REGULATION 18 CONSULTATION

REF GNLP2111

A J King & Son have offered for consideration a potential site for development under Regulation 18 of the Greater Norwich Local Plan and is listed as GNLP2111.

The proposed rectangular site lies outside of the existing established settlement boundary formed by the properties along the western side of Brickle Road which are part of a previous development by the same landowner and will now become overlooked with the reduction in privacy, The site adjoins the highway at Long Lane at its northern end where there are established trees that will obscure the view but which should be retained although the access may threaten the roots.

As an immediate neighbour to the site of the proposed development I contend that the proposed development will have a serious impact upon our standard of living and as stated in Article 8 of the Human Rights Act we are entitled to substantive rights to respect for private and family life. Such a development would jeopardize the primary amenity of our property, a fully glazed gable end which would be severely overlooked at both ground and particularly first floor levels with an undisputed invasion of our privacy as well as a loss of the unspoilt scenic amenity that we enjoy.

The site measures approximately 3.3 Hectares and is therefore a site of some significance in its size and is very dominantly located.

The site is located beyond the established settlement boundary on the defined area of the Strategic Planning Policy for the development of either Stoke Holy Cross or Poringland. Upper Stoke inevitably struggles to retain its definition and is now fighting not to become engulfed and absorbed by Poringland.

Looking at the mass of sites being offered it would appear that planning policy is geared to squeezing in as many houses onto any available site. It should consider the development and impact on the community and not just the formation of poorly considered satellite housing schemes that introduce little or no social interaction.

There has always been a demarcation point between Poringland and Upper Stoke Holy Cross located at the low point of Long Lane by a field plot, and an opposing housing gap which is an important although rather indistinct division point between the two villages which would otherwise totally lose their individual identity. However even these have now been ear marked for infill development and so Upper Stoke Holy Cross just becomes absorbed and annexed to Poringland, which is not a desired situation by the residents and would be a tragic loss of identity. GNLP2111 would appear to represent a significant departure from the spirit of the defined policy pertaining to either village as it reduces the rural hinterland between Stoke Holy Cross and Upper Stoke Holy Cross and further threatens the desired coalesence between the two villages.

This suggested development site would require an access road no doubt roughly central to the rectangular site, with access off either Long Lane on a blind bend, or off Brickle Road. This would be an Estate Road Development which is not in keeping with the surrounding established ribbon deveopment. Neither locations offer good vision splays and are both rural in their width and unsuited to the addition of a busy junction or be capable of providing a safe access and egress route for a large development of 50 - 60 houses of this disposition. The Government is trying to encourage the reduction of cars and we should not be promoting schemes that will result in an additional 100 - 120 additional cars from this one site alone.

The vision sight lines at a junction on Long Lane is one which is not good now, but will additionally be frequently obscured by stationary buses at the bus stop which is located on the corner of a cross roads which is an historical location. The addition of a new junction for this site will cause enhanced dangers to both road users and pedestrians.

Upper Stoke Holy Cross does not have a Community Centre as stated. It has St Georges Village Hall which is quite modest in its size and facility capabilities. While the area generally will be seen to have good facilities, they being Framingham Earl High School, Poringland Primary School and Stoke Holy Cross Primary School, these educational facilities are already stretched to capacity and beyond, as a result of recent and current ubiquitous local developments, most of which have yet to be fully occupied and their full impact experienced. None of these Schools have significant scope for enlargement.

The two Doctors Surgeries are overloaded with the present population as demonstrated by the long waiting periods for appointments. There is one Dentists Practice which is over subscribed, one small Library, two pubs which again are undersized for the custom they receive. There is a small but modest Supermarket (Bugdens) and two even smaller Convenience Stores. The one in Stoke Holy Cross recently closed, They may serve a purpose, but collectively these Stores are going to prove woefully inadequate for a conurbation that is being expanded with this rapidly and seemingly endless growing rate of population. There are fast food outlets and a hairdressers but these struggle to provide a reliable service and can be often found overwhelmed with demand.

These three villages are now being extensively exploited by land owners keen to take advantage of the relaxations offered by the Planners to make quick financial gains from developers who have no compunction in overwhelming the existing infrastructure to which they rarely make a significant or worthwhile contribution, as long as they can make a good return from their developments.

I do not see that this offered estate road development site will make a worthy contribution to this village located where it is which will inevitably raise the highway hazards near the Long Lane and Chandler / Brickle Road cross road junction.

The village of Poringland and its neighbouring villages of Upper Stoke and Stoke Holy Cross are now being grossly overdeveloped and this further suggested housing development is socially unacceptable and a technically inappropriate proposal that will detract from the generally bungalow / chalet residences that are dominant in this area and the scheme should be rejected as a site technically ill-suited for development.

I conclude by requesting these points are taken into consideration when deciding the submitted application.