GNLP2153

Showing comments and forms 1 to 10 of 10

Support

Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations

Representation ID: 19835

Received: 04/02/2020

Respondent: Mr Peter Harrison

Representation Summary:

I fully agree with this being designated as an
‘unreasonable’ site & totally unsuitable for housing
development.

The original application for development (2017/2652) was
unanimously rejected by the South Norfolk Development
Management Committee in 2018.

It is outside the development boundary and would impact
on the rural aspect of this area in relation to size & density compared with adjacent existing development.

Views from the Bungay Road would be severely affected and detract from the valued aspect of this highly rural part of Poringland. Access is from a narrow country lane with the necessity to remove a large part of an Important Hedgerow that strongly fulfils historical & ecological criteria for retention under the Hedgerow Regulations Act 1997.

Full text:

I fully agree with this being designated as an
‘unreasonable’ site & totally unsuitable for housing
development.

The original application for development (2017/2652) was
unanimously rejected by the South Norfolk Development
Management Committee in 2018.

It is outside the development boundary and would impact
on the rural aspect of this area in relation to size & density compared with adjacent existing development.

Views from the Bungay Road would be severely affected and detract from the valued aspect of this highly rural part of Poringland. Access is from a narrow country lane with the necessity to remove a large part of an Important Hedgerow that strongly fulfils historical & ecological criteria for retention under the Hedgerow Regulations Act 1997.

The Applicant wishes to change the traffic priority of Burgate Lane to benefit the future residents of any site development. Statistics indicate a greater number of vehicles would suffer a disruptive junction to benefit these future residents. The current application to develop is for a lesser number of dwellings and therefore renders this an even stronger concern.

Traffic created by any development would have a detrimental impact on the local environs which is currently under pressure from recent housing development and no highway improvements. Resources for existing residents regarding schooling, medical care & public transport are not robust enough to withstand heavy housing development in the forseeable future. Life for existing residents would be adversely impacted by any development on this site contrary to requirements of the National Policy Planning Framework. For these reasons, that closely align with the views of the Councils, I endorse the ‘unreasonable’ definition applied to consideration for development.

Support

Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations

Representation ID: 19836

Received: 01/02/2020

Respondent: Mr David Reeder

Representation Summary:

In support of the non allocation of site;
I strongly object to the speculative proposal of Land South of Burgate Lane (GNLP2153) for a number of important issues, all of which would have a negative impact on the local community and environment.
See full text

Full text:

I strongly object to the speculative proposal of Land South of Burgate Lane (GNLP2153) for a number of important issues, all of which would have a negative impact on the local community and environment. First of all this proposal falls outside the South Norfolk Development boundary and is totally the wrong development in the wrong area. Poringland has also received more than enough housing under the current Local Plan and any further development outside the development/settlement boundary is unwarranted. The proposed site is prime rural agricultural land, and it should not be taken out of agricultural production. As stated in the Poringland Neighbourhood plan, this area should be protected.

The local services in Poringland and surrounding villages are at breaking point. The primary school is at capacity and has no further space for development on the existing site. The High School is full in two year groups, with a handful of spaces available in other years. The doctor’s surgeries are also at capacity, with a four week wait for appointments, and a lack of GPs.

A further serious concern with this application is the impact it would have on increased traffic and the resulting safety issues. Burgate Lane is too narrow and unsuitable for such an increased volume of traffic. As a single carriageway road of between 3.6m and 4.2m, Burgate Lane is unsuitable for the addition of traffic to and from a new house estate, given that each house is likely to have two cars, with most residents working outside Poringland it will mean more cars queuing on the A146 or B1332 increasing pollution. Access from any direction would involve using these narrow roads not capable of handling the increased traffic. Burgate Lane towards Alpington is narrow and only 2 way in some places. It simply cannot cope with increased traffic which will be in excess of 1000 vehicle movements a day as a minimum from the site. The junction of Burgate Lane with Upgate and Hall Road has poor visibility and cannot be improved as the land either side is in private ownership. The road is busy particularly during rush hours as it is used as a short cut. This would have a knock on impact on the proposals that residents would walk to local services and schools – being well over a mile from the main service centre of the village, it is likely that residents would drive, which would result in a significant increase in traffic journeys. The site is isolated from the main development of the conurbation and would result in residents of the new development not being integrated with the rest of the village.

