Policy GNLP5009

Firstly, it is too close to the local school and has limited access, which could compromise the safety of children and create problems for emergency services. Secondly, the site is located in an environmentally sensitive area and this could negatively impact the local ecosystem. Additionally, the proposed site is susceptible to flooding, and a gas main runs through it, posing a significant risk to the safety of the community. Lastly, there are more suitable alternatives available that are closer to amenities and services.

I wish to object to the gypsy travelling site for the following reasons:-

1. I am a resident n Bawburgh and live on Hockering Lane. The proposed site at the end of Hockering Lane, would cause severe disruption.
2. Hockering Lane a cul de sac. It is a narrow road with no pavements. Traffic is already at a high level particularly in the morning and afternoon at school drop off. The school bus can barely get up and down the road on the days that it collects the children. Frequently the cars that park on the road to pick up and collect have to do three point turns in private driveways and sometimes partially block private driveways. If further gypsy and traveller residents were to join at the end of the road with larger vehicles this would be dangerous and unmanageable.
3. Bawburgh is a small village. It is in a conservation area. We have an ancient bridge in the village which needs to be carefully maintained. I would be particularly concerned about the impact of more regular use of the bridge by larger vehicles. It has a weight limit which nobody seems to pay any attention to.
4. As far as I am aware the school in Bawburgh is over-subscribed. Further families and children within Bawburgh would put huge pressure on the local school which is already struggling.
5. The proposed site for the gypsy and travellers site is on the edge of an area that floods. In recent years this has flooded regularly and I know that other residents in the village have photographic evidence of this. The land in front of the proposed site is currently used by dog walkers and has been purchased by a couple who have created a wonderful area full of new planting and the area is being inhabited by new wildlife. The proposed development risks impacting upon this.
6. The entry splay at the end of Hockering Lane as you drive onto Stocks Hill is positioned in such a way that you cannot easily see traffic coming from the left. This is a safety issue and a cause for concern.
7. We have other safety issues in the village. We have frequent road traffic accidents on the bend on Long Lane coming towards Bawburgh. This is used as a rat run. People drive too fast. It is not safe for pedestrians or cyclists. This is frustrating because if the road was safe for pedestrians and cyclists residents from the village would be able to access shops on foot or on a bike. What this essentially means is that all residents in Bawburgh need to use their motor vehicles to access the shops. Further development in the village and further vehicles are not something that a small village like Bawburgh can sustain safely.
8. Finally, I am aware that Anglian Water seem to have various issues in the area with water drainage and sewage problems. They are regularly visiting. A lot of these issues seem to be at the junction of Hockering Lane and Stocks Hill.

I currently reside in Church Street , Bawburgh and am extremely concerned about the proposed residential travellers site in Hockering Lane, my objections are based on the following;

We regularly suffer with sewage problems up Church Street, last summer Anglian Water we’re working near the bridge for several days resolving sewage issues, this will only get worse if the this site is approved.

All of the roads in Bawburgh struggle to handle the current volume of traffic, travellers are known for having utility vehicles , how will this affect the integrity of the bridge? Bawburgh Bridge is a monument and is of national importance.

The only amenities in the village are the Pub , the Village Hall and the School, we do not have a shop, Drs surgery or Dentist. The Bus service is dreadful and consequently anyone new moving into the village must have a car and drive, the road network cannot cope with this increased traffic.

At peak School time Hockering Lane is extremely busy with school buses and cars transporting children to school, I do not believe additional traffic is advisable and worry that someone could be hurt . A lot of the villagers also walk their dogs down Hockering lane to enter the meadow at the top, increased traffic would certainly put dog walkers off which would be a great shame as the meadow is a beautiful part of the village and used a lot by walkers. Surely any site should have an exit route , Hockering Lane is a dead end .

I strongly object to the proposal to site a Gypsy and Traveller site on the agricultural land on Hockering Lane, Bawburgh.
This would mean an increase in traffic through Bawburgh village, which is already suffering from traffic problems as people continue to use New Road and the village as a 'rat run' to avoid the Dereham road.
Travellers do not only use cars. For their various businesses, they have vans and flat bed lorries. This would cause dreadful congestion as Hockering Lane is not wide enough to cope. At peak school times of drop off and pick up, it will be dangerous for the children and parents.
There is also the problem of pollution caused at traveller sites. I know from personal experience in 2021, travellers set up an illegal site opposite my house and when finally evicted, they left burned out cars, house clearance piles of fridges and microwaves, an old caravan and much human waste. Their underage youngsters used to drive off road motorbikes at ridiculous speeds along New Road, endangering all traffic in the area. The landowner was then forced to pay to have the site cleared when they finally left.
At a previous site, near Bawburgh Golf course, specially designed for Travellers, it would cost thousands of pounds of Council Tax money to regularly clear the site of debris.
It is not fair on the local people who care for their properties. There would be a decrease in value of these properties for all the reasons listed above. The cost to secure local water from contamination would be enormous. Also, anyone attempting to access the nearby gas main illegally would put many lives at risk.
This is a wholly unsuitable site for all these reasons.
I cannot believe it has even been a viable proposition.

