I wish to reiterate my comments on Planning Application 2017/2652 - Development at Burgate Lane, Poringland which was unanimously refused by South Norfok Council earlier this year, following some 200 well-founded local objections:

The need for additional housing nationally, for which the arguments have already been well made, and the requirements for first-time buyers to have a reasonable chance of getting onto the housing ladder, and others including growing families to progress, are not in question. The huge expansion in housing development in Poringland over recent years, not to mention those yet to come, already attest to South Norfolk's clear willingness to contribute to the local housing supply. However this application is a prime example of the wrong development in the wrong place, with totally inadequate consideration of infrastructure needs and a complete disregard for existing communities in Poringland and Framingham Earl. I would urge the District Council to reject this application. In particular:
1. The land in question lies outside the agreed development boundary for Poringland and Framingham Earl, as approved in the South Norfolk Local Plan (Policy 14:Key Service Centres) which was formally adopted on 26 October 2015 and covers the period up to 2026. More than enough new housing land has already been allocated in Poringland and Framingham Earl within that document (in particular the Site Specific Allocations and Policies Document) which should meet housing demand in this locality for the foreseeable future. There is no need for additional development outside the development boundary on greenfield sites, especially as many of the approved sites are still in the course of building, or are already built but even so have vacant dwellings. Where is the demand for another 165 housing units? This seems to be a purely speculative development promoted by a company based far from Norfolk whose prime motive is profit, not responding to local housing demand.

2. Moreover, if development were to be allowed outside the development plan boundaries then the plan itself, and the extensive public consultation that has taken place on it, have absolutely no meaning or value. Surely the district council must uphold its own plan and reject any application that so blatantly fails to comply with it.

3. With the extent of new build recently (a) completed, (b) already in progress and (c) planned, the whole character of Poringland and Framingham Earl is changing from a small village to a semi-urban commuter area. Part of the attraction of the village is its rural environment, but the extent of new building is already leading to a permanent loss of agricultural land, environmental quality and visual amenity. The recent obliteration of open space on Norwich Road opposite Octagon Barn is a prime example, eroding the boundary between Poringland and Arminghall. Further unwanted expansion into our countryside will exacerbate this further. Once the process of snapping up farmers' fields to replace them with bricks and tarmac has been given the go-ahead, the floodgates will have opened for more destruction of our rural areas.

4. The density of housing on this site was originally proposed (in Gladman's recent 'public consultation' leaflet) as 150 new homes, which would clearly have been out of all proportion to the nature of its surroundings - a hitherto quiet and semi-rural area. Despite local concerns expressed prior to submission of the application, Gladman have now decided without explanation to increase this number from 150 to 165 dwellings. The impact of such a large number on the local environment, the increased traffic flows it would generate and the major demands it would place on local services have not been adequately considered.

5. Burgate Lane, as its name implies, is a narrow country lane which is hardly wide enough for two cars to pass, has dangerous, unsighted bends and has no pavements (except the stretch nearest to Hall Road/Upgate where there are already a few houses). As such it is totally unsuitable for the major increase in traffic movements that a new 165-home development would generate. Anyone with local knowledge would clearly understand this. It is quite unacceptable that this would in practice constitute the main commuter route from the new estate, through Alpington (and directly past its primary school), to the very busy A146 to Beccles and Lowestoft road.

6. Hall Road and Upgate would also see a huge increase in traffic flow, most probably via Long Road. These formerly quiet residential roads are already used as a 'rat run' for through traffic on the B1332 from Bungay to Norwich, despite being unique in Poringland and Framingham Earl as the only residential roads with neither pavements nor street lights. This means that pedestrians and cyclists including children walking to school , families with infants in buggies, elderly residents, dog walkers and horse riders already share the road space with cars (often speeding despite the 30mph limit), buses and HGVs such as delivery vehicles and refuse trucks. The danger that this already poses to local residents should not be under-estimated, particularly at the blind right angle bend leading from Upgate to Rectory Lane. At night, pedestrians can only safely navigate the road with the aid of hand torches. I fear that the extra traffic and additional dangers which would result from a further 165 homes at Burgate Lane could before long lead to a serious injury or even a fatality. For this reason, on safety grounds alone the application should be refused.

7. The application shows some pedestrian improvements (drawing 1568/07), to be funded by the developer, including a new footway on the east side of Hall Lane/Upgate in place of the existing grass verges. While this is a welcome recognition of the dangers explained above, it does not go far enough. Firstly, a footway on the eastern side of the road may help residents of the new Burgate Lane development but fails to recognise that most pedestrians use the western side of the road - partly because the bus stop is on that side (all buses come from Rectory Lane direction) and partly because the western side is the most obvious pedestrian route for school children and others from Upgate into Rectory Lane - using the existing short stretch of tarmac surface on that corner. Any new pedestrian footway therefore needs to be on both sides of the road.

