I am making this complaint on behalf of myself and 11 residents of Eel
Catcher Close - who were unable to access the GNLP website due to its
complexity. If you require signatures and personal details of each of the
11 residents please email me and I will provide this immediately.

We are writing to raise serious concern about the proposal.

Rockland St Mary is a village adjacent to Rockland Broad, a Broads
protected area. The proposal would fundamentally damage, erode and alter
the character of the village and Rockland Broad. The proposed
development alter the proportion and current footprint of the village.

In addition, there are other serious concerns about the proposal:

The local infrastructure of Rockland St Mary is not adequate to sustain or support the development.

Although a skeleton bus service operates from the
village to Norwich, it does not operate sufficient services to enable
residents to get to and from work at the hours and with the flexibility
expected by all employers.

Residents of Rockland who are employed out of the village either drive
or cycle to work as a result of this. This is supported by any consultation
with Rockland residents and by monitoring the demographics of bus
passengers. Rockland bus passengers are predominantly elderly and disabled
people, unemployed people and parents with young children.

The existing utilities in Rockland including drainage will not be able
to sustain the development.

The village will not be able to safely sustain the substantial increase
in car traffic that will be incurred by this proposal. Access to and from
the village will be jeopardised. This proposal could bring significant additional vehicles into Rockland St Mary. This would lead to serious
congestion, environmental and safety issues.

Specific safety issues surround any increase in traffic on School Lane.
School Lane is the only means of access to the village school. It is so
narrow that cars cannot pass unless they drive onto the footpath to do so.
There is insufficient space at the bottom of the lane for cars to turn
around. School Lane cannot cope with the increase in school traffic
that the proposal would trigger. Evidence suggests that most parents would
drive their children to school in the morning, not walk to the other end of
the village carrying school bags, lunches and the other requirements that
go with transporting young children to school, especially in inclement
weather.

Public rights of way. There are two footpaths in the area designated for
development which have been used by the public for well over 100 years. One
joins the village with the Community nature reserve at Hellington and
Hellington village. Some time ago, the farmer owning the fields tried to
prohibit residents from using these historic footways. The village united
in challenging this action, and, to avoid the matter going to court, the
farmer relented and temporarily erected signs for permissive footpaths in
recognition of their use. Residents of the village will not hesitate to
challenge any suggestion that these footpaths may be removed. Law assumes
that if the public use a path without interference for some period of time
- set by statute at 20 years - then the owner has intended to dedicate it
as a right of way. There is no doubt that the village would successfully
uphold a legal challenge on this issue.

Residents of Eel Catcher Close are also concerned about the health
implications of building so many houses close to a number of adults and
children with asthma on the Close, due to the levels of dust and debris
that would be generated.