1. Given that the site is down a 1 way street there are bound to be severe traffic problems especially during drop off and pick up at school times.
2. Refuse and litter would be a major concern not to mention pollution in close proximity to an SSSI and River system.
3. One assumes children will be on site who will want to attend the local school (which I understand is currently over subscribed.
4. I am extremely that the use of this site to house Gypsy/Travellers will have a huge impact on the value of my house. Had I known last year when I purchased my property there was a likelihood of a Gypsy camp being placed some yards away I most certainly would not have bought my current house.
5. Will the decline in my property value be reflected in future council tax assessment if the development goes ahead?
6. I understand that the site providing parking for Travellers opposite the county fairground was abused by the Traveller community with rents being unpaid and a huge bill being paid for clear up. ALL at tax payers cost. Is this going to be repeated on this proposed site?
7. In short the proposal to house Gypsy/Travellers on this site is TOTALY ILL CONCIVED in my opinion.

The location of the proposed site in Bawburgh is wholly inappropriate! Every other proposed site has direct access off a main road, and is positioned somewhat remotely from (and mostly limited numbers of) nearby dwellings. Only the Bawburgh proposal requires access directly through the heart of a historic village and conservation area, along a narrow residential cul-de-sac, past (and within 200m of) a busy primary school.

Sufficient consideration has not been given to South Norfolk’s own 2017 Bawburgh Conservation Area Character Appraisal as “one of the most attractive and relatively unspoilt small villages in South Norfolk”. Although the proposed site is not directly inside, it is within 200 metres of the boundary, and access is only possible by travelling through it to the main road. Additional traffic (in particular, large or heavy vehicles) would significantly increase the risk of damage to listed buildings and historical features such as the single lane 18th century bridge, contradicting the The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas ) Act 1990 in section 66(1) making it a duty of local authorities when considering applications to have special regard to the desirability of preserving a listed building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest. Under section 72 of the same Act, it is a duty with respect to any buildings or land in a conservation area, to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area. Furthermore, the proposed site will be clearly visible from the higher ground of the valley, spoiling the “longer views of the area on approach from the south side” and significantly impacting the preservation of the setting of this historic village and its “landscape of more dramatic contours”. Also, the site is within the Yare/Tas river valleys ENV3 river valley landscape and the Norwich Southern Bypass Protection Zone. The proposed site is totally not in keeping with this protected environment.

The physical and mental welfare of village residents has already been significantly affected through stress and worry at how this proposal will affect them, and this is before the site has even been constructed. Wellbeing will further be affected when the end of Hockering lane and the access to the conservation area river meadows, which so many residents rely on for their own exercise and that of their dogs, will be directly adjacent to the entrance to the proposed site. Many residents will feel intimidated and no longer safe to access this area of natural beauty that they consider part of the charm of living in a rural location.

As a quiet cul-de-sac, local children regularly play out in the street at the exact location the entrance is proposed for. If the proposed site went ahead, the idyllic innocence of the children playing here would be shattered and parents could no longer take for granted the safety of the area, with significantly increased traffic from the proposed site, in parallel with the lack of street lighting. Furthermore, the regular use residents garages at the entrance to the site would no longer be usable for storage and easy access to personal belongings due to this being the proposed site entrance.

There would also be increased risk to children’s safety at pick up and drop off times 5 days a week at a primary school that already suffers significant congestion issues. This is even worse when a weekly school bus reverses 200m past parked cars and young children to transport pupils to their swimming lessons, causing delays to any residents and parents trying to leave.

Due to its location at the base of a valley, and significant surface area of surrounding fields, Bawburgh regularly suffers during high rainfall, with surface water runoff clogging the low level drainage and turning the roads into rivers in places. The expected requirement for hard standings at the proposed site would reduce soakaway land at the base of the village causing upstream issues and could cause direct pollution into the Yare watercourse from any substances or materials on the ground. Furthermore, the proposed site is immediately adjacent to a river meadow which floods every year, and as recently as 2020 caused significant disruption as the base of Stocks Hill was impassable at the entrance to Hockering lane. There also is a risk of direct flooding at this site if further extreme weather is experienced, particularly as global warming intensifies.

In a similar and linked issue, the foul drainage in Bawburgh regularly (~twice annually) requires maintenance by Anglian Water to unblock the system when it overflows. Given the height of the proposed site, a soakaway solution would not be appropriate, and mains connection would be required. Any additional input to Bawburgh’s existing inadequate system would further escalate the issue and cause increased likelihood of direct pollution into the main Yare watercourse upstream of Norwich and the Norfolk Broads.

The local plan states inaccurately that there is a daily bus route from Bawburgh. In reality there is a weekly bus to the town of Wymondham, and nothing to Nowich. There are no direct footpaths out of the village to such a bus route. There are no local shops in the village, and minimal amenities. Unfortunately, all roads in/out of Bawburgh are rural roads with national speed limits, with regular narrowing sections, making them inappropriate for both the increasing size of modern vehicles, and dangerous for cyclists and/or pedestrians. Therefore, any additional residents are likely to require motor vehicles to get in and out. These factors would seem to be against the policy of trying to encourage sustainability for future residential developments and highlight Bawburgh as unsuitable against this criteria.

There is already a significant local population of the travelling community within or close to Bawbugh. Within 1 mile of the proposed site, there is both a transit site near the park and ride (0.83 miles) and a permanent development on Bawburgh road next to the golf course (0.97 miles) not currently accounted for or considered in the Local Plan documentation. Furthermore, there is an official permanent site on Dereham Road (1.22 miles). Given that the land at the transit site (and indeed a further stretch of defunct Long Lane roadway behind it) is owned by the council already, with easy access to a main road, and the already invested ~£400k in regular renovations to ensure ongoing suitability for the travelling community, this would seem a more viable location for a permanent site, but has not been included in the reasonable alternative sites.

