I strongly object to the speculative proposal of Land South of Burgate Lane (GNLP2153) for a number of important issues, all of which would have a negative impact on the local community and environment. First of all this proposal falls outside the South Norfolk Development boundary and is totally the wrong development in the wrong area. Poringland has also received more than enough housing under the current Local Plan and any further development outside the development/settlement boundary is unwarranted. The proposed site is prime rural agricultural land, and it should not be taken out of agricultural production. As stated in the Poringland Neighbourhood plan, this area should be protected.

The local services in Poringland and surrounding villages are at breaking point. The primary school is at capacity and has no further space for development on the existing site. The High School is full in two year groups, with a handful of spaces available in other years. The doctor’s surgeries are also at capacity, with a four week wait for appointments, and a lack of GPs.

A further serious concern with this application is the impact it would have on increased traffic and the resulting safety issues. Burgate Lane is too narrow and unsuitable for such an increased volume of traffic. As a single carriageway road of between 3.6m and 4.2m, Burgate Lane is unsuitable for the addition of traffic to and from a new house estate, given that each house is likely to have two cars, with most residents working outside Poringland it will mean more cars queuing on the A146 or B1332 increasing pollution. Access from any direction would involve using these narrow roads not capable of handling the increased traffic. Burgate Lane towards Alpington is narrow and only 2 way in some places. It simply cannot cope with increased traffic which will be in excess of 1000 vehicle movements a day as a minimum from the site. The junction of Burgate Lane with Upgate and Hall Road has poor visibility and cannot be improved as the land either side is in private ownership. The road is busy particularly during rush hours as it is used as a short cut. This would have a knock on impact on the proposals that residents would walk to local services and schools – being well over a mile from the main service centre of the village, it is likely that residents would drive, which would result in a significant increase in traffic journeys. The site is isolated from the main development of the conurbation and would result in residents of the new development not being integrated with the rest of the village.

There has been scant regard to the unique geology and drainage issues in Poringland, which are well documented and which have made Poringland the subject of a Sustainable Urban Drainage Strategy. The plans identify a key ditch between two fields as dry, I can assure you this is not the case as it runs along my boundary. Percolation or attenuation ponds are not a suitable solution in this known flood risk area. The Poringland SUDS seeks to prevent surface water being infiltrated into the ground since the perched water table means that water will emerge as springs in other parts of the village. The application has not demonstrated an understanding of the unique needs of the area.

There has also not been a proper wildlife survey conducted, as those of us who live and walk around here know there are many species living in and around the site, including newts, pheasants, partridges, bats, owls, kites, deer, all of which would have their habitat destroyed if this development is allowed to proceed. Thereby destroying the natural environment of this rural area and also destroying it’s ancient hedgerows.