Mr C J Troise
34 Caistor Lane
Caistor St Edmund
Norwich
Norfolk
NR14 8RB

22 March 2018

Dear Sirs

The Greater Norwich Local Plan (GNLP) - GNLP0485

I recently received a leaflet delivered on behalf of Caistor St Edmund Parish Council in relation to The Greater Norwich Local Plan (GNLP). I subsequently attended one of a series of Roadshows and have viewed section 5.17 Caistor St Edmund and, necessarily, section 5.59 Poringland of the Site Proposals document.

My initial observation, and possibly that of fellow residents of our village, was the surprise inclusion of Caistor St Edmund within the section on Poringland. I have lived in Caistor St Edmund for over fifteen years and it has its own identity separate from neighbouring villages. In my opinion, it is a little disingenuous to regard this village as an extension of Poringland. Our village may be regarded as an Other Village in the JCS dependent upon services outwith its boundaries but to the average person locally very few, if any, would regard the village as part of Poringland.

However, with that noted, it is obvious to residents of Caistor St Edmund and other villages as well as residents of Poringland that the infrastructure in the surrounding area is already close to breaking point.

In recent years, the amount of housing development in the local area has been more than extensive. Others will be better placed than me to identify exact numbers of new homes but the effect on the local infrastructure and services has been immense. I have little doubt that successive applications for development in villages around Poringland have relied upon the services seemingly available in Poringland.

From a personal perspective the proposed site which is of most relevance to me is GNP0485 since it is a proposed site which borders my own property. However, other sites in the village, such as GNLP0131 do concern me as well,

Naturally one of the main concerns of the site proposals is in relation to highways. Even before the presently ongoing development by David Wilson Homes of around 200 new homes, most of which have their access on to Caistor Lane, the lane has become a short cut to the A47/A140 junction as well as a rat run route into the Hall Road area of Norwich. In relation to GNP0485 and GNLP0131 the proposed access points are on to Caistor Lane. Some of the proposed access points are, at present, little more than farm tracks and even if they could be widened by acquiring adjoining properties, the lane is already overused and would need significant improvement and widening from the junction with the B1113 Bungay Road along the extent of the lane to the Stoke Road. This could only be achieved by the requisition of land at the edges of the current lane. In addition, there is no street lighting or pavements for pedestrians beyond the Poringland boundary on Caistor Lane, close to the B1113 junction.

Other areas of concern to me in relation to the proposed sites, although not within my expertise, would be drainage issues which have become seemingly worse in the area as well as the impact on wildlife. I also have some reservations about the suitability and viability of locating a country park in an area when we already have inadequate highways to cope with existing traffic. We are however blessed with public footpaths and are in close proximity to Whitlingham Broad and the extensive services it provides to its visitors.

Referring specifically to section 5.59 of the Site Proposals document it states that Poringland contains a range of services. The list of services may be accurately stated but these remain virtually unchanged from when I moved to our village over fifteen years ago, long before the recent extensive housing developments. There are aspects of local services on which I may not be best placed to comment, particularly as to the ability of some services to extend their respective capacities, for example, schools and surgeries. However, I can provide an objective opinion on one local family where the parents have lived in the area since childhood but whose second child has not been offered a place at the same primary school as their sibling due to no places being available.

My other objective opinion is on the first service noted in section 5.59, namely the post office. This is located within the local One Stop convenience store. I appreciate that successive development applications may cite this service as being within walking distance but it is already inadequate such that it is extremely rare to visit the store without vehicles being illegally parked. My general point is that many residents do not walk to these services when it is easier and quicker to visit by car. I have little doubt if an application were made to position the store where it is today it would be refused by planners.

It is apparent from the GNLP that after taking account of sites which are already permitted or allocated totalling between 35,000 and 36,000 homes, new sites, including a buffer allowance, for 7,200 homes will be needed. From a personal viewpoint, I would like it to be confirmed that a large majority if not nearly all of those already permitted or allocated would be developed before the proposed sites in this new consultation are developed. This is, after all, a Plan to take us well into the 2030's and there should be no need for hardly any of these newly proposed sites to be developed any time soon.

I believe it may be premature at this stage to further comment about the suitability of the proposed sites referred to above in more detailed terms but I do understand they are attractive and of interest to planners by way of their size but just because they cover a large area does not necessarily make them more suitable for development than other sites, some of which may yet be proposed. In respect of the two proposed sites noted above, I do not believe there is anyone who bought a property along this lane in a village location expecting such development of housing on good arable land.

Yours faithfully

Chris Troise