This ancient track at the end of Broomhill Lane is under threat, says Realistic Reepham.

Realistic Reepham says it has been working behind the scenes since the planning application for 141 dwellings was submitted to Broadland District Council in April last year.

The group has raised concerns about the plans that will turn Broomhill Lane into the widest road in Reepham and build a new sports hall beside the high school car park.

It says the project will destroy a 5.5-hectare greenfield site and the high school’s 2.1-hectare rugby field.

In addition, the sole vehicular access route to the housing estate will be off Whitwell Road and along Broomhill Lane, which links to Marriott’s Way.

Realistic Reepham notes that the site was approved by Broadland District Council for 100-120 dwellings, but 141 have been applied for. And although 33% of the dwellings should have been affordable, the applicant has reduced this figure to 20%.

A new sports hall was originally intended to be included on the site, but this has since been relocated, which means the school will lose 36% of its playing fields, the group points out.

Further, the farmland is home to many wild animals and birds and is an important hunting area for many more.

Many consultees, including Natural England, Norfolk Wildlife Trust and Norfolk County Council Highways, have raised concerns about the proposals, but Realistic Reepham fears the plans may get pushed through by a district council “keen to meet an outdated housing target”.

The group says it has found mistakes in the information submitted in the planning applications, including underestimates about the number of buses that take students to and from the high school.

It adds that as well as the congested roads, the doctors’ surgery is overstretched, and the primary and nursery schools are full.

Realistic Reepham also claims to have found at least 20 policy issues where the applicant has not followed the planning guidelines.

The campaign group says it is not opposed to new housing but believes plans should include more social housing and be sympathetic to the existing townscape without spoiling the rural setting of the market town.

Residents can still comment on the plans via Broadland’s Planning Explorer, by email or write to: Broadland District Council, Thorpe Lodge, Yarmouth Road, Norwich NR7 0DU quoting planning application reference 20200847. The deadline for comments is 19 May.

See our earlier stories:

• Objections to new school sports hall continue
• Residents urged to comment on Broomhill Lane plans
• Lobby group warns of ‘hidden dangers’ with planning application

The post Still time to have your say about housing in Reepham appeared first on REEPHAM LIFE.

With comments arriving at Broadland District Council’s planning department in connection with the proposed development of 141 dwellings on land off Broomhill Lane, Realistic Reepham chairman Mark Bridges has welcomed Reepham Town Council’s letter of objection to the district council, which “clearly echo the feelings of a majority of residents.

“The public consultation in February showed that only 4% approved of the development ‘in principle’ and only 7% approved of the use of Broomhill Lane as the single access route,” he said.

According to the lobby group, residents’ comments on the Broadland planning portal suggest that the developers have not addressed the concerns expressed at the public consultation in February and that their agents have not understood Reepham’s unique features, nor how easily its infrastructure can be overloaded.

Comments about increased traffic congestion feature heavily, as well as the reduction in the expected percentage of affordable homes and ecological impacts.

Mr Bridges added: “The thoughtful comments already recorded on a wide range of issues just show the connection Reepham people feel to their town and their wish for it not to become just another suburb. I urge people to have their say.”

The usual planning procedures have been made more difficult by the coronavirus lockdown, but all relevant documents can be viewed online (application number 20200847).

The closing date for comments is 27 May 2020. These can be made online, by email or by letter to: Planning, Broadland District Council, Thorpe Lodge, 1 Yarmouth Road, Norwich NR7 0DU, quoting planning application 20200847.

See our earlier stories:

• Town council objects to Broomhill Lane housing development plans
• Plans submitted for 141 houses off Broomhill Lane

The post Residents urged to comment on Broomhill Lane plans appeared first on REEPHAM LIFE.

Founder Mark Bridges, who lives on Broomhill Lane, believes pressure should be brought to incorporate all the elements of the development – improvements to the road, the housing site and changes to the high school – into one proposal.

He said: “We have been in close discussion with Broadland District Council planners about this.

“They tell us that they can only take into account the current traffic and usage of the Broomhill Lane junction when assessing this application – despite the fact that it clearly is intended to facilitate the future housing development and potential changes to access at the high school.”

