Comment
Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy
Representation ID: 19929
Received: 13/02/2020
Respondent: Mr Alan Franks
Comments on small site in Roydon-better related to Diss (GNLP0104)
Site Features and Constraints
I seek to draw attention to facts that are undisclosed on the call for sites submission form GNLP0104.
And would ask you to take the following into consideration before considering the site as suitable for development.
The only significant prehistoric site in Roydon dates to the Iron Age and is found to the north of Sand Stone Way (The site presented for development). Here, the cropmark of a ring ditch was noted on an aerial photograph in 1977. Partial excavation of the feature in 1981 recovered Neolithic flint tools and fragments of Iron Age pottery, and the site was interpreted as an Iron Age defended settlement.
The owner of this land undertook the partial excavation in 1981 and has made a further partial excavation in recent years. It is believed that important artefact’s remain in the ground.
Before any development is approved it would be in the interest of the community for a full and independent archaeological excavation to be undertaken.
In addition to the above I have observed several errors and omissions on the application document:
5d. Contradicts statement made in 4a, the land has been used in the past as agricultural land. Its current appearance may give the impression that it is not suitable. However this is due to the partial excavations carried out by the owner in connection with my comments about it being an historical site. It is possible that this is a deliberate attempt to influence planners.
7a. The applicant has failed to disclose that there is a public right of way crossing the access to the site (The Angles way)
7a. Sandstone way is currently a small quiet residential cull-de- sac; access to the site is very restricted. The proposed development would fundamentally change the character of the area. On completion the residents would be subject to considerable nuisance from traffic flow. During the period of construction (Possibly 2 years) the disruption would be intolerable.
7g. See statement above in blue.
7h. Neighbouring Uses: Once again the application fails to present the full picture. The land to the west of the proposed development is agricultural. Cultivated as arable. The land to the south is a public footpath (The Angles way) The land to the north is the A1066. The close proximity of the development to the A1066 would subject the proposed properties to a high level of noise & vibration. The road is a main thoroughfare for HGV’s who pass in large numbers from 4am. Vibration is a particular problem and already affects properties in the vicinity. This has resulted in complaints in the past. Permitting this development with this knowledge could render the local authority with further complaint and costly remedial action may be required.
7j. The access to the site from the west is from Tottington lane onto Sandstone way. This route is unsuitable; Tottington lane is a narrow country lane with no passing places. The access from the east is via Denmark lane,Tottington lane and Sandstone way. The junction of Denmark lane with the A1066 is of particular concern and already presents a potential danger. Visibility when turning out of Denmark lane is restricted if subjected to increased traffic, accidents would be anticipated.
I also notice that the site in question is in fact two sites A & B. only site B is within the settlement boundary Also the site to the north Site C (believed to be in different ownership) is indicating that 42 dwellings could be constructed. The 3 sites will put further strain on the already dangerous junction previously referred to.
In addition development of this area will encroach upon the green divide between Diss & Roydon. This divide is precious to residents of Roydon who are determined to remain independent. (Please refer to the recent keep Roydon whole campaign)
Comments on small site in Roydon-better related to Diss (GNLP0104)
Site Features and Constraints
I seek to draw attention to facts that are undisclosed on the call for sites submission form GNLP0104.
And would ask you to take the following into consideration before considering the site as suitable for development.
The only significant prehistoric site in Roydon dates to the Iron Age and is found to the north of Sand Stone Way (The site presented for development). Here, the cropmark of a ring ditch was noted on an aerial photograph in 1977. Partial excavation of the feature in 1981 recovered Neolithic flint tools and fragments of Iron Age pottery, and the site was interpreted as an Iron Age defended settlement.
The owner of this land undertook the partial excavation in 1981 and has made a further partial excavation in recent years. It is believed that important artefact’s remain in the ground.
Before any development is approved it would be in the interest of the community for a full and independent archaeological excavation to be undertaken.
In addition to the above I have observed several errors and omissions on the application document:
5d. Contradicts statement made in 4a, the land has been used in the past as agricultural land. Its current appearance may give the impression that it is not suitable. However this is due to the partial excavations carried out by the owner in connection with my comments about it being an historical site. It is possible that this is a deliberate attempt to influence planners.
7a. The applicant has failed to disclose that there is a public right of way crossing the access to the site (The Angles way)
7a. Sandstone way is currently a small quiet residential cull-de- sac; access to the site is very restricted. The proposed development would fundamentally change the character of the area. On completion the residents would be subject to considerable nuisance from traffic flow. During the period of construction (Possibly 2 years) the disruption would be intolerable.
7g. See statement above in blue.
7h. Neighbouring Uses: Once again the application fails to present the full picture. The land to the west of the proposed development is agricultural. Cultivated as arable. The land to the south is a public footpath (The Angles way) The land to the north is the A1066. The close proximity of the development to the A1066 would subject the proposed properties to a high level of noise & vibration. The road is a main thoroughfare for HGV’s who pass in large numbers from 4am. Vibration is a particular problem and already affects properties in the vicinity. This has resulted in complaints in the past. Permitting this development with this knowledge could render the local authority with further complaint and costly remedial action may be required.
7j. The access to the site from the west is from Tottington lane onto Sandstone way. This route is unsuitable; Tottington lane is a narrow country lane with no passing places. The access from the east is via Denmark lane,Tottington lane and Sandstone way. The junction of Denmark lane with the A1066 is of particular concern and already presents a potential danger. Visibility when turning out of Denmark lane is restricted if subjected to increased traffic, accidents would be anticipated.
I also notice that the site in question is in fact two sites A & B. only site B is within the settlement boundary Also the site to the north Site C (believed to be in different ownership) is indicating that 42 dwellings could be constructed. The 3 sites will put further strain on the already dangerous junction previously referred to.
In addition development of this area will encroach upon the green divide between Diss & Roydon. This divide is precious to residents of Roydon who are determined to remain independent. (Please refer to the recent keep Roydon whole campaign)