I strongly OBJECT to this proposed site for the following reasons:

NON-COMPLIANCE WITH NATIONAL PLANNING GUIDANCE/NORFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL PLANNING POLICIES

As defined in Section 5 of the South Norfolk Site Specific Allocations and Policies Document, Policy 15 of the Joint Core Strategy (JCS) identifies Rockland St Mary as "a Service Village in which land will be allocated for small-scale housing growth in the period 1 April 2008 to 31 March 2026, within the range of 10-20 dwellings, subject to form, character and servicing constraints".

Rockland St Mary has already experienced an increase in dwellings within the village since 1 April 2008 that have increased the number of dwellings in the village in excess of 10% (of the 2001 census figure of 325 homes) on Eel Catcher close and a current development of 21 dwellings in Bee-Orchid Way.

Backfill developments behind The Street will be intrusive and significantly alter the linear character of the village and will not be in keeping with what are in the main single dwellings on large clearly individual or shared distinct plots that give the village it's charm and character.

Any development at the proposed site GNLP 2061 will lead to a loss of privacy and overlooking to the existing properties along The Street that are located within the Settlement Boundary. It is likely that like most other modern developments these homes would be large properties situated on relatively small plots and would no be in keeping with the vernacular dwellings.

The Government's current planning policies on different aspects of land use planning in England are set out in the National Planning Policy Framework13 (NPPF). The NPPF came into effect on 27th March 2012, replacing previously published planning policy statements and guidance in England. This included PPS7 Planning for Sustainable Development in Rural Areas, which included specific policies on LLDs.

2.1.4 The importance of landscape character is acknowledged in the NPPF's core planning principles:

Section '11. 'Planning should take account of the different roles and character of different areas, promoting the vitality of our main urban areas, protecting the Green Belts around them, recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and supporting thriving rural communities within it'.

2.1.5 Section 11 of the NPPF sets out the Government's planning policies on conserving and enhancing the natural environment, including the landscape: The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, geological conservation interests and soils '

Any development at GNLP 2061 would be to the detriment of the intrinsic character and the beauty of the countryside that surrounds the village and therefore this application should be REFUSED as it would not meet the spirit of the NPPF or Norfolk County Council's planning guidelines and would be outside of the settlement boundary.

FAILURE TO MEET KEY DESIGN PRINCIPLES

Among the Key design principles of South Norfolk District Council's Place Making Guide https://www.southnorfolk.gov.uk/sites/default/files/South_Norfolk_Place-Making_Guide_SPD_0.pdf are the following Key Principles:

"Respect the existing characteristic pattern of linear settlements at The Broads fringe with settlements
dispersed across the landscape elsewhere". The proposed development at GNLP 2061 does NOT respect this principle as it will be an uncharacteristic "back-fill development".

"Ensure that the rural quality is maintained including the rural lane network". Development at GNLP 2061 will inevitably lead to an increase in Motor Vehicle traffic that will deteriorate the rural quality of the village.

"Consider the impact of development on the skyline of open areas". The proposed development at GNLP 2061 does NOT respect this principle as it will be an uncharacteristic "back-fill development" and will have detrimental impacts on the privacy to existing residents and it will drastically alter the skyline of this open area.

INCREASED RISK IN TRAFFIC CONFLICT

This application should be REFUSED as any development will further increase the risk of traffic conflict. The villages of Langley, Chedgrave, Claxton, Rockland St Mary, Bramerton and Kirby Bedon have all suffered from a considerable increase in volume of motor traffic due to the intense load on the A146 that runs from Lowestoft to Norwich.

Drivers are increasingly using the route through these villages to get around the difficulties and dangers of joining the A146 from the many access points along the A146. This can be readily witnessed by the change in route that a large number of mini-buses from Langley School take now to get to and from the city of Norwich and it's environs. In recent times it is noticeable that these vehicles (and others) use the small country roads that wind through the aforementioned villages to avoid lengthy delays and dangerous accesses to the A146.

DISTANCE FROM ROAD JUNCTIONS

The access to the highway from the proposed site at GNLP 2061 would be DANGEROUS and a severe risk to PUBLIC SAFETY. This proposed access point is too narrow and too close to the existing access point to 101 The Street. Norfolk County Council's Publication "Vehicle Access Crossing: - Guidance - April 2010" clearly states the following:

"Distance from road junctions If the location of the proposed crossing is closer than 10m to a road junction it would create a serious hazard and the application will be refused. This dimension may be increased to 15m on major roads or near to busy junctions".

This publication while a guideline for property owners and it can be strongly argued that they would naturally apply to the proposed access road to this development. Furthermore the existing farm track is of insufficient width to accommodate a road that linked the development to the existing highway.