The current application has been submitted by Norfolk County Council highways, although the work will be carried out and paid for by the site developers, Lovell Homes.

“We understand that the work may take place before the full planning application for the housing goes in,” Mr Bridges said.

“The roadways and junctions will be evaluated during assessment of this second planning application, but the developers will surely expect their work on Broomhill Lane to be seen as a fait accompli.”

The application currently before the planners includes extending Broomhill Lane beyond the current housing with a junction that will ultimately become the access to the proposed housing site.

“Norfolk County Council is proposing creating a road to nowhere,” said Mr Bridges. “The one and only driver for the application to improve the road is the proposed housing development.”

Realistic Reepham said it is pleased that District Councillor Stuart Beadle has “called in” the current application to be discussed by the full planning committee of Broadland District Council.

However, the group is concerned that residents will not have the opportunity to discuss the plans in public under the current coronavirus lockdown.

It has lobbied district and county councillors as well as local MP Jerome Mayhew to ask for assurances that residents will have a chance to have their say when the application is discussed.

Realistic Reepham believes that, as not all residents are able to access the planning process online, use online meeting technology or have the ability to understand technical documentation, collective collaboration between residents is essential.

See or earlier stories:

• Residents’ concerns over improvement of Broomhill Lane
• Broomhill Lane housing plans unveiled

The post Lobby group warns of hidden dangers’ with planning application appeared first on REEPHAM LIFE.

The exhibition will take place on 11 November from 4.45 pm to 6.45 pm in the school’s sports hall.

In a letter addressed to the school’s principal, Mark Farrar, the campaign group, which opposes any large-scale development outside the town’s existing settlement limit, said it had been contacted by a number of “disgruntled” Reepham residents and parents regarding a letter from the school dated 6 November.

Realistic Reepham said the letter “seems to have been written without any real appreciation of the High School’s position in the community, and its responsibilities to that community”.

“The school has a responsibility to accept, without prejudice, any benefits that might come to it from development proposals. Here, however, we are seeing heavy promotion by the High School of a poorly scoped scheme that has no presented tangible corroborative facts or figures; the promises of school and community facilities made by the developer may be regarded as no more than aspirations and suggestions.”

While the action group recognises that the school needs facilities now and in the future, “it appears to be a mismatch of needs versus desires to target a sports hall over provision of proper classrooms for pupils”, adding that the sports hall is “clearly a political means to encourage popular support in Reepham for a development on one particular site, in preference to others.

“This promotion by the school to encourage parents to complete consultation forms in favour of the Broomhill Lane site is an unseemly violation of your responsibility as educators.”

Realistic Reepham asked the principal to either cancel the event or hold it in an “independent” public venue, such as Stimpson’s Piece, the Town Hall or St Michael’s, which have been used by other developers and promoters of sites considered in the debates about housing expansion in Reepham over the past two years.

In response, Mr Farrar said the event will go ahead at the school on Monday as planned, adding that the land agent would be happy to hold a second exhibition in Reepham if the campaign group requests this.

He stressed that the school had not asked for “positive comments” from parents as Realistic Reepham has asserted, but asked that the local community consider the proposal and make comments, either on the evening itself or through Broadland District Council’s Consultation Portal.

“Normally, the school remains entirely neutral on proposed housing developments in the town,” Mr Farrar told parents. “Because this development, however, gives the school the opportunity to acquire a modern and suitably sized sports hall, we support the proposal.

“You will be aware how inadequate our current sports hall is for a school of our size. You will also be aware how limited indoor sporting provision is for the local community at weekends and evenings.”

Adding that the school did not instigate the building proposal, Mr Farrar explained: “I hope the people of Reepham understand that my responsibility is to deliver the best quality education possible for the young people of our catchment area.

“If houses are to be built in Reepham (and this is not my decision nor is it something we have promoted), then I have to support the proposal that allows us to improve the quality of the education offered to our pupils.”

The Broomhill Lane proposal for 100-120 houses is one of two potential new sites for housing in Reepham for which Broadland is currently holding a six-week public consultation; this closes at 5 pm on Monday 25 November.

