GNLP0520

Whilst this site is on the preferred list its impact on the local environment should be assessed carefully.
Specifically the B1108 is a busy (particularly commuter) route and has numerous hazards at present particularly for pedestrians.
There is already no pedestrian right of way to cross the B1108 ANYWHERE in Hingham. All pedestrians from this development will have to negotiate wholly inadequate pavements which are on the OPPOSITE side of this busy route.
To access the local shop(s) all pedestrians will have to cross to the north side of the busy road, cross a busy side junction and then re-cross the busy B1108 all with NO right of way anywhere. THIS IS WHOLLY INADEQUATE.
Major redevelopment of the B1108 incorporating widening of the road, new pavements and wider pavements with pedestrian priority crossing points should be pre-requisites to any further development.
Open fronted development to the B1108 should be mandatory to prevent the major design flaw in the earlier adjacent development which presents a blank (rear fence) facade which is also tight to the road which is known to encourage speeding and restricts/eliminates pedestrians options on that (south) side of the road.
Given the lack of spacing along the existing road a major redevelopment of this whole section of the road should be undertaken along with a review and further development of the traffic flow and pedestrian facilities throughout the village/town.
Not to do so will lead to even more dangers and in due course to fatalities.

This area is outside of the development boundary of Hingham. There are No footpaths that will allow people to walk to the centre of the village. There is No NHS dentist in the Town(the nearest Watton And Wynmondam) are full. There is No Senior school and young people would be needed to be transported to a school which would be a cost to the Council. The development which has just been completed in the next field has added to the local flooding at the rear of the site which has meant homes have had to make flood defence a priority. This would mean another green field site would be lost for food production increasing the demand for food to be brought in increasing Food miles/carbon footprint.

Surface water from the adjacent "Hops Development" passes via off-site attenuation into a pond, thence by pipe to a ditch in Seamere Road, then under the highway to another ditch. Within approx. 200 metres, ownership (and responsibility for maintenance) changes five times, ie three private landowners, Anglian Water and NCC Highways. This system also takes surface water from Norwich Road, Ringers Lane, Bears Lane and Seamere Road, which floods severely within minutes of heavy rainfall. Surface water from GNLP0520 must not be permitted to use the same route, when its direct course would be parallel to PROW Hingham F9.

The parcel of land is a known flood problem, just like the Hops site. Council representatives at the Hingham roadshow advised that surveys show the majority of people would travel towards Norwich for work, this contradicts point 338 of the Final Strategy document indicating employment in the Cambridge to Norwich Tech corridor. The current infrastructure won't sustain further development. Roads won't cope with additional construction traffic nor the additional residents. The school is at maximum capacity and local shops aren't adequate to support an increased population leading to additional traffic with residents having to drive to do their shopping.

I live on Seamere Road, which is currently suffering from excess water draining down from the fields.

The previous development (next to this site) has had a devastating impact, in terms of flooding, for residents on the corner of Bears Lane and Seamere Road.

The current proposal fails to address how this problem is going to be satisfactorily mitigated. The developers have already shown that they are unwilling to look beyond short-term profit and invest in adequate flood protection.

The Norwich Road is unfit for purpose in a number of respects. Infrastructure, especially roads, footpaths and road crossings in the of the whole town are decades overdue serious improvements to balance traffic and pedestrian needs far better. Traffic speeds throughout the town are a particular concern. A 2017 survey under taken by the Hingham Society in the Market Place in 2017 is also relevant.

I Object unless proper safe footpath provision is made to access the town centre without having to cross the dangerous B1108.
This requires creating a footpath between the original Abels development up to Bears Lane. Though this may require radical thinking ( money! ). It is time genuine thought to pedestrian safety was given in creating new housing. To survive the key service centre facilities need people in the proposed new estate to able to use them safely!
I would also like to see where safe vehicle egress is envisaged.
In addition pedestrian safety in the centre needs to be addressed.

