Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

I would like to object to the Local Plan, specifically to the 9 houses proposed at IC1.

When we bought the house we were assured this was greenbelt.


*I believe the Local Plan is unsound as it builds on green belt land and therefore conflicts with the National Planning Policy Framework and the NHDC Strategic Objectives on green belt.
*I believe the Local Plan is unsound as the sewers in Ickleford are known to be inadequate and it is my understanding that Anglian Water have no plans to upgrade the system or the pumping station. In heavy rainfall this results in sewerage flooding at several points round the village, including some properties in Duncots Close. The land to the back of Duncots Close is flood plain and the water table rises rapidly in winter to reach the back boundary of this property in a pond. Several years ago the owner of the adjacent plot IC1 filled in a natural drainage channel bordering the side this property, resulting in higher water levels at the back of the property.If more houses are built on the flood plain (SG5 3FH is a designated flood plain for insurance purposes), with the attendant surface run off from each, this would be irresponsible to say the least.
*I believe the Local Plan is unsound for traffic reasons - vehicle and pedestrian access to the site IC1 has not been considered.
The road into Duncots Close is narrow and was only conceived as access to the existing houses. Already there can be access issues for fire and rescue vehicles, ambulances, refuse or delivery lorries if more than the usual number of cars are parked.
There is currently a turning area and parking bays which are needed and used by existing residents, but this would presumably be subsumed in providing access to the site. Clarification is needed. How will the traffic merge from the private drive for the three houses at the bottom?
There is no pedestrian footpath into Duncots Close. As a small group we are mindful of children in the road but this cannot be guaranteed by extending the number of users. How will children or the elderly walk safely to and from the new site?
I feel the inclusion of IC1 is ill considered in many respects. Yes, housing is needed, but it cannot be added to sites that present drainage/flood plain or access issues. Duncots Close was a brownfield site and I feel it is being used to piggy back onto land that was never intended for housing.
I would be grateful if you would consider my objections carefully.