Object
Site Proposals document
Representation ID: 19665
Received: 13/12/2018
Respondent: Miss Anneka Hardy
Objection - Station Road (ref GNDP0430) for housing development.
It is noted that the site is classified as being suitable for housing development in the Council's Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA) 2017. However, in comparison to other potential sites across the village (particularly GNLP1052R) there are a number of technical issues and constraints to developing this land. Therefore, I am of the opinion that GNDP0430 is the least favorable site if the village was allocated in the draft Local Plan. My reasons are explained below.
1) Whilst the land promoter has suggested that Pulham St Mary is a service village its services are limited. Realistically the site is unsustainable as it ignores how services and facilities are located and should be provided. Ultimately it would encourage car use to bigger service villages/towns that have a wider selection of services and amenities. It is noted that the village has bus links. However, there this is a restricted timetable as evidenced through the very limited direct bus timetable to Norwich. Some journeys have three changes. Ultimately, this indicates how the site is unsustainable compared to other options.
2) The nearest bus stop and services to the site are located in the village centre. This would encourage more pedestrians to walk along Station Road. Worryingly, this road does not sufficiently provide road safety for pedestrians especially adults with children who would consequently have an unsafe walk to the nearest primary school in Pulham St Market. Whilst there are verges along Station Road this would not be a good enough road safety measure long term for additional pedestrians especially young children whose parents do not have access to a car.
3) Pulham Market is located a short distance to the west of Pulham St Mary and provides a range of other local services, including a primary school, doctors surgery, public houses, shops, and church. Therefore site GNLP1052R is more suitable if the village was allocated in the draft Local Plan.
4) Access to the site is very restricted and is between two houses (Rose Dial and The Hawthorns) therefore it would significantly impact on their inhabitant's road safety alongside the inhabitants of the surrounding frontal properties. As recognised by the Highways agency there is no possibility of creating suitable access to the site. Furthermore, the narrow access road does not have a suitable access for pedestrians, therefore, it does not provide necessary visibility splays and so there are again significant road safety concerns.
5) There is a dangerous junction very close to the access road just off Mill Lane where there have been several accidents. Vehicles turning onto Station Road from this junction could encourage collisions due to stationary cars/maintenance vehicles stopping on Station Road while they wait to turn into the narrow access road. As it is not wide enough for two vehicles, vehicles wanting to enter the site would be forced to wait on Station Road near this dangerous junction until the access road was free from oncoming traffic.
6) The development site would mean that the frontal houses on Station Road would be overlooked (Willow House, Rosedial House, The Hawthorns, the Poppies, Naple House and the circular positioned bungalows). This would mean that previously private areas would be overlooked. This constraint would not be a concern for GNLP1052R.
7) Frontal houses on Station Road would experience unacceptable disturbance such as noise during the development stage, which would be intrusive. Furthermore, heavy construction vehicles would create excessive noise and pollution due to the poor narrow access road and its proximity to Willow House, Rosedial House, The Hawthorns, the Poppies and Naple House. The circular positioned bungalows would also be disturbed by noise and pollution. In particular, the boundary of Rosedial House and The Hawthorns is adjacent to the narrow access road, therefore, their inhabitants would be at a further disadvantage. Furthermore, they would experience long-term disturbance due to the increased traffic flow driving between both properties as a result of them frequently accessing the new and inhabited housing development.
8) Waste collection vehicles would struggle to gain access to the site due to the narrow access road, as would the emergency services.
9) There are concerns about the current sewage system that serves Station Road. Therefore, an additional housing development would not have adequate sewage support provided by the nearby pumping station which already struggles to supply reliable sewage services and needs regular maintenance for a very small number of houses.
10) The site was accessed as not being suitable and therefore rejected when it was considered under the South North Council Local Plan. The constraints remain the same as before. I also understand that planning permission has previously been denied for this site.
11) The ecology assessment acknowledged that the hedgerows on the south and east are considered to qualify as a habitat of principal importance. There is a risk that these could be damaged during the construction phase of the housing site. It has also been identified that breeding birds, hedgehogs, and widespread invertebrates are potentially present on the site. While they may be part of larger populations, they are nonetheless declining species with the status of Species of Principal Importance.
