Policy GNLP5004

Placing a site, on Buxton Road doesn’t make any sense. If these Travellers want to fit in with the community then they should have homes within a village. At Eastgate we don’t have any amenities ie. Shops, medical facilities or recreation area. There are no transport services ie Buses. No foot paths or street lights. This will mean more transport on the small country lanes. You will not give people planning permission for new build’s because of the highways aren’t suitable for more vehicles, but happy to give planning permission for this. Is this fair?
I don’t think this is the right place for this site.

I wish my comments to be noted in opposition to this proposal The ditch that runs in front of the land is essential and the effectiveness of this would be seriously compromised as a splayed entrance is required. This road is periodically a flood risk this would lead to further problems.

There have been sightings of newts on the land and borders. Any work or use of the land would endanger these protected species.

The land is also on the possible track of a Roman Road and needs full investigation before any change of use.

Many large farm vehicles travel this road and as the exit to the site is near a junction and bend this may increase the risk of accidents.

From an employment perspective. There is little or no work available either full time or seasonal in the area. What would these traveler’s do for employment?

I would like to object to the proposed traveller site on buxton road eastgate norfolk. This site is undeveloped and is unsuitable for services such as sewage AND water and is too far from local services.

The Council wishes to object to the above proposal on the grounds of biodiversity concerns, Cawston and Marsham Heaths SSSI is located approximately 1 kilometre from the site. There are four further SSSIs within a 5 kilometre radius (Booton Common, Buxton Heath, Alderford Common and Swannington Upgate Common) and the site is in a ‘green’ impact risk zone for Great Crested Newts. The Council feels that Natural England should be consulted on this.

In addition, the Council raised concerns around the lack of pollution mitigation measures that have been shared and would required more details to be provided to ensure that the impact of a site on good quality useable Agricultural land would not negatively impact the surrounding area.

Given that there is also a proposed increase in site space at the site in Stratton Strawless, which is within 3 miles to the proposed site at Cawston, the Council feels that it would be unnecessary to create a new one so close to an already established and well run site which is much more suitable.

1. Eastgate is a small and quiet hamlet with no services of its own. A development of this nature would have a significant impact on the hamlet
It has no shop, very limited public transport and the nearest local services, a shop and the primary school, are a mile away.

2. The nearest G.P. health services and secondary schools are approximately 4 miles away

3. I note that the application is for 4 pitches but am concerned that it may be difficult to limit the site to this number, especially as adjacent to the proposed site
there is an open field.

We are local residents on this small hamlet and have concerns regarding allowing this to go ahead for the following reasons:-

I understand firstly planning permission was put in for a house/ bungalow but was rejected by planning. I am not aware why this was turned down but would be very interested to see the reasons why.

However now you are looking into allowing 4 caravans to be erected in the same plot! I can’t understand how this could potentially go ahead for 4 caravans with a minimum of around 8 people or if families could be more than 16 including children, where is the sense in this! Also each caravan site will have at least 1/2 car/vans EACH which again is around 8 vehicles. The average house in this little hamlet is 2 per household.

These people will need to have transport as this is a rural area with only 1 bus per day.

Also this is a busy through road and we feel this will be too many cars/vans turning in and out which will become very dangerous.

As a resident personally we would be happy for ONE house/ bungalow to be erected with ONE family living there and a couple of cars. This would visually look nicer than what is currently there.

As a resident of Eastgate l am voicing my concern over the plan for a Gypsy and Traveller site in the heart of our hamlet. As this is private land who would be responsible for making sure the area is kept tidy and not overcrowded with vehicles? There seems to be adjacent marked out areas to the proposed plot. What assurances would be given that these areas would not be considered for expansion of the site. The development would have an impact on traffic in the area. There are already areas in the vicinity of Buxton Road that seem to have developed into sprawling homesteads with static caravans and even a coach.

Cawston Parish Council objects to the GNLP proposal of a Traveller site in Eastgate, Cawston . GNLP5004 Land off Buxton Road, Eastgate, Cawston.


1. The Parish Council has received many representations from the small community near the proposed site who feel that the site would have an overwhelmingly detrimental effect on the community.
2. The Parish Council previously objected to a proposal for housing on the site and the District Council rejected that proposal on the grounds that it did not fall within the defined development boundary, was not considered sustainable, did not provide potential residents with proper access to services and facilities and did not meet any of the criteria for a suitable ‘exception site’.
3. The Parish Council objects to the damage being done to the site in an attempt to make it look more suitable for development and are in the process of raising a complaint with the District Council.
4. The Parish Council thinks that the highway access from the site cannot be made, it is unsuitable.
5. The Parish Council refers to the relevant government policy:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_da ta/file/457420/Final_planning_and_travellers_policy.pdf

“Selection of site process
“ b. to ensure that local planning authorities, working collaboratively, develop fair and effective strategies to meet need through the identification of land for sites”
The Parish Council thinks that there is no evidence of this collaborative working for a ‘fair and effective strategy ‘ to identify this site . This looks like site selection based merely on opportunism.

“h. to increase the number of traveller sites in appropriate locations with planning permission, to address under provision and maintain an appropriate level of supply”
The Parish Council thinks that this is not an appropriate location and that consideration has not been given to this in the selection process to date.

“ i. to reduce tensions between settled and traveller communities in plan-making and planning decisions”
The Parish Council thinks that there has been no attempt to engage with the local community and that tensions may indeed arise.
“Using Evidence”
pay particular attention to early and effective community engagement with both settled and traveller communities (including discussing travellers’ accommodation needs

with travellers themselves, their representative bodies and local support groups
The Parish Council is not aware that any consultation has taken place to meet this requirement and again suggest that the identification of this site is merely opportunistic.

“Plan- making”
“Local Plans must be prepared with the objective of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development. To this end, they should be consistent with the policies in the National Planning Policy Framework, including the presumption in favour of sustainable development and the application of specific policies in the Framework, and this planning policy for traveller sites.”


“Local planning authorities should ensure that traveller sites are sustainable economically, socially and environmentally. Local planning authorities should, therefore, ensure that their policies:
a) promote peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the local community
b) promote, in collaboration with commissioners of health services, access to appropriate health services
c) ensure that children can attend school on a regular basis “
We refer you to Point 2 above. This site is not sustainable in these terms.

“When assessing the suitability of sites in rural or semi-rural settings, local planning authorities should ensure that the scale of such sites does not dominate the nearest settled community.”
The immediate surroundings are a small community and would be dominated by the development.

“Rural exception sites”
“A rural exception site policy should seek to address the
needs of the local community by accommodating households who are either current residents or have an existing family or employment connection, whilst also ensuring that rural areas continue to develop as sustainable, mixed, inclusive communities”
The Parish Council does not believe that this site meets any of the acceptable criteria for a rural exception site – including this one.

• The identification of the site appears to be opportunistic and not to have been selected in the “collaborative” manner required by Government policy. There has been no community engagement in this process and there is much local disquiet.
• Because the local community is small it will have a disproportionate effect on them.
• The appraisal document by Lepus (?) supports the view that this is not a sustainable proposal in terms of access to education , jobs , transport , pavements and local services . The site has previously been rejected for a house on precisely these grounds – and this proposal now multiplies this negative impact by four .
• The proposal does not meet the requirements for a rural exception site.
• Oddly this same document says that will be a positive impact on transport and jobs . This defies current logic.
• I am unhappy that the site has been damaged in an attempt to make it look more ‘brown field ’ and hope that the Council responds with an enforcement notice to have the site restored and buildings removed.