8. Moreover, the plan for a new pedestrian crossing point (with tactile paving for blind or partially sighted people?) so close to the blind bend with Rectory Lane is sheer madness. As it is, some cars come around this bend so fast they could not stop in time, while buses have to swing right out, taking up both sides of the carriageway. Unsurprisingly the proposals in the application display a complete lack of local knowledge.

9. The impact on local schools, both primary and secondary is a major factor to consider. While Gladman's consultation document offers to pay a "contribution" to the local education authority for the provision of new classrooms, there is nothing in the planning application to back this promise up. In any event, this statement assumes that local schools will physically have the space to build more classrooms. Poringland Primary School has only recently built additional classrooms to cope with existing demand in the village. The Chair of governors has pointed out that Poringland Primary School physically has "no further room for expansion" (which would be obvious anyway from the briefest of walks past the school) and "cannot accommodate children from a further development". So where would children from the new development go?

10. The next nearest primary school is at Alpington, occupying a very small site at the crossroads at the eastern end of Burgate Lane. In the unlikely scenario of it having spare places, or the ability to expand, one must ask exactly how children aged 5 to 11 would get there. Walking (or cycling) down Burgate Lane with its narrow carriageway and blind bends is hazardous for adults, never mind young children. So in practice every child would need to be driven daily to school and back - increasing the traffic hazards yet further and utterly contradicting the contention that this development would encourage more sustainable non-car travel. It is quite possible therefore that an additional 165 homes would require not just new classrooms, but a whole new school on the development site, paid for by the developers.

11. Moreover the impact goes well beyond just the capital cost of building new education infrastructure. Who would pay for the additional teaching staff required, at a time when local authority budgets are already stretched to breaking point? Clearly Norfolk County Council, as local education authority, must be consulted in depth on these matters, and on the extent of the financial contribution the developer would be required to make.

12. Likewise, the additional pressure on the two GP surgeries in the village and the single chemist (which already suffers from very limited parking and dangerous vehicle access from The Street) has not been adequately addressed. It is just not good enough merely to say in the application that local health and education facilities exist, without setting out how the additional demands on the basic infrastructure of the village will be met.

13. Gladman's promise to provide new publicly accessible greenspace hardly mitigates the loss of agricultural land and open space. Even so, their consultation plan showing a new footpath around the housing estate and a small play area clearly says "For Illustrative Purposes Only". This suggests that these proposals, although minimal, could be withdrawn again at any stage of the planning application process. On the contrary, such features must be integral to any permission for any new development of this kind.

14. Assertions that "the proposed development could lead to ... a potential reduction in commuter levels to surrounding employment areas" seem to be without any foundation. There is very little employment in Poringland/Framingham Earl itself and what exists is mainly in the retail sector. Inevitably most residents in a new 165-home development would commute to Norwich or further afield every day of the week. Rush hour traffic in The Street, especially at the Fiveways roundabout (taking through traffic from The Street, Stoke Road, Norwich Road, Pigot Lane and Long Road) is already severely congested on a regular basis and additional commutes to Norwich and beyond (e.g. A47, A11) can only worsen this.

15. Finally, the application envisages a construction period of up to 5 years, which in itself would cause chaos in the locality. Were any development ever to be approved, access for construction traffic would need to be strictly controlled. Approaches from Rectory Lane, Gull Lane and Burgate Lane (from Alpington direction) are all totally unsuitable, owing to the winding and residential nature of Rectory Lane; the narrowness of Burgate Lane with blind right angle bends; and the fact that Gull Lane is only single track with passing places (and of course no pavements), also with blind bends and specifically marked 'Not Suitable for Heavy Vehicles'. All these roads are currently used regularly by pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders as well as vehicles. This leaves only Long Road, which at least is straight and has a pavement on one side, but is not wide enough to accommodate a car and a large truck coming from the opposite direction without one slowing or stopping to give way. The horrific alternative, as witnessed at first hand in the last week, is that a lorry merely maintains its speed (40mph) while mounting the pavement to avoid slowing down. For these very obvious safety reasons, the speed limits on Long Road would have to be reduced from 40 to 30 mph and on Hall Lane/Upgate from 30 to 20 mph.

16. For all these reasons, but particularly the impact on local traffic and education infrastructure, this application must be refused.