Planning – Application Comments

I have concerns about the proposed development. The density of housing applied for is quite out of keeping with the surrounding properties. It is unreasonable to inflict a semi-urban estate on a country area. I visit this area and value the open aspect so typical of Norfolk. The site is a flood risk - the fields of the lower level properties opposite already get very waterlogged and I fear more water will be directed there, resulting in the kind of flooding we have seen in other parts of the country,making some properties un-insurable. School Road has become more dangerous in recent years due to the speeding of cars and heavy lorries making the road dangerous for walkers, dog-walkers and horse riders. The excessive speeds have been recorded and documented by a recent Speed Watch team. Even more traffic will add to the problem.Another concern is the loss of valuable agricultural land. With the uncertain situation with "Brexit" and Europe it is vital we retain productive land to reduce imports and increase self-sufficiency. I urge you to carefully consider whether this scale of development is necessary or sensible.

We would like to object to the application on the same basis as which we objected to the application for 7 houses (ref 17/00197/F ) and as given in the refusal for development.

1. This is Agricultural land outside the village boundary where construction is unnecessary. The original outline permission for 5 was given when the Council could not demonstrate a five year supply of housing land which is no longer the case. CS06 states applications on greenfield sites will be resisted unless essential for agricultural or forestry needs.
This development is not essential for either.
Flood Zone 3 - development does not outweigh the risks of sustainability and runs an increased risk for neighbours opposite whose land lies lower than the proposed development and would be an obvious escape route for excess water around the site. This is also addressed below.
2. Granting permission will encourage the spread of development into rural areas and increase the population in this small area by 200% based on 4 person occupancy of each property.
3. The proposed access to the site is partially opposite our stable entrance and our other entrance is not marked on the plan at all. Something we pointed out in our objection to the 7 properties. (http://online.west-norfolk.gov.uk/online-applications/files/C1AAEE16098F704FD509B89F9D522A15/pdf/17_00197_F-PUBLIC_OBJECTION_COMMENT_-_THE_LAURELS-3915249.pdf) Both our entrances and that of our neighbour at Marcroft require access for horseboxes and other farm machinery to maintain our land and this access would be compromised.
4. In connection with both the outline and this application it is not clear what utilities these properties will have. The area is outside of the village boundary and neither mains sewage nor gas are available. Some reference has been made in the plans to treatment plants, but the application form does not provide detail, nor are there details of how heating/hot water will be provided and if they are from sustainable sources or what noise impact they will have. Equally there is a reference to homeworking facilities, however further details are not provided, what impact are these going to have on local residents? Internet services are already poor and electricity brown outs have been experienced recently and adding further demand to the local facilities will only compound these issues for those who already live here and work from home.

Further points against development of this piece of land:
- The state and heavy use of the road is not suited to yet more cars from new builds. CS08 also requires the cutting of greenhouse emissions. The application indicates up to 3 parking spaces per property which will add a further 15 vehicles to an already overburdened infrastructure. The road is used as a cut through, including by heavy goods vehicles and there is not enough room for 2 to pass without mounting the pavement or grass verge. This site is outside of the village and there is no public transport in School Road and therefore it is essential to have private transport, which will defeat the object of cutting greenhouse emissions. Local residents are reluctant to walk to the village or to the school due to the safety risks of traffic recklessly using the road and such a development will place an additional burden on an area not equipped to sustain it not to mention the safety risks to vulnerable road users and those who do venture out along the footpath.

- The local infrastructure is limited and not only supports Terrington St John residents, but surrounding villages for services such as the doctors and pharmacy and there is concern that they will not be able to manage increased numbers which these properties will bring. The village shop likewise is small and there is no post office. The local village primary school is not a large establishment and whether it could cope with additional students from these houses would be questionable. Equally if there were older children needing secondary education they would need to travel to Wisbech or Kings Lynn further adding to the cars along school road while parents make a school run or children will need to walk to the village to catch a bus.
- We understand that there is a requirement for any developments with 5 or more properties to include 20% affordable housing. This application does not appear to do that. It should also be noted that residents of affordable housing are not always expected to own their own transport and as such have a ¾ mile walk to the nearest bus stop in the main village centre. The nearest supermarket is at least a 10 minutes and nearest hospital is over 20 minutes, both of these by direct private transport. Public services will take longer. The distance of the development site from basic amenities may cause issue with any potential resident of an affordable housing unit.
- We have not yet seen any submission for change of use of the land from Agricultural to Residential for this proposed development and wonder if this should also have been stipulated in the application.

