GNLP0603R

Re: GNLP0604R Ben Burgess Ltd. Headquarters and GNLP0603R Ben Burgess 25 Houses off Church View
I have lived in the village of Swainsthorpe for 45 years and been involved at Parish Council, Charity Trust and Church Council level for the last 20 years or so. Never have I experienced so much opposition in our village to a planning application as we are experiencing with the Ben Burgess proposal to move their headquarters and retail/industrial business from Trowse to a greenfield site on the edge of our village.
I am fully aware that you are only consulting at this stage as you consider a Greater Norfolk Local Plan which will include Swainsthorpe in particular. All I personally ask is that in your consultation you are not swayed by the considerable resource the Ben Burgess organisation has at their disposal to present a plan that looks good on paper but in truth will change the beautiful landscape of Dunston and Swainsthorpe and the southern approaches to Norwich forever. The proposal will cause major disruption to an already busy Al 40 and disrupt a community which has offered peace and tranquillity to many ordinary people in their daily life for hundreds of years. It will also take a chunk of agricultural land, which has been farmed successfully for hundreds of years, off the market forever! How much more of the farmland purchased by Ben Burgess in Swainsthorpe will be put forward for development? The purchase of Malt House Farm was a speculative purchase by an organisation intent on making money by using cheap land for house building and industrial purposes. They will nibble away at the landscape around Dunston and Swainsthorpe and destroy this beautiful part of Norfolk unless they are stopped by having these two proposals turned down.
Re: GNLP0603R 25 Houses off Church View
South Norfolk Council's careful management of Swainsthorpe over recent years together with their current Structure Plan/Policy has enabled the village to maintain a rural feel which has been achieved by the community retaining attractive features such as ponds, a village green, a medieval church and a number of post medieval (161h/171h century) houses. As South Norfolk Council quite rightly have pointed out "Swainsthorpe is not suitable for further development because of the very narrow and substandard roads". The Ben Burgess proposal to build "low cost" housing with an entrance to the development on a very dangerous bend in the village should be turned down because it represents a hazard to driver and pedestrian and will destroy the rural feel of the village.
Re: GNLP0604R Ben Burgess Ltd. Headquarters
When you consider the Ben Burgess application to build their headquarters on the edge of Swainsthorpe I am sure you will ask yourselves, when you consult, why a retail/trade business of this magnitude needs to be located in beautiful countryside with no local amenities and no pathways to and from the village and the local bus stops.
My greatest concern is not only the "forever industrial" scenario which would be the case if it were approved but the fact that many vacant retail/trade industrial sites are available around the southern and new northern bye-passes of Norwich. Would you not be doing your duty by pointing this out to Ben Burgess because the northern bye-pass was built partly with industrial sites in mind? There would be an uproar if an industrial site suddenly appeared in the Swainsthorpe /Dunston countryside when numerous sites were available around the southern and northern bye-pass?
Finally, I do not know of many cases where a large industrial business catering for both trade and retail customers are built on isolated sites with access for vehicles only (no pedestrian access). Generally, and indeed quite rightly, they are located on industrial retail parks similar to Longwater where many other services are available to the visiting public with each business benefiting from the traffic flow these parks create. Surely these retail parks are much better policed and fire protected by their sheer scale and location?
There ar so many negatives associated with the Ben Burgess application and I am sure you will have these in mind when you consult on the Greater Norfolk Local Plan and the Ben Burgess application in particular.

I object to the proposal to build 25 houses on this site for 2 main reasons:-
1. Traffic. Access to this site is via Church View which joins Church Road on a blind bend. Church Road is already a very busy narrow road which has a very hazardous junction with the A140 and increased traffic would undoubtedly lead to more accidents.
2. The village does not have the infrastructure to support more housing i.e. no shops, school or other facilities apart from the church. Public transport to the village is very poor

Access to this site is onto a lane with blind entrance. More traffic entering Church road from this site would make the road more dangerous.

I object to the proposed submission for 25 dwellings off Church View. The access to this site is highly unsuitable for a housing development and the village would see a big increase in traffic, noise and light pollution. There aren't the facilities or amenities within the village to support a development of this size. The site should remain as agricultural land as the impact of 25 houses on its natural wildlife would be devastating.

