The Old Pump House Road Hethel NR14 8EU

10 April 2012

The Planning Officer County Council County Hall Martineau Lane Norwich Norfolk NR1 2DH

Dear Sir

PLANNING APPLICATION Y/7/2012/7001 – HETHEL ENGINEERING CENTRE

We write to register our objection to and concerns surrounding Planning Application Y/7/2012/7001 submitted for Hethel Engineering Centre to build an eight unit 2-storey extension. We are very concerned about the size of the extension, the elevation of the proposed building, the proximity to our property, the likely increase in traffic on Wymondham Road in Hethel (a minor road), and the potential disruption and noise from any construction works (particularly on Potash Lane).

We moved into The Old Pump House, Wymondham Road in December 2011, and at the time of exchange of contracts in late November there was no planning application (or indications of any intention) discovered in conveyance searches by our solicitor. Had there been an indication that this work was planned we may not have considered purchasing the property. We were attracted to the property because of its rural location and seclusion; albeit we accepted that there would be some traffic noise from the adjacent road and access to Lotus. We noted the existence of Hethel Engineering Centre at the time of purchase, but felt that it was far enough away, of low-rise construction and in a style that was sympathetic to the surrounding environment.

Unfortunately, we were away out of the country for 3 weeks after the notification letter regarding a Planning Application was sent, and it had become lost amongst other mail and papers – hence the delay in our writing. Having now had the opportunity to study fully the site plans of the proposed extension on the website, we wish to raise our objections to the proposals as they currently stand.

The extension is large - a full 2-storey building (larger and taller than the existing) - that does not blend in the same sympathetic way into the surroundings as the current structure, and that will significantly spoil rural views across the landscape, particularly from our property. Whilst we note the plans include extensive planting, including a raised bank and trees, this may partially obscure the extension, but will not do so completely and will totally ruin the outlook from our property. We do not believe that the proposed extension is in keeping with the current structure and will more than double the structure in size and population. The resulting increased capacity at the site will have an inevitable increase in associated noise pollution and traffic on Wymondham Road (already a significant issue from the Lotus Site) on what is also an extremely busy minor road and used by many as a ‘rat-run’. Additionally, its proximity to the already large site at Lotus raises a considerable concern that, if unchecked, further development might lead to considerable industrialisation of a rural area.

Finally, if such a construction in any form were to be approved (we are concerned that as a County Council project it is likely to enjoy very ‘positive sponsorship’), we would seek reassurance that there would be no construction work ‘out of hours’ and at weekends that would disturb what is a peaceful and country location that we very much enjoy.

In summary, we object to the proposed extension – in particular to the size, the design and the height of the building and the inevitable result (noise and traffic), and also the proximity to an already large industrial site (Lotus factory also expanding). We are very concerned that before we know it, we shall find ourselves living in an industrial estate and not a quiet part of beautiful South Norfolk. In the event that this becomes the case, we would seek compensation from the appropriate Authority for any depreciation in value to our property that may arise as a result of such a development.

We await your reply with interest and seek reassurance that this Application will be treated with the same rigour as any other non-Council sponsored Planning Application in Norfolk.

Yours faithfully,

Dr Clare S Walton Mr Mark W G Hopkins