Since the ditch was filled in at the site, there has been a build up of field drainage there. The men doing the work were warned of potential problems but chose to ignore these warnings.
The road has been flooded by the chicane for several days and when it freezes at night it is precarious to say the least.
It is a problem that should never have occurred if local knowledge and common sense had been used.
If there is an accident, God forbid, I hope the unlucky people sue the company & developers for everything they have, as this is a totally avoidable situation.
Some drains off the back down the field and into the ditch / stream. The flooding was a big problem before the building work commenced and should have been rectified or taken into account before building and adding to the problem.
Its a dangerous set of circumstance, flooding combined with the chicane and also new entrances to the new mini estate.
I see that we still have traffic lights and cones by the chicane; no workforce, just lights & cones.... Is this measure supposed to fix the problem, if so, it's not working!
This site has blundered on from problems & mistakes to more of the same. It is an utter disgrace that they are allowed to work in such a foolish and dangerous way.
It must now be time to involve our local politicians to stop any further development by this company within the village. Does anyone know the correct way to go about this, the people who live near this site need help quickly to prevent more 'happenings'.
It is not just the discourteous and blundering way this company works but the fundamental problem started with the relationship between the landowner and the district council. The Bunwell road development should never have been granted planning permission. It was outside the S.Norfolk Local Plan and not an allocated field yet it was surprisingly latched-onto the Chapel Road plot which was allocated. They are situated in two very different locations. Was the original planning approval granted before S.Norfolk council's deficiency of a 5-year housing land supply came about? if so, then this is another flaw. There are flooding problems which appear to be getting worse. The whole process from the start has not been good enough. Residents do not expect the council/landowner/developer to make living conditions worse as this would not be considered as sustainable. Who is going to pay the compensation? The sensible thing would be for residents to record and document all the problems.
Who would I complain to about the persistent problems? I am so tired of not being able to step outside the front of my house without cars held up by the traffic lights inadvertantly watching my every move, or walking around the house at night with the same (lights on, obviously!). The same issue means we have to tell our young children to make sure they don’t go near the windows (curtains open) if they aren’t dressed and the traffic lights are outside the house. As a final complaint, the noise of cars flooring he accelerator as the lights go green has woken my son on numerous occasions during the night. It must be at least 6 times traffic lights have been needed as problems have had to be fixed on the new development. I also feel for the family living there having to put up with constant water running down the road in front of their house.
No idea what to do and doubtful anyone in “power” will listen...recent events has proved, we pay (literally and with the negative impact), people in power do whatever they want.
Who would complaints go to if you actually wanted anything done & for someone who would actually listen... its disgusting for the residents nearby to live like this for months!! Theres been a catalogue of problems from the start. Numerous power cuts, days where there was no water, noise, traffic lights on several occasions causing traffic past houses and the noise when they drive off.. lorries holding up the traffic, vans parked on footpaths & abuse from the contractors!!
The worrying thing is once the first stage was completed I thought things would improve, they haven't and permission has been given for more houses!! So the problem will continue. I also heard the field opposite has been ear marked for development. These land owners certainly know how to ruin a nice village.....
I am known for my ascerbic comments regarding Planners and this is a perfect illustration. They were warned about potential problems but the plans were passed by the Councillors admitedly, BUT with Planners approval, and at that point they walk away from the issues that arise and that they were warned about. It was called guiness bottle shoulders when I was in the Services, ( an attutude which basically says not my problem NOW ..... go somewhere else )
I have advised the County Councillor who has correctly passed the matter onto the Highways section at County who , I hope are on the case, assuming they have any staff that is, to address this.
Satisfactory? No of course not but nothing that can be done by me as a Town Councillor other than what I have done already which is to pass the matter upwards.
I am okay with development as long as the infrastructure is in place to deal with issues and that the application is truly sustainable. Recent applications appear to have been politically motivated and once again we were given a whole set of fudged words trying to justify sustainability, none of which hold any water ( sorry)
District Council openly admit that they ignore local objections as they claim they are dealing with the wider picture. You have to make your mind up on that one.
Adrian Nicholas at South Norfolk Council heads up the Environmental Protection Team. Give him a call on 01508 533722 or email anicholas@s-norfolk.gov.uk.
Blanaid Skipper at South Norfolk Council appears to the Planner now responsible for the site. Give him (or her) a call on 01508 533985.
Mr Nicholas should have the ability to bring together officers at SNDC and visit the site.
Another option is to speak with Andrew Willard at Norfolk County Council on 01603 228948 or andrew.willeard@norfolk.gov.uk. He is the County Engineer responsible for the site.
You could ring Trevor Gurney, the Clerk, at Wymondham Town Council on 01953 603302 but good luck in getting WTC to do anything positive for this village!
Maybe it is time those homeowners dear to the site start demanding a rates refund.
As I am a wheelchair user occasionally, I was really pleased when the lights were removed. It meant (I thought) that I could use the footpath again as the signs had been blocking it. How wrong I was! where the house.holder had cut back part of the hedge, debris is on the path that will puncture the tyres. The thorns are vicious... the path is still not usable and I think it may have to be the Highways office next as it seems quite deliberate to stop people using a footpath adjacent to a house. If the traffic lights go up again I will ask the men to position the signs etc in places that will help me get out & about.
I don't suppose it will be long before more lights go up, the ditch is almost overflowing again.
During 2012, the Bunwell Road development was initially included in the Local Development Framework (LDF) Site Proposals as Site 533 (size 2.99 ha). The LDF lead to the formation of the South Norfolk Local Plan and included sites considered suitable for development with others removed. Under the Planners' scoring system, Site 533 received a 'red' score under the Sustainability Criteria for both the flood risk and for the Site Conclusion. Red is a low negative score as opposed to the 'green' and amber' scores which are higher and considered by the Planners as more preferable for new housing.
As the SNC Planning Team recognised the Bunwell Road site as unsustainable for development due to flooding (it was removed), why then was it later given permission when it had been deselected from the Local Plan? They have acknowledged there is a flood problem, there remains a problem, the situation looks dangerous at times and can impact on the highway. I think residents could be in a strong position to hold SNC accountable for allowing this unsustainable outcome. A Council failure of providing a 5 year housing land supply is no excuse. The planning application would still have to take into consideration the flood risk when examined during the planning process. It continues to look very dubious that the Bunwell Road development was amalgamated with the Chapel Road allocated site (Site 534) and given permission on the back of that. How can this outcome be considered valid and sustainable with an acknowledged flood issue which is allowed to continue as a current problem?