WHY THE PROPOSED HINGHAM SITE GNLP0520 IS
TOTALLY UNSUSTAINABLE FOR THE FOLLOWING
JUSTIFIED REASONS!
The town has reached it’s full capacity of sustainability and its whole infrastructure is now
being threatened and flooded by continual over development.
The Doctors Surgery and Hingham Primary School are already
over subscribed. No NHS Dentists in the area taking on new patients.
The B1108 road is heavily used by large slow moving farm vehicles and HGV’s going
through the town, a lot travelling to the Hingham Industrial Estate and to a major
International Engineering company which are both situated opposite the proposed site.
The B1108 through the town can’t accommodate any extra volume of traffic without
being a serious danger to the public. The town simply does not have the parking facilities
for these increased numbers.
Very dangerous access from every direction on to the B1108 all through the town
especially during rush hour!
In the last several years Hingham has lost most of it’s local shop amenities
including the Post Office, Convenient Stores and many independent traders.
Another development of eighty or so houses will simply swamp and pollute the
environment of a once traditional Norfolk market town.

I am opposed due to the issues with flooding caused by the recent new development in the Hops. This has caused significant flooding to houses along Seamere Road. The farmland below The Hops is also badly affected by flooding.

The road crossings will be/are dangerous for pedestrians as it is not possible (due to protected trees ) to put footpath in alongside the Hops frontage.

The council's premise of distance from the village centre is wrong as they have taken the village centre as The COOP. This is not the centre of the village. The village centre is the Marketplace and the Fairland, so any argument about the Site GNP0520 being close to the village centre is not valid.

HINGHAM TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS
POLICY GNLP0520
Hingham Town Council object to any new sites being allocated for house building in revised local plans to 2038 until all existing allocations in current core strategies have been developed.

Following the GNLP roadshow (Hingham, 25th February), it is clear that there is largescale and vehement objections within the community to Norwich Road being further developed.
Having regard to the comments, concerns and representations made by residents, Hingham Town Council object to site GNLP0520 being allocated as a preferred site and object this site being allocated for further housing development on the Norwich Road.

Many of the concerns raised in relation to the development of GNLP0520 also have regard to the newly built Hops development (ref HIN1) and that development of GNLP0520 would further exacerbate the existing and/or give rise to similar issues.
These issues are predominately surface water and flooding concerns, a lack of adequate pedestrian links to the town centre, road safety and a permanent detrimental visual impact on the approach to the Hingham which is a Historic Town with a substantially sized conservation areas and many listed buildings.
Flooding – residents on The Hops have stated that there is inadequate surface water drainage on the estate and surface water run off from the B1108 is substantial during heavy rainfall. Residents at the southern end of the development have advised that there are issues with damp in their homes and waterlogging of gardens.
Residents on the lower lying Seamere Road and Mill Corner (which is within the conservation area), raised concerns regarding flooding prior to the Hops being built. The surface water drainage system from the Hops development requires the co-operation of three private landowners and two public bodies to co-ordinate and manage its maintenance, the Lead Flood Authority does not consider this to be its responsibility. Surface water from The Hops is attenuated into a pond which then flows into the ditch system. Insufficient time has elapsed to establish if flooding concerns have been mitigated, as overtime the pond and ditch system will become silted and overgrown, and it had already proven difficult to secure any satisfactory maintenance of this drainage system due to multiple responsibilities for maintenance i.e the system is the responsibility of several bodies/individuals (NCC Highways, 3 private landowners and Anglian Water).
Residents south of The Hops were told that the new system would improve the situation in Seamere Road but this has not happened since all water from Norwich Road, Ringers Lane, Bears Lane, Bears Close and Drinkwater Close, together with that from the Hops, ends up in the roadside ditches in Seamere Road between Mill Corner and the bottom of the footpath.
It is also of concern that the agricultural land to the south of The Hops is now becoming waterlogged, low yielding and unfarmable – a resident has commented “the land is very wet, we got flooded last year we lost the surface of the track too, A Resident has dug the ditch out behind us and we have replaced the pipe under the footpath /bridge with a much bigger pipe, A resident in the front row of cottages got flooded too,. Crop is growing in the field but field is very wet”
The site assessment states “GNLP0520: This site is proposed for allocation on a reduced boundary to avoid areas of surface water flood risk and historic environment impacts”. Allocating GNLP0520 on a reduced boundary than initially put forward does not prove mitigation of surface water flooding concerns and/or concerns over the impact of surface water run off on the lower lying Seamere Rd/Mill Corner now and over time. The site assessment, with reference to flooding, advised –“ Mitigation required for heavy constraints”.
Where it is clear that flood mitigation is required – such as with GNLP0520 the GNLP team should actively seek information from residents affected by or potentially affected by flooding in the vicinity of a proposed site allocation for housing development, prior to that site being approved, rather than accepting the submittance from the developers that flooding has been / can be mitigated.

