GNLP0604R

Showing comments and forms 61 to 90 of 200

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 17782

Received: 04/12/2018

Respondent: Mr Tony Roffe

Representation:

The proposal to relocate Ben Burgess Ltd to Swainsthorpe is ridiculous. The site would be greater than the existing footprint of the village, and Swainsthorpe would be known for nothing else, other than Ben Burgess. This proposal would offer absolutely nothing to the residents and would be detrimental on so many levels: increased traffic on an already busy and dangerous road; hazardous access, especially for large agricultural machinery; noise, light and air pollution; huge disruption during the construction of the plant; loss of countryside. There must be more suitable sites in the locale?

Full text:

The proposal to relocate Ben Burgess Ltd to Swainsthorpe is ridiculous. The site would be greater than the existing footprint of the village, and Swainsthorpe would be known for nothing else, other than Ben Burgess. This proposal would offer absolutely nothing to the residents and would be detrimental on so many levels: increased traffic on an already busy and dangerous road; hazardous access, especially for large agricultural machinery; noise, light and air pollution; huge disruption during the construction of the plant; loss of countryside. There must be more suitable sites in the locale?

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 17814

Received: 26/11/2018

Respondent: Iris Makepeace

Representation:

Three proposals have been submitted for the village of Swainsthorpe Norfolk.NR14 8PH. by Ben Burgess & Nicholas Gowing.
I have lived here for 35 years & I am against these developments. There is already Increased traffic through our village & difficult to to get on the A140 because of so many more vehicles. Our village is already a cut through for vehicles from Mulbarton.
.These men already think it is a done deal with the Council , surely the people of Swainsthorpe who pay their taxes & are 98% against these plans mean something.

Full text:

Three proposals have been submitted for the village of Swainsthorpe Norfolk.NR14 8PH. by Ben Burgess & Nicholas Gowing.
I have lived here for 35 years & I am against these developments. There is already Increased traffic through our village & difficult to to get on the A140 because of so many more vehicles. Our village is already a cut through for vehicles from Mulbarton.
.These men already think it is a done deal with the Council , surely the people of Swainsthorpe who pay their taxes & are 98% against these plans mean something.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 17852

Received: 05/12/2018

Respondent: Mrs Karen Bartholomew

Representation:

I can't believe that this project would even be considered acceptable. As most others have mentioned, the A140 is already extremely busy and more traffic would cause further problems. It may also mean at busy times Swainsthorpe may be used as a cut through. Swainsthorpe roads are quite narrow and with no public footfath through most of the village, this would become very dangerous.

Full text:

I can't believe that this project would even be considered acceptable. As most others have mentioned, the A140 is already extremely busy and more traffic would cause further problems. It may also mean at busy times Swainsthorpe may be used as a cut through. Swainsthorpe roads are quite narrow and with no public footfath through most of the village, this would become very dangerous.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 17854

Received: 05/12/2018

Respondent: Mrs Tina Minns

Representation:

I Object to this proposal as this will have a adverse affect on the A140 which is already struggling with the amount of traffic also noise pollution will cause greater problems to o nearby housing.
This site should not be near a village but an industrial site would be more appropriate and preferably near main routes for possible access to the rest of the country.

Full text:

I Object to this proposal as this will have a adverse affect on the A140 which is already struggling with the amount of traffic also noise pollution will cause greater problems to o nearby housing.
This site should not be near a village but an industrial site would be more appropriate and preferably near main routes for possible access to the rest of the country.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 17860

Received: 05/12/2018

Respondent: Mrs Clare Thurlow

Representation:

Having Ben Burgess HQ will absolutely ruin the beautiful village of Swainsthorpe. It is amazing being able to hear the train go past in quick 10 second burst of activity couple of times an hour, to then go back to absolute peace and tranquillity. If Ben Burgess was built here we would here the 10 seconds of activity followed by a lifetime of droning background noise-hideous. The village cannot cope with extra traffic it would bring - not roads or services. There are other places around Norwich which this HQ is suited with safer and better access than A140 offers.

