Site Proposals document

Mill Lane is too narrow to develop, the access from Fellows Road is narrow. The site is wet, a flood plain in the River Tud valley

The development of this size is too large for the existing rural communities, and would severely change the character of this rural village. History of new developments is historically poor, as the public still want to retain their cars, as the public transport system is inadequate ., and whatever the promises, fail to deliver.

Honingham is an small historic village, of 140 homes, with an attractive landscape in the River Tud valley surrounded by high quality agricultural land which seems to be productive and constantly cropped. Whilst authoritative opinion constantly inform the public that more housing is required, the same could be said of the requirement to produce food for the nation and a balance must be found.
The designation of Honingham in this settlement hierarchy seems to have changed from a village in the countryside, with no settlement limit to that of a fringe parish, without consultation, which surely is paramount on such a major change

The Parish Council strongly object to this new settlement, GNLP0415 A to G on Honingham's doorstep as it would completely change the character of this sleepy village to its detriment.


There is also the fear that a new settlement once imposed would create the risk of further development between it and the existing village thereby further blighting the existing landscape.

With regard to this extensive new settlement proposal, it should be noted that the site contains areas of ancient woodland and conservation areas which ought to be preserved.

There is already a present problem in wet weather with surface water run off from fields around Colton Road which all drain down to the River Tud at the bottom of the village which risk flooding to the existing houses, which further development would undoubtedly exacerbate.

It is this Parish Council's view that the overriding principle should be to disperse new developments throughout the Greater Norwich area, rather than imposing a huge new settlement as is suggested by this proposal.

With regard to site GNLP0411(0.7HA)

This small piece of land is being currently grazed by horses and is positioned between Fellowes Road, a row of predominantly semi detached council houses and bungalows, and Mill Lane an unmade track which is no more than a wide footpath which contains five owner occupied small semi detached and detached houses. To suggest that there is the opportunity to connect Fellowes Road and Mill Lane is absurd. There is no space for a road to be built along Mill Lane, service vehicles do not at present traverse the length of Mill Lane, and it is considered that were Highways consulted the construction of a pavement would be mandatory thereby necessitating land acquisition from the front of the existing dwellings.
The access as shown on the site, being from Fellowes Road is equally narrow it being between two semi detached bungalows at number 16 and 18, and hardly suitable for more extensive traffic use.
This site is within the river valley and close to a considerable flood plain and further development would add to the height of the water table.

It is felt that the constraints to development are greater than acknowledged in the Settlement Summary at Paragraph 3.21. and the Council strongly object to this proposal.

It is felt by the Council that Honingham is being confronted by development from all directions, namely A47 dualling , the Western quadrant of the NDR dualling, The Food Hub, and the route of the Onshore Cable Corridor and now the GNLP proposals, and despite reassurances we still lack confidence that the voice of the people is being heeded.

Petition signed by 13 residents of Mill Lane in Honingham as below;
We, the undersigned, being residents of Honingham in and around Mill Lane, object most strongly to the proposed development of the site designated GNLP0411 for housing. Mill Lane, is a rough unsurfaced track, wide enough for one vehicle only, with very limited possibilities for widening. Its use by construction vehicles, service
vehicles and the cars belonging to 13 houses is unthinkable. Unless another access road to the site is found, this proposal should be dismissed.