My wife, Mrs Jane Steward, and I object to the proposal for the site ref GNLP5004 - land off Buxton Road, Eastgate, Cawston. Please refer to my comments in my representation ID: 24748 in relation to the site assessment for that site.


In my submission, the size of the site must be confirmed before any decision is taken at this stage.


1. The Policy GNLP5004 and the Site Assessment (para 18) both say that the size of the Buxton Road site is 0.12 Ha (equal to 1200 square metres).

2. I refer to a planning application for the same location, reference 20191685 - "Erection of Dwelling with Associated Works (Outline) | Land Adjacent To Lesita Buxton Road Cawston NR10 4HN":

https://info.southnorfolkandbroadland.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=ZZZMH3OQMS51

The Supporting Statement for that application refers to a site size of only 0.09 Ha (900 square metres) : see "Site Context", para 2.3.

3. It is not clear to me how these two figures can be reconciled.

4. It will be essential for the size of the site to be clear. In my view, this is not a matter which will be relevant only to the planning application stage, if that stage is reached. It is relevant now: if it transpires that there is any error as to the size of the site and therefore the potential number of pitches, then I submit that the consultation process for this site will be fundamentally flawed.

I wish to object to the proposed travellers site on Buxton Road, Eastgate.

My objections are ;
Firstly I applied for planning permission for an annex to be built attached to my existing property to
accommodate my parents this was initially refused due to it being deemed detrimental to the
country side and that it could be seen from the A1067 a further application was made having made
the annex ten feet shorter which was passed. How can an annex that matched the existing property
be deemed detrimental to the country side and four traveller caravans etc are not.
Therefore in short my objection is that it will be detrimental to the countryside.
I have read that the land proposed has no flooding issue, I beg to differ having lived next to the land
for many years that the land does flood annually and at times even spreads into my front garden and
onto the road.
I appreciate gypsy's are classed as an ethnic minority and may feel the need to travel but if they
have now decided to put down roots and be residential then a council house should be for them and
a touring caravan to satisfy their need for occasional travel. Everybody having reached adulthood
have a choice of how they live their lives irrespective of the culture they were born into, they chose
the life they wanted and I fail to understand why everyone else has to bend to accommodate them if
they change their minds.
I understand that some peoples view of travellers / Gypsy's is the romantic one where in years gone
by travellers in there pretty horse drawn caravans travelled around the country making a living by
wheeling and dealing, selling pegs and 'lucky heather etc. Unfortunately those days are gone. We
now have gypsy's that make a living in less traditional ways shall we say.
I feel that there must be other land that are away from existing properties that the council could
compulsory purchase if necessary as they have done many times in the past for all sort of reasons
and perhaps make one big site or alternatively extend one of the existing sites to accommodate them
which would also allow them to live alongside people of the same 'culture'.

We object very strongly to this application.
We can not understand how this application has got this far!
The previous application to put housing on this site was rejected and the subsequent appeal was also refused as per the files attached.
Cawston PC have also objected to this plan as per the attached.
It is also of some disquiet that a static caravan and large shipping container has been placed on this site and that works have already been undertaken.
Surely this is in contravention of Broadland District Council building regulations etc.

1. Eastgate is a small hamlet with no services or facilities of its own. There are two small shops, and a primary school in Cawston, approximately one mile away.

2. Services such as G.P. surgeries, secondary schools and larger supermarkets are approximately four miles away in Aylsham and Reepham.

3. Public transport is very limited and the local roads to access Cawston are in the main single track or winding with fast moving traffic. All are unlit and have no footway. This makes access to Cawston unattractive by foot and could increase vehicular journeys.

4. Eastgate hamlet itself has no obvious meeting or focal centre and it could be difficult for a new group to have the opportunities to integrate with the community. Additionally the size of the proposed development could have a large impact.

5. There has been no recent approval granted to new permanent residential buildings in Eastgate

1. Anglian Water
1.1. Anglian Water is the water and water recycling provider for over 6 million customers in the east of England. Our operational area spans between the Humber and Thames estuaries and includes around a fifth of the English coastline. The region is the driest in the UK and the lowest lying, with a quarter of our area below sea level. This makes it particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change including heightened risks of both drought and flooding, including inundation by the sea.
1.2. Anglian Water has amended its Articles of Association to legally enshrine public interest within the constitutional make up of our business – this is our pledge to deliver wider benefits to society, above and beyond the provision of clean, fresh drinking water and effective treatment of used water. Our Purpose is to bring environmental and social prosperity to the region we serve through our commitment to Love Every Drop.
2. Anglian Water and Local Plans 2.1. Anglian Water is is the statutory water and sewerage undertaker for the Greater Norwich Local Plan (GNLP) area and a statutory consultee under The Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012. Anglian Water wants to proactively engage with the local plan process to ensure the plan delivers benefits for residents and visitors to the area, and in doing so protect the environment and water resources. As a purpose-led company, we are committed to seeking positive environmental and social outcomes for our region.
3. Commentary on the GNLP Gypsy & Traveller Sites Focused Consultation
3.1. Anglian Water has contributed to the utilities assessment of the proposed Gypsy and Traveller sites regarding connections to our water supply and water recycling networks and any identified encroachment issues on our assets/network.
3.2. We recognise the wider policy considerations that inform the selection of proposed sites within this consultation. The ability to connect to our networks where sites are adjacent to larger settlements that are serviced by a water recycling centre (WRC) means there are more sustainable and resilient options to treating wastewater arising from Gypsy and Traveller sites. Many of the sites are in rural locations or not closely related to our WRC catchments and therefore are likely to be reliant on non-mains sewerage solutions such as private package treatment plans. A joint advice note by Anglian Water and the Environment Agency in relation to non-mains sewerage options can be found on our website1.
1 https://www.anglianwater.co.uk/contentassets/ff314e5a2ec1452387d7aa04f6519c33/2020-11-10-aw-ea-non-mains-sewerage-advice-note---final.pdf
09.03.2023
2
POLICY GNLP5004 LAND OFF BUXTON ROAD, EASTGATE, CAWSTON
3.3. Anglian Water notes the site is located close to existing development within the settlement, and therefore it is within a reasonable distance to connect to our water supply and water recycling networks.
POLICY GNLP5005 LAND AT STRAYGROUND LANE WYMONDHAM RECYCLING CENTRE, WYMONDHAM
3.4. As referenced as part of the initial assessment, this site is within reasonable proximity to connect to our water supply network, but it is located outside the Wymondham water recycling catchment.
POLICY GNLP5009 LAND OFF HOCKERING LANE, BAWBURGH
3.5. Anglian Water notes the site is located close to existing development within the settlement, and within a reasonable distance to connect to our water supply and water recycling networks.
POLICY GNLP5014 A47 NORTH BURLINGHAM JUNCTION
3.6. The site is located within reasonable proximity to connect to our water supply network, but due to its rural location, it is not within reasonable distance of our water recycling network catchments.
3.7. The A47 road improvement scheme will require the diversion of our assets at this location, and this should be a consideration for future connections.
POLICY GNLP5019 WOODLAND STABLE, SHORTTHORN ROAD, STRATTON STRAWLESS
3.8. The site is located within reasonable proximity to connect to our water supply network, and is adjacent to the Aylsham water recycling catchment, although this part of the network operates as a vacuum sewer system which can take up to 24 months for a connection due to the requirements to assess the capacity of the network. We would suggest that any policy should include a requirement for early engagement with Anglian Water regarding connection to our water recycling network.
POLICY GNLP5020 ROMANY MEADOW, THE TURNPIKE, CARLETON RODE
3.9. The site is located within reasonable proximity to connect to our water supply network, but due to its rural location, it is not within reasonable distance of our water recycling network catchments.
POLICY GNLP5021 LAND OFF HOLT ROAD, HORSFORD
3.10. The site is located within reasonable proximity to connect to our water supply network, but due to its rural location, it is not within reasonable distance of our water recycling network catchments.
3.11. There is a mains water pipe to the northern boundary of the site. We will require sufficient stand-off distances around the water main or diversion at the developers' cost and to the satisfaction of Anglian Water. Further information on the location of our assets can be obtained via utilities.digdat.co.uk
09.03.2023
3
POLICY GNLP5022 LAND OFF REEPHAM ROAD, THE OAKS, FOULSHAM
3.12. The site is located within reasonable proximity to connect to our water supply network, but due to its rural location, it is not within reasonable distance of our water recycling network catchments.
POLICY GNLP5023 LAND OFF STRAYGROUND LANE, WYMONDHAM
3.13. The site is located within reasonable proximity to connect to our water supply network, but due to its rural location, it is not within reasonable distance of our water recycling network catchments.
POLICY GNLP5024 UPGATE STREET, CARLETON RODE
3.14. This site does not appear to be in close proximity to a water supply connection or our water recycling network. As the neighbouring site is occupied and was granted planning permission in 2010, there is an assumption that a water supply is available and sewerage treatment is confirmed as a package treatment plant through the documents submitted with the planning application.
Reasonable Alternative
POLICY GNLP5013 KETTERINGHAM DEPOT LAND WEST OF STATION LANE, KETTERINGHAM
3.15. As a reasonable alternative site, Anglian Water notes that the site is located within reasonable proximity to connect to our water supply network, but it is not within reasonable distance of our water recycling network catchments.
Unreasonable Alternatives
VCHAP SITE 1 AND SITE 2, MIDDLE ROAD, DENTON
3.16. Anglian Water notes the constraints identified regarding these sites and reasons why they have not been brought forward. In terms of access to our water supply and water recycling networks we can state that these sites are located within reasonable proximity to connect to our water supply network, but due to the rural location of these sites, they are not within reasonable distance to connect to our water recycling network catchments.
4. Conclusion
4.1. Anglian Water has assessed the potential to access our water supply and water recycling networks for the proposed Gypsy and Traveller Sites and identified where there are policy requirements regarding connections to our network or to ensure sufficient measures are in place to protect our assets within or adjacent to the proposed sites.