Full text:

Swainsthorpe is a lovely village surrounded by lots of greenery and fields. Having the Ben Burgess HQ here will absolutely ruin the beautiful village. It is so amazing being able to hear the train go past in a quick 10 second burst of activity a couple of times an hour, to then go back to absolute peace and tranquillity. If Ben Burgess were to be in our village we would here the 10 seconds of activity followed by a lifetime of droning noise from the machinery. It would be hideous. The village also cannot cope with the extra traffic it would bring - not the roads or the services. There are plenty of other places to build around Norwich to which this HQ would be suited with much safer and better access than the A140 can offer. Traffic already backs right up to Dunston hall from Long Stratton - having the Ben Burgess HQ would only make this much worse, and we would be seeing traffic backing up right to the Harford Bridge roundabout.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 17864

Received: 05/12/2018

Respondent: Mr Ethan Bolingbroke

Representation:

I strongly object.

Full text:

I strongly object.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 17882

Received: 06/12/2018

Respondent: Mr Michael Srokowski

Representation:

I believe that this proposal is wholly unsuitable for the area. Access to the A140 from Swainsthorpe is currently very difficult during certain times of the day, particularly at weekends when people head into Norwich for shopping, football or other forms of entertainment and the addition of an industrial/commercial development of this magnitude would significantly exacerbate that. Apart from the inevitable traffic chaos, associated increase in noise pollution and the loss of amenity, the use of 24/7 security lighting would increase light pollution.

Full text:

I believe that this proposal is wholly unsuitable for the area. Access to the A140 from Swainsthorpe is currently very difficult during certain times of the day, particularly at weekends when people head into Norwich for shopping, football or other forms of entertainment and the addition of an industrial/commercial development of this magnitude would significantly exacerbate that. Apart from the inevitable traffic chaos, associated increase in noise pollution and the loss of amenity, the use of 24/7 security lighting would increase light pollution.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 17885

Received: 06/12/2018

Respondent: mr martin bennett

Representation:

environmental impact
visual impact
increased pollution
24 hours site operation
increased traffic congestion on the A140
destruction of the area

Full text:

this proposal is wholly inappropriate having no consideration for its impact on the existing village. there being no infrastructure to support such development. There will be a significant detrementel impact on the local environment with increased pollution from traffic using the site and continuous use of the works for the ongoing support of large agricultural vehicles. Access to this site is non existent without major development of yet another junction to the already overused A140. o consider this site for such development shows a complete disregard for existing traffic use of the A140 in this area with delays to traffic being experienced daily it only requiring a small delay in traffic flow to cause a major traffic problem through this area. To allow this proposal is to allow for the destruction of the village structure as it exists today and to increase noise and pollution to unacceptable levels. A development such as this proposal would and should be better suited to be located alongside the NDR which has ample space to cope with such a development and which has strong road connections with roads suitable to large heavy vehicles.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 17886

Received: 28/11/2018

Respondent: mr chris whitley

Representation:

I wish to object to this proposal. What Ben Burgess wish to do is in completely the wrong place on the edge of a hamlet in countryside. They should instead be looking at land earmarked for light industrial use in a town/Norwich or right on the edge of a town eg near Tesco Harford bridge.

I would prefer to keep this land as it is but I recognise we need to house our increased population so if it is to have any change of use it should be to build residential houses only which if done well might even compliment Swainsthorpe.

Full text:

I wish to object to this proposal. What Ben Burgess wish to do is in completely the wrong place on the edge of a hamlet in countryside. They should instead be looking at land earmarked for light industrial use in a town/Norwich or right on the edge of a town eg near Tesco Harford bridge.

I would prefer to keep this land as it is but I recognise we need to house our increased population so if it is to have any change of use it should be to build residential houses only which if done well might even compliment Swainsthorpe.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 17900

Received: 06/12/2018

Respondent: Mrs Corinne Boyce

Representation:

This proposed development is entirely inappropriate and should be stopped. Swainsthorpe is identified as a 'another' village with no services and as such is not a suitable site for such a huge development. The GNLP states that economic growth must only be agreed "whilst protecting and enhancing the environment." This proposal hardly fulfils this criteria. The development will be the size of Swainsthorpe village itself and noise and light pollution which would inevitably follow is totally unacceptable. Access to the site from the already inadequate A140 is only going to make traffic problems worse on this stretch of road.

