Full text
1. The Church vista
The view of the church across the proposed 379 is of significant importance. It has been recognised that this view is important. In the document “Landscape Character Assessment Documents” 1. Broadland District Council Part 3 of 5
Dated : February 2019, it states
C2: FREETHORPE Summary of visual character Evaluation Inherent Landscape Sensitivities 3.6.27
“The following inherent landscape sensitivities have been identified:
• Predominantly open, rural character.
• Sparse settlement in the form of ancient dispersed hamlets and isolated farmsteads. Their landscape setting and cohesive building materials is vulnerable to unsympathetic additions or extensions, which would disrupt the largely intact built character.
• Subtle features of the historic landscape, such as ponds, pits, hedgerows and tracks, which are not protected, and are vulnerable to change and loss.
• Landscape setting of manor houses, halls and churches.
• Wide expansive views over a vast and simple landscape with sweeping arable fields and huge skies. • Exposed character in peripheral parts with partial views over descending wooded slopes to the Broads, and associated strong but low horizon.
• Smooth, predominantly uninterrupted skyline.
• Sense of peace and isolation throughout the area.
Landscape Planning Guidelines
Refer to ‘Strategic Gap’ with identified and fully documented intrinsic landscape character value 3.6.28
The following Landscape Planning Guidelines apply to the Freethorpe Plateau Farmland Landscape Character Type:
• Seek to conserve the open, rural character of the area;
• Resist new development that would result in any diminution of the sparsely settled nature of the area or in any reduction in the sense of peace and isolation within the area, which is devoid of large settlements;
• Seek to conserve subtle features of the historic landscape, including hedgerows and tracks;
• Seek to conserve the landscape setting of manor houses, halls and churches;
• Seek to maintain key views towards churches, which are often key landscape features;
• Seek to conserve the landscape setting of Lingwood;
• Seek to ensure new development does not disrupt the smooth, predominantly uninterrupted skyline within the area; • Seek to conserve open views across the farmland;
• Seek to maintain the traditional character of isolated farmsteads; • Seek opportunities for the restoration of hedgerows where fragmented; • Seek to ensure that potential new developments comprise a fully integrated landscape and urban design strategy, which is consistent with the local landscape character and screen potential harsh settlement edges;
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) , 2012 (section 11 Conserving and enhancing the natural environment) states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment. In addition, under Plan-making section paragraph 170 states ‘where appropriate, landscape character assessment should also be prepared, integrated with assessment of historic landscape character, and for areas where there are major expansion options assessment of landscape sensitivity
It is worth noting that the rejected site 380 has no such views and issues,
Indeed You state “We will continue to protect the most valued parts of our area and enhance green infrastructure for nature and people. To help to do this, the GNLP will maximise the amount of development on ‘brownfield’ sites and make sure that new development improves the green infrastructure network. Where we have to identify greenfield sites for development, we will base our decisions on evidence which will enable us to provide new green spaces, protect valuable landscapes” there is no evidence of this being taken into account at all. There is also an available brownfield site (the old school) which is not included in this at all Why? Also this could add another 25 dwellings on top of these proposed.

1. Roads and Transport
The statement you have made states that this will “slow down traffic on Post office road. I find this to be totally unrealistic as the natural layout of the road at the moment produces a natural slowdown of traffic as they pass the playground. Widening the road would in my view increase the speed.
The Blofield road is a very dangerous road recently recording a fatal accident on the edge of the village.



2. The safety issues
Widening the road, and putting in a potential extra traffic flow of 80-100 cars alongside a playground, resulting in children crossing a unlit road from the new development to the playing field, taking into account the potential increase in traffic is asking for potentially tragic consequences.
Again the location of site 380 would funnel a good number of cars either directly out of the village along Blofield road but also sent shoppers down Chapel Road and not past the village green

3. Issues with increase congestion
There is already an issue with people parking to get to the playground, and also dropping children and families of at the green. Any proposed development would degrade road safety. Putting children and families at risk.
Other reasonable sites would dramatically reduce this risk.

4. The capacity of the village to cope.
a. The road access into the village, in particular the Blofield road is not fit for purpose.
b. There is a real concern that the sewerage system of the village will be overwhelmed
c. The school will struggle to accommodate the increase.

I believe that the capacity for the school to handle the increase has been incorrectly evaluated and would urge a review. The site assessment booklet (2019) states “The current capacity at Lingwood Primary School is circa 74% and rated as red. This is because forecasts indicate that the spare capacity will be taken up in a few years. Consequently, the scale of housing allocations will be limited to 12-20 dwellings within the cluster. At the base date of the plan there are no carried forward residential allocations but there is a total of 44 additional dwellings with planning permission on small sites.” There remains the question as to the total build requirements for Lingwood, In the plans as of 2018 it was stated that 50-60 houses for the whole of the cluster. Now we have 44 (in planning now) + 60+ (proposed) + 25 (at brownfield site of the old school) total = 129+, this seems to have dramatically increased since the plans were first made. Without any reasoning to back this up.
Again because 380 is a larger site, if in the future more housing is required then this would seem the obvious place to start IF the villages infrastructure can be enhanced to cope.

5. Trees and Land
There are several mature trees of significant interest on Post Office road, indeed to my knowledge several have preservation orders on then or are considered as important by the local council. It would be a shame if, as well as the loss of the view these trees were lost to the village forever. Again I am not aware of any such trees being affected by site 380. The farmland on site 0379 is graded by ALC at the highest level 1&2 which is “land with no or very minor limitations. A very wide range of agricultural and yields are high and less variable than on land of lower quality”

6. Flooding
This field has a gradient from west to east and is prone to flooding, removal of the ditch on the southern boarder (for road widening) would also, I have been informed, add to this problem.

7. GNLP0380
One of the things stated in the proposal document is the distance from sites to the school and shops. It is stated that GNLP380 if further out and so less desirable. However if you look at Google maps it shows that 379 to school is .5 of a mile and .7 to the shops. 380 is .7 miles to the school and .5 miles to the shops. This is marginal at most and given the other things we have raised is minimal. When the plans were first raised in 2018 the Lingwood Parish Council put GNLP0380 as their preferred option. They were not aware that the plans had changed. They after all are the local representatives of the village and surely their views should be considered. There is also the fact that the Land on site 379 is considered to be ALC “grade 1” farmland the land on site 380 is of lower quality.
9. Ambiguous nature of plans
There are several ambiguities in the proposal this include.
a. ‘The site is likely to accommodate 50-60 homes, 33% of which will be affordable.’ ‘More homes may be accommodated, subject to an acceptable design and layout being achieved’.
b. There may or may not be landscaping done on the site
c. No details of access points from the proposed site
d. No idea of size or location of houses.
e. No understanding of why the scope has increased from a total of 50-60 houses to over 129 that are now being proposed/agreed.
f. There are no proposals to mitigate against the increased traffic entering the village when these developments are undertaken, added to the loss of an entry road due to the duelling of the A47
How can this be a true consultation when we don’t actually know what we are being consulted on?
Given the Sustainability Appraisal /Strategic Environmental Assessment of the GNLP Reg. 18 ( C ), evidenced base is flawed, the nomination of GNLP0379 as a preferred site and the terminology ‘with mitigation’ is irrelevant. There are clear objectively based Site alternatives to be considered and prevent any ‘harm to the historic environment’ occurring.