I wish this statement to be considered as a response to the GNLP consultations.
I strongly object to the proposals for GNL0531 for the following reasons:-
1. For over 25 years I have lived in The Old Hall, a Grade 2 listed building, probably the oldest in the village being built around 1650. It is in fact itself outside the village development area and its setting adjoining and overlooking beautiful unspoiled rolling countryside towards the marshes is very dear to me. If this proposal is allowed, then all this will be lost as the site proposed immediately adjoins our house and garden. It is the planners policy and duty to prevent any development that has a deleterious effect on listed buildings ( the adjoining barns are also listed ) and these proposals would be very damaging to our property and enjoyment.
2. Just 3 or 4 years ago there was a long consultation , which lasted several years to review the possibility of development sites being defined in this village. This was part of the Local Plan process and the conclusion was that no new sites should be defined. Surely it should not be necessary to repeat that exercise, thereby blighting the village and all properties at the eastern end. This proposal should be rejected immediately as being without merit.
3. The land is outside the village development area, is a truly beautiful area of high grade land overlooking and virtually adjoining the Broads Authority area in the Yare river valley. This is a very special part of broadland, unspoiled and virtually unchanged since time began. Building on this site, much of it effectively a hilltop would be seen from miles around and ruin the beauty for ever.
4. The land extends to 15.52 hectares and is said to be suitable for 200+ dwellings. Whilst that in itself would increase the village by about 50%, it should be noted that planning policy requires a density of 30 dwellings per acre, thus the land proposed could produce 465 additional dwellings. Either way this proposal would overwhelm a pleasant and quiet Broadland village.
5. The infrastructure barely copes with the existing village. The roads are narrow, the services are at full capacity ( specfically, electricity which has NO room for expansion, and drainage ) and the existing bus service is threatened with closure. The roads would not cope with the huge increase of traffic created by this site, thousands of additional traffic movements every day.
6. The owners of the land have themselves erected notices on permissive paths running through the land, stating how important is the area for great bio diversity, there are several conservation areas virtually adjoining this site and these important assets of great ecological importance would be lost if development is accepted.
7. Although not immediately obvious the submitted proposal suggests a long convoluted road access from Claxton corner, or close by. Surely this is unacceptable from a planning point of view, and would ineviatbly lead to further submissions for developmnent at the western ( Claxton ) end of the site. Furthermore additional access points closer to the village are totally unsuitable for use. That adjoining 136 The Street is too narrow for vehicles, being hemmed in by existing dwellings, and has no vision splays being situated on a dangerous corner. That at the top of New Inn Hill is on the crest of a hill, on a bend, opposite another junction and has inadequate vision splays. Both are exceedingly dangerous.
8. The nature of the village would be changed adversely by development here, even on a small scale. The loss of a beautiful area of land would be bad enough, but the rural nature of Rockland St Mary would also be lost and it is this quiet rural tranquility that the residents seek, not to be part of an urban overspill. There is one approved development area at Bee Orchid Way which will provide some 20 dwellings and that is sufficientfor such a small village.

Brenda Richardson.