Full text:

This proposed development is entirely inappropriate and should be stopped. Swainsthorpe is identified as a 'another' village with no services and as such is not a suitable site for such a huge development. The GNLP states that economic growth must only be agreed "whilst protecting and enhancing the environment." This proposal hardly fulfils this criteria. The development will be the size of Swainsthorpe village itself and noise and light pollution which would inevitably follow is totally unacceptable. Access to the site from the already inadequate A140 is only going to make traffic problems worse on this stretch of road.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 17907

Received: 06/12/2018

Respondent: Saxlingham Nethergate Parish Council

Representation:

The Parish Council object to this green field site development when there are brown field sites available within the southern-by-pass. They also object to the introduction of another roundabout on the A140.

Full text:

The Parish Council object to this green field site development when there are brown field sites available within the southern-by-pass. They also object to the introduction of another roundabout on the A140.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 17929

Received: 06/12/2018

Respondent: Mrs Sarah Brooksby

Representation:

The A140 is already operating beyond its capacity and the junction with Church Rd and private access road to Swainsthorpe Hall, Hall Farm and cottages is dangerous. Increase in traffic on A140 would make it worse.
The change of land to industrial use will be irreversible and create access issues for traffic.
There will also be pollution issues —-noise, light, fuels and chemicals
Civil engineering will be disruptive and substantial particularly with the expansion of the electricity substation at Mangreen.
The A140 gives a good view of the village and church across agricultural land and this would disappear.

Full text:

The A140 is already operating beyond its capacity and the junction with Church Rd and private access road to Swainsthorpe Hall, Hall Farm and cottages is dangerous. Increase in traffic on A140 would make it worse.
The change of land to industrial use will be irreversible and create access issues for traffic.
There will also be pollution issues —-noise, light, fuels and chemicals
Civil engineering will be disruptive and substantial particularly with the expansion of the electricity substation at Mangreen.
The A140 gives a good view of the village and church across agricultural land and this would disappear.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 17930

Received: 30/11/2018

Respondent: Mr David Chapman

Representation:

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?

Full text:

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.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 17933

Received: 30/11/2018

Respondent: Mr David Chapman

Representation:

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.

Full text:

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.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 17960

Received: 06/12/2018

Respondent: Mrs Karen Heaton

Representation:

I oppose the proposal for 3 main reasons:-
1. Situation. The proposed huge isolated industrial development is totally inappropriate for the greenfield site and will spoil our historic village and be an eyesore for those travelling on the A140 into Norwich.
2. Traffic. Access is from the A140 which is a hazardous road currently brought to a standstill at busy times of day and which would be made more dangerous by increased traffic visiting the site and the movement of heavy agricultural vehicles to and from it.
3. Environment - noise and light pollution, permanent loss of agricultural land

Full text:

I oppose the proposal for 3 main reasons:-
1. Situation. The proposed huge isolated industrial development is totally inappropriate for the greenfield site and will spoil our historic village and be an eyesore for those travelling on the A140 into Norwich.
2. Traffic. Access is from the A140 which is a hazardous road currently brought to a standstill at busy times of day and which would be made more dangerous by increased traffic visiting the site and the movement of heavy agricultural vehicles to and from it.
3. Environment - noise and light pollution, permanent loss of agricultural land

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 17961

Received: 06/12/2018

Respondent: Mr Darren Webster

Representation:

Local roads wont cope with extra traffic. The site is much bigger than the village itself. Light pollution from the site possibly being lit 24 hours. Noise pollution from machinery being moved round on site. Damage to local environment and overall aesthetic look of the village.

Full text:

Local roads wont cope with extra traffic. The site is much bigger than the village itself. Light pollution from the site possibly being lit 24 hours. Noise pollution from machinery being moved round on site. Damage to local environment and overall aesthetic look of the village.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 17962

Received: 06/12/2018

Respondent: Mr Cody Webster

Representation:

Local roads won't cope with extra traffic. There will be light pollution from the site being lit 24 hours a day. Noise pollution from machinery and vehicles being moved round continually. There will be a change to the feel of the village on the North side. It is an 'other' village and the proposed sites will make it necessary to provide extra infrastructure which is not on this plan.

