No Poringland Preferred Sites

Showing comments and forms 1 to 4 of 4

Comment

Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations

Representation ID: 19842

Received: 04/02/2020

Respondent: Mr Robert Mills

Representation Summary:

I strongly support the rejection of the 21 sites - and particularly GNLP 2153 in Burgate Lane - and the conclusion that there should be no further new development allocations in Poringland and Framingham Earl, for the reasons given. There has already been more than sufficient new residential development in our village(s). The local infrastructure, particularly education and health provision, is unable to cope with existing demands, as is the local road network. Above all, the rural nature of the village and its immediate surroundings needs to be protected for both environmental and visual amenity reasons.

Full text:

I strongly support the finding that all 21 sites put forward in Poringland/Framingham Earl area are "unreasonable" in the context of the Greater Norwich Local Plan and the overall conclusion that there should be no further new development allocations at this time. There has already been more than sufficient new residential development in our village(s). The local infrastructure, particularly education and health provision, is unable to cope with existing demands. For instance in September 2019 Poringland Primary School had to turn village children away due to reaching their capacity limit and has no ability to expand further, hence children have to be transported several miles from their home which is quite unfair. Heathgate Surgery currently has a waiting list of three weeks for non-urgent appointments. The local road network is regularly jammed at peak times. Above all, the rural nature of the village and its immediate surroundings needs to be protected for both environmental and visual amenity reasons. In particular I fully support the rejection of site GNLP 2153 in Burgate Lane, Poringland as being quite unsuitable.

Support

Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations

Representation ID: 20006

Received: 20/02/2020

Respondent: Miss Sarah Mann

Representation Summary:

I agree to no new allocations, this area has had far beyond its fair share of development already with no growth or support for the infrastructure, it can not take anymore, the schools are beyond full, the doctors are beyond full, the roads are beyond full.

Full text:

I agree to no new allocations, this area has had far beyond its fair share of development already with no growth or support for the infrastructure, it can not take anymore, the schools are beyond full, the doctors are beyond full, the roads are beyond full.

Support

Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations

Representation ID: 20156

Received: 28/02/2020

Respondent: Poringland Parish Council

Representation Summary:

Poringland Parish Council supports the consultation method of grouping the parishes of Poringland Framingham Earl, Framingham Pigot and well-related parts of Bixley, Caistor St Edmund and Stoke Holy Cross.
Poringland Parish Council supports the recommendation of no new allocations.

Full text:

Firstly, Poringland Parish Council is pleased that the consultation relating to allocations in Poringland is not restricted to our parish boundaries, and includes Framingham Earl, Framingham Pigot and well-related parts of Bixley, Caistor St Edmund and Stoke Holy Cross. Development in Framingham Earl, Framingham Pigot, Bixley, Caistor St Edmund and Stoke Holy Cross all have a significant impact on Poringland as the key service centre for the area and the boundaries between Poringland and the surrounding parishes are not easily distinguished.
Poringland Parish Council strongly supports the proposal of no new allocations in this area due to the underlying factors of high amounts of existing commitments and environmental / infrastructure constraints limiting the potential for additional housing.

Support

Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations

Representation ID: 20545

Received: 09/03/2020

Respondent: Mr John Joyce

Representation Summary:

Poringland has had a disproportionate amount of growth in recent years. Physical infrastructure is stretched and social balance within the village is less stable as the relationship between new residents and the longer standing residents needs time to settle down. Permissions already given will be sufficient to meet future growth needs and will give the community more time to settle.

Full text:

Poringland has had a disproportionate amount of growth in recent years. Physical infrastructure is stretched and social balance within the village is less stable as the relationship between new residents and the longer standing residents needs time to settle down. Permissions already given will be sufficient to meet future growth needs and will give the community more time to settle.