There has been scant regard to the unique geology and drainage issues in Poringland, which are well documented and which have made Poringland the subject of a Sustainable Urban Drainage Strategy. The plans identify a key ditch between two fields as dry, I can assure you this is not the case as it runs along my boundary. Percolation or attenuation ponds are not a suitable solution in this known flood risk area. The Poringland SUDS seeks to prevent surface water being infiltrated into the ground since the perched water table means that water will emerge as springs in other parts of the village. The application has not demonstrated an understanding of the unique needs of the area.

There has also not been a proper wildlife survey conducted, as those of us who live and walk around here know there are many species living in and around the site, including newts, pheasants, partridges, bats, owls, kites, deer, all of which would have their habitat destroyed if this development is allowed to proceed. Thereby destroying the natural environment of this rural area and also destroying it’s ancient hedgerows.

Comment

Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations

Representation ID: 19843

Received: 04/02/2020

Respondent: Mr Robert Mills

Representation Summary:

I fully agree that this site (GNLP 2153) in Burgate Lane is totally unsuitable for new residential development, for the reasons given in this document and elaborated on in my own previous submissions both to this draft Plan and to Gladman's two planning applications (the first rejected by South Norfolk Council in April 2019 and the second yet to be determined).

Full text:

I fully agree that this site (GNLP 2153) in Burgate Lane is totally unsuitable for new residential development, for the reasons given in this document and elaborated on in my own previous submissions both to this draft Plan and to Gladman's two planning applications (the first rejected by South Norfolk Council in April 2019 and the second yet to be determined).

Support

Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations

Representation ID: 20008

Received: 20/02/2020

Respondent: Miss Sarah Mann

Representation Summary:

I support this being 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. The local topography with its documented water table issues can not support more development particularly on this section of the village, this site would hugely disrupt the disguised edge that the village has on this exposed approach.

Full text:

I support this being 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. The local topography with its documented water table issues can not support more development particularly on this section of the village, this site would hugely disrupt the disguised edge that the village has on this exposed approach.

Support

Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations

Representation ID: 20162

Received: 28/02/2020

Respondent: Poringland Parish Council

Representation Summary:

Poringland Parish Council supports site GNLP2153 as being an unreasonable site, due to the reasons detailed in the document.

Full text:

Poringland Parish Council supports site GNLP2153 as being an unreasonable site, due to the reasons detailed in the document.

Support

Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations

Representation ID: 20235

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Mrs Sandra La Chapelle

Representation Summary:

I support the view that this site is not suitable for development. The access issues, the negative impact on wildlife and the environment and the drainage issues make this site unsuitable for development . It is primary agricultural land and should continue to be used for that purpose.

Full text:

I support the view that this site is not suitable for development. The access issues, the negative impact on wildlife and the environment and the drainage issues make this site unsuitable for development . It is primary agricultural land and should continue to be used for that purpose.

Support

Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations

Representation ID: 20484

Received: 08/03/2020

Respondent: Mr Duncan Rush

Representation Summary:

I support the view that this site is not suitable for allocation for development due to policy, access, environmental, visual impact and safety issues.

Full text:

The site currently falls 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 this site 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 the site will be too great, as will the visual impact on the local area not least from the Bungay Rd looking North.

I firmly support the view that this site is inappropriate for any development

Support

Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations

Representation ID: 20490

Received: 08/03/2020

Respondent: Mr Terence Mann

Representation Summary:

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.

Full text:

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.

Support

Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations

Representation ID: 21885

Received: 12/03/2020

Respondent: G Newman

Representation Summary:

I endorse and fully support the Greater Norwich Planning Policy Team’s decisions and reasoning for not including this site for housing development

Full text:

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.”

Object

Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations

Representation ID: 22452

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Gladman Developments

Representation Summary:

3.5.1 If allocated, the development of Land at Burgate Lane, Poringland would deliver significant benefits
to the local area and wider community, this includes:
 The development of up to 98 dwellings, providing for a wide range of tenure, size and types
of new homes;
 Up to 36% of the development will be affordable;
 2.56ha of Green Infrastructure including new planting resulting in an increase in
biodiversity;
 5 live/work units to meet the needs set out in the Neighbourhood Plan;
 Child play provision inclusive of a locally equipped play area;
 Integrated walking trails that will connect into the public right of way system to the south
of the site, and;
 Sustainable transport improvements.

Full text:

Please find attached the representations of Gladman made specifically in relation to our land interest in Poringland.