Full text:

Local roads won't cope with extra traffic. There will be light pollution from the site being lit 24 hours a day. Noise pollution from machinery and vehicles being moved round continually. There will be a change to the feel of the village on the North side. It is an 'other' village and the proposed sites will make it necessary to provide extra infrastructure which is not on this plan.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 17970

Received: 06/12/2018

Respondent: Mrs Lindsey Roffe

Representation:

I strongly object to the submission for Ben Burgess to develop its HQ in Swainsthorpe. This small, rural village is such an inappropriate location for such a large, commercial site and offers nothing to the residents of Swainsthorpe. The village would suffer from increased traffic, noise, light and air pollution... not to mention the devastating impact on the wildlife living on this greenfield site.

Full text:

I strongly object to the submission for Ben Burgess to develop its HQ in Swainsthorpe. This small, rural village is such an inappropriate location for such a large, commercial site and offers nothing to the residents of Swainsthorpe. The village would suffer from increased traffic, noise, light and air pollution... not to mention the devastating impact on the wildlife living on this greenfield site.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 17974

Received: 06/12/2018

Respondent: Dr Andoni Toms

Representation:

The traffic on the A140 has increased considerably over the last few years. There is a large amount of commuter traffic to and from villages sought of Norwich. It is now very difficult to get onto and off the A140 from the village. This development will make it more difficult, it will increase delays on the already overcrowded A140 and it will increase the chance of road traffic accidents.

The development will blight the view from many of the properties on the North side of the village as well as bring noise, light and diesel pollution to a residential area.

Full text:

The traffic on the A140 has increased considerably over the last few years. There is a large amount of commuter traffic to and from villages sought of Norwich. It is now very difficult to get onto and off the A140 from the village. This development will make it more difficult, it will increase delays on the already overcrowded A140 and it will increase the chance of road traffic accidents.

The development will blight the view from many of the properties on the North side of the village as well as bring noise, light and diesel pollution to a residential area.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 18016

Received: 07/12/2018

Respondent: Mrs Carole Grzegorzyca

Representation:

I feel the building of Ben Burgess HQ on the edge of Swainsthorpe is not a suitable area for this type of development. I attended their presentation earlier this year and although info provided was that they would try to negate the impact on the village as much as possible I feel that it would encroach on the village too much - especially for the residents nearby. Loss of agricultural land will affect form and character of the village. Also problem of light pollution and noise. Swainsthorpe is designated as an 'other village'so should not be subjected to large developments.

Full text:

I feel the building of Ben Burgess HQ on the edge of Swainsthorpe is not a suitable area for this type of development. I attended their presentation earlier this year and although info provided was that they would try to negate the impact on the village as much as possible I feel that it would encroach on the village too much - especially for the residents nearby. Loss of agricultural land will affect form and character of the village. Also problem of light pollution and noise. Swainsthorpe is designated as an 'other village'so should not be subjected to large developments.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 18018

Received: 05/12/2018

Respondent: Peter Melton

Representation:

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.

Full text:

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.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 18025

Received: 05/12/2018

Respondent: Mrs Grace French

Representation:

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 GNLP0603E will take away a huge tract of countryside which will be lost forever. Although farm land this represents an important area for wildlife.

Full text:

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.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 18030

Received: 05/12/2018

Respondent: Mrs Gisela Baker

Representation:

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.

Full text:

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.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 18034

Received: 07/12/2018

Respondent: 1953 Andy Haggith

Representation:

I object to this site - inappropriate to put large industrial commercial retail site directly adjacent to a residential village, it will change the area from rural/agricultural to an urban industrial landscape.
Traffic access- will cause further congestion and danger on the A140 and Church Road.
Wildlife - detrimental effect on wildlife and nature.
Drainage - natural drainage will be affected by installation of roofs/hard surfaces.
Services - will cause disruption and extra strain on systems.
Pollution - air quality will suffer, noise and vibration will increase as will light pollution.
Other options - other suitable approved sites already available.

Full text:

I wish to object to this site - it is totally inappropriate to put a large industrial commercial retail development directly adjacent to a small almost exclusively residential village. It will dwarf rural Swainsthopre into an industrial urban landscape.

Access - the A140 is already struggling to cope and this will add to the chaos (types of vehicles being HGVs, agricultural machinery and tractors plus the work force and numerous visitor's Cars) causing further danger at Church Road junction (long queues now) add further housing at Long Stratton & Mulbarton = gridlock.

Wildlife - the site is an important wildlife corridor adjacent to an area specially maintained by NCC & Norfolk Wildlife Trust - loss of habitat will be devastating.

