I object most strongly, as the proposed developments would overwhelm such a small village and its existing community. Each development has a major impact both by location, sensitivity of sites and scale affecting the character, residential amenity, highway safety and impact on the village setting and community.
Road Safety and Convenience.
The infrastructure is such that our small school and medical practice would be unable to cope with such numbers. Rockland has no railway station and a very limited bus service, which was very recently in danger of being lost altogether due to cuts and is unable to run in our recent bad weather. Therefore, the community is highly reliant on their cars and the route is I believe a national cycle route but without any cycle path here. Any increase in traffic will increase the hazard to cyclists which is a major deterant to cycling thus impacting cycling rates due to genuine concerns over highway safety.
An increase in households would undoubtedly have a major impact, as the considerable increase in traffic through the village would not only create significant noise and air pollution but a significant hazard. During peak periods the route becomes a 'rat run' and this will be increased significantly with the developments
Access to the village is either via long winding single lane roads (Run Lane/Bullockshed Lane) or along Bramerton Lane. Not only are all these roads prone to flooding and are treacherous in severe winter weather, there are blind bends/accident spots and entrances/exits to several farmyards and their very large, slow farm vehicles. In particular site GNLP0165 is on a blind bend which floods across the whole road frequently and is also the main route for farm traffic (tractors, trailers and combine harvesters) throughout the year, as the farm is located at the beginning of Run Lane. This 0.7 Ha site is on a 'S' bend has significant visibility issues already and more traffic will compound the problem. The parish has arranged a voluntary speed check system such were the issues and I have remonstrated with speeding and careless traffic in this area.
Many parents park on The Street to take their children to the primary school on School Lane, they have to do this, as School Lane is a small cul-de-sac and there is little suitable parking there. This means they are then crossing The Street near another bend with very young children, those near enough to walk are also doing the same. Many drivers already approach this part of the village far too fast, an increase in traffic would just compound this safety issue.
Furthermore, Rockland is well known by many as a National Cycleway, not only by locals but tourists alike, Rockland sees many cyclists using the route, sometimes in large groups. Although very good to see, this also can make it tricky for drivers to pass by safely. With several Environmental Conservation Sites, the Wherryman's Way, wonderful views, the entrance to Rockland Broad via the Staithe, (with its free moorings) fishing, kayaking and holiday cottages near proposed site GNLP0531,
Rockland attracts many visitors. Many of these visitors are therefore enjoying the outdoor pursuits on offer and are on foot or cycling. A significant increase in traffic would inevitably have a devastating impact on all of the above with regard to the health and safety of the residents, visitors and wildlife and the view as you enter the village would be lost forever. No matter what style of housing is proposed at GNLP0165, it would be the first thing you see as you enter the village and could not make up for the loss of sloping green pastures, with grazing livestock and the Norfolk skyline that greets visitors and residents as we see our village sign and the entrance to our home.
As you can see, Rockland St. Mary although small, holds so much of what is wonderful about Norfolk countryside, do we really want to risk losing this and changing it forever.
Adverse Impact on the residential amenity and the visual impact.
Sensitivity of Locations: Site GNLP0165 is at the entrance to the village that helps to define the character of the area. This area is visible on the approach to the village with the main older farmhouse helping to define a country village. The surrounding trees and open grassland and fields are greatly valued preventing connection of built areas and allowing open views. These areas are habitats and natures background sound of owls, bird life and alike help define the existing rural character at the ends of the village and to the either side of the residential area. The site is used for cattle and changing this to a built environment will dramatically reduce the amenity of this neighbourhood and community. This site has a major impact on the visual appearance and character of the village being at the key location entering Rockland St Mary.
Scale and Mass
The other site is so large that by its scale it will totally distort the village. Cumulatively they add 50% to the village being overbearing in scale where previously only incremental development was permitted in keeping with the village size and character. The proposals are vastly disproportional to the village and setting. Whatever the design the bulk and mass of such development would distort the village and remove views of farmland and countryside afforded when walking, cycling and travelling through the village into a continuous build street scene. This is detrimental to the amenity and character of the village. Given the village is on Rockland Broad and attracts visitors for the countryside, the broads and the wildlife the impact is detrimental to other tourism, sustainable travel and environmental strategies. It will become town like rather than a village character.
If more housing were provided within Norwich City, where I understand the City Council would prefer it, then this would stimulate regeneration, reduce travel and the environmental impacts whilst protecting the countryside and villages that people from Norwich enjoy when visiting this area. The proposals are bad for Norwich, bad for the village, the countryside and environment.
Noise and Disturbance.
The only available control over post development noise is statutory nuisance and this is a high threshold being ultimately a criminal offence. Therefore the only protection of the amenity of the neighbourhood from noise and disturbance from development is through the planning system. To allow these either or both of these sites would add noise to the neighbourhoods around them. The noise impact compared to the extremely low natural countryside background noise level would be highly detrimental from traffic and even normal levels of neighbour noise.
Summary
I object to each site for the reasons above and to allow either one of them would impact detrimentally visually as well as on the character of the village and by way of noise, lost views, road safety deterioration and the loss of countryside and green spaces. Alternative sites within or next to the City would have far less impact.