I refer to my representation ID: 24758. This is a supplementary submission, based on further information.

1. The Policy GNLP5004 and the Site Assessment (para 18) both say that the size of the Buxton Road site is 0.12 Ha (equal to 1200 square metres).

2. I refer to a planning application for the same location, reference 20191685 - "Erection of Dwelling with Associated Works (Outline) | Land Adjacent To Lesita Buxton Road Cawston NR10 4HN":

https://info.southnorfolkandbroadland.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=ZZZMH3OQMS51

The Supporting Statement for that application refers to a site size of only 0.09 Ha (900 square metres) : see "Site Context", para 2.3.

3. It is not clear to me how these two figures can be reconciled.

4. It will be essential for the size of the site to be clear. In my view, this is not a matter which will be relevant only to the planning application stage, if that stage is reached. It is relevant now: if it transpires that there is any error as to the size of the site and therefore the potential number of pitches, then I submit that the consultation process for this site will be fundamentally flawed.

I shall be referring to the following documents in addition to sections of the Greater Norwich Local Plan. I would request that all of these documents should be consulted together with these comments by the consultation reviewing panel:
https://info.southnorfolkandbroadland.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?keyVal=ZZZMH30QMS517@activeTab=summary
A: Broadland District Council Planning Application number 20191685: Erection of Dwelling with Associated Works (Outline), on Land adjacent to Lesitha (now Flambirds), Buxton Road, NR10 4HN
1. Broadland District Council Decision, dated 23/12/2019
2. Delegated Report Sheet, dated 23/12/2019
3. Planning Inspectorate Appeal Decision: Appeal ref: APP/K2610/W/20/3254640, dated 07/10/2020
https://info.southnorfolkandbroadland.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?keyVal=ZZZMH10QMS461@activeTab=summary
B: Broadland District Council Planning Application number 20202085: Removal of condition 3 of 20121396 to remove holiday let restriction, Autumn Cottage, Back Lane
4. Broadland District Council Decision, dated 08/01/2021
5. Planning Inspectorate Appeal Decision: Appeal ref: APP/K2610/W/21/3273694, dated 16/11/2021
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/457420/Final_planning_and_travellers_policy.pdf
C: Department for Communities and Local Government Policy Document:
6. Final Planning and Traveller Sites (August 2015)
D: Cawston Parish Council:
7. Formal Response to the NRLP Gypsy and Traveller Sites Focused Consultation, February/ March 2023
Under the GNLP, Cawston will form a Village Cluster with Brandiston and Swannington. Eastgate, officially designated a ‘hamlet’, is in Eynesford ward within Cawston Parish, and would therefore be considered part of the Cawston cluster for development purposes. The Cawston settlement boundary is drawn around the main part of the village itself. Eastgate, in its entirety, is outside the settlement boundary; this has been cited as a primary cause for rejection by Broadland District Council of planning applications for new permanent residential dwellings in Eastgate in 2019 and 2021 (BDC, 20191685, para. 4 and PI, APP/K2610/W/20/3254640, paras 6,7; BDC, 20202085, para.1 and PI, APP/K2610/W/21/3273694, para.13). Cawston Parish Council objects to the GNLP5004 site on this ground today (Cawston PC, para.2).
In the GNLP, new housing is proposed for Cawston on a site near Gayford Road immediately adjacent to, but outside, the existing settlement boundary (GNLP Settlement Map document: Map BL17, site reference GNLP0293). In the Cawston booklet, evaluation of GNLP0293 designates it as a preferred site but reduces the proposed 200 dwellings down to approx. 80 in total. Its position outside the settlement boundary is not regarded as problematic; the reduction is due to sustainability issues – including access to services, and transport and roads - and the impact of the development on the rest of Cawston village. Similarly, GNLP5004’s position outside the settlement boundary may now be considered a more flexible issue under the GNLP; but I will argue that sustainability and the impact of the development as a Gypsy and Traveller site on the existing residential community are primary reasons for rejection of this proposal.
Sustainability
Sustainability, principally, access to services, transport/ roads and biodiversity, is central to the NPPF, JCS, DPD and also to the proposed GNLP. The Plan makes extensive reference to them: e.g., para. 89, para 136, para 151. In the Climate Change Statement, location and design of development must:
“2. Reduce the need to travel, particularly by private car;
3. Secure the highest possible share of trips made by sustainable travel.”
For GNLP5004, access to services such as schools, GPs, shops, recreation facilities, church/ place of worship, public transport, jobs, presents an intractable problem. The Site Suitability Conclusions, para. 20, acknowledge “The site is slightly disconnected from the local services… in Cawston 1.7 kilometres away.” The phrasing understates the problem significantly.
GNLP5004 is exactly the same site proposed in Broadland District Council Planning Application number 20191685. They share the same footprint, though measured slightly differently in the Planning Application at 900 square metres versus 0.12 ha – 1,200 square metres – in GNLP5994; a discrepancy flagged up to the GNLP team. In its rejection of the application, Broadland District Council states (para. 5): “The site has poor connectivity to neighbouring settlements and there would be a reliance on private car use to access services and facilities.”
It states that this would be contrary to JCS Policy 1 and DMPD Policy GC4 and would not contribute to NPPF paragraph 78 “that requires housing to be located where it will enhance or maintain rural communities where this would support local services.” The Delegated Report Sheet echoes this in the comments by the Highway Authority. The Planning Inspectorate’s dismissal of the appeal agrees, in detail (para. 9):
“…the roads to the village are generally unlit, with no footway. They are also subject to some sharp bends and have a narrow width in places. These factors are likely to render
the routes concerned unattractive for regular use by pedestrians or cyclists. Thus, I do not consider that these would form realistic routes for occupants of the proposed
development to regularly walk or cycle at all times of the year.”
Paragraph 10 notes: “… there is minimal indication that the wider range of services and facilities at a larger settlement would be accessible from the development by any public transport.”
The subject of Broadland District Council Planning Application number 20202085 – Autumn Cottage – is in Back Lane, and backs onto the GNLP5004 site. The Planning Inspectorate’s dismissal of appeal against Broadland District Council’s rejection takes the same view. It states in para. 15:
“At approximately 1 mile, Cawston would be at the margins of a reasonable regular walking distance. It is notable that there is no safe footway or street lighting until you
reach the primary school in Cawston. This includes a precarious length of the busier B1145 Aylsham Road between the Old Friendship Lane turn and the school. Large parts
of Old Friendship Lane are remote, with limited natural surveillance from residential properties….”
Para. 16 concludes: “… a residential dwelling at the appeal location would result in a heavy reliance on the use of the private car.”
These close observations by HM Planning Inspectors are correct. There is no bus service from Eastgate to Cawston ; bus services through Cawston to Aylsham, Reepham and Norwich are minimal and infrequent. There are no bus stops on Easton Way/ Buxton Road, or on the B1145. Eastgate’s roads are unlit, narrow: Back Lane, Falgate, Perry’s Lane and Old Friendship Lane are single track, winding roads, with little or no visibility on bends; Easton Way/ Buxton Road is wider (single carriageway), but has some narrowing and reduction of visibility. None of these roads has a safe footway for pedestrians. The B1145 at the top of Perry’s Lane is unlit, single carriageway with some obscured visibility, with no safe footway until the centre of Cawston. There is a 30mph speed limit on Easton Way/ Buxton Road and most of the internal Eastgate roads, poorly observed by traffic. The B1145 is a very busy road with a higher speed limit until the 30mph zone through Cawston; the speed limit has now been reduced to 20mph as one of the mitigation measures for wind farm construction HGVs and traffic.
The range of services available in Cawston is, in any case, limited. Cawston Primary School is almost at full capacity. Cawston does not have a GP. Formerly, a branch surgery of The Market Surgery, Aylsham, based at the Jubilee Close retirement/ supported living facility, was open 1 day per week. Though The Market Surgery website still refers to a Cawston branch surgery, it has been confirmed with them that, in fact, it has been discontinued. Had it still existed, there is no pharmacy in Cawston to fill prescriptions. There are 2 shops: a convenience store and post office, and a deli/ fresh produce shop. Both are good, but this range of shops is insufficient.
On the issue of roads, it should also be noted that Cawston and the surrounding area will be heavily affected by off-shore wind farm construction traffic; the first project is due to commence imminently. Mitigations have been attempted – some road reinforcements, changes to parking through Cawston, reduction to 20mph speed limit, but they will have limited effect. Our MP, Jerome Mayhew, raised the specific pressures of wind farm cable construction routes upon Cawston and the surrounding area (including Eastgate) with HMG ministerial colleagues. There are currently 3 projects that have full planning permission: Hornsea 3 (Orsted), Norfolk Boreas and Norfolk Vanguard (Vattenfall). A fourth, Sheringham Shoal and Dudgeon Extension – SEP & DEP - (Equinor) is applying for planning permission. Cawston Parish Council website notes that the cable corridors – “about the size of a motorway” - will pass close to Cawston to the west (Hornsea 3), to the north (Vattenfall’s 2 projects) and to the east (SEP & DEP). The main compounds for vehicles and construction resources are at Oulton. The disruption and road pressure are expected to last for a minimum of 6 years; more, if SEP & DEP is approved. On past experience, Eastgate’s roads will be heavily used by other traffic as escape routes to avoid HGV and other construction traffic congestion on the B1145. It should be a matter of serious concern that the GNLP’s stated aim to deliver the site by March 2027, (Suitability Conclusions, para.30) clashes precisely with the long period of confirmed wind-farm construction.
