Having lived in this village for some fifty years I have seen the population steadily grow with additional housing being added between existing houses in the form of ribbon development and by the building of some modestly sized estates.
This may have doubled the population compared to the 1950,s but has been a gradual process and to date Rockland has remained a rural village surrounded by green fields ,woodlands and marsh land including brilliant walks and areas of natural beauty.


The sum total of the five suggested proposed sites for development would represent a massive expansion of the population and would cause a significant over whelming of local infrastructure , turning a rural village into another urban sprawl and unlike say Poringland it has only a tenuous road link for the inevitable commute to Norwich with narrow lanes acting as "rat runs" in any other directions.
East Anglia's open landscape may seem an easy target with pressure from central government for local authorities to meet housing targets and at a time when many agricultural land owners may understandably wish to financially insure against the possible effects that the ending of CAP payments may bring.
With all this in mind surely we should be careful to limit any increase in housing to be at a rate in relation to the needs of this villages existing population and not allow it become a spill area for other overcrowded parts of the country.
We don't wish throw the baby out with the bath water and have our grandchildren see us as the generation that was responsible for allowing our countryside to be covered with bricks concrete and tarmac. Once that has happened there would be no going back.

Objections:
Where as one or two of the "back land" proposed sites either side of the
village street may be a sensible addition the village at some time in the
future the overall plan of five sites would be totally out of place.
Two sites in particular :
GNLP 0165 and GNLP0531 stand out as being completely unsuitable for
development.
GNLP 0165 (Rookery corner)
Is a hilly and picturesque site at the western approach to the village.
It is however bordered by sharp bends in the road , two road junctions a
hill and an area that already floods regularly . I fail to see how any form of
safe access to this site could be engineered. It would also have to involve a
huge amount of ground works and soil removal.
There must be far more suitable places for new housing.
GNLP 0531 (From the top of the "New Inn Hill" to "Claxton Road)
This again is a hilly area with surface water drainage problems, even as
agricultural land. It would be accessed via winding section of road and
the blind summit that is the top of the New Inn Hill that continues
eastward via another difficult bend at Rockland Stathe .
It is also an area of natural beauty that borders The Broads National Park
and lends itself to a considerable amount of wild life activity being
mostly in an elevated and prominent position it would be highly visible
from the Broads National Park and for great distance across the Yare valley
spoiling the character of the area irretrievably .
The main objection to this proposed site however at around two hundred
dwellings would be totally out of proportion to any foreseeable needs .
All traffic commuting to Norwich would do so through the complete length
of the village adding substantially to the traffic problems on what is only a
minor road.