Greater Norwich Local Plan Gypsy and Traveller Sites Focused Consultation

Representation submitted on behalf of a local resident (Beighton).

1. Site subject to Excessive Noise & Pollution
With the proposed new road the site would be enclosed on three sides by major trunking routes with speeds of 70mph (noise) and air pollution (from vehicles). The proposed new flyover will carry hundreds of HGV bulkers to and from British Sugar – noisy when unladen & discharging fumes. Both will have a negative impact on health & quality of life to both Travellers & local residents.

2. Hazard to/from children
Children (and adults) require space to roam & play – none is provided and there will always be a risk of a child straying onto a fast-moving road……

3. Hazard to/ from Travellers dogs
As above – even less supervision to animals who may stray onto the new A47.

4. Horses
Travellers usually have breeding horses who require grazing. Are land owners to awake to rogue horses grazing or ‘empty’ fields locally being taken over? Another hazard should one get loose.

5. Sewage disposal
There is no capacity for a septic tank due to the capacity of the site. Nearest main sewers are either Acle or School Lane, Lingwood.

6. Surface water run off
Despite the reports provided this area is well known for the lack of drainage and frequently the current inside lane of the A47 is hazardous during inclement weather; surrounding agricultural land is of heavy clay and as such would not be capable of draining additional rainwater.

7. Costings Evaluation
No costings for the efficacy of this site have been included. Therefore, as a resident I am unable to see the financial viability of ANY proposed site and where MY money is going nor the sustainability or accurate appraisal of said site has not been met.

8. Inaccurate & outdated data
Correct information regarding the ownership/name of Acle Medical Centre is 9 years out of date; distance to local school is also inaccurate – what other information is also inaccurate throughout the proposal?

9. GNLP website
Not only was the website inaccessible it is also very obstructive in its design. This has made it very difficult to use and to be able to submit comment – thorough lack of communication.

10. Consultation period
Many residents have in fact only found out about the proposal through social media and at very short notice. One resident in closest proximity to the site knew nothing of it & had not been consulted in any form prior to the Parish council meeting on 7/3/2023.

Saying that ‘the information is on the [GNLP] website’ is not good enough. How are individuals supposed to know to look for information about something they know nothing about?

Consultation should have happened soon after the opening date NOT 4 working days ahead of closing. I don’t believe that sufficient time has been given for the many hundreds of local residents to comment despite an extension being requested – a request that has been ignored.

Has the correct consultation actually been followed? I believe not.

11. Terminology used
Given residents are lay to the planning lingo ‘15 pitches’ actually means at least 2 if not three vans per pitch. 15 single caravans might have meant 60 individuals (at a rate of 2 adults plus two children) per van. Reality is that one can reasonably assume a minimum of 6 per pitch is a more reasonable estimate – ie 90 individuals. How is this sustainable in the intended position? Further……

12. Local services
There has historically been no development of health (Doctors & Dentists etc) nor schools or local facilities to enable access to such services DESPITE other planning applications assuring such infrastructure would be achieved. It has not. Currently Acle surgery is over subscribed & residents are being offered non-emergency appointments some 28 days beyond request. WHAT guaranteed improvement to such services is to be included and created to provide for all residents (including the possible 90 new residents)?

Previous planning considerations – comment from Beighton Parish Council

‘Beighton Parish Council objects to this site. Beighton is a village with no facilities, no school, no shop, little public transport and dangerous traffic speeds on High Road and Southwood Road. It would be inappropriate to build on this site

The areas highlighted are true of the proposed site.

13. Alternative sites
The now closed Park & Ride at Postwick would seem an obvious choice of alternative location & is already in public ownership. Infrastructure already exists, the site is in isolation from the local community, is close to the new Police HQ on Broadland Gate, does have local transport links eg busses, footpaths etc Just because the council do not wish to use this site (WHY?) does not mean that it should be discounted from further consideration.