Inadequate pedestrian links to the town centre - It has already been noted in the site assessment that children would have to cross the B1108 to access a footway to enable them to walk to the primary school. When The Hops was built, adequate provision for pedestrians to walk from the development to the Town Centre (the Market Place) and beyond was not achieved and no pedestrian priority crossing point was provided.
A section of footway between The Hops and Bears Lane could not be provided due to land ownership. During the time The Hops was built, the land which could have provided provision of a footpath became available for sale, and has subsequently been sold. The developer of The Hops (and promotor of GNLP0520) did not purchase the land to enable the lack of footway (between The Hops and Bears Lane) to be rectified.
A pedestrian refuge was provided (at the point where the footway ends outside The Hops at the western end), in theory to assist residents of The Hops to cross the B1108, however there is poor visibility (crossing from The Hops) due to the existing hedge between The Hops and Bears Lane and it is often difficult to see if vehicles are approaching on the wrong side of the carriage way, to overtake parked vehicles on the north side of the road in the vicinity of the pedestrian island. The existing danger due to the crossing point not having pedestrian priority and the lack of visibility to the left is more acute for (those such as) wheelchair users, pedestrians with children and pushchairs due to them naturally not being able to stand on the kerb edge to look for oncoming traffic. The Town Council are aware of reports of a child being hit by a van at this location. The Town Council have requested NCC highways provide white H marking on the road to try to prevent parking in the vicinity of the pedestrian refuge, so far NCC have refused.

The lack of a section of footway between The Hops and Bears Lane means that pedestrians have to cross the B1108 to access the footway alongside the B1108 to then walk toward the centre of Hingham. Pedestrians have to cross the B1108 a second time to access the Co-op shop, cross the B1108 3 times to access the Pharmacy/businesses on Bond Street and The Fairland (due to the very narrow footway by Beaconsfield House) and cross the B1108 4 times to access the Lincoln (“village”) Hall and Library. This lack of adequate pedestrian links into the centre of town, may discourage residents at GNLP0520 from walking to and using the small independent businesses within the Town centre. Other sites in Hingham on the B1108, assessed during the GNLP process have been deemed unsuitable due to lack of adequate pedestrian provision (GNLP0298, GNLP0335), yet GNLP0520 has been deemed suitable (and the Hops has been built) without the provision of an adequate pedestrian link into the centre of Hingham. There is a clear inconsistency and contradiction demonstrated in the site assessment process.

There is NO point on the B1108 (or anywhere in Hingham) where priority is given to pedestrians crossing the road, this needs to be rectified. Development of GNLP0520 would be contrary to GNLP policy 2 “1. Access to services and facilities -
Developments are required to provide convenient, safe and sustainable access to new on-site services and facilities or to existing facilities as appropriate. This reduces the need to travel and provides local access to services and facilities, supporting their viability”