Other points of note:
- The documents related to the planning application for 7 units required an archaeological study, which we hope would also apply to this application as it is the same piece of land.
- According to the planning portal guidance leaflet 2015 the application must be in line with the Outline Planning application already granted - which in our view it is not.
a). The plot arrangement has now altered to look more like a street scene which is out of character to the area. The original had some degree of changing frontage and did not look so regimented but was still out of keeping with the area. The properties in the immediate vicinity, are far more spaced out with two of the properties opposite set in approximately 12 acres and other properties sitting on over a third of an acre each. This development will significantly overburden the character of the area by being packed into less than a single acre. Therefore we believe this is against Core Strategy 08 which states all new developments should respond to the context and character of places in West Norfolk requiring the scale, density, and layout to enhance the environment.
b). The land drainage has now altered significantly such as to introduce a soak-away (to be based on land percolation tests it seems) instead of emptying out into the water course to the south as per original Outline planning application. Due to the flood risk we have concerns about reliance on a soak away when the clay soil is already impermeable and the land is often heavily waterlogged. More houses do not help with risks of flooding.

We urge the planning committee to refuse this application.

5 houses probably don't seem very many when seen in isolation from all the other planning applications already in progress.
These 5 proposed dwellings will be an intensive development on a parcel of land well outside the Terrington St John village boundary and totally out of character with the existing dwellings which are well spaced from each other.

School Road, which is where these dwelling would be situated, is a country road which has been hijacked by heavy goods vehicles and cars using it as a cut through to/from Wisbech and Downham Market. Added to these vehicles is the constantly growing number of cars from new houses built in Marshland St James/Smeeth area who need to use the road to access main routes.
There is no continuous pedestrian pathway along School Road, which makes walking a dangerous and unpleasant pursuit. The high level of HGV's using this road has dramatically increased the level of noise, and pollution from diesel emissions.
Cars speed along the road, disregarding the 40MPH limit, which in my opinion should be 30MPH anyway.
What could be a pleasant route for local residents to walk their dog into the village, or take their children to school by foot instead of in the car, or ride their horse, has been ruined by traffic density. The focus should surely be on reducing the level of traffic using this road rather than increasing it, before an accident happens that could claim lives.

The land along school road is low-lying and often saturated in the winter. There is no mains drainage at the site of these proposed dwellings, in fact there is no mains drainage from the village boundary to the end of St John Fen End. Whichever domestic sewage system is used the end result of them all is the water produced by the households. An intensive building development on a small parcel of land would produce a lot of water which the land would be expected to absorb. This is likely to increase the flood risk of this area.

The local facilities, such as they are, are already stretched I believe, there is one small school and a GP surgery.

The land where these dwellings are proposed to be built is agricultural land, sell off our food production acre by acre and soon we would not be able to support ourselves or have a food export trade.

We do not need more houses ruining the countryside. The road is atrocious as it is with the amount of cars and large lorries using it as a cut through. More strain on the schools and doctors etc, more disruption for the village and residents. We want to have nice views of fields and nature not houses! I strongly OBJECT!!

This area is renowned for it's open nature. Houses are well spaced out with land and are of different architectural styles. The dense nature of five properties in the small amount of land will completely change the appearance of the vicinity. It also goes against Core Strategy 08 which states all new developments should respond to the context and character of places in West Norfolk by ensuring that the scale, density, layout and access will enhance the quality of the environment;

CS08 also requires the cutting of greenhouse emissions. The development will increase the number of cars being used. This site is too far away from main public transport hubs. This will encourage car usage. The amount and speed of traffic already on School Road will further discourage people from walking the considerable distance into Terrington St John. This is a village and as such lacks many amenities making it necessary to drive into nearby towns. During holiday seasons the roads are extremely busy and it is really difficult getting into town.

With regards to the road, it cannot cope with the current volume, weight and speed of traffic. In places the road is dangerously subsiding towards the dyke, there have already been lorries overturned in the dyke. About one thousand vehicles use the road per day, many of these being heavy lorries, and the average speed is now 18 miles per hour OVER the speed limit. That is 58mph on a country road that is often not safe to drive at 40. This is well documented by Terrington St John Parish Council from SAM 2 Data Collection Devices and also from an active Speedwatch team.

The road isn't wide enough for two lorries to pass - they have to pull into driveways or onto the verge or pavement, where there is one. Where there is a pavement it is very narrow which puts pedestrians at risk.

CS08 also requires Sustainable Development - All new development in the borough should be of high quality design. New development will be required to demonstrate its ability to: protect and enhance the historic environment; enrich the attraction of the borough as an exceptional place to live, work and visit. The proposed houses are utilitarian, lack character and individuality and will be detrimental to the look of the area.

This land is outside the village development plan area and is productive agricultural land. CS06 states applications on greenfield sites will be resisted unless essential for agricultural or forestry needs.
This development is not essential for either agriculture or forestry. In fact it would not have been granted outline permission with reserved matters last year had the five year supply of housing land suddenly not been achieved. Since the quota of building land has now been satisfied whether such a large number of properties should be built to the detriment of the immediate area and current residents surely should be considered.

Page 30 of the Core Stratedy addresses flood risk. This is category 3a flood plain. Flood plains are necessary to soak up water from, for example, rain fall - and there is a lot of that. Rivers bursting their banks is not the only cause of flooding. Take away the land's ability to soak up water and it has to go elsewhere. Neighbouring properties are lower lying and they will bear the brunt of flood. This has happened in other parts of the country with homes that were not at any risk of flooding, yet because of housing developments these houses have flooded. As the houses in this area are all at risk of flooding, this development will only increase the risk. Just because flooding has not happened in the past doesn't mean it won't happen in the future.