The Sustainability Appraisal of GNLP5004 has not taken account of the pressures on biodiversity of flora and insect populations, and water stress, that results from the year-round arable and livestock farming that surrounds Eastgate. Heavy use of underground water for field irrigation causes water stress, particularly in the drought conditions we currently face. Hedgerow loss and crop-spraying have significantly impacted wildflowers and other flora, and reduced vital insect populations, particularly pollinators. Some mitigation measures in recent years have created wild margins in farmed fields, but the areas are small. Currently, GNLP5004 – which is agricultural land not currently in use – is contributing valuably to the support of depleted flora and insect life. If the site is developed as proposed, that support will be lost; replaced by pollution, increased water demand and other impacts of human habitation. The Site Suitability Conclusions seem not to be aware at all of this biodiversity context beyond the existence of SSSIs.
GNLP5004 is clearly unsustainable within the terms of the NPPF, JCS, DMPD and the GNLP itself. This conclusion has been formally stated by HM Planning Inspectorate in its decisions in 2020 (about the same site) and 2021 (about the adjacent site). This was also the conclusion of the local planning authority, Broadland District Council. Whether the permanent residential dwelling/s are houses or static caravans, is irrelevant. As a partner in the GNLP, how can the Council now argue that GNLP5004 meets sustainability criteria?
Impacts on the residential community
The development of GNLP5004 as a Gypsy and Traveller site will have a negative impact. I don’t believe that the proposal is suitable for the Gypsy and Traveller community, either. The sustainability issues translate into a negative impact on quality of life. I would argue, so does the proposal to create 4 pitches on 0.12ha (1,200 square metres).
The GNLP estimates the area required for 1 residential pitch as ‘around 300 square metres’, and what it should expect to contain: an amenity block (kitchen, bathroom, living room), space for up to 2 caravans (1 may be fixed, and 1 may be for touring, to enable the nomadic lifestyle to be preserved) and up to 2 vehicles. (Site Assessments, para. 7). Citing the Gypsy and Traveller Site Design Guide (2020), developed by Leeds City Council, para. 7 notes that the LCC Guide recommends 320 square metres per pitch. The LCC Guide also recommends more provision within the site area, such as visitor parking and communal outdoor recreational space, which may be contained within individual pitches, or might be additional, shared, communal space depending upon the community’s own preferences, and the site size.
The GNLP’s vagueness about measurements and content enables GNLP5004 to be deemed capable of delivering 4 pitches. This is at the very limit of what can be accommodated in 0.12ha (1,200 square metres). There is likely to be constraint, therefore, upon facilities such as those recommended by the LCC Guide. At 4 pitches, the site would be congested, with the likelihood of overspill onto surrounding land, and visitor parking on surrounding roads, as a consequence. These are quality of life issues for the people living on the site; overspill would also impact on the existing residential community. There is a clear argument that GNLP5004 should offer 3 pitches, not 4.
There is equally a risk that overspill onto surrounding land could raise questions concerning expansion of the site, leading to an increase in the number of pitches. Para. 29 notes that GNLP5004 is privately owned and the landowner is willing to make the site available for residential Gypsy and Traveller accommodation. According to the Land Registry, the current listed landowner was also the applicant in Broadland District Council Planning Application number 20191685 in 2019, where permission was sought to build a single house on the site that is now GNLP5004. In 2022, the proposal that is now GNLP5004 was submitted independently to Broadland District Council for planning permission. The proposal was withdrawn without explanation before consideration by the Council, and has re-appeared in the same form as GNLP5004. Cawston Parish Council’s formal response to the Focused Consultation describes the site selection by the GNLP as “opportunistic”. It is not clear in para.29 whether, were it to be selected to go forward, the site would be purchased from the landowner by Broadland District Council, or whether it would remain with the current listed owner.
It has come to light, during this Focused Consultation, that land adjacent to the GNLP5004 site, owned by a different landowner, has repeatedly been solicited for purchase, with a view to expanding GNLP5004 and increasing the number of pitches. This raises questions about the transparency of the consultation currently in progress, with regard to the intentions for this site. Responders to this consultation understand GNLP5004 to be a 0.12 hectare development for 4 pitches. It has become apparent that that is not the limit of what is intended; a larger site with a greater number of pitches is envisaged. GNLP5004 should not proceed further in the site selection process until full disclosure of the intended scale of the development is disclosed.
The impact on the existing residential community, whether or not the site were to be capped at 0.12ha/ 3-4 pitches, would be negative. In Site Suitability Conclusions, para. 26, the existing community is finally mentioned – if only as ‘properties’:
“There are residential properties in the north of the site on Back Lane… and a home to the west. Additional landscaping and hedges will be needed to enhance screening
and to maintain residential amenity of adjoining properties.”
I don’t believe this represents a full consideration of the hamlet, Eastgate, as an existing settlement of homes and the community that lives in them.
In the document Final Planning and Traveller Sites (Department for Communities and Local Government, August 2015), para.3 sets out clearly that:
“The Government’s overarching aim is to ensure fair and equal treatment for travellers… while respecting the interests of the settled community.”
Policy B, paras. 10(d) and (e) states that planners should “relate the number of pitches or plots to the circumstances of the specific size and location of the site and the surrounding population’s size and density” and “protect local amenity and environment.” There is little evidence of proper consideration.
Eastgate is well described in the Planning Inspectorate document, Appeal ref: APP/K2610/W/21/3273694, concerning Autumn Cottage, on Back Lane. Para. 3 states:
“The appeal site occupies a tranquil, rural location at the edge of a small cluster of houses in the countryside. It is situated on a quiet, narrow lane where the property
has a pleasant outlook over open countryside… generally adjoined by a patchwork of small field, adding to the agreeable rural character.”
There are over 40 dwellings in the denser part of Eastgate, where Falgate, Back Lane, Old Friendship Lane, and Perry’s Lane intersect, including 2 working farms. At the junction of Easton Way/ Buxton Road and Falgate, a third farm, Martintole Farm, hosts a Camping and Caravanning Club Certified Site that has received 5* reviews in 2021 and 2022. Autumn Cottage is a property for holiday let only. The dwellings are a mixture of detached and semi-detached bungalows and 2-storey houses with gardens, driveways, garages. Most are modern, brick-built houses; some are older cottages and houses. All are generally consistent with each other in form and style of design, which gives a coherent visual character to the hamlet.
GNLP Policy 7.4, para 385 states:
“The NPPF requires local planners to respect local character, based on existing and any future landscape, townscape or historical character assessment, and avoids harm
to locally valued landscapes...’
Policy 7.5 requires small-scale development where “the proposal respects the form and character of the settlement; the proposal would result in no adverse impact on the landscape and natural environment.” I would argue that the use of GNLP5004 to accommodate the amenity blocks, caravans (fixed and mobile) and multiple cars needed by the Gypsy and Traveller residents would be visually inconsistent with the form and character of the existing dwellings, and would not fulfil the requirements of Policy 7.4 and 7.5.
The issue here is not principally the content of the site, but its very close proximity to the existing residential settlement. Many of the houses are within 300 metres of the site; one house, on Buxton Road, is 10 metres away. The need identified by Site Suitability Conclusion para. 26 for measures to “enhance screening” and “maintain residential amenity of adjoining properties” arises because of this close proximity. Clashes of visual form and style in close proximity often contribute to the local character of a city or large town; in rural settlements and communities, the mismatch dominates, even overwhelms, the local character of the existing settlement. In Local Planning and Traveller Sites, Policy C, para. 14 and para. 25 insist:
“When assessing the suitability of sites in rural or semi-rural settings, local planning authorities should ensure that the scale of such sites does not dominate the nearest
settled community.”
In a small hamlet such as Eastgate, a 4-pitch site that would be considered relatively small in other locations would impact in this negative way. Were the site to be expanded in area and number of pitches, the impact would be increased. Mitigation measures such as hedges and landscaping will not solve this. It is very likely that the two tourism businesses in the vicinity of GNLP5004 would be adversely impacted; Martintole Farm, in particular, is a successful, highly-rated venue. Cawston Parish Council’s submission to the Consultation notes, in para.1, that it has received many representations from Eastgate residents who feel that the site would have a “detrimental effect on the community.” It is already doing so: residents are anxious and distressed by this proposal.
GNLP5004 is the wrong idea, in the wrong place. It has, I suggest, advanced to this stage for the wrong reasons. I don’t believe it would serve the needs of the local residential community or the Gypsy and Traveller community.