GNLP Policy 5 states “Residential proposals should address the need for homes for all sectors of the community having regard to the latest housing evidence, including a variety of homes in terms of tenure and cost. New homes should provide for a good quality of life in mixed and inclusive communities and major development proposals should provide adaptable homes to meet varied and changing needs”. Providing homes to meet “varied and changing needs” in Hingham MUST come with a commitment to provide the infrastructure to support those residents, including pedestrian priority crossing facilities in an appropriate location (locations) to ensure that ALL residents, including those who have mobility issues/slowness and visual impairments are able to cross the increasingly busy B1108 (where adherence to the speed limits is poor) as a priority over vehicles and be able to cross the road in safety.
Hingham has a high percentage of elderly residents, and statistics show that people are living longer, it is therefore essential that, in order to support any development in Hingham, the town receives improvements to the footways and crossing points to allow elderly and very elderly residents to walk around the town without fear of trips and falls on uneven and narrow footways or fear from crossing the busy B1108 due high volumes of vehicles and speeding traffic

Without adequate pedestrian provision, the development of GNLP0520 would be contrary to the GNLP policy 2 “Sustainable Communities” with regard to convenient and safe access to services and facilities, promoting active travel, and minimising pollution, as it would be reasonable to suspect that residents from a development on GNLP0520 would drive to access businesses in the centre of town and facilities such as Library, Village Hall, Sports Centre. There are long held concerns regarding on road and dangerous parking practices in Hingham. Being that there is no public car park and businesses in the Market Place and Fairland have no dedicated parking for staff or customers, it would be unlikely to achieve provision for green travel (outside of that of providing private charging points within a development) such as provision of publicly available vehicle charging points. Parking facilities at the Lincoln Hall/Bowls Club/Library and the Sports Centre are inadequate in size to accommodate visitors to these venues during busy times.

Detrimental visual impact on the town – many residents who attended the GNLP roadshow consider that The Hops has had a detrimental visual impact on the Norwich Road approach to Hingham, with concerns that the development is not in keeping with the town and will not “age well”, it has even been called an “eyesore”. The Town Council consider that further development of the Norwich Road (GNLP0520) in particular with the “active frontage” suggested, would have a further detrimental visual impact on the Town by creating a corridor approach to Hingham which would permanently further alter the aesthetic of a historic town. By developing GNLP0520 and combining the visual impact with that of The Hops would produce the perceived vision of one large new development on the approach to the Historic part of Hingham and it is a concern that this would create a perception of a “separate community” that may not integrate well into the existing community of Hingham

There would be significant loss of views over open countryside. Again there is inconsistencies within the assessment process, included in the reasons that GNLP0502 was considered unsuitable is “development in this location would encroach into open countryside with a resulting impact on form and character.” - however GNLP0520, being much more visible on the approach to Hingham would have a greater impact on form and character and would also encroach on open countryside. The arguments put forward in favour of The Hops development in 2014 maintained that the site’s
sloping nature would cause “minimised visual impact” on the approach to Hingham from the East and “preserve the visual of the tree line with the church tower above”. This argument and necessity seems to have been abandoned.
Because of the topography of the area GNLP0520 is at its highest point where it borders Norwich Road (sloping southwards) it is also situated higher than The Hops development. A development on GNPL-0520 would be visible for some distance, especially to the South and East and would be contrary to GNLP Policy 2 requiring developments to “Respect, protect and enhance landscape character, taking account of landscape character assessments or equivalent documents, and maintain strategic gaps and landscape settings, including river valleys, undeveloped approaches and the character and setting of the Broads;”
Development of GNLP0520 would also be contrary to Policy 3 “The Natural Environment …. Development proposals will be required to conserve and enhance the natural environment. Key elements of the natural environment include valued landscapes” … it is clear from residents objections that the loss of such prominent and valued open landscape by developing GNLP0520 would definitely not “conserve or enhance the natural environment”, but permanently destroy it, on the approach to Hingham via the Norwich Road.
GNLP0520 is documented as being within the 3000m buffer zone to SSSI. In the context of the climate emergency, where several species of wildlife native to Britain are becoming extinct or at risk of extinction the Council are concerned to ensure that housing developments are not built on areas where rare species of wildlife may exist, or indeed, where extension of the urban area will contribute to the depletion of wildlife. Should housing development take place wildlife habitat should be preserved, protected, enhanced and improved.
The houses along Seamere Road/Mill Corner, including listed buildings, will be negatively affected by flooding and decimation of rural situation.
Arable land south of both The Hops and GNLP0520, designed to assist with surface water flooding will be become unusable, inaccessible and waterlogged - as has already occurred with the land south of The Hops.
By developing GNLP0520, the land south of The Hops/GNLP0520 will have no road access for agricultural vehicles.

