Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations

Honingham Parish Council object to site GNLP2176. The village can not support this increase in house numbers and the location of the site leaves itself open to future development, increasing pressure on the village. This is demonstrated by the previous submission for the same site which was originally for 55 houses. Opening up this site to development of any size would have a detrimental effect on the village and should been seen within the bigger picture. The village has no shop, school, doctors or regular bus service in the village. There are very few local jobs and therefore everyone who wished to live in this location would be required to travel outside of the parish, increasing pressure on already congested local roads and services.
The site is sloped towards Dereham Road. The village suffers from regular flooding and problems with drainage as more pressure is put onto the drainage system and the River Tud. The area at the junction of Dereham Road, The Street and Hall Drive experiences regular incidences of standing water and flooding, a location where the Grade II listed War Memorial is situated. Adding additional buildings in the area could have significant impacts on this area, both in terms of additional flooding problems, and the rural nature of the village and its important historic architecture.
The Parish Council object to this site and can see no justifiable reason why it should be considered suitable. This site is not sustainable and would damage the rural nature of the village.

Honingham Parish Council object to sites GNLP0415 A-G. The proposal of a major development in a rural area so close to the small village of Honingham is unacceptable and completely unsuitable for the area.
The proposed development would lead to the connection of Honingham with Easton, two very different and separate villages, and would destroy the rural community and nature of the area. Honingham is a rural village, and not part of the Urban Fringe as the Greater Norwich Local Plan intends to categorise it. This categorisation is mis-leading and is not representative of the area, its history or those who choose to live there due to its rural nature. By approving these sites for future development, regardless of this being as a reasonable alternative, would destroy the current nature and heritage of the village, swamping it and changing its character forever.
The village has no shop, school, doctors and a very poor bus service and is unable to cope with further large scale development. The creation of a large development such as GNLP0415 would lead to a huge increase in the number of residents having to commute to other local areas to access services, increasing traffic congestion and pressure on these services. There are few job opportunities in the area. This again would lead to an increase in those having to commute elsewhere causing further problems on the local road network.
The area is particularly susceptible to problems with drainage and by removing such large areas of agricultural land this would only contribute to and increase these problems. The centre of the village sits at a low point in the drainage system and is not able to cope with further influxes of water.
The Parish Council see no justifiable reason why this site should be considered as a Reasonable Alternative and by considering it for future development this would lead to the permanent loss of a significant area of the countryside.

Honingham Parish Council support the classification of site GNLP0411 as being unreasonable. This site is wholly unsuitable for development, not least because of the very limited access, but the nature of the site as being sloping. There are no services within the village making this site unsustainable and unsuitable.

This application is open ended for further development behind the planned infill, which would increase the village dwellings by a third, and as Highway England propose that the existing A47 road to the north would grant a further access to the planned site its a foregone conclusion that further development would be granted. This would significantly change the village ambience, which has no amenities apart from a pub. In the original application, there was mention of a garage, where one could supposedly purchase everyday items. Not true, does not exist, repair and refurbish workshops maybe. Repeat NO AMENITIES.

Far too large, would swamp the countryside and develop huge urban sprawl. No infrastructure, maybe a reasonable alternative in 50 years time.