The two existing traveller sites in Norwich have been successful because they are isolated from local residents, because they have been screened & because each site has sufficient open space around it for ‘recreational’ purposes & wellbeing. The Burlingham site has none of this…. not a dot. It is not isolated from locals, it cannot be screened & does not have open space around it.

Further it seems that many existing sites are under occupied yet do have capacity for extension on existing land adjacent to those sites. Compulsory purchase of such land is a viable option if it is not already owned & should be considered.

I am a District Councillor and have been asked to represent the views of a resident within the Burlingham ward (Resident 1).
Their views are as follows -
I agree with all the comments and concerns that have been put forward on the www.Burlingham-plan.space website regarding the unsuitability of the site as regards pollution and safety and potential for road traffic incidents. The lack of local facilities such as doctors surgeries, schools, sewage etc. to accommodate the potential number of people are also of concern. We are also unhappy at the poor communication and short response time allowed for your constituents to respond to the proposal.

I am a District Councillor and have been asked to represent the views of a resident within the Burlingham ward (Resident 2).
Their views are as follows -
I agree with all the comments and concerns that have been put forward on the www.Burlingham-plan.space website regarding the unsuitability of the site as regards pollution and safety and potential for road traffic incidents. The lack of local facilities such as doctors surgeries, schools, sewage etc. to accommodate the potential number of people are also of concern. I am also unhappy at the poor communication and short response time allowed for your constituents to respond to the proposal.

I am a District Councillor and have been asked to represent the views of a resident within the Burlingham ward (Resident 1).
Their views are as follows -
I agree with all the comments and concerns that have been put forward on the www.Burlingham-plan.space website regarding the unsuitability of the site as regards pollution and safety and potential for road traffic incidents. The lack of local facilities such as doctors surgeries, schools, sewage etc. to accommodate the potential number of people are also of concern. We are also unhappy at the poor communication and short response time allowed for your constituents to respond to the proposal.

I am a District Councillor and have been asked to represent the views of a resident within the Burlingham ward (Resident 2).
Their views are as follows -
I agree with all the comments and concerns that have been put forward on the www.Burlingham-plan.space website regarding the unsuitability of the site as regards pollution and safety and potential for road traffic incidents. The lack of local facilities such as doctors surgeries, schools, sewage etc. to accommodate the potential number of people are also of concern. I am also unhappy at the poor communication and short response time allowed for your constituents to respond to the proposal.

As a parish councillor and district councillor I have listened to the views of local residents and, together with my own views, make the following comments.

The method of submitting consultation comments has not been made easy by the confusing website. It should be possible to easily access a way to submit comments but it is not at all clear how to do this. It has been so difficult that a local resident has set up and promoted their own website with the relevant links to make it easier for members of the public to access the consultation. If a local resident can do this then so can the Greater Norwich Partnership. It unnecessarily adds to the the public's frustration and undermines trust in local councils.

Site GNLP5014 – Land adjacent to A47

This site relies upon the outcome of the current legal challenge against National Highways. The challenge to the A47 schemes is not on the schemes themselves, but to the process of approving the Development Consent Orders (DCOs). Therefore, there is a risk to this site becoming available.

I refer to the Lepus Consulting report on the proposed sites prepared for the Greater Norwich Development Partnership. The site information and overall scores per SA Objective provides strong reasons why this site should not be considered as follows.

SA1: Air Quality and Noise
The majority of the site is within 200m of the A47 trunk road. This site could potentially expose site end users to higher levels of transport associated air and noise pollution. I would argue it is not "could potentially" but "would" expose site users to high levels of air and noise pollution. Would anyone seriously consider building a residential development for 15 to 30 families at this location? I don't think so.

SA2: Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation
This is a site already subject to localised surface water flooding and with climate change more frequent, intense cloudbursts are expected and with runoff from the new roads this is likely to get worse not better.