Development size – “approximately 80 homes, 33% of which will be affordable. More homes may be accommodated, subject to an acceptable design and layout being achieved”.
Hingham Town Council are concerned that the development of 80 houses (with imminent deliverability) (alongside 20 more allocated within the plan, 16 existing commitment and unknown number of “windfall” properties) is not sustainable with regard to the Towns facilities. There are concerns regarding the pressures that will be placed on the Primary School and Dr’s Surgery (without any consideration as to how developments in neighbouring Breckland will also add to the number of people needing to access services in Hingham). Both the Drs surgery and Primary School are located on Hardingham Street, on road parking to access these facilities is a daily occurrence, causing pollution, congestion and parking on pavements. It is reasonable to assume that many parents (due to work, lifestyle) from a new development will take children to and from school by car, parking issues (e.g too many cars and parking on pavements) relating to the primary school drop off and pick up times are already cause for concern and will be exacerbated by future housing development in the town.
It is also unreasonable to suggest (as has been suggested by the developer promoting GNLP0520) that residents from Hingham would be more inclined to work in Norwich/Wymondham and therefore a development on Norwich Road would prevent additional traffic travelling though the town and via the dangerous B1108/Fairland crossroads. It is conceivable to assume that there would be residents that would work in other locations such as Dereham and Attelborough. Dereham would also be likely to be a destination for supermarket shopping, having a large Tesco, Aldi, Lidl, pet store, Halfords, Screwfix, Roys, Homebase, Poundstretcher and a McDonnalds on the Hingham side of the outskirts of Dereham.

Highway access concerns – initially GNLP0520 was put forward for the development of 250-300 homes. Highways comments in the site assessment were: “ Not feasible to achieve safe access due to presence of TPO protected trees. Comments revisited: The ability to provide access visibility splays is limited by the presence of TPO protected trees at the site frontage”.
Prior to The Hops being built, part of the planning design was to include a pedestrian refuge at the eastern end of the development, however this was not deliverable because of the presence of TPO trees, and a compromise was made with the installation of a flashing speed sign (facing east only).
It is of concern that, if the site is allocated for development, when it came to the building phase, the vision splays/safe access to GNLP0520 would not be achievable due to the presence of TPO trees, (as was the case with omitted pedestrian refuge for the eastern end of The Hops, the design worked “on paper” but not in reality).
Highways have also commented that it is thought that compliance with the 30mph speed limit is not particularly good. This gives rise to concerns over safe access onto the B1108 from GNLP0520, in particular as the road to the east has reduced visibility due to a bend. It is not acceptable to assume that changing the environment, by building houses will reduce the instances of speeding (there is no evidence to support this).
In addition to access and speeding concerns, there is also a concern regarding the proximity of the required access to GNLP0520 to the existing industrial area. Already subject to frequent movements of long wheel-base HGVs emerging slowly from a standstill from Ironside Way/A C Bacon Engineering onto the B1108/Norwich Road whilst encountering oncoming domestic traffic within 300metres of a national speed limit and entering from a blind bend. Local residents frequently note near misses between domestic and industrial vehicles at the Ironside Way/A C Bacon Engineering junctions. The allocation (carried forward) of HIN2 as an employment area (stating that the existing access of Ironside Way will be used) means that at some point there will be increased industrial traffic of unknown size and frequency exiting and accessing the industrial/employment area to and from the B1108.
Highways have commented that there would need to be a pedestrian refuge in the vicinity of Ironside Way, however the Town Council question whether this is feasible due to any carriageway widening required/presence of TPO trees and how such a refuge would impinge on the very large HGV vehicles entering/exiting the industrial area.
There are also concerns regarding the inadequacy of pedestrian refuges in providing a safe crossing point for pedestrians. Pedestrian refuge island have numerous disadvantages (in comparison to a pedestrian priority crossing point) such as motor vehicles have priority, pedestrians may have to wait much longer for a gap in vehicle traffic to cross safely, particularly in heavy traffic, compared to a Zebra or Puffin crossing. For the pedestrian to cross safely, they must have good judgement of motor vehicle speeds and gaps in vehicle traffic, which children and older people do not always have. Visually impaired people, or those with other disabilities, may find refuge islands less easy to use compared with a Zebra or Puffin crossing. Some motor vehicle drivers act dangerously near crossing islands if a cyclist is passing through. They may squeeze past the cyclist when passing the crossing island, or swerve dangerously around the cyclist just before the crossing island.


