GNLP0544R

Lanpro on behalf of Hardingham Farms Ltd, object to the identification of site GNLP0554R as an unsuitable site for allocation and its exclusion from the document as a preferred site for Hingham.

REF GNLP0544R
This site should remain as "unsuitable" as the road and pavement access is already minimal and (pavement) virtually non-existent.
This level of increase in such a constricted location with little to no space for road improvement would be ill advised.

This site should remain as "unsuitable" as its location is served only by a narrow blind, bending road, without continuous pavement on either side of the road and inadequate space to facilitate improvements.
The impact of the recent development of the communal site for people with learning difficulties on the other side of the road have even yet to be seen - as currently not yet occupied - and these too will suffer anyway.

I wish to register my objection to this site in the strongest possible terms. Having seeN a new report commissioned by the Landowner , Hardingham Farms , I wish to reiterate my objectIons to the use of Swan Field . Although it is stated in the GNLP report that this site is not acceptable , I see Hardingham Farms report makes light of the real issues.

Adding a short stretch of pavement will not mitigate the danger to life and limb. Although the traffic is limited there are still those who drive too fast on this difficult stretch of road. The entrance/exit to a new housing estate would come out in between the 2 difficult S bends. This Road is mainly unlit and is currently used by both dog walkers and parents walking their children to school.

Any increase in traffic will likely cause a higher level of danger on this road. It is not enough to point to a low level of reported accidents. As a home owner on this stretch I see the near misses weekly .

The increase in volume of heavy contractor equipment during the build phase would make the life of homeowners unbearable. This is likely to take many months and should be taken into account.

There could be an issue with water drainage along the road, which is liable to have standing water on it in heaven downpours. There is no way of knowing how a large estate will impact this and houses already on Hardingham Road could be liable to increased risk of flooding. I urge you not to support this site for development and to look elsewhere in the far more appropriate sites in Hingham .

Although GNLP0544R has been deemed ‘not suitable’ for development, I would like to state the unsuitability of this site because of safety concerns. The area is not lit, pavements are poor and in bad shape and no road drainage which causes serious flooding in many places. The proposed site entrance is between two bad bends with poor visibility. Cars already speed along this stretch and is an accident area waiting to happen with many small children walking in this area to and from school. A further 100 homes, with the extra cars and foot traffic it creates is not acceptable.

I wish to register my objection to the building of houses on Swan Field for the following reasons:

The access road to the site, even if widened, is not suitable for the volume of traffic and likely produce a bottleneck at each end of the 'S' bend and a 'rat run' along Hardingham Rd and St.
The access road is widely used by walkers, cyclists and horse riders
The capacity of Hingham Surgery and primary school is at capacity
Likely to devalue my own property as loss of rural aspect
Increased noise and pollution

I object to the proposed development on Swan Field GNLP0544R The road is not suitable for heavy construction traffic. The density of housing is too great, The submission of traffic movement is not correct especially morning and evening movements. Visibility along the road is limited and the road width is not sufficient for safe passage of vehicles and pedestrians. Look at the erosion of the verges along Hardingham Road to see that vehicles have difficulty in passing. There are more suitable sites around Hingham for housing development.

I strongly object to the proposed development on swan field GNLP0544R.The road is unsuitable it's narrow and has 2 bends with very poor visibility. I live on XXXXX close to 1 of the blind bends and find it very scary pulling off my drive. Any increase in traffic will certainly be unwelcome and unsafe. There are other more suitable sites in Higham,Swan field was deemed an unreasonable site for a reason the road is just not suitable...

I comment to support the assessment of site GNLP 0544R as being unsuitable for inclusion as an allocated site for housing. The main reason for this is the lack of a sufficient and safe highway leading to and from the proposed site. Although Lanpro Services Ltd suggests that this could be overcome by their widening of the highway for the length of the boundary of the development, this would not solve the problem. The narrow width of the road beyond the confines of the site would still mean that the highways concerns would be unresolved, making the site unsuitable. As well as the narrowness of the road being an unsurmountable problem for this site, the problems of visibility for vehicles from both directions due to bends and curves in the road would also be impossible to address satisfactorily.
In addition, the views of Hingham Town Council, representing the local resident population should be given more weight than those of the prospective developers, if local democracy is to count for anything. Hingham Town Council is clear that this site is considered as being unsuitable for a number of reasons given in stage 3 summary of consultation comments.
Being on the edge of the settlement and outside the existing settlement boundary, the loss of this greenfield site would have a particularly detrimental effect on the landscape and countryside. By bolting on an estate-type development to the outer edge of the settlement it would irretrievably alter the form and character of this part of Hingham for the worse. Instead of having the current gradual progression from urban settlement to open countryside, through a transitional zone of single or smaller developments, which are more isolated and with a range of character and building types, there would be a jarring suburban-type development adversely affecting views from and to Hingham.
Sufficient ‘suitable’ sites are proposed to go forward as allocated sites to ensure that Hingham as a Key Service Centre will have enough new housing within the plan period, without the addition of any sites deemed to be ‘unsuitable’.

I agree with the assessment of site GNLP 0544R as being unsuitable as an allocated site for housing. Firstly there is no suitable road leading to this proposed site. The road that Lanpro Services Ltd suggests could be widened can only do so along the site. This does not overcome the fact that the road is too narrow leading to and from the site. The road also has a bend in it at each end of the proposed site that adds to visibility problems for vehicles coming from both directions.

To add the loss of this picturesque field, which is on the edge of the settlement, would ruin what is a gradual transition from the settlement centre to the countryside.

Also there have already been an appropriate number of sites that have been deemed ‘suitable’ to go forward as allocated sites for Hingham. There is no need for the addition of this ‘unsuitable’ site.

I fully support the adoption that the proposed site in Swan Field is not suitable. The objection and subsequent proposal to widen the road along the boundary of the site will do nothing to resolve the restricted road width at either end. Further to this the proposed footpath would result in the point of crossing being directly on the corner.

I would also call into question the proposed vehicle movements and statements made in the presentations on behalf of Hardingham Farms. The Transport Note clearly states that there are a lack of comparable studies, but then goes on to give an estimate of only 40 vehicle movements. Looking at most properties within Hingham due to the limited public transport routes, they on average have two cars per household. If you were to therefore conclude that 75% of 96 houses have two cars, this would create potentially 144 more vehicles. It would be perfectly conceivable that 50% of these would be leaving and returning each day for transport to and from work during the peak periods.

Finally if Hingham's allocation of houses has already been achieved with other sites deemed by locally elected representatives to be more suitable, the forcing through of a site felt inappropriate would be both undemocratic and undermine faith with the planning system and local government.

HINGHAM TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS - GNLP0544R

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.
Hingham Town Council support the decision that site GNLP0544R is unsuitable for development.
The land is located off a narrow road without a continuous footway (with bends and poor visibility), which the infrastructure would not be suitable to sustain the additional traffic created by a development - the road is not be suitable to sustain the nature of the traffic during development/building. The additional traffic also would give rise to road safety concerns, being near the primary school and doctors surgery, an area already congested during school drop off and pick up times.

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