1. Previous Planning Application Rejections.

Application number 20191685 was rejected on the basis that this site is outside the designated settlement limit, and application 20202085 for holiday let, was rejected because of sustainability issues.
2.Sustainability issues.
In the GNLP Climate Change Statement, it states 'Reduce the need to travel, especially by private car, and secure the highest share of trips to sustainable travel'.
Access to services, eg schools, GPs, shops, recreation, public transport and jobs are a major problem for the Buxton Road site. The hamlet of Eastgate is approx 1 mile from Cawston; there is no bus service in between, and a very minimal and infrequent service between Cawston, Reepham, Aylsham and Norwich.
Cawston Primary School is almost at full capacity; as new housing is proposed for Cawston, near Gayford Road, the school will soon exceed capacity.
Cawston has no GP surgery, despite certain documents stating that it has. It has no pharmacy either, so a car is needed to visit either at Reepham or Aylsham. Eastgate's roads are unlit, narrow and twisty, with no footpaths. Hence walking and cycling to Cawston is dangerous. This leads to an increased use of private cars, which goes against NPPF aims to reduce car use.
Cawston and it's surrounding area will soon be heavily affected by increased traffic resulting from the imminent wind farm works starting. These disruptive works will last for a number of years, which will affect roads through Eastgate.
3. Impact on Existing Community.
The Final Planning and Traveller Site document stresses the need to consider the existing community alongside the gypsy/traveller community. There was no effort to make us aware of the consultation, until it had got to this stage; this has raised tensions considerably.