Despite identifying the presence of a gas main across the proposed site, there does not seem to be sufficient consideration to the risk this could cause to residents. Indeed, this land was previously considered unsuitable for residential development for this very reason. With the previously mentioned limited access to the site down a narrow cul-de-sac and peak time traffic, there is a risk emergency services could be unable to reach emergency situations.

Ultimately, the Local Plan seems to be heavily biassed to the potential new residents and their requirements, despite proposing an entirely inappropriate site, to suit the local council’s needs. This site would inevitably face significant opposition from local residents at the planning stage and despite this, could be pushed through by the council. This is in direct conflict with recent planning applications from local residents who wished to build appropriate additions to the village, for their own use, but were rejected by the council for menial reasons, despite parish council approval and no local resident objections. This lack of consideration for existing residents highlights that the council only have their own interests at heart and not that of the local community of this historic village who have overwhelmingly indicated their objection to this proposal. This proposed site should be stopped immediately and the “reasonable alternative” site at Ketteringham (which has received minimal/no objections), or the existing traveller site near the park and ride used instead, as a much more appropriate location that would better meet the needs of the community to which it is aimed, and minimise risk to the environment and impact to existing residents.

We believe that the presence of a traveller/gypsy site at the end of Hockering Lane would be inappropirate for the following reasons.


- Environmental eyesore including dumping, littering and burning of waste (probably toxic) as evidenced at Longwater site.

- The area would become inaccessible to walkers and dog walkers etc. This is an important daily routine for many and an important contribution to good mental health and wellbeing.

- Negative affect on the environment, causing possible flooding problems due to the area being a part of the flood plain and possible contamination of the local water courses.

- Local school in very close proximity which would be impacted by additional traffic and a possible strain on the number of school children attending.

- Too close to local residents houses, virtually attached in some areas.

- Indirect costs to Bawburgh residents through numerous clearing and cleaning up operations and loss of revenue through non payment of ground rent etc. As was evident at Longwater site.

- Additional strain on the already extremely problematic drainage system in the proximity.

- Possibility that the estimate of 6 pitches could in fact increase especially as, we believe, the Travellers may be entitled to purchase the land at a later date.

- Serious detrimental affect on property prices.

We believe that a similar proposal in nearby Costessey was rejected and the reason given was its close proximity to other numerous traveller sites. Therefore no different to Bawburgh.

The proposed site for Gypsy and Travellers site is near the water meadow and river for oil and sewage seeping into river course.
Also the site is far to near the houses on Hockering Lane with their dogs, horses and rubbish.
The proposed site is on top of the main high pressure gas pipe to Bowthorpe. On the yareside Meadow it is not allowed to dig, plant trees within 50 meters either side of the pipe line.
PLEASE VISIT CADENT LSBUD.CO.UK for more information.
The road hockering lane leading to the proposed site is quite unsuitable the road is on road parking for the residents who live nearby, when school is out the road is very busy any added vehicles vans trucks, caravans would make this road very dangerous.

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.

Objections are as follows;

1. Existing Sites.
I believe there are three / four sites located withing a 2 mile radius of Bawburgh. Two near Marlingford, One at the park and ride on Long Lane Bawburgh and one at the Roundwell site on Dereham road. Due to this would it would be more beneficial to add to these existing sites rather than create yet another new site in the middle of a historique village.

2. Location of Site,
The location of the site is withing the village boundary, extremely close to a conservation area and is directly next to housing. This is the only site out of 10 proposed within a village boundary.

3. Suitability of site,
I believe the proposed site is located above a gas main and in a flood area with no drainage or sewage facilities. The site is located next to a Cul-de Sac down a limited access road.

4. Access,
The proposed access is down Hockering Lane which is not suitable for larger vehicles and the extra flow of traffic. The splay turning left onto Stocks Hill from Hockering Lane is not suitable as it is. The larger vehicles such as the school bus is not able to turn once it has accessed Hockering Lane so has to reverse back down the lane. This also contributes to additional noise and air pollution.

5. Visual Impact.
The visual impact will have detrimental effect on the village with the addition of the site located next to a conservation area and easily visible from New Road. Contrary to the NSBLPZ."Development should have regard to protecting and where possible enhancing the long distance views and relatively underdeveloped approaches which contribute to the historic landscape"

6. Drainage Sewage.
There is no provision for drainage sewage on the site. The site sits above a gas main in a possible flood area. We already have existing problems with drainage / sewage in the village.

7. Amenities,
There are no amenities in the village. No regular buses, no shop, no post office etc. No accesable footpaths or cycle paths to shops. No street lighting. Only access is via the main roadways.

8. Traffic.
As per point 4 the access is not suitable for larger vehicles such as vans, pick up trucks & caravans. There is no turning facility and the road struggles with the volume of traffic at the moment especially during school times.

9. Sustainability,
There seems to be many unanswered questions regarding the environmental issues, the drainage is already a problem in the village. The creating of new drainage, the sewage, the effluent waste created by the proposed site on the land, the detriment of the waste created by the site will cause an additional impact on the landscape. If fires are burnt, air pollution will be an issue so close to a residential cluster.
The issue of nutrients/phosphates escaping into the river also needs consideration with the site being so close to the river.


10. Site Management.
Who will be responsible for the monitoring of the site? Police, local council, parish council?

11. Unlawful / anti social behavior.
The Village hall car park has been used illegally by the traveling community. The village had to obtain a court order to remove them from site. during their stay multiple reports of theft and threating behaver were recorded in the village.

