GNLP2179

Wicklewood is a small community with no local amenities. The road network is not designed for lots of traffic and the local school is already over subscribed. It has already been identified that the site posses a flood risk and building on this land might cause further flooding elsewhere.

This site would seem to be very suitable and easy to utilise except that the drainage system is too small and the adjoining road and gardens around often flood in wet weather. The proposed land is at the lowest point and nearby houses can be seen to have have sandbags permanently at the end of their drives to prevent flooding of drives or property. The road is narrow and next to a hump back bridge so visibility of incoming traffic into the village could be difficult.

We wish to register our objection, based on multiple issues. There is a high risk of river flooding, in addition to potential risk of ground water flooding on the farmland. Any development here would adversely affect highway safety, as the local roads accept single file traffic, especially at the nearest exit to the village (over the bridge). There is no gas, sewerage infrastructure is limited, no street lights and regular powercuts. Loss of wildlife natural habitat, residential and public view, and detrimental impact on the visual appearance of the village, with increased noise and loss of privacy are all concerns.

There are multiple concerns with this potential plan including a high risk of flooding of the farm land, where flooding in the area is already prevalent and this is a particularly low area, highway safety based on the surrounding narrow roads, no gas, limited sewerage infrastructure, no street lights and regular power cuts; loss of wildlife natural habitat including barn owls and wild deer; loss of residential and public view and detrimental impact on the appearance of the village. In addition to increased noise and loss of privacy for residents there is no infrastructure in the village to support.

I object. This is due to the fact there are insufficient services to support the village already ie one small primary school, no local shop and no doctors surgery. There are no street lamps and roads are extremely narrow. The village also runs off gas and has frequent power cuts. The village could not cope with this development.

Objection due to;-

-Risk of flooding..this area is already overwhelmed by wet weather conditions on a regular basis

- Narrow roadway ...insufficient for 2 cars to pass safely at present

- An area well known for vibrant wildlife especially deer

-No pathway from key area to point of next pathway midway in High Street meaning danger to pedestrians/dog walkers/

Strong objections are, Infrastructure inadequate. High Street and field has been known to flood and ditches OVERFLOW. Loss of public and personal view. Irregular power surges for electricity supply. Walking along road already hazardous. Single file traffic over bridge. Increased noise levels. The farm land is an important area supporting wild life including deer, barn owls, tawny owls, red kites, buzzards, kinfishers. This area is an oasis for nature among the forever increasing housing developments in the region.

Hahaha affordable houses... for who... the ones being built now are £500,000 plus... how is that affordable!
The school is overful as it is, adding more pressure to it won't benifit it or the pupil.
More houses could possible interfere with the poultry farm a field away.
Houses r not needed
Now a little shop would be handy!

I'm writing the following with honesty and integrity to offer my insight as a resident in the immediate area of the proposed development site. I appreciate we need to increase the housing capacity within Norfolk and as such we all need to play a part in this. My insights will highlight some of concerns around the suitability of this site and the impacts of developing it but also will hopefully provide views around its development if the concerns and impacts were addressed.

I have been a resident of Wicklewood living opposite the proposed site for the past 8 years.

Flood Risk
The proposed site currently works as a soak away from the surface water from the top of the village running down. This soak away protects the river from being deluged with large volumes of water in a short space of time, slowing the journey to the river and thus reducing the risk of a flash flood. The road acts as a conduit for the water but the land either side of the road provides the opportunity for the water to soak away and disperse. The properties at this part of the village are significantly set back away from the road in order help provide a similar soak away for the road as the primary drainage does not cope with the volume of water. Even with the properties set back there are occurrences of surface water flooding at some properties near the proposed site. The bottom north end of the proposed site is lower than the properties on the other side of the road which provides protection to current properties giving opportunity for the surface water and stream to soak into this part of the field. Removing this capability will add more risk to the existing properties. There are often times after heavy rain that water sits on the proposed site, albeit at a low depth.