Access to this development must come either from the A140, where any new junctions will impede an already dangerously busy A road, or through the village, which is entirely unsuited to access from Church Road.

I feel the building of so many houses will detract from the peace and beauty of the area. We are a rural village and do not want the extra noise and traffic that this will bring. With the other submission under GNLP for approx 20 houses within this village plus those already granted planning permission this would mean an extra 50+ houses. For such a rural village this is unacceptable.

GNLP0604
A140 too dangerous too busy,
a/ unable to cope with traffic already, especially during rush our
b/ Green field site - suggest brown field site or other industrial area e.g. Harford
c/ Property purchase with no intension of living in the village.

GNLP0603
Church view is a small avenue- exit and entrance on a tight bend where visibility is poor. There is no infrastructure to the village e.g. a church and pub


GNLP0191R
Church road is too busy a rat run and has poor visibility. Close to railway line and large pylons.

GNLP0604R
Object: I wish to object to this site on the following grounds:
A commercial/ industrial development of this site will dwarf the existing village. It is outside the existing development boundary long established for the settlement of swainsthorpe. Access will cause serious traffic problems on the A140, which is very difficult now, particularly with the proposed number of people working on site, vehicles delivering and visitors as this will be retail site also.
Pollution - air quality, noise, light pollution at night and vibration generated by a huge commercial/industrial complex adjacent to a residential village settlement will have detrimental effect on me and every other resident of swainsthorpe.

Environment - apart from pollution, this site if developed with site GNLP0603R will take away a huge tract of countryside which will be lost forever. Although farm land this represents an important area for wildlife.

GNLP0603R - Object
I wish to object to this site on the following grounds:
Access - The access to Church Road will cause danger on the bend and is totally inadequate.
The development falls outside the existing development boundary.
A development of this size will destroy the nature of swainsthorpe as a rural settlement.

GNLP0191R - Object
I wish to object this site on the following ground:
The site is outside the existing development boundary.
Access - Access to this site will cause danger and increased traffic problems of church road from and estimated forty extra cars. Church road is used as a 'rat run' from large developments at mulbarton which causes problems at the railway crossing and at the junction with the A140.
The development will have a detrimental effect on existing residences.

GNLP0604 & GNLP0603
The relocation of Ben Burgess is massively detrimental to our village. It will spoil our countryside.
Very dangerous road to exit onto church road.
I cannot believe the South Norfolk Council is thinking of letting Ben Burgess relocate their company. The A140 is dangerous and busy, lanes are narrow, drivers take risks and it is slow at peak times.

The land is a stunning beautiful green field site, full of wildlife.
Villages use it regularly to enjoy the countryside. It will have a massive impact with air and noise pollution.

Swainsthorpe is a small village with no infrastructure to support further housing.
Access to the 140 is already difficult at the best of times, with queues of traffic backing up on Church Road during peak periods.The proposed development site is a green area, providing home to wildlife, which would be ruined by building work.

- Lack of amenities in Swainsthorpe i.e. school, doctor or shop to support the proposed increase in residents.
- The A140/Church Road junction is already dangerous to negotiate being on a long bend with a ghost island in the centre on which traffic piles up and queues at busy times. Any increase in traffic accessing and leaving the village will create an even more nerve-wracking and risky experience.
- Loss of green field site and permissible footpath.

Swainsthorpe is considered suitable for only small scale "infill" development in existing local plans, this site is much larger. Whilst it has been listed as 25 units. The size of the site is clearly proposed to be more (around 50 on speaking with Ben Turner). The proposed access onto Church Road via Church View is onto a dangerous bend to a road already used as a "rat run" and opposite a children's play area. There is also alternative proposal through the other scheme proposed by owners Ben Burgess (to access from A140). This would split this from the village and cause more traffic issues (around roundabout) and open up possible further developments changing the rural character of the village forever.

This development off Church View presents a traffic hazard as it is sited on a blind bend which is already dangerous. Swainsthorpe planning is designated as an infill only village

Access to this site is on a narrow road with a limited view towards the railway line. More traffic would make this a dangerous junction, especially as it is so close to the railway line. The village has no services so cannot support the needs of new houses. Church Road is already a rat-run from Mulbarton to the A140. More traffic will increase the risk of accidents.