VISIBILITY REQUIREMENTS

The same document states that "Adequate visibility enables road users to see a potential hazard in time to slow down or stop comfortably before reaching it. The application will be refused if the crossing does not meet visibility requirements set within published industry standards. Consideration will be given to the driver's line of vision in both the vertical and horizontal planes".

Further guidelines concerning Highway Access Standards are enshrined in Norfolk County Council Publication "Safe, Sustainable Development Aims and Guidance notes for Local Highway Authority requirements in Development Management" under Guidance Note 2 "Highway Access Standards" as follows:

G2.1 Development must have safe vehicular and (where appropriate), pedestrian, cycle, equestrian links to a public highway.

Due to the physical limitations to visibility splays and lines of sight caused by the existing structures and buildings the lack of sufficient Stopping Sight Distances then this proposal should be REFUSED due to SAFE vehicular and (where appropriate), pedestrian, cycle, equestrian links to the public highway not being achievable from GNLP 2061 to The Street. This problem is compounded yet further by the close proximity of entrances to two existing properties directly opposite and to the right of the proposed site access road and to the left of the proposed access road. All within 10 metres.


ROAD SAFETY - EXISTING SURFACE WATER FLOODING OF THE HIGHWAY

It should be noted that this narrow road that makes it's way through these settlements is prone to FLOODING at certain times of the year. Notable road sections that frequently experience partial or complete repeat flooding are:

1. The bend leading into Rockland St Mary that regularly floods and becomes a single passing place on a blind bend as drivers habitually drive on the wrong side of the road heading into the village. Flood water often extends beyond the centre line of the road from the inside verge of the bend.

2 In Bramerton, close to the Christadelphinians meeting room, this road habitually experiences flood from agricultural land surface water run-off. Often this flooding covers the entire carriageway and can get quite deep. This flood point is very close to a junction on a bend that leads to Surlingham.

3. Partial flooding often occurs along a section just outside of Rockland St Mary leading into Bramerton.

4. Other problem areas can be regularly experienced in the same road through Claxton past the Village Hall again partially flooding the road to the centre line.

5. The section of road leading from Rockalnd St Mary toward Norwich in front of the property adjacent to Sallow Lane often floods to the centre line of the road.

Any increase in residential developments in these villages wold inevitably lead to an increase in volume of motor traffic which will work against Norfolk County Councils stated aim the increase the use of sustainable transport as it will make cycling an even less attractive option to to the heightened risk of Traffic Conflict. Numerous areas that are prone to significant flooding will only add to the increased chance of a traffic conflict and this problem can be worsened further still should there be a significant drop in temperature below zero degrees celsius which would likely freeze any standing surface water on the carriageway.

As defined clearly in the Norfolk County Council Highway Guidance - Advice for Developers: "The development must be served by approach roads with the capacity to cater for the type and level of traffic likely to be generated, without prejudice to highway safety, particularly focusing on the most vulnerable road users"

Development at GNLP 2061 will be in direct conflict to this guideline and therefore it should be REFUSED on account of PUBLIC SAFETY, in particular with regard to the most vulnerable road users given the existence of Sustrans National Cycle Route Number 1 that traverses through the aforementioned villages in this objection.

This development along with the other proposed development in Rockland will all inevitably have a detrimental impact on ROAD SAFETY. Furthermore, the effects would be cumulative should any development be agreed and will have a hugely negative impact on all these communities that would far outweigh any perceived benefits for the reasons stated above. The planners are respectfully asked to take into account the mental and physical wellbeing and health of the existing community as well as the safety of VULNERABLE ROAD USERS and REFUSE this application outright.

In summary the proposed site at GNLP should also be REFUSED as it clearly would not meet the Joint Core Strategy (JCS) for Broadland, Norwich and South Norfolk

The JCS vision states that 'there will be excellent public open space, sport and recreational facilities and community centres'. Objective 9 states that 'Development must provide environmental gains through green infrastructure...' and Objective 11 states that 'the accessibility of open space, the countryside, sports and recreational facilities will be improved'. JCS Policy 1 requires the development of a multi-functional green network - which provides opportunities for formal and informal recreation, walking and cycling, as well as encouraging and promoting biodiversity and acting to mitigate flood risk and combat the effects of climate change'.


The danger to PUBLIC SAFETY from an increased risk in TRAFFIC CONFLICT on both Sustrans National Cycle Route Number 1 and on the road that leads from Loddon to Bixley to VULNERABLE ROAD USERS caused by any development in Rockland St Mary and it's neighbouring villages would result in a notable increase motor vehicle traffic that would be neither SUSTAINABLE nor SAFE and therefore planning permission should be REFUSED.