GNLP0379

Lingwood will not be able to handle anymore cramped in houses. I moved out of Norwich to get away from busy life, loads of people. Lingwood is a nice quite village, if houses are built it would ruin what I and many others came here for. Let alone the scenery and wildlife. It will completely destroy and ruin so many lives. Let alone be so dangerous to even consider something like this in the location. The church should be seen from a far to the existing residents. Not hideous poorly built houses blocking the views.

The road network into lingwood is already not suitable for the level of traffic. The Blofield Road Lingwood, is single carriageway relying on passing places, is the main route from lingwood to the A47 westbound, is used as a cut through to avoid Burlingham A47 traffic, and recently has seen a fatal car accident. To expect further road pressures given an ambiguous number of houses off post office road is a significant danger.
Lingwood does not have its own GP surgery and an overprescribed schooling system.
Will destroy views of grade 1 Church from the rest of the village.

For me to be remotely happy with this suggested housing plan the following needs to be addressed. Blofield and Acle roads into the village are widened to support your additional traffic. Additional investment to the local area, i.e. Dr's surgery, funds for schools, and amenities. Recent heavy rainfall caused flooding to Blofield and Acle roads, and around the corner of post office road and station road, this would need to be addressed to ensure accessibility to the village.
Also it will devalue mine and neighboring properties due to loss of scenic countryside views over the parish church and local farmland.

I don't believe this should be the preferred site in Lingwood. It is further from the shops (Spar and chip shop), the school and the Village hall than the reasonable alternative "Land east of Buckenham Lane and west of Buckenham Road (GNLP0296)".

ref:proposed development GNLP0379 North of Post Office Road
strongly object to this development of 50 -60 dwellings.
Access would be onto Post Office Road - which at the moment is narrow and thus reduces the speed of traffic as in place two vehicles cannot pass. There is a mature hedgerow and mature trees along the boundary of this site therefore if the road was widened it would require the removal of these resulting in a wider road and traffic speed would increase. Added to this- access to the village Millennium Green (village park/playground) off the same road would be a danger in itself to children/pets/pedestrians.
Views across to the church would also be lost and the visual rural setting of the church itself
Why does the majority of development have to be on one site? other sites proposed ie GNLP0296 and indeed sites in Strumpshaw would actually be nearer or no difference in distance to the shop/school/community centre.
The alternative site GNLP0380 would be a better site even if it was extended to the west (if not considered large enough) it would be much easier access to the A47 and thus traffic would be less within the area around the Millennium Park and the village itself

ref: GNLP0379
further comment to previous submission - there are already highway surface water flooding problems Post Office Close junction with Post Office Road

I object to this development :-
1. The view of the Church which is the heart of the village would be severely compromised.
2. Widening the road would not slow traffic but increase it, being located by the park would have safety issues.
3.The new exit will increase congestion with people already using the park.
4.The proposed 100 plus houses would overwhelm the School.
5. Mature oak trees with preservation orders will be felled.
6. Field floods.
GNLP0380 would have none of the above issues and walking distance to School, shop is insignificantly further, exit straight on to Blofield Road.

The preferred site GNLP0379 planned for Lingwood has not been sufficiently thought through, access roads are unable to cope with the addition traffic that would be generated by this development. In places it is only one vehicle width, it is a main bus route, a school bus route as well as one of the main routes into the village. The infrastructure is not sufficient for the village now, we have no doctors surgery, our closest at Brundall and Blofield are struggling under the strain already. Lingwood School and shop also falls into this category

Building here will spoil lovely views across the fields to the Church. It will also increase traffic into the village down already dangerous, narrow roads. We should be preserving the countryside not destroying it.

Building cheap, ugly homes here will destroy wildlife & villagers enjoyment of their own homes. Not to mention the fact the village does not have enough facilities to cope with more people moving in. Have the courage to challenge the higher powers who appear to ignore the voice of the ordinary people who chose to live in a rural village away from the crowds of the city and wish to preserve the countryside around them!

We have a church right next to proposed site. Also the access to Lingwood is not very good now. More houses mean more traffic which is Really a bad move.

Ordinarily do not object to new housing. However, given the volume proposed, the village infrastructure is already becoming inadequate. Some examples are roads into and out of the village to the A47, village shop, (need something larger with more parking), school numbers, we have no medical surgery thus putting further strain on Brundall Medical Practice - to name a few.

We do not have the resource in the village for this. A tiny shop, no doctors surgery, the school capacity and not to mention the traffic it will create. This will also be a terrible eyesore on the beautiful countryside we have left in the village with the plans to build off Buckenham road also!!

During this winter area had two lots of flooding with comment from Fire Brigade drainage system in the area cannot cope so adding more housing would lead to extreme trouble. Church road due to be closed when the A47 is duelled will put more pressure on totally unsuitable roads as it is. Village school cannot take anymore village children so would encourage yet more travelling on these roads. No GP's and one small shop with bad parking - yet more travelling on unsuitable roads. Being told to cut down on car usage yet this would increase usage.

In the 50 years that I have lived in Lingwood, the number of dwellings has increased considerably, but the road network around the village has not been upgraded to meet the needs of the increase in traffic. Also, the local health centres, and utility services have not grown to meet the needs of the growing population.

The main issue with this proposal concerns village infrastructure. The main access road into the village - Blofield Road - is a country lane. I don’t believe it would cope with the inevitable increase in traffic. There have already been fatal accidents in the area. Also with the increase in households, there must be a medical practice established in Lingwood to ease the burden on surrounding practices. Finally the local primary school will face an increase in numbers that I’m not sure it can sustain.

I am concerned about the additional traffic which would be generated along Post Office Road and Blofield Road. There would also be the loss of first class agricultural land. In addition, I don’t think the local school would find it easy to cope, and lack of medical provision is an issue. The general infrastructure needs to be upgraded if more houses are to be built.

