Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 15788

Received: 22/03/2018

Respondent: Mrs. emily ireson

Representation Summary:

Many of our residents are elderly and the use of a computer to register their concerns is extremely difficult or not even a possibility! The road from Rockland to Norwich is in very bad condition and dangerous, with lots of pot holes, flooding, bends and blind spots, used by lots of farm traffic and bicycles The impact of all the extra traffic will cause a terrible knock on effect to the villages of Bramerton/Kirby Bedon. Which I am unsure of wether the residents of Bramerton/Kirby Bedon are even aware of this proposal!

Full text:

Rockland St Mary could take a little extra growth, say 20-30 extra homes. This would be of benefit to school and local businesses.

There is no way 200+ new houses could be supported by the village. I am in full agreement in the reasons given by a neighbour, which I list below.

I would also like to add and this is of extreme importance, that many of our residents are elderly and the use of a computer to register their comments and concerns is extremely difficult or not even a possibility! Also the road from Rockland to Norwich is in very bad condition, with lots of pot holes and flooding. Plus the impact of all the extra traffic on that road will cause a terrible knock on effect to the village of Bramerton and Kirby Bedon. Which again I am unsure of wether the residents that live in Bramerton and Kirby Bedon are even aware of this proposal! Finally on the road subject, it is a very dangerous stretch of road with bends and blind spots used by lots of farm traffic and bicycles.

Some five years ago a similar proposal was put forward for the village.
Approximately 95% of respondents objected including Norfolk County Council,
and it was rejected. There have been no changes to the village since that
time, and the same reasons for objection are still valid today.
1) This proposed development is outside the village boundary.
2) The village is linear in nature and this would distort the pattern of
development.
3) The road infrastructure through the village and to Norwich cannot
accommodate further traffic without a major upgrade at disproportionate
cost.
4) The utilities infrastructure (electricity, gas, water etc) is completely
inadequate for this development.
5) The location is very close to a site of special scientific interest.
6) The proposal would damage the local community cohesion which has
developed slowly over the years.
7) The road to Norwich is part of a national cycle route and the increased
traffic would create significant risk to all road users, particularly due
to the winding nature of the road with blind corners.
8) Rockland St Mary is recognised as an area of scenic countryside close to
the Broads and this proposal would have a detrimental impact.