See our earlier news stories:

Another consultation on new housing development sites

RHSC plans to build community sports facility

The post Action group calls for neutral’ venue for development display appeared first on REEPHAM LIFE.

The 15-second silent protest organised by Realistic Reepham took place in Reepham Town Hall during a public exhibition held on Thursday 11 July by Broadland to provide information on its preferred sites for housing development in the town as part of its latest consultation on the Local Development Framework.

Realistic Reepham founder and chairman Mark Bridges (centre) with some of the campaign group’s supporters outside Reepham Town Hall following their 15-second silent protest against Broadland District Council

The District Council’s planning department recently announced three sites as “preferred options” for development in Reepham, which could see around 160 new homes being built in and around the town up to 2026.

The sites selected are:

• part of the Reepham 2 site to the south of Dereham Road (90 homes);
• land to the east of Whitwell Road opposite the High School (50 homes); and
• land at the former station yard on Station Road, where a mixed development of residential and employment would see around 20 new homes being built.

During the protest, Realistic Reepham founder and chairman Mark Bridges delivered to Broadland District Council interim spatial planning manager John Walchester the first batch of questionnaires collected by the group, which he said showed overwhelming support from residents for smaller-scale developments within the town boundary as opposed to large housing estates outside the existing settlement limit. “We do not recognise the targets Broadland have set for us,” he stated.

Speaking at an earlier public meeting in St Michael’s, Mr Bridges said Reepham had grown by 80 houses over the past 15 years. Moreover, 44 sites had been identified with outline planning permission for new homes, with the Abbs Garage site in School Road understood to be “close to a planning application”.

However, these would be additional to the town’s allocation of 100-200 new dwellings, which Realistic Reepham believes will put even more pressure on the town’s already over-stretched infrastructure.

“Reepham is the last market town in Norfolk that has not been enveloped by large-scale housing estates,” said Mr Bridges, who believes nearby Aylsham has been spoiled by excessive development in recent years.

Broadland District Council is now consulting on its “preferred options” in terms of sites for future development across the district.

The consultation will help the Council to produce a Site Allocations Development Plan Document, which will identify or “allocate” areas of land for specific types of development, such as housing, employment, community facilities, etc. It will also include the definition of development boundaries or settlement limits for those places where some further “infill” development may take place.

The public consultation closes at 5 pm on Monday 2 September 2013. To view or add comments, click HERE

See our earlier news stories:

Outline housing scheme proposed for Whitwell Road site

Broadland’s ‘Preferred Options’ summer consultation opens

Broadland announces preferred sites for development

YOUR VIEWS:

I attended the Broadland District Council Consultation meeting on 11 July and can only say how disappointed I was at the lack of constructive comments received from both Broadland’s planners and the Realistic (UnRealistic?) Reepham pressure group.

I believe Reepham needs to accept that it cannot stand still nor remain stubbornly opposed to any developments in the mistaken belief that a problem will go away if we refuse to take part in a positive manner. It is far too easy to break down arguments/proposals rather than engage and propose positive and long-term plans for our community.

The stance taken under the guidance of Realistic Reepham’s spokesman was childish in its “publicity stunt” of literally turning its back on Broadland at the consultation meeting. Nothing comes of this type of action; it just makes positive communication more difficult. When I asked the spokesman for his ideas on what Reepham should be looking for in its future development, his answer was that brownfield sites within the town should be developed.

I cannot see where Realistic Reepham thinks the owners of these sites will park their cars other than the streets; not an ideal situation, nor do I think these infill developments add any “value” to the town. They put a stress on existing sewerage and generally add little to the architecture, general infrastructure or amen­ities within Reepham.

Broadland’s attempt at enlightening residents was also a disappointment. When challenged about the viability of sewerage from the Reepham 2 site, I was told that if it was OK with Anglian Water, then basically it was fine with planning. Albeit, a planning officer said that of course if a sewage treatment plant could not be managed to the west of this site then it would be pumped across Reepham to join the already burgeoning sewage system on the east side of town. I wonder what the resulting chaos to the road system and disruption to the town centre would be, let alone how sustainable this then makes the existing sewerage systems?