Village amenities and Accessibility
Amenities in the village are fairly limited and are all situated at the South end of the village, the opposite end to the proposed development site
These are listed below with their approximate walking times from the proposed plot
- Village Hall (including playing field and play area - 12mins
- Nearest bus stop (single provider,hourly service) - 15 mins
- Pub - 15 mins
- Primary School - 20 mins
When we move to our current house we had full intentions to visit the public house and use the bus service at the south end of the village. We fairly soon realised this wasn't safe. The route to South end of the village where the amenities are consists of narrow roads, minimal footpaths and no street lighting. Vehicles are often observed travelling at excessive speeds along the high street, embarking on the journey on foot in low light levels is a challenge requiring you to have your wits about you to keep safe. A particular concern area is the walk along the high Street from the proposed plot up to the junction with Low Street and Church Lane. Vehicles exit blind from Church lane towards the North end of the village directly in the path of oncoming pedestrians, I have seen a number of concerning near misses at this point. Considering that children would need to take the same route to the local school concerns me greatly and would urge planners to visit the site to experience and appreciate this. The age demographic of resident's currently living opposite the plot means there are currently very few or no young children taking this journey today.

Services
A big concern for the proposed site is the further impact on the already struggling sewage system in the area. Adjacent to the proposed site is a pump that pumps the sewage away from Wicklewood.
With a fairly recent increase of additional sewage from Hingham there are regular odours from the pump site. There are also very regular visits from Anglian water to the pump station as it appears the pump isn't up to the current job. In addition with any heavy rainfall the sewage system struggles and manholes covers in the north end of high street have lifted releasing raw sewage into the area. It was promised with the more recent development near the windmill that the water drainage and sewage system would be put right but the problems still persist. New development often bring promises of improvements to the infrastructure but i have concerns as to whether these promises are kept.

Wildlife
Living opposite the land over the years has given the opportunity for us to observe the rich wildlife which makes use of it. Roe and Muntjak deer regularly route across the field and in to adjacent woods. The field is a hunting ground for red kite and buzzards and in the later and early part of the year egrets will appear in the field. The open land near the stream on the proposed site provides for bats which we regularly observe from our property opposite. At night the bats emerge from the adjacent woods to feed and can be seen darting around the field in early evening. This stretch of the river is also frequented by kingfishers, their habitat will no doubt be affected by unsympathetic development of the land.

Development Boundary
The proposed plot is currently outside the development boundary for Wicklewood. This was one of the key elements for our decision to move to our property knowing that the land would not likely be considered for development. The outward views over the current field from the properties opposite the plot will clearly be impacted if developed on and the value of their properties impacted. The wellbeing and quality of life of the current residents would also need to be considered many of whom are in their later years, 2 years of development could be a big unsettling part of their lives.

Open space / Landscape
The current landscape may not be considered to be of outstanding beauty but it does provide a very appealing open space at the north end of the village leading up to the stream and the wood. The current properties on the other side of the road to the proposed development site are also set back giving a further sense of open space. If the land was to be developed it would need to be in keeping with the density and position of the properties on the already developed side to maintain the balance and sense of open space. By having the development significantly set back from the road could also provide a similar soak away for surface water drainage.

Transport
Public transport to Wicklewood is limited to an hourly service from just one provider which runs until evening time only and is not available on Sundays. This is via a private service provider so could be at risk at anytime of route closure. Access from and to the proposed plot as mentioned early is 15 Minute walk on sometimes treacherous roads. I'm sure this would most likely mean the residents at the proposed plots would need transport of their own so needs to be considered when planning for the site.

The high street is too narrow for any more through traffic - particularly down this end of the street as it narrows off even more before a small bridge over a stream.
There is also a long history of poor drainage issues and flooding down the high street - which can only get worse with further housing developments.

It would be nicer if the land could be used to encourage people to get out into the countryside more by creating public footpaths across fields and planting hedgerows to encouraging wildlife to flourish - rather than build more non-descript housing estates with no infrastructure to support them.

I wish to object to the proposed building/development on the following grounds.


1. The current roads are to narrow and are heavily congested resulting in damage to properties.

2. The current road drainage system although recently modified is not suitable. Following heavy rain flooding still occurs.

3. The current sewerage pumping station although recently modified with larger pipework, is allowing constant sewerage smell to cover the area.


4. The proposed site is a haven to wildlife and is one of the last untouched
areas of the village remaining. Why spoil this?

