boundary.

Residents of Tivetshall St.Mary reject what seems like a new concept, that as a rural village 15 miles from Norwich, we are part of 'Greater Norwich' and therefore responsible for providing for the city's housing needs. True democracy is local democracy and we have a right to self determination and not to be exploited by a dominant distant city.
PERSONAL OBJECTIONS
I have been resident in the village for 26 years, having searched long for a property fulfilling my strong personal requirement for isolation surrounded by farmland. I just want to live out my later years in peace.
I have the good fortune to occupy a 6 Hectare block of grassland and mature woodland which has always been peacefully surrounded by farmland. GNLP 2041 adjoins my property to the West and GNLP 2042 to the South, threatening the transformation of my property from one of rural peace to one surrounded by housing estates.
These proposed developments would massively diminish the amenity of the property for me and significantly diminish the resale value should I wish to sell and abandon a transformed village.
CRITICISM
I feel I need to criticise the process employed to bring forward these sites for consideration. Where was this "Call for sites" published? It appears mostly to have elicited responses from professional estate agents representing major landowners. It may not have reached smaller landowners who could have more suitable sites available. I for one was completely unaware of the "call" either this current one or one apparently in 2017.

The intent appears to be, to have the maximum of proposals for consideration, without prior filtering as regards to suitability. Hopefully, there is little chance that these large arable fields will be accepted for development, but having them put forward publicly, for considerations which may take years, will have inflicted upon us years of anguish and blight of our properties. Thanks very much!

ALTERNATIVES
I would probably not have put forward any of my land, because I prefer a quiet life and have no wish to become a property developer. But as the owner of grassland fronting Rectory Road, North of the proposed arable field, it would seem that this land was actually more suitable for development and might be less objectionable to other village residents. Previous development has been on the North of the road and offers those properties South facing open views over farmland.
I would consider offering this grassland if it would prevent development of the farmland. Other owners of suitable smaller plots might do the same. Better consultation is required.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 19141

Received: 13/12/2018

Respondent: MR DAVID PENN

Representation:

Roads/amenities not adequate to cope with additional demand of such a large development.

Out of scale and character with the exiting linear development of the village.

Environmental concerns to wildlife.

With the thousands of houses already committed in South Norfolk (10,450) is this development really necessary?

This is a quiet, pretty rural village and this is the reason we moved here. If we wanted to live on an estate surrounded by houses we would have moved to a town. By potentially developing this arable land would change the character of the village forever.

Full text:

Roads/amenities not adequate to cope with additional demand of such a large development.

Out of scale and character with the exiting linear development of the village.

Environmental concerns to wildlife.

With the thousands of houses already committed in South Norfolk (10,450) is this development really necessary?

This is a quiet, pretty rural village and this is the reason we moved here. If we wanted to live on an estate surrounded by houses we would have moved to a town. By potentially developing this arable land would change the character of the village forever.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 19258

Received: 14/12/2018

Respondent: Trevor Julier

Representation:

The current road routes will not support the proposed development. It is already difficult to access the A140 from Rectory Road due to the volume of traffic on this main road. The other access route is only a single track lane. There are no shopping facilities or public transport in Tivetshall. There is no street lighting and only a small section of pavement near to the primary school.
The village is not suitable for such a large expansion.

Full text:

Tivetshall has no local shopping facilities and minimal provision of footpaths, except a small area near the primary school. There are no public transport facilities in the proposed development area. This means that residents have to use their own transport.

The main routes into and out of the village are via Rectory Road from the A140, or Green Lane via the B1134. Neither of these routes have pavements or street lighting.

On the A140, close to the Rectory Road junction, there is a bus stop. This service providing an infrequent (except early morning and evening) service north/south on the busy A140. There are no provisions for pedestrians crossing the A140 to reach the southbound bus stop, which makes travelling to Diss by bus somewhat hazardous.
It is currently very difficult for drivers to turn southwards on to the A140 at this junction, due the volume of northbound A140 traffic. At rush hour, drivers intending to turn south at this junction may have to wait several minutes before a suitable gap in the traffic occurs. Drivers intending to turn north at this junction cannot drive around those waiting to turn south, because the road isn't wide enough. Any increase in the amount of traffic attempting to drive onto the A140 from Rectory Road will exacerbate this issue.

If drivers feel that the Rectory road junction with the A140 has become too difficult to negotiate at busy times of day, there is only one alternative. Star Lane isn't a viable option due to it being a single track lane with almost no passing places, and the presence of the ford. The second option is Green Lane.

Green Lane is a single track lane, mostly speed de-restricted, with few passing places. Local children use this lane to walk to the local primary school or to meet the school bus. Drivers are already sometimes forced to use private driveways to pass opposing traffic, and there is a blind "S" bend 120m south of the junction with the B1134, which can prove quite hazardous. This junction can also be difficult if you are turning eastwards on the B1134 due to the speed of eastbound traffic around the (almost right angle) bend near Beck Green Farm.

Morning rush hour traffic counts on Green Lane, recorded over a 1 week period between the times of 7:30am and 9:00am result in the following averages...

Number of cars driving along Green Lane: 45
Percentage northbound: 62%
Percentage southbound: 38%

The number of times 2 cars met in opposing directions along Green Lane (based on a 1 min 50sec average time to drive the length of the lane) is 12. This figure was derived from the times 2 cars drove past a fixed point, and traced back to see if they would have met each other along Green Lane.

Green Lane clearly doesn't have the capacity to support a large increase in traffic. However, the roundabout at the east end of Station Road/B1134 is a far easier place to join the A140 than Rectory road, so it could be (incorrectly) perceived as being the lesser of two evils (ironically, particularly for those drivers intending to head south on the A140).


Tivetshall currently has about 100 dwellings.

This proposal has no stated number of dwellings proposed but if we look at GNLP2042 (45 dwellings) and increase this number proportionately to the size of this development then this could mean an increase of 200 or more dwellings.


Since the above proposed site will impose a significant increase in traffic on the two access routes, and (as has already been considered on these applications) the percentage of increase in housing is totally out of proportion with the size of the the Tivetshall villages, these proposals should be rejected.