Drainage & Services - this site has complex drainage issues. Roof & hard surface installation will upset the natural land drainage. All services will have to be taken from the village causing disruption and further strain on existing systems.

Pollution - the use of many vehicles attending the site, the use of machinery and industrial works will have a detrimental effect on air quality, increase noise & vibration and light pollution will be an issue.

It is just plain wrong to develop good agricultural land, part of the green lung of Norwich, to industrial commercial retail when other suitable sites have been identified under the HELAA sufficient for needs to 2036.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 18061

Received: 07/12/2018

Respondent: Mrs Heather English

Representation:

- Danger to A140 traffic as large agricultural machinery enters and exits the site with a limited view of the road ahead.
- The business will not enhance the quality of life of the Swainsthorpe village residents - in fact quite the reverse with noise, air and light pollution causing disturbance and annoyance extending well beyond normal working hours.
- Loss of green space for recreation on current permissible paths.
- The scale of the site is out of proportion with the footprint of the village and will appear as a large incongruous development stuck on the side of it.

Full text:

- Danger to A140 traffic as large agricultural machinery enters and exits the site with a limited view of the road ahead.
- The business will not enhance the quality of life of the Swainsthorpe village residents - in fact quite the reverse with noise, air and light pollution causing disturbance and annoyance extending well beyond normal working hours.
- Loss of green space for recreation on current permissible paths.
- The scale of the site is out of proportion with the footprint of the village and will appear as a large incongruous development stuck on the side of it.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 18084

Received: 08/12/2018

Respondent: Mr Guy Hudson

Representation:

The location and size of this site is out of proportion with the village.
There will be a great impact on the traffic flow of the A140 (as whilst proposed with ghost island, highways wanting a roundabout). Roundabout will add to the traffic congestion already experienced both along the road and any traffic trying to join from junctions locally.
From the consultation it was clear the company has a desire to establish its presence in specific directions beyond the city and has only been looking to move A140 corridor. There are plenty of other established commercialbusiness parks they could approach.

Full text:

GNLP0604R The location and size of this site is out of proportion with the village. There will be a great impact on the traffic flow of the A140 (as whilst proposed with ghost island, highways wanting a roundabout). Roundabout will add to the traffic congestion already experienced both along the road and any traffic trying to join from junctions along this artery. From the consultation it was clear the company has a desire to establish its presence in specific directions beyond the city and has only been looking to move on the A140 corridor. There are plenty of other established commercial zones/business parks they could approach.
The current works being completed by developer show no regard to the village. Dragging plant and machinery through the village and dumping waste on other villages it owns. Spoiling the whole village already.
The development would also lead (with the addition of roundabout) to further requests to expand to surrounding fields which would spoil the whole approach of Swainsthorpe.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 18129

Received: 09/12/2018

Respondent: Mr Alick Campbell

Representation:

I stay in the area very frequently and enjoy walking and find the countryside around Swainsthorpe to be most beautiful - it would be a shame to despoil such a beautiful village

Full text:

I stay in the area very frequently and enjoy walking and find the countryside around Swainsthorpe to be most beautiful - it would be a shame to despoil such a beautiful village

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 18131

Received: 09/12/2018

Respondent: Mr George Watkinson

Representation:

I personally feel that this development will wreck the village

Full text:

I personally feel that this development will wreck the village

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 18133

Received: 09/12/2018

Respondent: Mr William Watkinson

Representation:

An inappropriate destruction of beautiful country side.

Full text:

An inappropriate destruction of beautiful country side.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 18143

Received: 09/12/2018

Respondent: Mrs Sarah Mardell

Representation:

This proposed development is completely unacceptable and should be turned down. Not only is the extent of the site as large as the village footprint, but the business carried out there will cause noise and light pollution. Access to the site with the comings and goings of many staff, agricultural and obstruction vehicles will be intolerable from the A140. This is a single carriageway road which is already subjected a high volume of traffic.

Full text:

This proposed development is completely unacceptable and should be turned down. Not only is the extent of the site as large as the village footprint, but the business carried out there will cause noise and light pollution. Access to the site with the comings and goings of many staff, agricultural and obstruction vehicles will be intolerable from the A140. This is a single carriageway road which is already subjected a high volume of traffic.