Please find my comments regarding the unsuitability of sites GNLP0391-A and B as submitted in the current GNLP documentation. In addition to the sites being outside the current Development Boundary as identified in the current Local Plan and associated policies, my key objections are as follows:

Access
The two sites submitted will not conform with Policy No 32 or No 35 of the National Planning Policy Framework -March 2012, which clearly states that all developments that generate significant amounts of movement should ensure that "safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people". I do not believe this requirement will be achieved for either of the sites for the following reasons:-


1) Site 03961-B. The junction of Burgate Lane and Upgate/Hall Road does not and cannot offer sufficient sight lines to ensure the junction can be negotiated safely during site development (by construction traffic) or residential occupation (by increased volume of domestic and service vehicles) without compromising the safety of motorists, cyclists, riders or pedestrians.


2) Site 03961-B. Access to this site will place a considerable burden and increase safety risks at the junction of Long Road and Hall Rd


3) The additional volume of traffic from any developments on these sites will increase pressure on other access routes leading to key arterial roads which are too narrow to accommodate any incremental traffic volume. This will lead to safety being compromised for drivers, pedestrians, cyclists and riders over unnecessary distances. These routes include:


Access to B1332 -

0.8 miles along Upgate and Rectory Lane

1.1 miles along Upgate and Long Road


Access to A146 -

1.3 miles along Upgate. Hall Road and Gull Lane(Single lane road)

2.2 miles along Upgate, Hall Road, Yelverton Road(Single lane road)and Slade Lane(Part single lane road)

2.3 miles along Burgate Lane(Single lane road), Wheel Rd (Alpington), Church Road(Part single lane road)and Slade Lane(Part single lane road)


During peak hours, traffic congestion at the "5 Ways" roundabout on the B1332 is problematic and any development of these two proposed sites will exacerbate the problem.


Drainage

Site GNLP 0391-A has been misrepresented in the "Suitability Assesment". This plot is regularly affected by standing water, any amelioration of which will increase pressure on historic ditch and drainage systems incapable of managing additional flows. This will lead to the amplification of problems caused by high water tables and run off which are experienced regularly on Gull Lane, Yelverton Road and Burgate Lane. This contravenes NPPF Policy No. 103.
Natural springs are prevalent either on or close to both sites which adds to the unsuitability of the proposed plots.

Wildlife and Ecology
Both sites are recognised as holding and maintaining a broad range of wildlife including bats, barn owls, tawny owls, buzzards, skylarks, lapwing, Chinese water deer, muntjac, roe deer amongst others. Site 0391-B has two wet land areas on its boundary which help to support a diverse range of reptilian and aquatic life. Any development on these sites would disrupt all of these important habitats which would contravene NPPF Policy No 17 and Policy No. 109.

Loss of quality agricultural land
The sites are both of high agricultural value being graded 3a. Loss of these sites would contravene NPPF Policy 112.

Impact on Heritage Assets
The boundary of Site GNLP 0391-A is within 65 metres of St Andrews Church, Framingham Earl, a Grade 1 listed monument. It is within 40 metres of the St Andrews Church graveyard. Any development of this site will impact on the setting of this monument which would contravene NPPF Policy no. 132 which states "Substantial harm to ...designated heritage assets of the highest significance, notably ...,Grade 1 and Grade 2* listed buildings,...should be wholly exceptional." There is no reason to believe that any development on this site should be viewed as exceptional.

In general, the Poringland/Framingham Earl area has seen exceptional residential growth (10% growth compared to an average of 5% growth across the Norfolk region). This has seen enormous pressure placed on infrastructure not least roads (250,000 vehicle movements through the village each month) and local primary and secondary school places which are now nearing, or have achieved capacity with minimal opportunity for growth.

The two sites identified are wholly unsuitable for residential development and contravene many of the principles contained in the National Planning Policy Framework.