GNLP019R1: The prospective site for this proposed development would be situated on the minor road from swainsthorpe to mulbarton. Already this road has become a populous road linking the B1113 and A140. Swainsthorpe is often inundated with traffic and problems often occur when traffic reaches the A140 especially if an individual wishes to turn right. Obviously this development would cause further problems as the road was never designed for an exceeding amount of traffic. Also the stiting is situated in an attractive area of countryside which would certainly be despoiled the building would be on productive agricultural land and also wildlife in the area would be affected. Also the villages has not got the infrastructure to support any added pollution and the various agencies at Mulbarton are struggling to cope with demand and certainly do not require an influx of population.

GNLP0603R - At present the greenfield sites is a very productive agricultural area of land with pleasant views over the surrounding countryside. I can understand that there are sites required for building but why carve up a pleasant greenfield site when there are vacant brownfield sites surrounding Norwich. As stated in my previous comments re GNLP0191R Swainsthorpe has traffic problems due to its proximity to the busy A140 and heavily used minor road between Swainsthorpe and Mulbarton. The development would require an exit to the A140 and would produce further traffic problems especially during rush hour and certainly would prove to be a difficult entrance and exit for leaving and entering the site. The vehicles leaving and entering Church View would have to contend with the traffic along the minor road which do not always respond to the 30mph speed limit and the actual exit is situated near a narrow corner thus creating a dangerous situation lifted when cross the road on foot at this particular place I have to take great care and having spoken to people who live in church view they have informed me of several near misses.

GNLP0604R - I think with horror at a picture of Ben Bergess HQ in Trowse and think of a similar situation at the proposed site by our village which is an attractive greenfield site containing private agricultural land also inhabited by lots of wildlife lacks a lot of representative of Ben Burgees whether there would be night staff on site and was introduced there were no plans for this. Unfortunately an unguarded night site may attract the criminal who might decide to visit the village as well. There would be severe traffic problems when leaving and entering the site would prove to be substantial causing further traffic problems. Apart from the traffic and railway line Swainsthorpe is a quiet and peaceful village. This would cease with an industrial development nearby with lots of lighting at night. I don't think there are any benefits for the village from this development. Employment wise I would imagine there would be no further staff requirements for the company as the necessary personnel would be transferred from their current HQ in Trowse.

having looked at the Greater Norwich Local Plan, I am appalled at the consideration being given to the massive developments considered in the village of Swainsthorpe. I refer to applications GNLP0191R, GNLP0603R and GNLP0604R. The amount of traffic using the A140 is horrendous, especially at peak times, to add further traffic to this artery into Norwich is scandalous and must be seriously reconsidered. I trust this potential problem will be given due attention, bearing in mind the other developments at Long Stratton, Diss, Hempnall, Flordon, Caistor St Edmunds and Stoke Holy Cross which will all result in further traffic feeding in to the A140.

I strongly object to loosing green fields and the wildlife that goes with it to a tractor car park.
The impact of traffic on the A140 will cause more chaos and potentially more accidents.
Emergency vehicles will have difficulty getting down the A140 especially with heavy plant slowing to turn in and out of Church Road.

busy road junction, will slow traffic on a140. no school no shop no jobs in area. residents like their little village and did not buy into a busy village

GNLP0191R- I object because swainsthorpe is a small village with no facilities and cannot sustain a development of this size. This would mean a large increase in traffic through the village and great difficulty in getting onto the A140.

GNLP0603R - I object to this development because if the dangerous bend on Church Road which this housing will access from Church Views. There would be considerable increase in traffic through the village and make getting onto the A140 a lot more difficult than it is already. There are other sites in South Norfolk which are more suitable.

GNLP0604R - I object because an industrial site in a small village is totally inappropriate. The site covers the area of Swainsthorpe village itself and the industrial nature of such a development in totally unreasonable in a small village. High pollution and noise will be unbearable and access to and from the A140 for existing residents of the village will be almost impossible with demand made by large agricultural vehicles to and from the site from the A140.

Stop the ruining the countryside, develop on brownfield sites not greenfield sites.

By building houses here it will destroy natural habitats and will release vast amounts of toxic fumes and gases. We should be trying to keep natural habitats not getting rid of them. Also lots of people like to walk their dogs, go for a walk, or go for a run around this field. This will simply not be possible due to the construction.