12. Village unanimously opposed.
In a meeting at the Village Hall on 16th February 2023 with approx 150 people in attendance it was unanimous in agreement that we strongly oppose the proposal of the Gypsy Traveler site.

For all of the reasons above I strongly object to the proposed Gypsy / Travelers site. GNLP 5009

Objections as Follows:-

Access,
The only access is off Hockering lane which is a narrow residential street, passing a primary school leading to a cul de sac. Does the land owner have access over the private road. Are there any covenants over the access road? The road already has heavy traffic due to the school and is not suitable for access with multiple larger vehicles. The school bus is not even able to turn, it has to reverse back down the road. The splay turning left onto stocks hill is also already problematic. This heavy traffic increase air, environmental and noise pollution.

Gas Pipe,
There is a mains gas pipe running through the site which can cause several safety issues and be a dangerous risk to residents and surrounding area. The placement of the pitches will mean that the site is away from the current cluster of houses leaving a green space between the two clusters which is a blight on the landscape. Is this not contrary to the NSBLPZ?

Impact to Landscape
This will have an adverse impact on the locally designed Yare / Tiffany river valley landscape and be contrary to the NSBLPZ landscape setting of Norwich policy,
"Development should have regard to protecting and where possible enhancing the long distance views and relatively underdeveloped approaches which contribute to the historic landscape"
Additional tree planting on boundaries will take many years to establish and therefore impact the visual landscape.

Environmental Issues
There seems to be many unanswered questions regarding the environmental issues, the drainage is already a problem in the village. The creating of new drainage, the sewage, the effluent waste created by the proposed site on the land, the detriment of the waste created by the site will cause an additional impact on the landscape. If fires are burnt, air pollution will be an issue so close to a residential cluster.
The issue of nutrients/phosphates escaping into the river also needs consideration with the site being so close to the river.

Location of Site /conservation area
The site is located only 180 meters (subject to a site survey) from the conservation area where the majority of the Listed buildings are located. The site survey will include a Historic Impact assessment an archaeological investigation as there may be prehistoric features in the land. Are there not other suitable areas for this site?


The site is situated in flood zone one but the position of this site is actually prone to surface water flooding. The site is within the catchment of a groundwater Source Protection Zone. as mentioned previously- where is the water going to drain to and where is the waste water going to go with the already existing issues with the drainage in the village?

Visual Impact
The loss of designated open space is going to blight the landscape from the view from the top of the Watton Road and especially from New Road. The site will be extremely visible due to the gap created from the detachment from the cluster of houses.

Amenities,
There are no direct amenities in the village. There is a very limited bus service. There are no shops, post offices, dental or medical practices. There is no cycle paths, pedestrian walkways, street lighting or any safe access to the nearest shops and amenities. The nearest shops and amenities are 3 kilometers away and must be accessed by main roadways by private vehicle and this is not sustainable.

Site Management
Which body of the council will be responsible for the safe running and monitoring of the site.

Unlawful and antisocial behavior
There have already been several incidents within the village of criminal behavior, unlawful trespassing at the village hall, oil theft and threatening behavior towards residents. This raises questions about health and safety as well as the general well-being of village members.

Existing sites (already within 2 miles)
There are already 4 sites in the surrounding area Long Lane- Park and ride, Hollyoaks - Marlingford road, Roundwell. There is no need for another site and it would be more beneficial to add to one of these existing sites rather than have one in the middle of a historic picturesque village.

Village together unanimously opposed
At a meeting on the 16th February with approximately 150 residents in attendance they unanimously opposed the proposed Gypsy / traveller site.

For all of the above reasons I strongly oppose the Gypsy / Traveler site GNLP 5009.

Objections due to:

- Lack of facilities in the village so increased traffic, especially as there is only one bus a week from/to the village.
- There is another site in the area already: A second would be excessive for a village of this size.
-There may be increased traffic between these two sites which includes going over the single track (weak) bridge where there is no pathway for pedestrians - already a dangerous route to school for us.
- Narrow access into the village/site for caravans/vans.
- Increased pressure on the local school which is a small rural school - it would have at least two traveller sites in catchment, which could mean children from the village run out on places.
- Reduced infiltration of water adding to flooding issues in the village - a small hardstanding was proposed the other side of the river and was rejected for this reason - this site is just as close to the river and it will be larger.
- Increased pressure on village's sewer system.
- Pupils from traveller community are allowed to miss school when travelling - this will cause extra pressure on the few teachers at the school as it takes time to catch the pupils up.
- If it were to go ahead, facilities and infrastructure in the village would need to vastly improve e.g. shop, pavements, street lights, wider roads, which changes the character of the village.

Trying to wedge a site for up to 24 caravans at the end of cul de sac with narrow often blocked entrance is ludicrous. It has even been suggested, no doubt erroniously, that the gift of this piece of this piece of waste was a quid pro quo for development in the field opposite the Village Hall. the far end of Hockering Lane is a settled neighbourhood of elderly people. The village already has one gypsy site and there are other far more suitable sites within Bawburgh bounds. Lack of amenities and traffic problems and the need for riverside meadowland are other obvious objections.

The proposed site is unsuitable for many reasons:

- it sits on a gas main - gas pipeline.
- the road leading to the site is narrow, crowded with traffic on school days
-more traffic hauling caravans, etc. makes it difficult and dangerous for walking school children.
- the proposed site parallels a rural area with walking paths by the river; numbers of people and excess noise would lessen the beauty of the intended parkland where trees have been planted.
- there are no shops in the village; more cars will pass down Hockering Lane for daily necessities. I do not advise this site be used as proposed.