The Reepham 2 site also causes me great concern with regard to access to Dereham Road. A planning officer stated that he believed most residents of this proposed site would be commuting to Norwich. Surely this will put an enor­mous strain on the roads in the centre of town, creating a dangerous flow of traffic into Reepham’s market square.

If any new development site is agreed, one can presume there will be additional requirement for food shopping in Reepham. Where does Broadland or Realistic Ree­pham propose that such facilities should be made available locally or will families in search of reasonably priced food need to travel to Norwich? The pressure on the Spar is already clear to see – car parking, prices and choice are not ideal. And yet apparently Broadland has not given any thought to this in relation to possible housing developments. Where is the joined-up thinking?

Indeed, Reepham has yet another card shop opening in the centre of town and the police station occupies a prime retail site that surely could be put to better use as a food outlet offering real choice and employment to local people. I also wonder about the good sense of a shop selling sweets placed on a direct route to school – how thoughtful in helping our children to lead healthier lives.

We need the ideas and innovations that will enable Reepham to flourish over the next 25-50 years, let alone the next 5-10 years. Or will we all inevitably find ourselves driving through and out of Reepham to shop and work? We need to take pride in the development of towns and villages as the UK’s population continues to grow; some forethought and innovation, not just higgledy-piggledy stop-gap measures that “satisfy” our short-sighted and suffocating need to “keep things as they are” because it feels safe. Turning backs on discussions, even with those we might disagree with, is not helpful.

Personally, I can’t see that 40 or so houses scattered in brownfield sites throughout Reepham will encourage a constructive and innovative approach to town planning. But perhaps Realistic Reepham has some positive and innovative ideas or shall we just stick our heads in the sand?

Alison Hovesen, Salle

* * *

I take issue with Alison Hovesen’s view that Realistic Reepham’s protest at Broadland District Council’s consultation event on 11 July was a pointless and childish gesture, and her suggestion that our group is not interested in “positive communication”.

On the contrary; several of our members have gone to enormous lengths over the past 18 months in corresponding with BDC’s officers. We have tried to discuss many general and specific points about their proposed housing allocation with them over and over again, in a factual and respectful man­ner, but we get nowhere. It’s clear they wish to plough on, regardless of the feelings of the great majority of local people and in the face of infrastructural, transport and environmental problems that we all know about.

Before making the detailed comments in her letter it would have been better if Mrs Hovesen had declared her own involvement with the Reepham 1 (Cawston Road) development proposal. This might help explain her own criticisms both of Broadland’s planners (who did not nominate Reepham 1 as a “preferred site”) and of Realistic Ree­pham, who oppose estate-scale housing development on greenfield land around the town.

At presentations made during the spring and summer by the Reepham 1 and Reepham 2 landowners and promoters, we could see all too clearly their attempts at distracting attention from one of the key issues – road transport. If you believed Savills and Iceni Developments (Reepham 2), the B1145 Dereham Road provides Reepham’s “main vehicular link”. In the case of Reepham 1, the map at Salle Estate’s exhibition in May helpfully showed the “commuting route to Norwich via Cawston”. The elephant in the room here is the hazardous direct route to Norwich via Alderford, which everyone knows is the real main road link to the outside world.

At least the Reepham 1 architects had the grace to acknowledge the truth by the time they made their presentation to the Town Council. I expect dozens of Reepham people had explained to them by then that they hadn’t been fooled.

Realistic Reepham wishes to keep local people informed about a complex and constantly changing situation, and about competing sets of proposals that would affect the whole town. It’s no exaggeration to say that we fear a “perfect storm”.

First, we have the ridiculously ambitious housing targets imposed by Broadland in the context of the Joint Core Strategy for the Greater Norwich area. These targets are driven by political and financial considerations rather than by any balanced appraisal of the needs of individual settlements and localities.

This flawed process then provides opportunities for local landowners to make huge sums of money by selling agricultural land around the edge of town for development. We want to make sure Reepham people have a voice as this situation continues to develop.

Trevor Ashwin, Realistic Reepham

If you have any more views, please contact us

The post Campaigners in silent protest against Broadland planners appeared first on REEPHAM LIFE.