Site GNLP 0589A - AGAINST

When planning consent was allowed on the adjoining land in May 2012 (2011/1284) the planning officer specifically stated, and I quote," As the site is located outside the current development boundary in an area of open countryside (as defined by the SNLP 2003) the application is clearly contrary to saved local plan policy ENV8. The proposal should therefore be refused unless there are material considerations that dictate otherwise." At the time the main considerations centred around the lack of a 5 year housing supply and the fact that the site was adjacent to a Key Service Centre and this was deemed sufficient to give consent. This was despite the fact that over 600 local residents were against the development and signed petitions to this effect.

This latest application seeks to extend the incursion into the countryside and in the GNLP it states 'it may be a sustainable location'. Yet this would be an extension to linear growth, along a country road and is against the reports own preferences.

This is one of only two rural approaches to the village and should be resisted at all costs. If one takes the trouble to walk down Pigot Lane you will clearly see that this rural aspect has already been ruined and is becoming an unsightly appendage. The site is also outside the current development boundary, and so clearly contrary to saved local plan policy ENV8.

Site GNLP 0589B AGAINST

Although, despite numerous objections, planning consent was given on part of Forty Acre Plantation in January 2014, it was partly on the (in my view false ) premise that it was a brown field site. Such a claim cannot be attributed to the whole of this site as the old temporary RAF station, on which application 2013/1904 was based, was accessed off Long Road, and limited in extent.

The trees and scrubs on this site were cleared by the owners deliberately to give the impression of an open field but this is part of a vital buffer of land and should not be encroached upon, especially as the tree felling has not helped the waterlogged nature of the land. I believe this site is located outside the current development boundary and therefore clearly contrary to saved local plan policy ENV8. Any development would also lead to further linear growth which the plan seeks to avoid. It is also only one of two rural approaches to the village.

With the approval of a new hospice for EACH on land just south of this application, it was assumed by local people that the young residents of the home would be allowed to have peace and quiet in their remaining time and this would not be possible with such a large additional development on its doorstep.

site GNLP 0391A - AGAINST

This site is within close proximity of the grade 1 listed church of St. Andrews, Framingham Earl and, although only a recent ruling, it will not have escaped the producers of the GNLP notice that in a similar situation in a Norfolk village, planning consent was recently declined. This was for land very close to a grade 2 listed church; support for refusal came from English Heritage and thus there is a precedent for declining any application on this site. To develop around this 1000 year old, late Saxon building is beyond belief.
Any development would also see linear growth along Hall Road out into the countryside which the GNLP seeks to avoid.

This land has a particularly high water table and is frequently flooded as could be evidenced over the last four weeks and is still so at the time of writing.

* sites GNLP 0003 and 0391B AGAINST

Both these sites are on the fringe of the village along a very narrow and dangerous lane. It would be against council policy to extend development further into the countryside where there are no facilities in place and to see a significant negative visual impact. It would certainly not protect the countryside or give tranquility.

PLEASE ALSO SEE GENERAL COMMENTS RELATING TO THE GROWTH OPTIONS CONSULTATION DOCUMENT.