I object to the inclusion of plot GNLP 0485 in the site allocation proposal for the following reasons:
1. Our property which fronts on to north side of Caistor Lane also backs on to this land allocation.
2. Large areas of this site have significant landscape value. At present there are unbroken views over open countryside to the north with the outskirts of Norwich urban fringes just visible in the distance. There is every likelihood that, with the development of this land, these views, and those from other directions will be lost.
3. More importantly, this high quality agricultural land north of Caistor Lane, along with other land forms a "green belt" type buffer between Norwich and the proposed Service Centre of Poringland/Framingham Earl providing distinct separation and definition between the two built up areas. The reallocation of this site or part thereof as building land would significantly erode the boundary of any such "green belt" by encroaching on land that is essentially agricultural. I contend that land south of Norwich Southern Bypass and north of the built up area of Caistor St Edmund should remain as a buffer between the two built up areas and not be built on.
4. The proposal extends the linear form of the built up area which is contrary to the aims of the GNLP.
5. Approximately two thirds of this site are proposed as a Country Park. This begs the question as to who will own the Country Park, who will manage it and maintain it and what controls will be placed on its usage. Often such planning benefits are offered at the early stages of planning but fall by the wayside as details emerge or unforeseen project costs crop up. What constraints will SNC place on the owners to follow through with delivery of a viable Country Park?
6. Land west of this site is already a Natural England country park /nature type facility. There seems little benefit in creating another one next door which will generate further traffic on roads which are in poor condition and sub standard..
7. The development of this site will create an increase in the volume of traffic on the B1332. Other recent developments within the Poringland area have already caused a noticeable increase in traffic along the B1332 road and further developments of this nature will merely exacerbate the situation.
8. The development will also create an increase in traffic volumes along Caistor Lane itself. Again the recent Mulberry Park development on the south side of Caistor Lane (130 new dwellings) has led to increased traffic flows down the country lane. No road improvements of adequate consequence were initiated with this development and this has resulted in a serious deterioration of the narrow lane. The surface is of poor quality and edges of the road pavement are extensively broken and damaged. The increase in traffic has resulted in traffic encroaching on and eroding the verges. Roadside drainage has been damaged allowing water to spill over the carriageway causing danger particularly in icy weather. Further development of this proposed site will add to the woes.
9. Access to the site from Caistor Lane appears to be via two existing accesses. Both these accesses appear to be of insufficient width to facilitate a new access road. The western access onto Caistor Lane is located close to a blind bend. There does not appear to be any access to the site from Arminghall Lane.
10. There will be an increased risk of flooding due to faster surface water run off created by the hardened ground surfaces within the residential area. The flood risk occurs between the site and drainage discharge into Rive Tas. Furthermore the River Tas floods regularly during the winter months into the adjoining fields. The potential for increased flooding is a significant issue.
11. Anglian Water abstract drinking water from the chalk aquifer near the Stoke Road about 1 mile to the west of the site. Potential pollution of the aquifer due to any surface water or other discharges from the site would need to be seriously looked into.
12. Any allocation of this site for development would need to be accompanied by a water cycle study to demonstrate no harm to the water environment of any nearby European sites, in relation to water abstraction and to waste water both in isolation and in combination with other developments.
13. The Caistor St Edmund chalk pit itself is a SSSI site.
14. There is a potential risk that established wildlife habitats in the area will be permanently disturbed by this development and the pollution caused by it. Ancient woodland and CWS all have the potential to be adversely impacted upon
15. Community facilities within the Service Centre are already stretched as a result of recent developments (completed and planned). A further development of the scale proposed would necessitate an upgrade of these facilities