GNLP0391 A & B

I agree this is an unsuitable site, 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. These fields are frequently water logged due to the documented water table issues of the area and it is unbelievably bad practise to even consider just pushing this problem onto everyone else.

Poringland Parish Council supports site GNLP0391 as being an unreasonable site, due to the reasons detailed in the consultation document.

The site is not suitable for development as it is located off a small country lane and would have a negative impact on wildlife. It is beyond the development boundary of the village. The facilities in Poringland, including schools and doctors, are already under strain due to all the previous housing developments.

These sites currently fall outside Poringland’s Development Boundary as identified in the South Norfolk Local Plan, adopted on 26th October 2015. As such it has not been recognised as an area for residential housing development.
Additionally, I believe enough development in the area has been sanctioned to satisfy the criteria to deliver “smaller sites” within the Norwich Policy Area and as such further development should be viewed as unwarranted.

Any development of these sites will not conform with Policy No 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework –March 2012, which clearly states that all developments that generate significant amounts of movement should ensure that “safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people”. I do not believe this requirement will be met due to insufficient site lines for access and incremental traffic impact on local single lane access routes as identified in my original submission opposing this site.

The environmental impact of developing these sites will be too great, as will the visual impact on the local area.

I firmly support the view that these sites are inappropriate for any development

I wholeheartedly support the GNLP decision to refuse development on this site as it is totally unsuitable for any form of housing or other development beyond purely agricultural use.

These sites are open countryside and would be totally spoilt by such development and its associated infrastructure. These areas are currently a haven for wildlife including Roe and Muntjac deer which would be totally obliterated by such development.

We object to the development of these sites.
Site A is partially flooded all year and the main access is a single track country road from the A146.
Also it is within 65 metres from the Grade 1 listed St. Andrews Church.
Site B is also onto a narrow country lane and the sight lines Burgate Lane onto Hall Road are dangerous.
Framingham Earl/Poringland are already densely populated with new developments overstretching all facilities - schools, surgeries and roads etc. and further building would make the situation even worse.

I submitted detailed objections to the inclusion of the following sites for housing development:

• GNLP0391 A and B – Land at Framingham Earl, Burgate Lane (4.60 hectares)
• GNLP2153 – Land South of Burgate Lane, Poringland (9.30 hectares).
My objections were attached as a document to an email dated 12th December 2018, to which I received an acknowledgement dated 13th December 2018.

I endorse and fully support the Greater Norwich Planning Policy Team’s decisions and reasoning for not including these sites for housing development listed under “Unreasonable Sites – Residential”, namely:

• GNLP0391 A and B – Land at Framingham Earl, Burgate Lane (4.60 hectares)
“Neither of these sites are considered to be suitable for allocation. Roads serving both parts of GNLP0391 are narrow lanes considered unsuitable for serving additional development. Site B in particular would be intrusive into open countryside to the south-east of the settlement and would significantly adversely affect views of the landscape from the south. In addition, high amounts of existing commitments and environmental/ infrastructure constraints limit the potential for additional new housing in Poringland.”

• GNLP2153 – Land South of Burgate Lane, Poringland (9.30 hectares)
“This site is not considered to be suitable for allocation as development would be intrusive into open countryside to the south-east of the settlement and would significantly adversely affect views of the landscape from the south. High amounts of existing commitments and environmental/ infrastructure constraints limit the potential for additional new housing in Poringland.”

Please find attached representations in response to the current Greater Norwich Local Plan Regulation18 consultation, submitted on behalf of our client, Diocese of Norwich.
Representations have made with respect to the following sites:
• GNLP0384 – Land North of South Walsham Road, Acle
• GNLP0388 – Lane east of St John’s Close, Coltishall
• GNLP0391 – Land at Framingham Earl
• GNLP0393 – Land west of Newton Road, Hainford
• GNLP0394 – Land west of New Road, Hethersett
• GNLP0395 – Land west of Attleborough Road, Hingham
With respect to GNLP0388 ‘Lane east of St John’s Close, Coltishall’, our client has instructed Royal HaskoningDHV to undertake a review of the site’s access opportunities and prepare a Highways Technical Note to inform the site’s promotion for residential development. This technical note is in underway at present and will be provided to the Greater Norwich Local Plan Team as soon as possible upon completion.