SA3: Biodiversity, Geodiversity and Green Infrastructure
There is the potential for nutrient impacts related to wastewater discharge from this development to contribute towards worsening of water quality of local water courses. Such developments are currently paused due to the Natural England requirement for Nutrient Neutrality involving "overnight accommodation". This will require acceptable mitigation measures and it is not clear how these will be achieved.

SA4: Landscape
This site comprises part of the open arable landscape surrounding Lingwood and Burlingham Green with its setting of historic halls and churches, villages, and mosaic of arable fields. The proposed development would not be in accord with these characteristics and would have a negative impact on the character of the local landscape.
The site comprises previously undeveloped land and is located outside the existing settlements of Lingwood and Burlingham Green. Therefore, the proposed development would contribute towards the urbanisation of the countryside.

SA6: Population and Communities
The nearest local shop to the site is SPAR in Lingwood, located approximately 2km to the south west of the site, outside of the sustainable target distance. Therefore, the proposed development at this site would have a negative impact on access to local services for those living at the site.

SA8: Health
The closest hospital with an A&E department to the site is James Paget University Hospital, located approximately 16km from the site, outside the sustainable target distance. The site is located approximately 1.2km from the closest GP surgery in Acle, outside the sustainable target distance. The nearest leisure centre is in Norwich over 13km from the site.
As the report itself states: "As Site GNLP5014 is located outside the target distance to an NHS hospital, GP surgery and leisure centre, the proposed development at this site would be expected to have a major negative impact on the health and wellbeing of site end users."

SA10: Education
The site is located approximately 1.5km from the closest primary school, Lingwood Primary School and 2.3km from the closest secondary school, Acle Academy. Therefore, as the site is located outside the sustainable target distance to both primary and secondary schools, a major negative impact on the access of site end users to education would be expected.

SA12: Transport and Access to Services
The site is located outside the target distance to a bus stop. The site is located within the target distance to Lingwood Railway Station but pedestrian access is poor. There is an overall negative impact on local accessibility.

SA14: Natural Resources, Waste and Contaminated Land
The site is situated upon Grade 1 agricultural land which represents some of Greater Norwich’s Best Most Versatile (BMV) land. This would result in the permanent and irreversible loss of valuable farming soils.

I object to this site because of the many negative impacts listed above which have been clearly set out in the Lepus Consulting report written for the Greater Norwich Partnership.

Representation made on behalf of a resident.

1, The site is at an unsuitable location because of its proximity to the A47. Noise and air pollution. Young children and dogs near a busy road creating a hazard for all

2, The size of the site is out of context with the surrounding area, there are only a handful of houses nearby and they will be dominated by this site. With 15/30 pitches (quite misleading as to exactly how many people will be resident here). I took a look at a google view of Brooks Green to get an idea and you can see there are many extra caravans sited there in excess of the 8 pitches it should be

3, Looking at an aerial view of Brooks Green also highlights the rubbish and fly tipping issues which is a regular sight at many sites, just take a look at the rubbish thrown over the hedge onto the Marriotts Way from the Milecross site (official site) or the rubbish left at Postwick (former illegal site) for instance

4, Huge outlay and ongoing costs for little in return financial or otherwise

5, No sewage infrastructure, the land regularly floods because of poor drainage

6, Lingwood school is 2.4km (incorrectly documented in the GNLP plan) away, the route has no pedestrian ways therefore causing more traffic/pollution

7, The areas health facilities are already bursting - doctors, dentists, ambulances and hospitals

8, To name a few: Riots in Cromer, Dale Farm, The killing of Andrew Harper. The fact that the police were at the meeting at Lingwood Village Hall just sums up the issues that can occur when you bring the gypsy/traveller community into small, rural areas

9, There are some inaccurate facts on the GNLP website that I recognise so makes me doubt some of the other facts too and therefore making the documents misleading

10, I have read the objections put forward by the group The Burlingham Plan and fully support them