I write to register our views on the proposed.Gypsy Site off Hockering Lane, Bawburgh.
There are several local objections to this site, the main one being the very poor and restricted access road. Out of all the sites.listed, this must be by far the worst access of them all. It is a narrow residential cul-de-sac, with the village Primary School halfway down. The road gets very narrow as you approach the site, with many family homes abutting the road. There will be access issues at busy times, as well as very serious safety issue for local children. With the nature of gypsy employment, there will probably be several additional vans and trucks regularly using the road at peak times.
Other suggested sites have access directly off main roads. The landowner in question has land adjoining the Watton Road, which would be far safer for all involved. So why would you approve a residential cul-de-sac?
Apparently, there is a gas main under, or in close proximity to the proposed site, can this be acceptable from a Health & Safety prospective, especially where bonfires are concerned?
The people of Bawburgh already have sites surrounding them, so why are we subjected to yet another application?
This objection is by no means prejudiced against the gypsy community, it is aimed at the miscalculated allocation of this site. Have the people who have suggested it, actually visited the site in question?

Although you are allocating 6 pitches, I am fairly certain it will get to a lot more as the site next to the P+R site at Longwater did, before it had to be closed down.
No disrespects to the Travellers but as in all walks of life, there are good and bad. I am worried about this site because the road is already busy with school traffic and parking is chaotic at times.

As a resident of Bawburgh and having looked at the plans for the Gypsy/ travellers site I would like to make the following comments

1. ACCESS : Thus is a significant issue.There is a school on Hockering Lane with young children attending. Traffic is already congested during school times and safety of children is paramount.Suitibilty of the site is in question.

2.Other Visitors to the site: It would be very difficult to ensure that temporary visitors to the site were kept to a minimum.This again would have serious consequences.


3.Noise :These levels cannot be ensured as there will be a greater concentration of people.

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.

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.

I believe the proposal is unsound.

Firstly, during the week Hockering Lane is a busy little road due to the school traffic twice a day. It is often very difficult to get past the parked cars and on many occasions I have had to wait several minutes to be able to drive away from my home due to the traffic. It would certainly be very challenging to get wider vehicles down the road at those times and I think adding additional traffic to the road would make it unsafe for the young children getting into and out of cars.

The school itself is oversubscribed. As the proposal is for 6 sites- up to 24 caravans- this will mean children on the site will have to be taken to schools out of the village further adding to the traffic problems.

There are no public transport options in Bawburgh. An additional 24 vehicles on Hockering Lane will make a quiet lane ( it is a cul- de- sac) much busier every day. It is unlikely it will be unsafe for the local children who practice riding their bikes up and down it at the weekend. This is a real concern as there are very few places locally were it is safe for novice cyclists and this is an important skill for children to learn.

I am also very concerned about the effects on the local environment. The fields just beside the proposed site flood regularly in the winter. The effect on groundwater drainage and the costs of ensuring flood risks are not increased may be very considerable.

I am also concerned that options to improve and expand the travellers transit site which is only a mile from Bawburgh have not been considered. This site is beside the park and ride and within walking distance to long water retail park. Adding a permanent site there would mean residents had other options than using their vehicles for every journey, have better access as it links to a road, rather than being right at the end of a cul- de - sac and be less expensive for the taxpayer as facilities are already in place which could be upgraded rather than starting from scratch beside an area that regularly floods.

GNLP5009
Gypsy & travellers site focused consultation - site at Hockering Lane, Bawburgh

With reference to the above suggested site please consider my strong objections to this proposal as below. Firstly though I would like to highlight some fundamental flaws within the published Sustainability Appraisal of the GNLP (January 2023), which you have used to form your opinion. I have used the report referencing to aid understanding.
3.4.1 Air and noise pollution. The report states that the site is situated away from major sources of air and noise pollution. The site has the A47 within a short distance, the traffic is a significant source of air pollution. Part of the carriage way is elevated to traverse the river which does cause increased levels of road noise.
3.4.3 Habitats sites. Although the site may be 3km from the River Wensum it is situated adjacent to a richly inhabited water meadow which is bordered by a tributary of the river. Any development here would disturb the natural habitat.
3.4.10 Local Landscape Designations. The report states the site is within 600m from Bawburgh Allotments and open amenity space on Harts Lane and New Road. I point out that as far as I am aware Bawburgh does not have any allotments and there is no publicly accessable amenity space at either of these locations. There is no 'good access to assets' for end users.
3.4.18 Primary School. Although designated as a minor positive for the report, it does not take into consideration that the school is already over-subscribed, 106% being the current saturation.
3.4.23 Pedestrian Access. The statement here is simply incorrect. Bawburgh has a particularly poor footpath and pavement network. The pavement on Hockering Lane past the school is on one side only, this pavement then only goes up Stocks Hill, approximately 1/3 of the way to the Watton Road. There are no pavements around the village green or pub. In fact there is not a single pavement that links Bawburgh with anywhere, Harts Lane - ends½ way along, nothing on New Road, nothing on Church Street and as mentioned only 1/3 of the way up Stocks Hill. A pedestrian cannot use a pavement to leave the village.
Moving on to my objections.