Wicklewood Parish Council object to this proposal as it is beyond the natural edge of the village, there is conflict with the industrial site, potential flooding risk, disruption of views across the river valley and the size of the site.

The earlier consulted site GNLP0232 would be the most appropriate site in the area

Supporting Statement for Site GNLP 2179 at Wicklewood

Site GNLP 2179 has been assessed as suitable for development. This short statement considers the issues raised in relation to the assessment and to objections made.

Access to services:

Wicklewood has a small range of services typical of many service villages, and all of these, including bus stops, appear to be within a reasonable walking distance of the site. Access was rated as amber in the site assessment with objections referring to the lack of a footway.

It is true that there is no footway along much of the High Street. However:

This is the case for many rural villages in Norfolk where residents are accustomed to walking along the road;

The High Street is subject to a 30mph limit which means that vehicles should be travelling at a reasonable speed;

There is a wide verge bounding the site potentially available for pedestrians to either walk along, step onto or otherwise improve as a footway;

According to the website CrashMap, there have been no recorded road traffic accidents at all along the whole of the High Street for at least 10 years, suggesting that it is very safe.

To place this in the context of policy, the National Planning Policy Framework makes it clear that, "opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas, and this should be taken into account in both plan-making and decision-making."

With this in mind, it is suggested that access to services should be deemed acceptable.

Highway capacity:

The Highway Authority suggest that there are highway capacity issues. This is mirrored by some objections which claim that the roads are too narrow, especially the bridge over the stream, and that there is severe congestion. At a policy level, the National Planning Policy Framework explains that, "Development should only be prevented......on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe." This provides a useful benchmark against which highway impacts can be considered.

Firstly, it is not the case that there is severe congestion along the High Street and, indeed, no evidence has been presented to support such a claim. The road width does vary and, although it is mostly 5.5m wide, the stretch adjacent to the site is around 5.0m wide. At this point, the carriageway could be widened if deemed necessary. To this extent, the proposal could be viewed by Highway Authority as an opportunity for net gain.

The bridge is a prominent, physical feature that helps to slow the traffic as it enters the village. Even if the bridge were considered narrow, the constraint would be a restriction for any site in Wicklewood for those vehicles heading north towards Kimberley and the A47. That is to say, the bridge is not a feature specific to this proposal.

Historically, there has been no recorded road traffic accident along this stretch of road for a period of at least 10 years.

The High Street is straight and unobstructed by trees or hedges. Accordingly, visibility at the point of access to the proposed site will be more than satisfactory.

In summary, it is unlikely the development of the site would have any severe impact on the road network in terms of congestion, highway safety or visibility.

Flood risk:

The northern part of the site falls within fluvial food risk zones 2 and 3 and to this extent may be considered unsuitable for residential development. The analysis also indicates a modest amount of low risk surface water flooding, particularly on the eastern part of the site. A number of objectors raised concerns about flooding on the highway nearby.

It is therefore suggested that the site be allocated subject to a flood risk assessment and drainage strategy. This would need to demonstrate that flood risk off-site, including the local highway network, is not increased by development on site.

Ecology:

The site assessment indicates that the development of the site will not have an adverse impact on any designated sites of nature conservation. However, a number of objectors expressed concerns for the wildlife that has been observed on the site, although no evidence was presented to support this. It is therefore suggested that the site be allocated subject to an ecological assessment and that the developement delivers a net ecological gain, as required by the National Planning Policy Framework. This could be achieved through the planting of mixed native species hedges and the creation of an aquatic habitat linked to attenuation ponds as part of the drainage strategy. The potential for an aquatic habitat is unlikely to be available for other sites and should be seen as an opportunity peculiar to this proposal.

The need for homes:

Objectors have suggested that new homes are not needed. This suggestion, however, runs contrary to the emerging Greater Norwich Local Plan and the national target of delivering 300,000 new homes per annum.

Loss of public views:

Virtually any site developed for housing will to some extent disrupt public views of the countryside. However, a layout can be designed that allows for some views of the open countryside to be retained.

Capacity of utilities:

The capacity of the water supply and sewerage infrastructure locally has been highlighted. Potentially, the development of the site could involve a contribution to the upgrading of such infrastructure where that is shown to be necessary.