I cannot see why existing sites with some sort of infrastructure already in place cannot be used

I am a District Councillor and have been asked to represent the views of a resident within the Burlingham ward (Resident 3).
Their views are as follows -

I live on School road in Lingwood. The proposed site is not far from us, I know the road well. It is a fairly narrow windy road with no footpath and the proposed site is right next to the A47 which is, as you know, a very busy road. I don't think it makes any sense to put a site with multiple families so close to a main road. Children and animals would be at risk going near the A47 and the road they would use to walk into Lingwood, if walking on the road, would put them in danger. A walking path would need to be made into the village. The proximity of the site to the A47 would make it a very noisy and air-polluted area not suitable for families. There are also lots of HGV's coming onto that road from Cantley adding to the noise and air pollution.


I am a District Councillor and have been asked to represent the views of a resident within the Burlingham ward (Resident 4).
Their views are as follows -

"The application is contrary to policies as quoted by the council to myself in regards to local sites we own & have put forward for dwellings & curtilage planning permission, as follows:

1. Grade 1 agricultural land can not become residential curtilage - let alone built upon!

2. Site not 'sustainable' ie: lack of pavements & also outside of the settlement boundary.

I am a District Councillor and have been asked to represent the views of a resident within the Burlingham ward (Resident 3).
Their views are as follows -

I live on School road in Lingwood. The proposed site is not far from us, I know the road well. It is a fairly narrow windy road with no footpath and the proposed site is right next to the A47 which is, as you know, a very busy road. I don't think it makes any sense to put a site with multiple families so close to a main road. Children and animals would be at risk going near the A47 and the road they would use to walk into Lingwood, if walking on the road, would put them in danger. A walking path would need to be made into the village. The proximity of the site to the A47 would make it a very noisy and air-polluted area not suitable for families. There are also lots of HGV's coming onto that road from Cantley adding to the noise and air pollution.


I am a District Councillor and have been asked to represent the views of a resident within the Burlingham ward (Resident 4).
Their views are as follows -

"The application is contrary to policies as quoted by the council to myself in regards to local sites we own & have put forward for dwellings & curtilage planning permission, as follows:

1. Grade 1 agricultural land can not become residential curtilage - let alone built upon!

2. Site not 'sustainable' ie: lack of pavements & also outside of the settlement boundary.

Representation made by District Councillor on behalf of a local resident.

The following views and concerns are my own, they are without any prejudice or discrimination and are for the best interest of the local community, and in line with the Human Rights Act.
Please refer to previous case law on such applications.
The proposed site is used for agricultural purposes, likely to be green belt and inappropriate for future development in open countryside, a reduction in green belt land isn’t good for our environmental obligations.
Loss of wildlife & their habitat.
The local infrastructure can not support such a project
- Schools / doctors / dentists
- Potential drainage / sewage issues
- Safety of residents / children near a busy road
- Drain on community policing
- Extra traffic – pollution issues – noise
- How will the site get power – electric connections?
- Safe storage of gas / oil
- Potential lack of lighting
There is likely to be a loss of character for the area which could lead to economic issues, such as lost tourism, trade & local business closing – taxes.
Have the gypsy / travellers been consulted on the suitability of this site?
There seems to be a lack of clarity on who is responsible for the running and maintaining of the site and who pays for this.
Are there any details on length of stay?
Are the proposed amount of pitches at a level that satisfy the requirements of the gypsy / traveller community or does it run the risk of overflow into / around surrounding areas?
There may be potential fear that the site may lead to an increase in poor social behaviour / crime.
There may be potential fear that the site may lead to a blight on local property prices.
There may be potential fear that the site may be an eyesore.
What feedback have you from other areas of Norfolk / the country on existing sites and their impact on local communities?
What has been learned from them? And what changes have been made to ensure the proposed site is an improvement on these?
Have the local Parish Councils employed a solicitor to mediate the process?