Planning complaint regarding Greater Norwich Local Plan Site Proposal: GNLP0531

I am making this complaint on behalf of myself and 11 residents of Eel Catcher Close - who were unable to access the GNLP website due to its complexity. If you require signatures and personal details of each of the 11 residents please email me and I will provide this immediately.

We are writing to raise serious concern about the proposal to build 200 houses behind Eel Catcher Close, in Rockland St Mary.

Rockland St Mary is a village adjacent to Rockland Broad, a Broads protected area. The proposal would fundamentally damage, erode and alter the character of the village and Rockland Broad. The scale of the proposed development will increase the size of the village exponentially and is out of all proportion with the current footprint of the village.

In addition, there are other serious concerns about the proposal:

1. The village is categorised as meeting four criteria for core services (see page 144 of document entitled "GREATER NORWICH LOCAL PLAN REGULATION 18 CONSULTATION GROWTH OPTIONS." We believe this is incorrect. The village does not meet the criteria for journeying to work by public transport.

2. This is because although a skeleton bus service operates from the village to Norwich, it does not operate sufficient services to enable residents to get to and from work at the hours and with the flexibility expected by all employers.

3. Residents of Rockland who are employed out of the village either drive or cycle to work as a result of this. This is supported by any consultation with Rockland residents and by monitoring the demographics of bus passengers. Rockland bus passengers are predominantly elderly and disabled people, unemployed people and parents with young children. We request that you remove this categorisation as it is incorrect and misleading.

4. The existing utilities in Rockland including drainage will not be able to sustain the addition of 200 houses.

5. The village will not be able to safely sustain the substantial increase in car traffic that will be incurred by this proposal. Access to and from the village will be jeopardised. There has been a linear increase in the number of cars per household year-on-year in the East of England for the last two decades, particularly in rural areas. This proposal could bring an additional 400 vehicles into Rockland St Mary. This would lead to serious congestion, environmental and safety issues.

6. Specific safety issues surround any increase in traffic on School Lane. School Lane is the only means of access to the village school. It is so narrow that cars cannot pass unless they drive onto the footpath to do so. There is insufficient space at the bottom of the lane for cars to turn around. School Lane cannot cope with the huge increase in school traffic that the proposal would trigger. Evidence suggests that most parents would drive their children to school in the morning, not walk to the other end of the village carrying school bags, lunches and the other requirements that go with transporting young children to school, especially in inclement weather.

7. Public rights of way. There are two footpaths in the area designated for development which have been used by the public for well over 100 years. One joins the village with the Community nature reserve at Hellington and Hellington village. Some time ago, the farmer owning the fields tried to prohibit residents from using these historic footways. The village united in challenging this action, and, to avoid the matter going to court, the farmer relented and temporarily erected signs for permissive footpaths in recognition of their use. Residents of the village will not hesitate to challenge any suggestion that these footpaths may be removed. Law assumes that if the public use a path without interference for some period of time - set by statute at 20 years - then the owner has intended to dedicate it as a right of way. There is no doubt that the village would successfully uphold a legal challenge on this issue.

8. Residents of Eel Catcher Close are also concerned about the health implications of building so many houses close to a number of adults and children with asthma on the Close, due to the levels of dust and debris that would be generated.

Concern about the model and method of consultation

Many residents of Rockland St Mary have expressed serious concern at the complexity of the GNLP website, the consultation model and materials. Older people who cannot use the internet, Blind and visually impaired people who use screen readers and other assistive technology to read web information and people with learning difficulties and low literacy levels have been unable to access it. None of these residents had even been made aware that a proposal had been made to build a large estate of 200 houses in their Broads village. No local authority had approached them with information announcing the proposal that they could access. The Roadshows were not well publicised and relied on people owning or driving a car to attend them.

We request under the Freedom of Information Act evidence of how you complied with the Duty to pay due regard to equality (Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010) in developing the consultation model and materials, to ensure that people in the village with protected characteristics were made aware of the consultation and could meaningfully participate in it.

Very best wishes

Joanna Fincham-Richardson