My reasons for objecting are as follows:
Existing Use and Location
Site GNLP0391-B is agricultural land and site GNLP0003 is orchard land. Both are outside the development boundary for Poringland and Framlingham Earl and should remain so.
Highway Safety
The sites are at the furthest eastern edge of the village and a mile plus away from the main B1332 highway through the villages of Poringland/ Framingham Earl.
Burgate Lane is an unclassified country lane that, for most of its length, is only wide enough for one vehicle to travel safely along; passing another vehicle necessitates the use of a few "passing sections" in the lane or mounting the verge. Large agricultural vehicles make frequent use of Burgate Lane, adding to the difficulty.
As a lane, Burgate Lane is totally unsuitable to access further housing development and to carry the volume of traffic that will be generated from the use of sites GNLP0391-B and GNLP0003 for housing.
The vast majority of the vehicles from the proposed development sites will be travelling to the junction of Burgate Lane with Upgate/Hall Road. This junction is very dangerous with no highway vision-splay areas. This makes accessing Upgate/Hall Road a very cautious procedure with vehicles having to edge out slowly from the junction (from Burgate Lane) before drivers can safely see both ways. Coupled with this, there are motorists who travel along Upgate/Hall Road at speed, which adds to the danger of exiting this junction.
At peak times, the traffic generated by housing development on sites GNLP0391-B and GNLP0003 will be backed up Burgate Lane for a considerable distance, exposing residents to unacceptable levels of pollution from car engines.
Not only is the junction of Burgate Lane with Update/Hall Road unsafe for motorists but it places pedestrians (including parents walking young children to school at peak times along Upgate/Hall Road) in danger.
There is no footpath along Upgate/Hall Road, from close to the corner of Rectory Lane to Long Road, to safeguard pedestrians.
During the winter months, snow and icy conditions place motorists and pedestrians in a dangerous situation at this junction with the lack of adequate vision splays. In addition, as Burgate Lane is an unclassified lane, the junction is not treated against adverse winter conditions and is often very icy as you approach the junction from Burgate Lane. Heavy snowfall blocks the road.
From Norwich and the A47, the filter lane to Bungay and Poringland (B1332) at the traffic lights on the A146 Trowse By-Pass is inadequate to cope with the existing volume of traffic turning off it, especially at peak time. Traffic is left queuing in the outside lane of a dual carriageway, which is extremely dangerous.
Any additional development in Poringland and Framingham Earl will only exacerbate these problems and compromise safety.
The B1332, between the A146 and the south of Poringland, is not fit for purpose. The road surface is continually breaking up creating dangerous potholes for car drivers, motor-cyclists and cyclists to negotiate. A stripping of the existing surface and provision of a new road surface is long overdue by the County Council which, we all know, is 'strapped' for funding.
Further high-density housing development off this road, in Poringland and Framingham Earl, will lead to greater volumes of traffic and continuing further damage to the road surface. If a place of work were to have flooring as defective as the road surface on the B1332, the area(s) would be taped off and a warning sign provided. However, it is deemed safe for motorists to use this highway with its defects at 60 mph.
Drainage
Site GMLP039-B falls towards Burgate Lane. It is known locally that there are drainage problems and any housing development on this particular site will exacerbate existing problems and impact on areas beyond the site.
Environment & Ecology
The development of these two sites for high density housing is completely out of keeping with the character of the area and is a creeping urbanisation of a rural location.
The two sites support an abundance of wildlife, including bats and owls, which will be displaced.
The trees along the southern boundary to site GNLP0391-B and the hedging to the site, together with the hedging on the northern boundary of the field on the opposite side of Burgate Lane, are part of the rural landscape and are of benefit to wildlife.
Once this landscape is lost to development and built upon, it is lost forever to future generations.
Impact of existing housing developments on Infrastructure and Services
The villages of Poringland and Framlingham Earl have already absorbed a disproportionate amount of new housing development from high volume developers, including Norfolk Homes, David Wilson Homes, Bennett Homes and Charles Church.
With the housing development that has already taken place in the villages, and the continuing development of sites that have already been granted permission, there is already a noticeable strain placed on the facilities and services in Poringland and Framingham Earl. The further expansion of the two villages is unsustainable.
There is not the space for additional pupils, or site expansion, in the villages' schools. The two Health Practices cannot absorb even more patients on their lists from more new developments without detrimentally impacting on the services they can provide to their patients. Already there can be a wait of three weeks plus to see a GP.
With patients unable to get a Doctor's appointment for weeks, the A&E Department at the N&N becomes the default first contact point for many patients, putting additional strain on the Hospital and its resources.
Strategic Overview
Local Planning Authorities need to acknowledge now that they are always going to be playing 'catch up' with Government policy imposing higher and higher house building targets.
Meeting one Government Department's policy and targets on housing without due consideration being given to the detrimental impact on the provision of the associated services provided by other Government Departments e.g. the NHS, Education and Transportation is illogical and it is local communities that suffer as a result of the lack of any strategic 'joined up' thinking at Central and Local Government level.
Instead of identifying sites in existing villages for more and more housing development without acknowledging, or providing for, the inevitable negative impact on infrastructure and services, the local planning authorities should be grasping the nettle and identifying an area or areas in Norfolk where a new village or villages can be built - with adequate infrastructure and services to meet the needs of the proposed population.
A much greater percentage of the cost of the new infrastructure and services should be met by the developers. One only has to read the newspapers to see the eye-watering profits the developers are currently making.
This should be the planning priority for the future to cope with higher and higher Government imposed targets.
It has been done in Cambridgeshire with the creation of Cambourne. The proposed development of Bourn Airfield to create a new village is currently under consideration.
Presumably, similar development of new villages to meet housing demand has been done in other parts of the country so it is a mystery why it is something that Norfolk seems unable to deliver.