GNLP0485
Comment
Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations
Representation ID: 19878
Received: 08/02/2020
Respondent: Mr Ken Barnes
I totally support your recommendation and the reasons for it. In addition as you don't recommend any new sites in Poringland I don't see how you could recommend any sites in Caistor St edmund.
I totally support your recommendation and the reasons for it. In addition as you don't recommend any new sites in Poringland I don't see how you could recommend any sites in Caistor St edmund.
Support
Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations
Representation ID: 19898
Received: 10/02/2020
Respondent: Mr DAVID GOODERHAM
(Changed from object to support as respondent is actually supporting the categorisation of the site as unreasonable)
This is an unsustainable development given the known flooding risks in the area. In addition Caistor Lane cannot support the additional traffic which these proposals will inevitably create. The promise of a school is nothing less than a bribe to support the application. A school on this site is too far removed from the majority of housing in the area and would inevitably result in a major over capacity of traffic .
This is an unsustainable development given the known flooding risks in the area. In addition Caistor Lane cannot support the additional traffic which these proposals will inevitably create. The promise of a school is nothing less than a bribe to support the application. A school on this site is too far removed from the majority of housing in the area and would inevitably result in a major over capacity of traffic .
Support
Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations
Representation ID: 20014
Received: 20/02/2020
Respondent: Miss Sarah Mann
I agree this site is unsuitable, 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. This site would disrupt the relatively disguised edge that the village has on this approach and would merge settlements too far.
I agree this site is unsuitable, 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. This site would disrupt the relatively disguised edge that the village has on this approach and would merge settlements too far.
Support
Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations
Representation ID: 21167
Received: 16/03/2020
Respondent: Mr john Phillips
(Changed from object to support as respondent is actually supporting the categorisation of the site as unreasonable in the GNLP)
I object to this site for the reasons stated. Caistor Lane is a country road which is already dangerous due to the amount of traffic arising from the overdevelopment of Poringland. In addition there is no need to destroy natural habitat and Norfolk countryside to develop a so called "country park" - better to leave the countryside as it is. There are already walking routes in this area at the Roman town and High Ash Farm.
I object to this site for the reasons stated. Caistor Lane is a country road which is already dangerous due to the amount of traffic arising from the overdevelopment of Poringland. In addition there is no need to destroy natural habitat and Norfolk countryside to develop a so called "country park" - better to leave the countryside as it is. There are already walking routes in this area at the Roman town and High Ash Farm.
Object
Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations
Representation ID: 21196
Received: 16/03/2020
Respondent: Glavenhill Limited
Agent: Lanpro Services Ltd
Glavenhill Limited object to the site being categorised as an 'unreasonable' site and continue to promote it as a suitable, available and deliverable development opportunity for a new 420 place primary school; a 24ha country park; a site for a community building and local play, sport and recreation facilities; together with 180 residential dwellings.
Please see enclosed representations report for further information.
Glavenhill Limited object to the site being categorised as an 'unreasonable' site and continue to promote it as a suitable, available and deliverable development opportunity for a new 420 place primary school; a 24ha country park; a site for a community building and local play, sport and recreation facilities; together with 180 residential dwellings.
Please see enclosed representations report for further information.
Support
Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations
Representation ID: 21423
Received: 16/03/2020
Respondent: Mr Chris Troise
I support the view that this site is not considered suitable for allocation.
There are already significant planning permissions on small sites across this key service centre in the GNLP which are sufficient to provide its fair contribution to the overall numbers required.
Large and small scale development in this key service centre including several rural parishes during recent years have been such that there has been significant disruption to the lives of ordinary residents.
I cannot comment on every site in my area but, to summarise, I oppose any allocation of further sites in this key service centre.
I support the view that this site is not considered suitable for allocation.
There are already significant planning permissions on small sites across this key service centre in the GNLP which are sufficient to provide its fair contribution to the overall numbers required.
Large and small scale development in this key service centre including several rural parishes during recent years have been such that there has been significant disruption to the lives of ordinary residents.
I cannot comment on every site in my area but, to summarise, I oppose any allocation of further sites in this key service centre.
Support
Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations
Representation ID: 21865
Received: 13/03/2020
Respondent: Caistor St Edmund and Bixley Parish Council
Supports site as unreasonable at present time
With regards to site 0485 (Glavehill, Land North of Caistor Lane), the Parish Council has studied the detailed proposals that have been made and has spoken to Glavenhill, but despite the community benefits that are offered, it does little to address the impact on already-overloaded local roads and services, and indeed will probably worsen matters.
The Transport Note produced by LANPRO sets out three access points on Caistor Lane and outlines the various roadway and footpath widths, however it does not address the major issue of the junction with Norwich Road, Poringland. It is already a major problem getting out of Caistor Lane at peak times, especially if you are wanting to turn right. The magnitude of this problem with the potential of additional cars from 180 homes, and traffic movements generated at peak times needs to be taken into serious consideration. The only car parking spaces appear to be allocated on the proposed community building next door to the school but this is only for 30 vehicles, the question needs to be raised as to what users of the community building do if the car parking spaces are taken up by school parents? Will this result in cars parking in Caistor Lane, adding to the existing cars that park here at peak times to collect children from the High School around the corner. Consideration also needs to be taken in relation to the 200 houses at Brickle Wood Road, a cul-de-sac estate, who all have to access their homes via Caistor Lane.
I am writing to you in my position as Parish Clerk on behalf of Caistor St Edmund and Bixley Parish Council. With reference to the GNLP Regulation 18 Draft consultation Caistor St Edmund and Bixley Parish Councils response is as follows;
Six new sites have been proposed within Caistor St Edmund, and one within Bixley all of which are recommended for rejection. The Parish Council strongly supports the recommendations for rejection for the reasons given in the Draft local plan.
The Parish Council strongly endorses the recommendation in the GNLP not to develop the Poringland/Framingham Earl Key Service Centre beyond the existing site allocations. The infrastructure has reached saturation point and is at full capacity.
With regards to site 0485 (Glavehill, Land North of Caistor Lane), the Parish Council has studied the detailed proposals that have been made and has spoken to Glavenhill, but despite the community benefits that are offered, it does little to address the impact on already-overloaded local roads and services, and indeed will probably worsen matters.
The Transport Note produced by LANPRO sets out three access points on Caistor Lane and outlines the various roadway and footpath widths, however it does not address the major issue of the junction with Norwich Road, Poringland. It is already a major problem getting out of Caistor Lane at peak times, especially if you are wanting to turn right. The magnitude of this problem with the potential of additional cars from 180 homes, and traffic movements generated at peak times needs to be taken into serious consideration. The only car parking spaces appear to be allocated on the proposed community building next door to the school but this is only for 30 vehicles, the question needs to be raised as to what users of the community building do if the car parking spaces are taken up by school parents? Will this result in cars parking in Caistor Lane, adding to the existing cars that park here at peak times to collect children from the High School around the corner. Consideration also needs to be taken in relation to the 200 houses at Brickle Wood Road, a cul-de-sac estate, who all have to access their homes via Caistor Lane.