Statement 7.2.14 allows for modest housing growth to support local housing needs. For this basic services and easy access to public transport are required. There is no access to public transport, or basic services, without using a car to reach the village centre. Also the proposed housing will not address local housing needs.

7.4.12 is concerned with reducing car usage. As already mentioned, this development is too far away for easy access to public transport.

Greenhouse gas emissions from the borough are contributing to climate change, and are higher than the national average - page 8, environment. Increasing car usage will not help this and placing housing developments where people will have to rely on cars will do nothing to address this serious problem.

The proposed entrance is opposite the stable yard driveway of my neighbours at The Laurels. I have large vehicles frequently accessing my property, Marcroft, that must not be obstructed. (tractors, horse box, articulated delivery lorries, farm equipment to do with maintenance of my equestrian property) and my neighbours will be in the same position when they get horses.

There also needs to be some archeological investigations. I understand that the site is adjacent to an old Roman Road and there could be a wealth of archeology that is at risk of being destroyed if investigations are not carried out fully and properly catalogued.

Also what is not being addressed is the needs of existing residents going about their daily lives. I keep competition horses at my property, my next-door neighbours moved here specifically so they can keep horses, which will be happening in the near future. We need to exercise our horses and the only route we can take is out onto School Road. This is fine at present but if there is a building site opposite, the noise and activity will be very frightening for our horses. The work that has already been carried out - connecting electricity, fencing work, clearing the land - has already caused many problems because my horses have been spooked, which has meant we have been put in danger by speeding vehicles. Motorists simply do not look out for vulnerable road users and drivers don't see us despite wearing as much high visibility clothing as is possible - on my horses as well.
Whilst I appreciate this is not a planning matter, the safety of people going about their normal lives MUST be considered whereas at present these matters are being ignored. There are no alternative routes that can be taken. I have to go out of my front gate and on to School Road. With a building site opposite this could very well be impossible, or at least very dangerous. Horses are flight animals and anything that they don't understand and scares them they run away from. Which can very easily result in injury to horse and rider. If we meet something scary whilst out riding there are always alternative ways to go. To get out of my gateway I will have to persuade my horses to walk towards what they want to run away from. The same goes for my neighbours at The Laurels.

Please give consideration to how this proposed development will negatively impact on the lives of people, especially vulnerable road users. Speed limits and speeding need to be addressed, warning signs of possible danger could be helpful. Safe passageways to allow vulnerable road users access without coming in contact with traffic are also needed. Alternative routes would also be beneficial.

If building must go ahead, one property, or possibly two, would be far more in keeping with the neighbourhood, would to some extent protect the open nature of the area and cause less disruption and danger to those of us currently living and working here.

In short, this proposed development will not enhance the neighbourhood, will increase car usage and will cause serious danger during construction work to those of us already living in the vicinity.

Not Again? 5 dwellings given permission for against the objections received the first time around. Then an increased application for 7 houses by greedy developers which was fortunately rejected and now an new application reverting back to the 5 dwellings now they developers have been beaten down.
This land must surely be designated as agricultural land if not green belt land. Up to last year it was laid to crops. To allow buildings on what is agricultural land would set a precedent that would then see perhaps 50 houses or more built in successive years. The houses are not even going to be small properties for local people to afford to buy. Why are we so intent on building on land used for food? I know! It is quicker, easier to develop then any brown field site and makes bigger profits for landowners and developers.
Secondly, this land is waterlogged for most of the winter. Where is this water to go if houses are built on some of this land? It is a flood risk field if there ever was one.
Thirdly, we have a planning application already in place for 35 houses along School Road which is more than detrimental to the village should that go ahead.
Fourthly, this area of land provides for a wealth of wildlife. The small mammals that live in and around it provide food for the raptors such as kestrels, buzzards, and the owls (we have barn owls, tawny owls, little owls and have seen some short eared owls locally. The birds that use the field for feeding include many song birds and again are food for raptors such as the sparrowhawks that live locally. Are we to see this gone?
Fifthly, surely this proposed development is outside the planning envelope for the village? After all this is green belt land and I will say again, agricultural land.
Next we have the condition and size of the road which is already far too busy as this road has been designated a road for use by local companies to move more freely around the locality. How on earth a small rural village road has a 44 ton allowance is beyond my ken and is well overdue to be reconsidered. This will allow for even more traffic on this road especially if and when the 35 houses further up the road are built
Lastly (I think), the people who live out along this road away from the village centre, live in a very rural area and do not want to see ribbon development all along School Road, gradually eating away at the views, the wildlife, the way of life we have, all for the greed of some landowners and developers.
Permission for the original 5 dwellings of any size and nature was wrong and perhaps this time around the Planning Committee will see the error of their ways and refuse these 5 houses to be built. It is about time we stood up to developers who are only in it for the money and do not give a flying fig (strange expression I know but can't write what I want to say) about the locals who are already living nearby or the environment in which the houses are to be built.