The site is located at the end of a narrow road, which also hosts the primary school. There is a pavement to accommodate children and parents on only one side of the road. At busy times this road becomes blocked with traffic, pedestrians etc already. Adding potentially more vehicular movements creates added danger to all users.
There is a main gas line running through the adjacent field to the site. A number of years ago a proposal to build on the same piece of land was rejected partly due to the proximity to this gas pipe. How is this new proposal any different? The gas line is still in-situ.
The lack of pavement and safe cycle routes almost certainly necessitates any residents to use private transport. This causes not only additional traffic on the narrow country roads but adds Co2 emissions. This goes against the overall environmental plan and the goals to encourage personal wellbeing through exercise.
The proposed Costessey site in the original 12 under consideration was rejected due to it's proximity to other existing sites. This site at Bawburgh also has an existing site within a very short distance, Marlingford and the dormant Costessey Park & Ride. There is also Tower Hill and Roundwell at Costessey not to far away. Surely if applying the same criteria site GNLP5009 should also be disregarded?
There is already a ready made site at Costessey Park & Ride. Why spend tax-payers money on a new one when it would be easier (and cheaper) to utilize existing assets?
The natural character of a beautiful meadow, together with hedgerows and trees will surely be destroyed.
Although not in the conservation area, the site is close enough to one to affect its landscape.
The use or presence of potential contaminants will immediately enter the waterways due to the closeness to the river.
I trust you will take all of my points into consideration, in my opinion this is simply not a good option for anyone.

I came to live with my daughter and her husband in the pretty conservation village of Bawburgh just over 18 months ago. I fear that the proposed gypsy site will bring significant increased traffic to this quiet little Lane. School drop off and pick ups do cause some traffic problems already but I enjoy seeing the children.

1. Sewage system is already struggling and further development will make the worse.
2. Stocks hill is used like a rat run and further traffic from developments will make it much worse.
3. Bawburgh lacks amenities, no shops, no dentists no doctors and no significant bus service and no gas.
4. Flooding from our river would be a risk to a gypsy/traveller site.
5. Hockering Lane is very narrow and two cars can't pass by each other. School times are always busy and more traffic would make it all unsafe for children at the school.

1. STATUTORY CONSERVATION IMPLICATIONS DO NOT SEEM TO HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED IN RELATION TO THIS SITE.
2. MARLINGFORD AND THE ROUNDWELL TRAVELLERS SITES ARE NEAR BY AND ALREADY HOUSE TRAVERLERS IN ADDITION TO THE COSTESSY PARK AND RIDE SITE.
3. THE COMBINATION OF THE DAILY PEAK PRIMARY SCHOOL TRAFFIC, THE RAT RUN TRAFFIC AND NEW DEVELOPMENTS TRAFFIC (TRAVELLERS SITE AND 35 NEW HOMES STOCKSHILL) DO NOT APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED WITH RESPECT TO THE FUTURE PLAN? THE OVERALL IMPACT CANNOT BE SOUND AND SENSIBLE. THE VILLAGE ENVIRONMENT WILL UNAVOIDABLY BE DAMAGED.
4. THIS PROPOSED SITE DOES NOT RESPECT THE SCALE AND CHARACTER OF THE EXISTING VILLAGE ENVIRONMENT. THE FACT IS THAT 6 PITCHES CAN ACCOMMODATE SIGNIFCANTLY WELL IN EXCESS OF 6 CARAVANS AND A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN VEHICLES ON THEB PROPOSED SITE WILL INCLUDE OUT BUILDINGS FOR SANITARY, WASHING AND COOKING FACILITIES FOR RESIDENTS AND VISITORS. THIS POTENTIAL NEW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WOULD RESULT IN A SIGNICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE CHARACTER AND APPEARANCE OF THE LOCAL ENVIRONMENT.
5. IT IS NOT CLEAR IN THE LITERATURE AS TO WHAT EXTENT EXISTING LAND ATTACHING TO THE TRAVERLERS SITE WILL BE FURTHER ABSORBED FOR BUILDING PURPOSES. POTENTIALLY THE CONSERVATION VILLAGE OF BAWBURGH GETS SWALLOWED UP BY CREEPING URBANISATION.
6. ALL OTHER PROPOSED SITES IN THE GNL PLAN HAVE MAJOR ROADS OUT. THE PROPOSED SITE IN BAWBURGH IS SITUATED IN A CUL DE-SAC, A QUIET NARROW ROAD CONTAINING A PRIMARY SCHOOL. INCREDIBLY DIFFICULT TURNING CIRCLES FOR TRADE AND RESIDENTIAL VEHICLES. THIS CAN ONLY BE SERIOUSLY ASCERBATED BY THE PROPOSED TRAVERLERS SITE SEE PHOTOS ATTACHED. POTENTIALLY MANY CARAVANS AND 35 NEW HOMES WILL GENERATE SIGNIFICANTLY EXTRA TRAFIC IN A SMALL VILLAGE.
WITH THE INCREASED ROAD USAGE IN HOCKERING LANE, BRINGS WITH IT A LARGE INCREASE IN LITTER AND ENVIROMENTAL DAMAGE. VOLUNTEERS HAVE ALREADY SET UP LITTER PATROLS. THERE IS ALSO A MASSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL RISK TO ANIMALS WHICH LIVE IN THE HEDGEROWS AND FIELDS ALONG THE LANE.
ANY ADDITIONAL TRAFIC CALMING MEASURES TO ALLEVIATE THE SITUATION WILL INCONVENIEINCE VILLAGERS WHO HAVE TO USE THIS LANE AND THE ADJOINING ROADS TO GET IN AND OUT OF THE VILLAGE.

