GNLP0415R G

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

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 the development is completely unacceptable
This land should remain agricultural for food production

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-G 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 and 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. Honingham Parish Council object to this site.

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 am object to this proposal which is completely inappropriate for Honingham

Wholly inappropriate location and scale of development
Not required and destructive to the rural landscape and environment,
turning this area into yet another built environment that destroys the essence of a beautiful county

The boundary changes make no difference to this proposed unnecessary development & I object 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 in my previous objection this development 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.

We are strongly opposed to the proposed site GNLP0415R-G

We would like to point out that the land south of the Mattishall road is part of the former Grange Farm located on the northern side of the Mattishall road Honingham. The proposed site is adjacent to and runs parallel with land that formed part of Brick Kiln Farm ( latterly Greenacre Farm). To the north of these two pieces of land is land that originally form part of Honingham Thorpe/Thorpe Farm.
If this land is allowed to be built on and connected to the completely unacceptable proposed development east of Colton road Honingham it will be nothing less than urban sprawl.
If the proposed Honingham Thorpe Garden Village is to be given any consideration then it
shound be confined to Honingham Thorpe.
Building on the proposed site of course raises environmental issuses particulally drainage and contamination of the chalk aquifers that feed water supply to Honingham properties in theTud Valley, and run off/ flash flooding to the river Tud in the centre of Honingham. r,'here will be also the loss of yet more good agricultural land.

Proposed Site GNLP2176
Honingham is a small unspoilt village and as such should be preserved as part of Rural Norfolk We are opposed to the large number of properties proposed. Any new dwellings development shoud be confind to infilling with properties built faceing on to the existing roads, or may be a small close but not of estate proportions as proposed. At this stage we are not able to give a view on what the consequence of so many dwellings would have, but drainage and flash flooding is already a problem in this area.

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