SUMMARY
Whilst we consider many aspects of the plan to be sound, we have identified issues
with some of the policies and site allocations which do compromise the overall
soundness of the plan.
Under paragraph 35 of the NPPF some aspects of this Plan are unsound as they
have not been positively prepared, are not justified, effective, or consistent with
national policy. We have identified below some of the key areas where we find the
Plan unsound and what measures are needed to make the Plan sound. In summary
we highlight the following issues
1. Recommended changes to policy wording
We are pleased to see the site assessments and sustainability appraisal for the
allocations. Although these are not full heritage impact assessments, these
assessments do make some helpful recommendations for the sites.
However, these recommendations are not always reflected in the policy.
As currently drafted, there is sometimes either a lack of criteria or insufficient
detail within the site-specific policies for the conservation and enhancement of
the historic environment. The NPPF (para 16d) makes it clear that Plans should
contain policies that are clearly written and unambiguous, so it is evident how a
decision maker should react development proposals. Further advice on the content of
policies is given in the PPG at Paragraph: 002 Reference ID: 61-002-20190315
Revision date: 15 03 2019. It states that, ‘Where sites are proposed for allocation,
sufficient detail should be given to provide clarity to developers, local communities
and other interested parties about the nature and scale of development’.
We have therefore suggested a number of relatively minor changes to the policies to
incorporate these recommendations and address some of our concerns.
2. Heritage Impact Assessment of Bawburgh Site
The Bawburgh Site is perhaps most sensitive in heritage terms. There are several
designated heritage assets nearby including the Conservation Area, listed buildings
and scheduled monuments. Indeed, the Site Assessment states that a Heritage
Impact Assessment (HIA) may be required. We concur with this.
Paragraph 31 and 192 of the NPPF requires a proportionate evidence base for Plans
and we consider that an HIA for this site would help to ensure a robust evidence
base for the Local Plan.
Therefore, we recommend that a proportionate Heritage Impact Assessment is
undertaken now to inform the suitability of the site per se, assess the impact, identify
any mitigation and enhancement required and inform any changes to policy wording.
We would remind you that paragraph 32 of the NPPF makes it clear that significant
adverse impacts should be avoided wherever possible and alternative options
pursued. Only where these impacts are unavoidable should suitable mitigation
measures be proposed. Further detail is given in the attached table.
Where a potential impact is identified, wording should be included in the policy and
supporting text to this effect. We suggest the inclusion of additional bullet point in the
site allocation. Ideally, the bullet point should mention the specific asset(s), the policy
requirement (see wording in appendix) and any potential mitigation required.
Closing comments
We have suggested a series of other changes to the Plan. Many of these changes
suggested do not go to the heart of the Plan’s soundness, but instead are intended to
improve upon it. We believe that these comments can be addressed by changes to
wording in the plan.
In preparation of the local plan, we encourage you to draw on the knowledge of local
conservation officers, the county archaeologist and local heritage groups.
Historic England, Brooklands, 24 Brooklands Avenue, Cambridge CB2 8BU
Telephone 01223 58 2749 HistoricEngland.org.uk
Please note that Historic England operates an access to information policy.
Correspondence or information which you send us may therefore become publicly available.
Please note that absence of a comment on a policy, allocation or document in this
letter does not mean that Historic England is content that the policy, allocation or
document is devoid of historic environment issues. We should like to stress that this
response is based on the information provided by the Council in its consultation. To
avoid any doubt, this does not affect our obligation to provide further advice and,
potentially, object to specific proposals, which may subsequently arise as a result of
this plan, where we consider that these would have an adverse effect upon the
historic environment.


GNLP5004
Land off Buxton Road, Eastgate, Cawston
The policy states that an archaeological assessment will be required prior to development which is broadly welcomed. The SA recommends that the policy should make it clear whether these should be desk based of field studies. Moreover, in our view, some assessment is needed to inform any planning application. We therefore advise that the criterion should be amended to read, ‘Planning applications should be supported by archaeological assessment including the results of field evaluation where appropriate.’
The SA also recommends that the landscaping should be species appropriate to the local area.
Amend policy re archaeological assessment to read ‘Planning applications should be supported by archaeological assessment including the results of field evaluation where appropriate.’ And make clear if desk based or field based appropriate.
Amend policy to state that ‘landscaping should be species appropriate to the local area.’

GNLP5005
Strayground Lane, Wymondham Recycling Centre
No comments

GNLP5009 Hockering Lane, Bawburgh

Whilst there are no designated heritage assets within the site, the Bawburgh Conservation Area lies to the west of the site but is separated by a block of development. There are listed buildings and scheduled monuments to the north west of the site across the valley. The development has the potential to impact the significance of these heritage assets via a change in their settings.
The Site assessment suggests the preparation of a Heritage Impact Assessment. The Sustainability Appraisal identifies negative impact.
Given this is one of the more sensitive sites in heritage terms, an HIA should be prepared now to inform the suitability of the site per se and the policy wording.
The policy states that an archaeological assessment will be required prior to development. As with the Cawston site it would helpful for the policy to state if the assessment should be desk based or field based. Moreover, in our view, some assessment is needed to inform any planning application. We therefore advise that the criterion should be amended to read, ‘Planning applications should be supported by archaeological assessment including the results of field evaluation where appropriate.’
The SA recommends that the policy should protect or where possible enhance the trees and hedgerow surrounding the site, which would be likely to help conserve the landscape character and historic settings of nearby heritage assets in Bawburgh by ensuring the site is appropriately screened. This should be included in the policy.
We recommend an HIA is prepared now prior to inform the suitability of the site and policy wording.
Amend policy re archaeological assessment to read ‘Planning applications should be supported by archaeological assessment including the results of field evaluation where appropriate.’ And make clear if desk based or field based appropriate.
Add criterion to read ‘Protect and enhance the trees and hedgerows surrounding the site to conserve the landscape character and historic settings of nearby heritage assets in Bawburgh by ensuring the site is appropriately screened’.

GNLP5014
A47 North Burlingham Junction
We welcome bullet point 3 in relation to landscaping to protect views of non-designated heritage assets nearby.

GNLP5019 Woodland Stable, Shortthorn Road, Stratton Strawless
No comments

GNLP5020 Romany Meadow, The Turnpike, Carleton Rode
Whilst there are no designated heritage assets within the site, there are several grade II listed buildings nearby including The Ashes to the east and a cluster of grade II properties to the northwest. However, the site is quite well contained and intervening landscaping should limit the impact on the historic environment.
We welcome bullet point 4 in relation to landscaping to protect views of nearby listed buildings.

GNLP5021 The Old Produce Shop, Holt Road, Horsford
No comments

GNLP5022 The Oaks, Foulsham
This is an extension of an existing site. Whilst there are no designated heritage assets within the site, the grade II* church of St Andrew lies to the south east of the site. There are three grade II listed buildings close by including Manor Farm House to the west, Old Hall to the East and Old Hall Farmhouse to the north east of the site. However, the site is well screened and there is intervening off- site vegetation. Therefore, we consider any impact on designated heritage assets would be minimal.
We welcome bullet point 4 in relation to landscaping to protect views of nearby listed buildings.