7. THERE ARE NO LOCAL AMENITIES IN BAWBURGH JUST ONE PUB. NO BUSES INTO NORWICH EACH DAY NO SHOPS. DOCTORS ARE OVERLOADED AND ITS IMPOSSIBLE TO GET AN APPOINTMENT FOR OLD AND INFIRMED PEOPLE WITHOUT TRANSPORT. BUS FACILITIES IS A PROBLEM.

8. THIS IS A SERIOUS DEFICIENCY ESPECIALLY WHEN LINKED TO A POSSIBLE DEVELOPMENT OF 35 HOUSES IN STOCKS HILL. THE PRESENT PLANS LACK ANY DETAILED AND PROPER COHERENT MODLELLING AS TO THE LIKELY AFFECT OF THE TRAVELLERS AND NEW HOUSING SITES PROPOSED ON THE INCREASE IN VEHICLES ON THE TRANSPORT AND INFRASTRUCTURE RE IN AND AROUND BAWBURGH AND CONNECTIONS TO OTHER ROAD SYSTEMS.
DUE TO LACK OF AMENITY, PRIMARILY SHOPS, GPS AND BUSES THE NATURAL PROGRESSION IS FOR HOUSEHOLDS TO GRAVITATE TO TWO CAR FAMILIES. THIS HAS NOT BEEN MODELLED IN. THE SIZE OF BAWBURGH AND ITS NARROW LANES DOES NOT LEND ITSELF TO A BUS FRIENDLY ENVIROMENT.
BUS COMPANIES HAVE NOT IN RECENT TIMES SEEN BAWBURGH AS A COMMERICAL PROSPECT HENCE NO SERVICES CURRENTLY IN BAWBURGH.

9. THE BAWBURGH PRIMARY SCHOOL DOES NOT APPEAR TO HAVE CAPACITY AND SPARE PLACES AND WOULD THEREFORE BE OVER SUBSCRIBED ESPECIALLY WHEN LINKED TO A POSSIBLE DEVELOPMENT OF 35 HOUSES IN STOCKS HILL IN ADDITION TO TRAVELLERS DEVELOPMENT. THE PROVISON OF EDUCATION, SCHOOLS, PLAY AREAS FOR THE CHILDREN OF THESE PROJECTS HAS SIMPLY NOT BEEN THOUGHT THROUGH.
10. BAWBURGH HAS NO WALKWAYS OR CYCLEWAYS AS COUNCIL SAID IT WOULD BE TOO EXPENSIVE.
11. THE CONSERVATION BAWBURGH BRIDGE IS EXTREMELY OLD AND VULNERABLE. IT IS ALSO DANGEROUS COMING OVER THE BRIDGE PARTICULARLY FOR PEDESTRIANS, YOUNG MOTHERS AND CHILDREN. BAWBURGH HAS IN RECENT TIMES DEVELOPED INTO A RAT RUN BETWEEEN DEREHAM ROAD AND WATTON ROAD
12. FLOODING AND SEWERAGE IN THE VILLAGE IS ALREADY A PROBLEM AND CAN ONLY BE MADE WORSE WITH NEW HOUSES, AND CARAVANS. HAVE ANGLIA WATER BEEN APPROACHED IN RELATION TO THE SEWAGE ISSUES ON THE HARTS LANE SIDE OF THE BRIDGE. THERE HAVE BEEN ONGOING PROBLEMS. PERMISSION FOR THE DEVELOPMENT MAYBE OBJECTED TO BY ANGLIA WATER UNLESS THE EXISITING WATER NETWORK INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE VILLAGE AND THE ADDITIONAL FLOWS FROM THE TRAVELLERS SITE AND THE 35 HOUSE DEVELOPMENT SITE HAS BEEN THOROUGHLY INVESTIGATED. ALL WATER NETWORK UPGRADES NECESSARY TO ACCOMMODATE THE ADDITIONAL FLOWS SHOULD BE COMPLETED.

1. Transit site at the park and ride is already there.
2. All other sites have major roads out, our proposed site is a cul-de-sac and the quietist road in Bawburgh.
3. Marlingford and the Roundwell sites are really nearby and already house gypsies.
4. There are no local amenities in Bawburgh just one pub. No buses into Norwich each day, no shops. Doctors are completely overloaded and it's impossible to get an appointment.
5. The Bawburgh school does not have any places available and would therefore be oversubscribed with the arising demand from the new proposed gypsy/traveller site and 35 new homes.
6. We have no walkways or cycleways in Bawburgh as the council said it would be too expensive. We have so many elderly people living alone in Hockering Lane, and they enjoy the quiet surrounds and beautiful views which would change with a gypsy site.
7. The Bawburgh bridge is very old, and it is dangerous coming over the bridge.
8. Flooding in the village is already a problem and can only be made worse with new houses, and
caravans.
9. Hockering Lane is a very narrow lane, and two cars cannot go down the lane side by side easily. The busy time is school start and pick up when all the mums and dads arrive. Delivery vehicles like Sainsburys, Waitrose and Iceland along with refuge lorries and oil deliveries find Hockering Lane a very difficult road especially turning round at the end of the lane. This situation will be made worse by additional traffic coming from the proposed new 35 dwellings on Stocks Hill.
10. The problem of environmental pollution is also such an important consideration.
11. We want to keep Bawburgh as a pretty conservation village that is why we moved here from Kent.
12. Risks associated with building on existing gas pipe and the potential use of unregulated LPF gas cylinders close to houses and the school.