Would destroy beautiful countryside.

The Joint Core Strategy (JCS) states, as an 'Other Village' very limited infill can occur without affecting the form and character of the village although settlements may be considered to deliver the smaller sites in the NPA allowance. It states that no such sites have been indentified in Swainsthorpe. This proposal for 25 houses is not very limited infill but proportionally a large development for a tiny village to be built in a field alongside existing properties.

GNLP states that it will focus rural growth on villages with services - Swainsthorpe does not have a school, doctor's surgery, shop or any other services - only a pub on the A140.

GNLP states the need to reduce environmental impact contributions to climate change and air pollution - locations need to reduce the need to travel. This proposal contradicts this. It will increase the need to travel by car as there are no services in Swainsthorpe. This will increase pollution and contribute to poorer air quality.

Access to Church View is on a blind bend and there are no pathways for pedestrians. Exiting from here by car or on foot will be dangerous and increase the likelihood of accidents. School children will need to cross to/from the opposite side of the road to get to/from the school bus stop. Pedestrians will need to cross here to be able to walk safely along the road which will be extremely dangerous.

Access for vehicles and staff during construction of the proposed development would cause a potential hazard as the entrance to Church View is on a blind bend. There are no suitable places for large vehicles to turn around safely in the village. Church Road, the main access road through Swainsthorpe is not suitable for large construction vehicles.

This development could add up to 50 extra cars to the road through the village (developments in Mulbarton would add to this number). This road has a level crossing for the high speed railway line and is narrow and uneven with several blind bends (Church View, The Vale, Gowing Lane). It is not suitable for more traffic.

JCS - This proposal does not protect and enhance the individual character and culture of the area - development would destroy, not protect, rural green fields, harm wildlife and the countryside.

Loss of productive arable land - this field has been farmed for generations.

Loss of green, open space enjoyed by many villagers for recreational purposes such as walking. Cycling and walking on the road through the village can be dangerous due to limited pavements, blind bends and existing traffic travelling at dangerous speeds.

Highway safety - Increased traffic on A140 from this development will add to existing daily congestion and compromise road safety. There will also be increased traffic from large housing developments in Long Stratton. It is already extremely difficult to turn right from Church Road onto the A140 during rush hour. I have to turn left onto the A140, which is almost as difficult, and swing round in the Caistor turning to then get back onto the A140 to travel to work. Traffic from this development will back up along Church Road during busy times.
To travel by public transport it is necessary to cross the A140 at some point. Even with an island on this road it does not feel safe standing in the middle of the A140 with lorries and cars thundering along past you.
It is also very dangerous at present to turn right from the A140 onto Church Road due to the excessive amount of traffic and narrowness of the turning lane. This can be extremely frightening especially when lorries are approaching in front of you and from behind. Any increase in traffic volumes, such as created by up to an additional 50 cars would make all of these situations even more dangerous.

The A140 is the main route for a high number of emergency response vehicles. Sirens can be heard many times throughout the day and any increase in traffic would delay these vehicles potentially putting lives at risk.

Totally unsuitable,
single carriage way 140 and infrastructure not up to development on the scale suggested.

infrastructure and road access to site not viable or desirable

Building on green field site
Access to site is ridiculous
Swainsthorpe has limited facilities
Access on to A140 is already dangerous without more vehicles

Very concerned about increased traffic on already congested A140. Increased air pollution. TRaffic through village spoiling ancient village.

Increased traffic & pollution on the a140

Inappropriate to develop anywhere near this number of residences in a village that does not have the requisite facilities and infrastructure, and for which traffic congestion is already a big issue. Furthermore, the character of the village would be diminished by developing this land. The only feasible access for potential residents if this land was developed would be by Church View, which would be a major cause for concern due to the 'blind' nature of such a junction to Church Road to south & the v fast traffic that already presents safety issues without additional circa 50+ vehicles manoeuvring there.

The addition of 20 households results in a significant percentage increase in the local population. In the absence of medical, educational and retail facilities, Swainsthorpe lacks the infrastructure to support further housing development. The proposal places additional pressure on Mulbarton's resources and the physical access thereto, and while the proposal claims to "support the local economy through the increased use of existing local services", I do not believe these services are undersubscribed.