GNLP0415R D

This revised proposal is still as unwelcome as the previous proposal on this land and I continue to object for all the reasons previously stated

A development of this size would impact greatly on a picturesque part of Norfolk, the increase in traffic would be dangerous, small local roads would become rat runs, the village identity would be lost, and impact greatly on the limited local resources including doctors and schools

I moved to this village to get away from the hurly burly where there were inadequate road and facilities.
This villages roads are not capable of taking the amount of traffic this would generate, there is no shop, no surgery or post office, the busses run infrequently and cant be relied on for commuting meaning that cars would be a necessity probably 2 to 4 for each household. Parking would be practically impossible, you only have to look at the recent developments in costessey such as queens hills to see that 55 houses would not have enough parking on such a small site.
We already suffer from flooding at the bottom of Hall Drive where further development would only worsen this, again I moved from a house that now regularly has garden flooding and the new properties built against my better judgement flood as I forecast and i don't want to be in that situation again.

Honingham is a small village with no infrastructure to increase in size

I object to this proposal, there is no merit in it whatsoever
The scale of development is completely unacceptable
This land should remain agricultural for food production only

I think this would destroy the small village of Honingham. We have absolutely no facilities to support this development and as a tiny village it would all but drive people out. Build on larger sites that have the capabilities to support such a large increase. I vehemently oppose this proposal.

This development would have an adverse impact on our village. There would be an immense detrimental cost to the natural landscape and the environment. The irrevocable loss of agricultural land is of serious concern. Additional housing of the magnitude proposed would add significantly to pressure on our roads, drainage, utilities, medical and education services.

The village has no shop or post office and limited amenities, the bus service is irregular and could not be relied upon for people to commute to and from work. Additional traffic movements generated from this development would have a negative impact and cause pollution.

Entirely unsuitable sites and unneeded. Norfolk already has much more land allocated for housing than it could possibly need up to 2036 and the most recent ONS statistics on household creation show a reduction of 51,000 households per year (210,000 to 159,000).
It would be irresponsible, therefore, for any local authority to encourage the 'land-banking' which would be the inevitable consequence of adoption of any additional sites, including all those in phase one (600, I believe) and the current phase of this Reg 18 consultation. No further sites should be allocated until the (vast) existing 'bank' has been fully used.

These developments would have an adverse impact on our village and residents way of life. People live here to experience the natural landscape and environment but this proposal will ruin village life as we know it. Our current facilities would simply not cope with such increasing numbers and the additional traffic resulting would cause serious road safety issues for villagers.

Honingham Parish Council object to this site and the whole proposal of a new settlement under site GNLP0415A-G. The consultation states a revision has been made to the boundary for site GNLP0415R-D but this revision has not been clearly identified and therefore it is not possible to assess the impact on Honingham and the wider proposal for a new settlement.

Honingham sits at the bottom of a valley and is vulnerable to flooding from the River Tudd. There are serious concerns that further development and building will increase surface run off into the River Tudd, leading to potential flooding in the village.

The development of this site will contribute towards urban growth in the local area. It is feared that this will eventually lead to the villages of Easton, Honingham, Colton and Marlingford becoming one large settlement. A development of this size severely threatens the character of the current village.

The Parish Council consider this site to be unsuitable, as documented in the Suitability Assessment. Furthermore we are concerned that in the full Site Proposals document the initial indications as to whether a site is suitable are not consistent across the sites in the document. Site GNLP0415R-D overlaps parishes in South Norfolk. Specifically under sites for Marlingford & Colton this site is described as being at risk of surface water flooding. The land is classified as agricultural land class 2 and that building on this site would be a significant loss of versatile agricultural land. This land as agricultural land contributes to the character of the parish as a whole. The report goes on to state that as a stand alone site this is not considered to be a suitable location. This is not equally reflected on the site listing under Honingham.

Honingham Parish Council object to this site and do not believe it is the right location for such a large new settlement.