Main reason for objection to any further development in Lingwood at present is the infrastructure access into the village from A47 is getting more dangerous and the Norfolk highways dept are not taking our concerns seriously. Major road improvements need to happen before allowing an increase into residential development can be considered.
The proposed dualling of the A47 at North Burlingham will decrease road access into Lingwood, but will increase traffic flow on very narrow roads with tight bends.
My concerns are safety access primarily, without adequate footpaths.
Summary more homes, more traffic, more less safety!!

Road accessibility into Lingwood needs to be upgraded before any residential development proceeds.
Public safety should be paramount!
All access into Lingwood is very poor just narrow country lanes with no pathways.
Doctors surgeries at Brundall and Blofield are both already struggling to cope, without the added pressure of current developments taking place in Blofield, Brundall and Strumpshaw.
Drainage issues at present are already a huge concern in Lingwood and Strumpshaw at times of heavy rainfall, water struggles to get away. Indicative of recent development.

The site is unreasonable due to the narrow access roads and more importantly the access roads to the village which are highly dangerous and often single track with passing places (Blofield Road). In addition to this there will be increased traffic volumes from both the proposed new housing development but also the permanent closure of Lingwood Road folowing the expansion and dualing of the A47.
Please be clear that I do not object to the development but I must object to no indication of any better transport links to the village, in fact quite the opposite.

Too many houses put on this area will exceed the villages capacity for country living and turn it into urban sprawl. The local existing infrastructure will not support the resultant influx of people. Our narrow country lanes are not suitable to accommodate the extra generated traffic To widen them would destroy many ancient oak trees and wildlife. The proposed land does not drain easily and in the past the sewage pumping station in the corner of this plot has failed through over capacity resulting in flooding gardens with raw sewage on Neves Close which is adjacent to this plot. Our new school may find it difficult to accommodate the extra pupils generated by an increase in village population as a result of these plans. In addition there are no medical facilities available in Lingwood and the ones available in neighbouring villages are already over subscribed.

Lingwood does not have the infrastructure to cope
The area and no of houses have greatly increased since original plan
What has happened to land of Chapel Road for housing development.
Roads not adequate to cope with increased traffic.Too narrow
Not medical services in Village.

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.

Blofield road is too narrow to accommodate more traffic, one recent fatality. Post Office Road has a constant flow of traffic and at several points cannot accommodate two widths of cars, this doesn’t stop idiots driving along there well over the speed limit, it is right by children’s park and will cause more traffic. Road and field are regularly suffering flooding which will increase if large old trees are felled and drainage problems not sorted.Views of medieval church will be lost. Local doctors are severely stretched, current waiting time to see my own doctor is 4 weeks.

1. Access is difficult to / from the A47 down dangerous and narrow roads.
2. Widening Post Office Road would increase traffic speed past a children's playground.
3. Traffic will increase tremendously through the village and particularly in Post Office Road.
4. The village infrastructure will be severely strained. A small school, a small shop (0.6 miles away) and no doctors' surgery, etc.
5. High grade agricultural ground, trees and the view of the Church will be lost.
6. Surface water flooding and sewage problems will undoubtedly occur.
GNLP0296 is a better option overcoming many of the above problems.

As a resident of Lingwood I am concerned about the impact a new housing development would have on the village and it’s residents. As a parent a major concern is the impact on road safety as widening the road will increase the speed of traffic passing the Millennium Green Park and travelling along post office road, where we live with two young children. I am also concerned about the increased traffic new housing will bring to Blofield Road, which can already be dangerous as there are several points where two cars cannot pass each other. The infrastructure of the village is also a significant concern as the village has no medical facilities and surely new residents will put further pressure on Blofield Medical Practice. My children will be starting school within the next few years and I am also concerned about the number of new residents and the impact on the school. Having moved from Norwich just 18 months ago to raise our children in the countryside, with small class sizes at school and in a location we consider to be good in terms of road safety - a new development comprises all of these things. The view of the Grade 1 Medieval Church from Post Office Road is loved by us as much as the other residents and it would be heart-breaking to see that go forever. I am also concerned about the impact on the environment and the loss of mature oak trees.

I am against this proposed sight, As there are enough houses going up in and around Lingwood. I have lived here for nearly 20 years and I moved here as I wanted to live in a village!!, which you will be taking away from us. This village will be unable to cope, the local school is already full to capacity, no medical facilities and it will bring more traffic and pollution. With the widening of the road this will increase speed and the safety of the children with the millennium green park being on this road.

I am against the proposed against further housing, it will obstruct my view of the local church, It would increase pollution and we haven't got the infer structure.Nor have the the school, doctors to cope with any new homes

Re road flooding outside, 37, 39 Post Office Rd. Twice in the last 5 years following heavy rain the road has flooded but not quite overflowed into the lower properties. However, wash from passing vehicles did affect them, 39 had to dam their garage as water was getting in it. Build on the field opposite and it is likely the problem will be exacerbated.
Scientists are suggesting we reduce animal farming and increase arable farming to help combat climate change so it seems irresponsible to concrete over high quality land when plenty of lower grade land is available.

1. Roads increased congestion and safety concerns.
2. Flooding and sewage issues - existing pipe work in Lingwood already inadequate. Flooding issues in village so more concrete, pressure on services and climate change may lead to increased problems.
3. The church vista, in the strategic gap would be compromised.
4. Loss of mature trees, disruption to wildlife and what is happening to the footpath?
5. Limited resources in village.
6. Ambiguous nature of plans. Proposal for 50-60 houses could be a underestimate of what is built. Will the housing built be appropriate for the housing needs of the population?