I strongly object to the proposed gypsy/traveller site just off Hockering Lane, Bawburgh for the following reasons:-

1/ Traffic / safety issues and concerns
The proposed site is located on Hockering Lane leading to a dead end. There is currently significant traffic problems already with the village school also being located here. During school hours this road becomes very difficult to manage due to restricted road width making it difficult for passing vehicles and turning around. Hockering Lane already experiences relatively frequent heavy goods vehicles with oil/LPG tankers, bin lorries, school buses causing issues and often becomes unsafe for school children coming and going, including local residents. Adding further development for a gypsy/traveller site here would only increase the traffic, wideload vehicles increasing the risk for our childrens safety. The exit from Hockering Lane to Stocks Hill is blind. More traffic will create further safety issues for oncoming vehicles and pedestrians in and around the Bawburgh bridge area.
The proposal also allows for visiting or transit travellers in addition to permanent occupants. Again, increasing the number of vehicles travelling to and from the site making this much greater than the number of pitches raising further concerns around environment and safety issues here.

2/ Access and Right of Way
The site access includes a privately owned entrance which is not owned by the landowner. The landowner only has a right of way onto the site for farm use.

3/ Lack of Amenities
The proximity of the school and the large number of children / parents / staff using Hockering Lane makes the site unsuitable. The school is already heavily over-subscribed and could not accommodate the children living on the proposed travellers site. There are no shops, Doctors surgery or other amenities in the village. There is no daily public transport service in the village to provide for those without cars.

4/ Nearby Existing Provisions
The proposed site is the only one of the 10 sites listed which adjoins directly to existing houses. There is a perfectly adequate existing site next to the Park & Ride on Long Lane. It is currently being improved following a temporary closure due to travellers on the site causing a serious fire after burning hazardous waste material.

5/ Sewerage & Flooding
The existing sewerage infrastructure is inadequate. The proposed gypsy/traveller site will put additional strain on the system and pose a risk to pollution of the river less than 100metres from the site. Bawburgh river has been known to flood on many occassions, causing concerns for village life. Developing further on a drainage site will further add to the risk of flooding.

6/ Conservation Area
The site adjoins the boundary of the designated Conservation Area. The site, consisting of caravans, toilet block, commercial vehicles, noise levels will impact the countryside views and natural habitat in this area.

7/ Unlawful and anti Social Behaviour
We are a small law abiding community living in an idylic vilage. Sadly, over the years the village has encountered such behaviour from gypsy/travellers which is of criminal sort who have targeted the village on several occassions making a nuisance of themselves and leaving the community feeling unsafe in their own surroundings. Unacceptable behaviour is not welcome and has unfortunately left the locals up in arms to think that the council would even consider putting the village and community at such risks again by having a site here in the village itself. There is police record of criminal activities on file of the countless occassions over the last 5 years, including several unlawful trespasses requiring court orders to evict travellers occupying the village hall car park, defecation in the back doorway of the village hall, theft of fuel oil from the tank at the village hall, burglary of the hall itself including theft of stock from the bar, threatening and abusive behaviour towards residence and more in relation to surrounding villages and gypsey/travellers within the area.

All of this has raised much concern regarding the proposed development and reiterrates our objections to this site going ahead.

Too close to Bawburgh school, will increase traffic flow in village plus Hockering Lane which is narrow. Bawburgh bridge is a national heritage site, excess large traffic could cause damage.
There's a lack of infrastructure in Bawburgh, not enough to accommodate a travellers site.
The village is at risk of flooding, the site proposed is very close to this.
The site is adjacent to a protected area which contains protected species.
There need's to be suitable drainage, connecting to main sewerage drainage.
The site is close to a very close community.
The exit of HockeringLane is on a blind hill.

The access road and junction are not suitable to accommodate additional traffic.
Access involves land owned by a third party.

Impacts on residential amenity of existing properties.

Cadent have identified a Building Proximity Distance of 14.3m to the gas pipeline. The HSE may require a greater distance for planning safety purposes either side of the pipeline.

The SA has identified numerous minor adverse impacts, some of which we consider should be reclassified as major adverse impacts. All leading to a recommendation the site is not a preferred allocation.

Unsustainable location, lack of services and public transport links.

Hockering Lane is very narrow, with parked cards 24/7. Actual width 3 metres. There are no public services in Bawburgh, so vehicles have to be used to access any services. The risk of burning cables to extract copper wire, there by giving off dioxins, furans, and BDPs amongst many other chemicals, which will leach into the water table, and river Yare which is between 137 mtrs to 170 mtrs from the tree line. The threat of rubbish being dumped on Yareside Meadow, which we are keeping as a water meadow, this is a real concern because as landowners we would be responsible for removal at our expense.
The Bowthorpe high pressure gas pipeline runs through the proposed site. It has 100 mtr casement on Yareside Meadow, no tree planting or caravans etc, so it will be the same on this proposed site. No bonfires allowed near this pipeline, route crossings to be approved by National Grid Gas Transmission. This is a totally unsuitable site for a travellers residential pitches.

Increased traffic on an unlit road (safety concern) which has a primary school
High pressure gas line runs underneath the site
The site sits on a flood plain and the site floods on a regular basis
There are wildlife concerns given the impact this will have on the great crested newts which are understood to be there
There is already an existing site in bawburgh (near the park and ride) which has previously been used and it is understood will be used again. The site is a large site and could be used to accommodate the extra space required.