The Parish Council is gravely concerned at the prospect of such a large development so close to Marlingford & Colton. In addition to the loss of higher-grade agricultural land, such a large development in addition to the huge Food Enterprise industrial estate and massive growth of Easton would completely transform a rural area into a suburban one with a serious negative impact upon Marlingford and Colton, as well as adding to the practically continuous ribbon development along the A47 corridor west of Norwich.

A truly awful proposal in its entirety (0415R complete). Summary comments:
1. Completely insensitive disregard for the locality, the landscape and the environment.
2. Wholly inappropriate in scale and location.
3. Destructive of the surrounding individual village structure and separation.
4. Crass and undeliverable promises : self-sufficient, low carbon, genuine commitment to high quality. This is just what the proposer thinks needs to be said, but it is utterly meaningless. Another soul-less non-place - but very profitable.
We thought the planners were supposed to be guardians of our environment against just this sort of exploitation. So, kick it out please.

I object to this proposal - Which is completely inappropriate for Honingham

Inappropriate development on agricultural land that will transform a rural area. When added to the continuing development of Easton it turns the entire area into a suburb of Norwich, one continuous ribbon development along the A47.

The boundary changes make no difference to the original proposals & I object to this unnecessary development as per my previous comments

1) This applies to GNLP0411, GNLP2176, GNLP0415R-G, GNLP0415R-A and many of the other proposed sites around Norwich. I am strongly against development on farmland. Fields and pastures are a precious, finite resource and in a world of increasing population, climate change and increasing political tensions (trade wars and repercussions of Brexit to name but two) we must do all we can to preserve and enhance their productivity. We should not be building on them. We have a duty of care to coming generations and our decisions must not damage their wellbeing. Farmland will be needed for its original purpose and we must bear that crucial fact in mind. Building on farmland also runs counter to efforts to promote local produce and cut food miles.

2) The proposed developments would greatly overload existing road infrastructure.
a) Planned changes to the A47 are in response to today's congestion problems and the addition of houses on the proposed scale would recreate the problem and, in consequence, negatively affect air quality.
b) Honingham has no shop, post office, school or doctor's surgery and a very limited bus service. Further development would greatly increase local traffic. Steps would also have to be taken to prevent The Street (Honingham's principal road) being used by vehicles from elsewhere to access the A47.

As stated in my previous objection this proposal is completely inappropriate and the boundary changes make no difference.

The boundary changes make no difference to this proposed unnecessary development & I object as per my comments under the previous consultation.

Breckland District Council
Comments on the GNLP Regulation 18

The Council are continuing to progress the Breckland Local Plan and anticipate that this will be adopted in Summer 2019. The Breckland Local Plan has a growth strategy for large scale development in Attleborough, Thetford and Snetterton which supports are shared aspirations for the A11 Cambridge to Norwich Tech Corridor, as well as further development proposed for the District's other Market Towns and Local Service Centres.

The Council note this further consultation highlights additional sites put forward for consideration for development. It is difficult at this stage to appreciate the potential impact of any one site put forward in this subsequent consultation, without a firm understanding of the GNDP overall strategy for growth.

The Council note that from the original call for sites, land bordering the west of Breckland District at Honingham Thorpe (360 hectares) have been put forward to GNDP for consideration to provide a new settlement of 4,000 homes, employment and a country park. Growth of this scale would have a significant impact on the surrounding parishes and the transport network; both the A47 and rural roads linked to the Honingham/Mattishall roundabout. As stated previously, wider consideration needs to be given the cumulative impacts of development upon infrastructure particularly associated implications of A47 dualling and planned growth at Attleborough and Thetford. Breckland Council would like to work closely with the GNDP to understand the implications for Breckland prior to any sites in bordering areas are identified as preferred options for allocation.

See attachments:
Flood Risk and Drainage Feasibility Study
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal Report
Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment
Initial design market square analysis
Phase 1 - Transport Strategy