Objection - Station Road (ref GNDP0430) for housing development.
It is noted that the site is classified as being suitable for housing development in the Council's Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA) 2017. However, in comparison to other potential sites across the village (particularly GNLP1052R) there are a number of technical issues and constraints to developing this land. Therefore, I am of the opinion that GNDP0430 is the least favorable site if the village was allocated in the draft Local Plan. My reasons are explained below.
1) Whilst the land promoter has suggested that Pulham St Mary is a service village its services are limited. Realistically the site is unsustainable as it ignores how services and facilities are located and should be provided. Ultimately it would encourage car use to bigger service villages/towns that have a wider selection of services and amenities. It is noted that the village has bus links. However, there this is a restricted timetable as evidenced through the very limited direct bus timetable to Norwich. Some journeys have three changes. Ultimately, this indicates how the site is unsustainable compared to other options.
2) The nearest bus stop and services to the site are located in the village centre. This would encourage more pedestrians to walk along Station Road. Worryingly, this road does not sufficiently provide road safety for pedestrians especially adults with children who would consequently have an unsafe walk to the nearest primary school in Pulham St Market. Whilst there are verges along Station Road this would not be a good enough road safety measure long term for additional pedestrians especially young children whose parents do not have access to a car.
3) Pulham Market is located a short distance to the west of Pulham St Mary and provides a range of other local services, including a primary school, doctors surgery, public houses, shops, and church. Therefore site GNLP1052R is more suitable if the village was allocated in the draft Local Plan.
4) Access to the site is very restricted and is between two houses (Rose Dial and The Hawthorns) therefore it would significantly impact on their inhabitant's road safety alongside the inhabitants of the surrounding frontal properties. As recognised by the Highways agency there is no possibility of creating suitable access to the site. Furthermore, the narrow access road does not have a suitable access for pedestrians, therefore, it does not provide necessary visibility splays and so there are again significant road safety concerns.
5) There is a dangerous junction very close to the access road just off Mill Lane where there have been several accidents. Vehicles turning onto Station Road from this junction could encourage collisions due to stationary cars/maintenance vehicles stopping on Station Road while they wait to turn into the narrow access road. As it is not wide enough for two vehicles, vehicles wanting to enter the site would be forced to wait on Station Road near this dangerous junction until the access road was free from oncoming traffic.
6) The development site would mean that the frontal houses on Station Road would be overlooked (Willow House, Rosedial House, The Hawthorns, the Poppies, Naple House and the circular positioned bungalows). This would mean that previously private areas would be overlooked. This constraint would not be a concern for GNLP1052R.
7) Frontal houses on Station Road would experience unacceptable disturbance such as noise during the development stage, which would be intrusive. Furthermore, heavy construction vehicles would create excessive noise and pollution due to the poor narrow access road and its proximity to Willow House, Rosedial House, The Hawthorns, the Poppies and Naple House. The circular positioned bungalows would also be disturbed by noise and pollution. In particular, the boundary of Rosedial House and The Hawthorns is adjacent to the narrow access road, therefore, their inhabitants would be at a further disadvantage. Furthermore, they would experience long-term disturbance due to the increased traffic flow driving between both properties as a result of them frequently accessing the new and inhabited housing development.
8) Waste collection vehicles would struggle to gain access to the site due to the narrow access road, as would the emergency services.
9) There are concerns about the current sewage system that serves Station Road. Therefore, an additional housing development would not have adequate sewage support provided by the nearby pumping station which already struggles to supply reliable sewage services and needs regular maintenance for a very small number of houses.
10) The site was accessed as not being suitable and therefore rejected when it was considered under the South North Council Local Plan. The constraints remain the same as before. I also understand that planning permission has previously been denied for this site.
11) The ecology assessment acknowledged that the hedgerows on the south and east are considered to qualify as a habitat of principal importance. There is a risk that these could be damaged during the construction phase of the housing site. It has also been identified that breeding birds, hedgehogs, and widespread invertebrates are potentially present on the site. While they may be part of larger populations, they are nonetheless declining species with the status of Species of Principal Importance.