GNLP5023 Strayground Lane, Wymondham
The SA states that the policy could be further improved by detailed requirements to consider landscaping measures to reduce potential for adverse effects on the surrounding landscape character
Add policy criterion to read
‘Landscaping measures to reduce potential for adverse effects on the surrounding landscape character’

GNLP5024 Upgate Street, Carleton Rode
Whilst there are no designated heritage assets within the site, there are two grade II listed buildings to the north of the site and the New Buckenham Conservation Area to the west of the site. The site assessment states that Bunns Bank Linear Earthwork, which elsewhere in its course is scheduled, is adjacent to the site and should be taken into consideration. This requirement should be included in the policy wording of the Plan. We suggest an additional bullet point to the policy criteria.
However, overall the site is well screened and there is intervening off- site vegetation. Therefore, we consider any impact on designated heritage would be minimal.
Amend policy wording to add bullet point to read:
‘Protect the adjacent Bunns Bank Linear Earthwork.‘

Reasonable Alternative Site Policy GNLP5013 Ketteringham Depot land west of Station Lane, Ketteringham
Whilst there are no designated heritage assets within the site boundary, there are two round barrows (scheduled monuments) to the south of the site and several grade II listed buildings nearby. However, these are all over 500 metres from the site. Given the distance and intervening vegetation, we consider there would be little impact on designated heritage.

am writing an appeal with regards to the Gypsy/Traveller site which is currently being proposed in Eastgate
(ref: GNLP5004). Eastgate is a small hamlet on the outskirts of Cawston, a rural location.
With regards to the Cawston booklet, it does have a small shop, a small primary school which I have been
informed (directly by the school), is almost at max capacity (there is also no footway provision between site
and school and requires road/junction crossings, which is unsafe), village hall on the outskirts, petrol station on
the outskirts, I have not seen any means of public transport since I have lived here, and it does NOT have a GP
(documentation from the GNLP states that it does). The site that used to be used to be a GP, is no longer so.
Aylsham or Reepham are our closest GPs and means of medication (pharmacy).
The GNLP also believe that the land being proposed in Eastgate Hamlet, is 0.12 sqm which isn’t correct. With
regards to planning application 20191685 (the initial planning for site, which was rejected), the plot of land
being proposed is 0.9 sqm. I would like to point out at this stage, that the site being proposed in Eastgate,
already had planning refused by Broadland District Council for a single dwelling, due to it being unsustainable
and also because the site is outside of any designated settlement. 0.9 sqm, would be very tight for 4 plots,
which would definitely effect the quality of life for the gypsy/travellers.
Broadland District Council also declined change of use for a house roughly 100 meters from the proposed site
in Eastgate hamlet (ref; 20202085) on the following grounds; (As referred to on the application) ‘Removing
condition 3, occupancy restriction, would result in a new dwelling outside of the settlement limit ,which is
contrary to Policy GC1 and GC2 of the Development Management DPD 2015.’
It also states; ‘removing the occupancy restriction (from holiday to residential) would result in increased traffic
use of the surrounding sub-standard rural roads.’
This would have been 1 or 2 cars maximum, whereas the proposed gypsy/traveller site would have a minimum
of 8 cars, thus significantly increasing traffic.
The rejected planning also stated; ‘It is a remote location, some distance from everyday services, without
footway links or public transport availability. It is therefore considered unsustainable in transportation terms.’
I would like to know why such applications for properties in the Eastgate hamlet would be declined, however,
planning for a gypsy/traveller site might be considered?
If both applications were declined with regards to increasing traffic, why would the council even consider siting
8 caravans with subsequent number of new vehicles?
GNLP stipulate that each plot would home 2 caravans, which is a minimum of 8 extra vehicles in the area. This
would not only increase noise, but also air pollution.
One of the documents also states; ‘There is a brownfield site in Cawston which hasn't been used in 10 years.
Government policy is to use brownfield sites first.’ We have not seen any evidence of this from the plans.
Another quote from the GNLP; ‘Local planning authorities should ensure that traveller sites are sustainable
economically, socially and environmentally’.
The site in Eastgate hamlet, is unsustainable. It will not promote peaceful and integrated co-existence between
the site and the local community, due to the close proximity and noise/air pollution it would create.
Planning authorities were supposed to ‘engage’ with the local community, however, if it wasn’t for a neighbour
bringing this to our attention, we would not have known about the consultation. GNLP believe that
community engagement would reduce tension, however the lack of engagement or consideration for the local
residents in the Eastgate hamlet, has raised tension as a result.
GNLP state ‘when assessing the suitability of sites in rural or semi rural settings, local planning authorities
should ensure that the scale of such sites does not dominate the nearest settled community.
The proposed plot is only 10 meters from the neighbouring bungalow, this is with total disregard to the
nearest community and would in fact totally dominate the neighbouring bungalow.
The GNLP would be superseding the current planning policy (NPPF & DPD) if this went ahead.

I am writing to you to transcend the detrimental damage that the proposed gypsy/traveller site (ref:
GNLP5004) Land off Buxton Road, Eastgate, would have on myself and the surrounding community.
I am fully aware that the Norfolk council is desperate for this site to go ahead, as it is part of a
government scheme to obtain a grant for building 50,000 affordable homes in Norfolk.
My comments and evidence below, shows how this proposed site is an act of desperation from the
council and would be absolute negligence if it went ahead.
Eastgate is a peaceful hamlet, occupied mostly by elderly residents who’ve lived here most of their lives.
Each pitch allows two caravans which could easily comprise of a minimum of 2 adults and 2 children per
caravan. This small site would therefore have of a minimum of 16 adults and 16 children. On only a 0.9
square meter plot (as measured from previous planning on the same plot, this would reduce quality of
life for the gypsy/travellers.
How would the waste be controlled? Would they be connected to mains electricity or a noisy generator?
What happens in summer when the caravans are hot and they want to sit outside at night? The noise of
36 individuals within such a small space would bring excessive noise pollution to existing
properties/locals.
16 adult residents could potentially mean 16 vehicles. The GNLP plan is for 2 cars per pitch, but how
would this be managed going forward? This again would not add noise, but also air pollution for such a
small hamlet. How would access be made safe for this many vehicles coming and going on Buxton road?
The original planning for this site already exposed that the site was unsustainable for 1 dwelling alone.
The land owner, who owns land surrounding the proposed site, had a planning enforcement
served by the council, in order to stop him having caravans sited for his family. This enforcement has a 10
year tender. However, it is now to the councils advantage to house caravans on the adjacent site, which is a complete contradiction of terms.
The landowner has also been contacted several times by the council, to see if he would sell the
surrounding land so even more gypsy/traveller pitches could be placed on the edge of our hamlet. The landowner made it very clear that the council are desperate for this gypsy/traveller proposal to be
approved, as its part of a bigger scheme to obtain a grant from the government to build 50,000
affordable homes in Norfolk. They will only get this if they can support the gypsy community with 52
pitches. He also said that the planning enforcement that was served to him, should be a sure sign that
this proposal could never go ahead if the enforcement was re-activated (i.e.; caravans were reintroduced
to his land).
South Norfolk and Broadlands councils are showing a complete lack of integrity by proposing this and are
clearly not fulfilling their vision of ‘working together to create the best place and environment for
everyone, now and for future generations’.
The councils reply, could be that they’re serving the travelling community to create a good environment,
but by doing so, you’re showing a total lack of disregard to residents already living here, as the site would
be unsustainable even if it was just 1 dwelling, let alone 4 plots (as per the original planning for the site).
I have researched two previously approved sites in Essex. The sites proximity to any existing homes is
between at least 300- 500 meters away. The proposed Eastgate site is less than 10 meters from an
existing home and less than 300 meters from over 40 homes. How has this not ‘red flagged’ on the local
searches?

I would like to object to the plans put forward on the above named site and feel the site is wholly unsuitable for the proposed development for the following reasons:

1. Size of site misrepresentation – disparity over proposed site (0.12h and a previous planning application refusal of 0.09h)

The current proposal is based on land measuring 0.12h allowing for 4 pitches. I refer you to a previous planning application on the same plot for 0.09h https://info.southnorfolkandbroadland.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=ZZZMH3OQMS517 in particular the supporting statement submitted on 5th Nov 2019 relating to the size of the plot https://info.southnorfolkandbroadland.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=ZZZMH3OQMS517 (0.09 hectres - page 3). On the site plan (page 11 & 14) it doesn't include the gated (3 gates) driveway giving access to the land to the rear of the proposed site. In the consultation document it does, and I believe this to be a misrepresentation because the driveway is fenced and does not allow for any direct access to the proposed site and should not be included in the plan.
It is essential that the size of the site is confirmed, as the consultation process is fundamentally flawed if it proceeds on the based on an incorrect measurement of the site.