A pedestrian priority crossing point must be provided in a suitable location to support any additional development in the town.

Employment - GNLP-0520 is opposite a mixed industrial estate with current B1-B8 use and future intended use allocated as B1, B2 and B8; B2 being ‘general industrial’ including chemical treatment and incineration, and B1(c) uses could change or be restricted by a higher concentration of residential housing (due to noise and use of acetylene and solvents as restricted under HSE). This could effect the sustainability of this employment.
Although HIN2 is the “designated” employment area in Hingham under the GNLP, there are no timescales for this area being developed to increase employment opportunities. There are many independent businesses in Hingham, the Co-op, agriculture and a small “industrial” area off Dereham Road that could all provide employment opportunities. Other development sites could provide better pedestrian access to the existing employment opportunities within the town

Future development – The site assessment document stated that “GNLP0310 (Approx. 172 dwellings)
is not considered to be suitable for allocation at the current time as it would need to be developed in conjunction with, or following site GNLP0520 otherwise development would be separate from the existing built form of the settlement”. Allowing GNLP0520 to be developed will then open up the potential for GNLP0310 to be developed in the future. A development in this location would further exacerbate all of the issues raised in regard to GNLP0520, Development of GNLP0310 is also vehemently opposed.

Previous consultation responses – During the previous consultation (8 January to 15 March 2018) GNLP0520 received 5 objections from residents and concerns were raised by the Town Council – the only comments in support were made by the developer of the site.

Deliverability:
Significant amounts of local opposition to GNLP-0520, local people preferring a dispursed housing model using sites which “balance” housing development preventing a “massive housing estate” aesthetic approach from Norwich when combined with The Hops.
GNLP-0298: Clayland Homes is landowner, developer, promoter and housebuilder with all relevant flooding, drainage and highways assessments are complete. GNLP-0298/0501/0502 ARE DELIVERABLE AND REASONABLE.
Footpath along small section of Watton Road IS deliverable. Footpath along Norwich road is NOT due to TPOs.

Highways:
The developers for GNLP0520 assert that traffic emerging from the site will “turn right to work in Norwich” focussing traffic along the B1108 toward Norwich - people in Hingham work in all areas of Norfolk, as it is a “rural town” and not ostensibly a Norwich suburb (some 14 miles distant).
B1108/Norwich Road already mixes significant frequencies of long wheel-base HGVs emerging slowly from a standstill from Ironside Way/ACBacon onto the B1108/Norwich Road whilst encountering oncoming domestic traffic within 300metres of a national speed limit and entering from a blind bend.
Local residents frequently note near misses with domestic and industrial vehicles at the Ironside Way/ACBacon junctions. Speed compliance along this road is very poor, hower enforcement is the answer NOT housing development, and there is NO EVIDENCE BASE to suggest, despite Abel Homes assertions, that this would be the case.

Environmental Health:
GNLP-0520 is opposite a mixed industrial estate with current B1-B8 use and future intended use allocated as B1, B2 and B8; B2 being ‘general industrial’ including chemical treatment and incineration, and B1(c) uses could change or be restricted by a higher concentration of residential housing (due to noise and use of acetylene and solvents as restricted under HSE).
This will effect the sustainability of this employment area AND the future residents of GNLP-0520.

