GNLP0297

Referring to my comments against site no GNLP0294, this site alone would fulfil the growth requirements for the whole of BwithL.

Site GNLP0297. (1.68 Ha - 48 Dwellings)I can confirm that the client's site remains available. Noting that, if Buxton is identified for further growth there is potential for this site to be taken forward to the next stage of plan making.

This land is prime agricultural land and should not be used for housing. Consideration should be given to the derelict land on the other side of Aylsham Road. A site bounded by Lion Road, Cawston Road and Aylsham Road.

At the PC meeting held on Monday 12th March 2018, it was agreed by the PC to officially respond to the Greater Norwich Local Plan consultation with two resolutions:
1) That Buxton with Lamas PC opposes all the sites identified under the call for sites
2) That Buxton with Lamas PC wants to keep the settlement boundary of the parish as it is

Not sure if this site slopes away towards the Bure Valley railway line but I'd be deeply unhappy if this adds to rainwater coming down Stracey Road and Aylsham Road - please see my concerns on the other Buxton sites causing flash and general flooding and damage to houses at stream level. And the issue of Buxton school not being able to take additional children has got to be a consideration. I also note looking at your plans on the map that the North East area - which looks like it includes Buxton and Lamas - has 13,000 homes proposed. This is clearly out of proportion with the far lesser volumes listed for other sites. Why is this? Not convinced the NDR is set up to cope with all the traffic this would produce. I recognise the need for housing but this is clearly disproportionate for this countryside area.

Buxton School is already full, parents of children who already live in the village are being turned away.
There is no GP surgery in Buxton, neighbouring GP services are already full and under extreme pressure.
Buxton is a quiet village and this would ruin it for existing villagers. Please leave the village boundary where it is.

Necessary farmland, putting strain on a village that already doesn't have the amenities to support it, let alone school places. Issues of flooding and general movement of cars and people on foot around the village cannot be properly addressed without massive disruption.

Lack of local infrastructure with school full, and nearest gp and dentist in Aylsham also full. This would also created issues with increased road use.

The local roads are already far too busy and an increase in housing in the area would be dangerous for locals . The village school that my children attend is already full. it would be more appropriate to concentrate housing in the suburbs of Norwich rather than destroy the character of outlying villages.

The village has increased a lot in size in recent years and local amenities and the school are not able to take a further huge increase in numbers. Local doctors surgeries are already not able to offer appointments without a delay of often up to a month for non urgent cases. The roads are already busy and not fit for the increased traffic that further development would bring.

1) Land off Mead Close [Buxton - adopted local plan allocation BUX1] - Owner (Mr Waller) is ill but wants to sell the option to a developer. £1500000 is too much and is not raising interest.
2) GNLP0297 - Mr Granes [?] owns the land - he offered it for building about 9 years ago. He took umbrage because he was not shown the plans before the Parish council. He hasn't relented. Mark Little from Savills will have a job to change Mr Crane's mind.
3) GNLP0601. Ideal - near road, amenities, etc.
4) GNLP0387. If this is Glebe land I am sure the Diocese will sell.
5) GNLP0294 - Ideal again - but the Heritage of Coltishall want so much to be kept for historical reasons. Will cost much to redevelop old buildings - shortage of brickies, carpenters and bricks.