2. Area required for 1 residential plot

The guide recommendations are 320 square metres per pitch, and proposes more provision within the site, such as visitor parking, communal outdoor recreational space, depending on the size of the gypsy community's own preferences, the additional provision might be contained within each individual pitch, or might be shared, communal space in addition to the pitches.
The current consultation is based on 4 pitches on land measuring 0.12h, equally 300 square metres per pitch. This is clearly at odds with the pitch size recommendation. The proposal for 4 pitches on a site of 0.12h does not fall within the Gypsy and Traveller Site Design Guide (2020) recommendations of 320 square metres and does not take into account the need for “additional communal space in addition to the pitches”.
I refer to point 1, it is essential that the size of the site and the requirement for each pitch is confirmed. The consultation process is flawed if it proceeds based on an error to the size of the individual pitches.
If the measurements are incorrect and the size of the plot is 0.09h there should be consideration for communal space over and above the 320 square metres per pitch, reducing the maximum number of pitches available on the site to 2.

3. Site location

Eastgate is a small hamlet outside a village cluster that has few or no facilities. As a hamlet, and in reference to the proposed site, Eastgate does not have street lights, paths, bus service or any facilities. The nearest village is Cawston, approximately 1 mile away, which has a pub, post office, convenience store and deli.
I refer to the grounds cited by Broadland Council in its decision to refuse planning under application number 20191685 - Erection of dwelling with associated works on land adjacent to Lesitha, Buxton Road NR10 4HN, A) the site is outside of any designated settlement limit, and B) Sustainability Issues: access to services and transport – reliance on private car to access services.
The GNLP consultation document reference in the Climate Change statement highlights the location and design of development must reduce the need to travel, particularly by private car and secure the highest possible share of trips made by sustainable travel.
The proposed site location is wholly unsuitable due to Eastgate does not have any facilities and would require additional travel to access the required services.

4. Road safety

Eastgate roads are unlit, narrow and twisting, with no visibility on bends. None of these roads have a safe footpath for pedestrians. The GNLP document refers to site assessment information, which says
“A suitable vehicular access from Buxton Road is likely to be achievable” and “it will not to lead to a significant increase in traffic on local roads or a significant increase in unsustainable travel patterns”.
The site is close to a blind corner which is approached from Easton Way, Buxton Road and Falgate. This road is narrow, and when approached from Holt Road along Buxton Road, via long straight, is notoriously bad for speeding motorists, exceeding the 30mph speed limit, directly past the proposed site. The road is often used by farm traffic and HGVs.
Due to the nature of the roads it is particularly unsafe for children and animals and would be a serious danger to the users of the pitches.
With the approval of 3 wind farm projects running through Cawston, with a cable corridor being constructed about the size of a motorway (reference the Cawston Parish website) and the 4th to be approved very soon, the hamlet of Eastgate and the village of Cawston will see a significant increase in the amount of HGV’s using our roads. The 3 projects currently approved are noted to run to the west, north and east of Cawston. The increased road usage and pressure is expected to last 6 years with further disruption by an extra couple of years at least if the 4th projects gets approval.
Due to the increase in HGV traffic through Cawston it is expected that alternative routes through Eastgate by other traffic will increase as people look for alternative ‘escape’ routes to avoid congestion.

5. Road flooding

On the blind bend of Buxton Road and Easton Way there is a significant issue with flooding, at times making the road totally impassable by vehicles or pedestrians. There is no appropriate drainage from Falgate resulting in the blind corner of Buxton Road, Easton Way and Falgate flooding. I believe this has been overlooked in the planning consultation and should be highlighted as a risk to any potential planning application. This has resulted in a high risk and dangerous area due to motorists from Buxton Road attempting to get through the flood on the wrong side of the road, attempting to find the higher ground. I have attached photos to demonstrate the extent of the flooding, ref Site Reference GNLP5004 Buxton Road flooding 1 & Site Reference GNLP5004 Buxton Road flooding 2.

18. I believe the site is only .09ha not .12ha. Accommodating 4 x 300 sqm pitches wouldn't be achievable especially considering adopted policy is 320 sqm and a private site more suited to 500 sqm. This would reduce the amount of pitches possible especially when considerations for green space, shared areas and visitor/emergency services parking are taken into account as per the adopted policy from Leeds.

19. Achieving an acceptable visibility is not possible as the site shares an entrance with a property to the rear on one side and by a boundary with an established hedge row that also contains oak trees of a significant age on the other.

20. The site is significantly disconnected from local services and in addition the GN
LP incorrectly states a GP practice in Cawston. The nearest is actually Reepham or Aylsham. The Geography of the hamlet that is Eastgate is such that development of 4 dwellings would both significantly dominate the nearest settled community and add significant vehicle movement. There is no bus route. Walking into Cawston to access the only small shop is only possible by walking on single track unpaved and unlit roads. The 30 mile speed limit is rarely observed on buxton road until the junction with Falgate.

22. Maket attractiveness would be reduced significantly if the correct site size was used in the consultation process as per (18).

26. There would need to be extensive screening to maintain residential amenity especially with the dwelling to the west as this property is only a metre or so from the boundary.

In addition I do not believe it possible for site GNLP5004 to be sustainable or be able to meet objectives in the climate change statement. There will be a total reliance for multiple personal vehicle use.

I object to site GNLP5004 on the the points above but also on the seemingly incorrect site measurements, see previous planning application (20191685 Broadland). The possible error was raised with planning, but the response lead me to believe that the size of the site is inconsequential when considering its suitability and only merits discussion once the consultation period is over.

I have a number of concerns relating to this specific application, all relating to the location and the impact on the local enviroment and human habitation.
Firstly it seems wrong to use a site which is "Greenfield location when there are other sites which are not "Greenfield". I assume that the site will have outside lighting, which would be at odds with the local area which does not have outside lighting. The whole of the surrounding area is a dark area, with no intrusive lighting.
Another potential problem relates to parking for residents of the site and any visitors. The road is relatively narrow and cannot accommodate any on road parking. This is due to the fact that large (width, height and length) agricultural vehicles and machinery utilise the road numerous times each day. The vehicles often ccupy the full width of the road.
Where I live is a registered Camping and Caranning Club Site, having many visitors throughout the whole year, we do not close for any season. Our visitors come from all over the UK and Europe, we even have regular visitors from Norwich and Buxton just down the road. Some of these have expressed their concern at having a traveller site in close proximity. If we lose these customers it will also impact the busness of the two local pubs and the shops in Cawston. This would certainly be noticed in the surrounding area.

4 gypsy caravans would be out of keeping with the area, visibly and from an infrastructure perspective. The road is not suitable for access for caravans and there isn't the infrastructure such as drainage, power, internet availability and other services to support 4 dwellings on this site and in the village. In addition the proposed location is a very narrow country road used by walkers and cyclists and is not suitable for additional traffic - there could be 4 vehicles or more associated with each caravan. In addition, recent traveller dwellings such as those close to Norwich airport have lead to an increase in rubbish which has not been delt with in an appropriate way creating a negative impact on the local environment.