Flood risk:
Historic poor compilation of the issues raised by agencies and residents regarding flooding due to The Hops development.
Surface water flooding run-off area to the south of GNLP-0520 is likely to be insufficient and ineffective, just as the run off south of The Hops has been.
Topography of GNLP-0520 is FAR MORE EXTREME than The Hops, is a far larger site and flooding will impact a larger number of homes, including listed buildings. Recreating the same failed run-off strategy will not prevent the same flooding issue in this instance.

Financial and Land Blight:
Houses along Seamere Road, including listed buildings, will be negatively affected and financially blighted by flooding and decimation of rural situation.
Arable land south of both The Hops and GNLP-0520, designed to assist with surface water flooding will be financially blighted and become unusable, inaccessible and waterlogged - as has the land south of The Hops.
Land south of The Hops/GNLP0520 has no road access for agricultural vehicles.

Visual:
No development is without visual impact - preference for dispursed and low visual impact sites is vastly preferred by local people
GNPL-0520 will be visible for over 4 miles around, especially to the South and East, where one of Hingham’s few walks will be able to see the site almost continuously.
The arguments put forward in favour of The Hops development in 2014 maintained that the site’s sloping nature would cause “minimised visual impact” on the approach to Hingham from the East and “preserve the visual of the tree line with the church tower ablove”. This argument and necessity seems to have been abandoned.

Leisure and Wellbeing:
Added value for Hingham - GNLP-0520 offers no benefit to Hingham as a community, is UNIVERSALLY UNWANTED, and will be a draw on local infrastructure, creating further ‘dormitory town’ issues and not benefiting local commerce/retail. A staged and staggered low-density, dispursed model, including GNLP-0298, will potentially balance housing for retired people, be closer situated to Hingham’s commerce/retail centres (the Co-Op is NOT the centre of Hingham!) and increase Hingham’s populations which can easily make use of, and contribute to, our leisure facilities (Sports Centre, Lincoln Hall Social Centre and Hingham Bowls Club). GNLP-0298 will likely connect a new woodland area with circular walks to the west and centre of the town, and GNLP-0501/0502 could create significant facilities enhancements at the Sports Centre.

Additional:
The singular comment in favour of GNLP-0520 is from an agent of the proposed developer. This is not an admissible comment, especially in view of the numbers of objections against.
Inaccuracies, inconsistencies and contradictions within the Site Assessment Document casts a long shadow over the information contained within, and calls into question it’s usefulness and efficacy as the basis of any planning decision making.

This site has a number of problems. Combined with the existing Hops development, it will form a massive estate, which is out of character for the town.
Drainage has been an issue with the Hops development, causing those living on Seamere road to suffer flooding from run-off and this new proposed site will increase the problem.
remaining farmland to the south of the site will also become blighted due to water-logging from run-off from the development.
The town would be much better served by a number of smaller developments, allowing it grow more organically. There are other sites proposed for the area which could be combined with GNLP0503 to provide a more diverse and lower-impact provision of new housing for the town.

Unlike other allocation policies there is no reference to water efficiency forming part of the design

Please also see comments relating to Policy 2 of the Sustainable Communities of the Strategy document.

1.Road safety issue for vehicles and more importantly for pedestrians. It seems tome that safety issues were either disregarded or dealt with only as an afterthought when the new development at The Hops was built and that this is being repeated re the proposed adjacent site – namely lack of footpath provision on the busy and quite narrow B1108. I have seen some reference to an intended pedestrian refuge opposite Ironside Way. In fact this will be no better than the “Hops” refuge which is inadequate to accommodate prams/ pushchairs and on which crossing can be an intimidating experience – and a new refuge and vehicle entrance would be dangerously clos to the bend on entering the village.
2.Drainage is already a problem which was never properly addressed when The Hops was built and will be hugely exacerbated by construction on this proposed site.

For full representation, please refer to attached documents

Please find attached a Regulation 18 Stage C Consultation Representation in relation to GNLP0520, Land South of Norwich Road, Hingham.

For full representation response, please refer to the attached document.