GNLP0379

1. Field floods - increasing rainfall with climate change and concreting over land will only make this worse.
2. Road safety and increased traffic. Especially when A47 is closed and traffic rerouted.
3. The church vista, in the strategic gap would be compromised.
4. Plan is outside the existing settlement boundaries.
5. The capacity of the village to cope with an increased population. Higher volume of cars, pressure on school and three local medical practices.
6. Loss of agricultural land and mature trees. No mention of plans for footpath.
7. Ambiguous nature of plan.

40+ years ago, homes were built that people wanted to live in, 1 car was the norm but the drive could accommodate 3, the road was wide enough for cars to pass comfortably, drainage was maintained, and health professionals were able to see you.

Now, homes are built by greed and back handers that people have no choice but to buy, where at least 2 cars is the norm but only 1.5 spaces are allocated for parking, roads are only wide enough for 1 car as the rest of the space is taken up by parked cars half up on the footways. Flooding is more common place due to restricted drainage channels. Doctors and dentists are available if you’re lucky and after a considerable wait!

Surrounding access infrastructure needs to be included in growth plans, lower speed limits won’t affect flow, only frustration.

Increased capacity of area = increase in people movement, which require support services.

Despite government targets, we are a rural area hence public transport has a long way to go before it replaces the more convenient alternative of using your own vehicle.

My views on the statements made in the draft plan re the preferred site "GNLP 3079" are as follows
1. "Housing to be focussed on the part of the site fronting Post Office Road with landscaping to the north to minimise impact of the development on the wider landscape and Grade 1 listed church" Response: The residents of Lingwood will have their view of the grade 1 medieval church and the surrounding farmland obscured/lost by the proposed new development. This will spoil the character of the village
2. "The site is centrally located in the village, adjacent to the existing settlement limit" Response: What advantage is there to the site being centrally located in the village? There is an identified reasonable alternative site (land east of Buckenham Lane and west of Buckenham Rd - GNLP0296) which could take the whole of the proposed 50-60 houses (and more). The proposed number of houses (50-60) could also be achieved from the other reasonable alternative (land west of Blofield Rd - GNLP0380) combined with the original smaller proposed development on part of the Post Office Rd field. Both of these options would reduce the impact of the additional houses on the village as a whole.
3. "The site has a safe walking route to Lingwood Primary School" Response: As there is no way that a footpath can be added to the north side of Post Office Rd (from the edge of the field opposite Post Office Close to the start of the existing footpath), the only "safe" route to the school will involve crossing Post Office Rd opposite the Millenium Green/Post Office Close, already a busy area with speeding issues even before the addition of the proposed new development. At a recent parish council meeting we were told that traffic calming measures might be introduced but we were also told that, as Lingwood has no street lights, traffic calming measures cannot be introduced.
4. "A larger site, along the whole road frontage, would enable road widening to an acceptable standard and encourage a reduction in vehicle speeds" Response: How can the road be widened without removing the mature oak trees? How will widening the road possibly result in a reduction in vehicle speeds - there are numerous speeding "offences" along the widest part of Post Office Rd already and the only thing that (sometimes) slows these ignorant drivers down is the narrowing of the road between the Millennium Green and the field in question. Widening the road will almost certainly lead to increased speeds and increased danger to residents, particularly children crossing Post Office Rd from the proposed new development in order to get to school or to access the Millennium Green.
5. "Scheme design to address surface water flood risk on part of site adjacent to the boundary to the south" Response: What about the impact on the existing surface water problem on Post Office Rd outside No' 39 and round into Post Office Close every time it rains? Building on the field and removing natural drainage is likely to make this problem even worse.
6. "More homes may be accommodated, subject to an acceptable design and layout being achieved" Response: This clearly suggests that there is an intention to build more than the 50-60 houses referred to in the GNLP
More specific objections to the proposed development are as follows:
1. The access into Lingwood via Blofield Rd is already dangerous and the extra traffic that would be generated by this proposed development would make it even more so
2. Once the A47 duelling has gone ahead, the main route into Lingwood will be via Lodge Rd thereby forcing all the traffic to the proposed new development along Station Rd and Post Office Rd, increasing the already heavy traffic flow. Development of an alternative site (GNLP0499) would prevent this
3. It is doubtful that the school could cope with the increased number of pupils, particularly if, as implied, more than the proposed 50-60 houses are built
4. The lack of a doctor's surgery in Lingwood will mean increased pressure on the already busy local surgeries

I consider the site proposed for development on post office road unsuitable for the following reasons,
1. the land is of good quality agricultural type,
2.the development would ruin an historic view of the beautiful Church.
3.the road is already a busy thoroughfare for traffic in and out of Lingwood and the reduction in the width of the road at the Millennium Green does help to reduce the speed of the traffic, if the road was widened instead of slowing the traffic it would increase the speed dramatically at the very point of the new development.
4.there is already flooding on the post office road and this will only get worse if houses are built on the field as seen in other parts of the country recently.
5.When the new Burlingham dualling is completed the traffic coming into Lingwood will have to use the new junction at the Acle Road turn off bringing the traffic all the way through the village to get to the proposed site in post office road and all the way out again if travelling to great Yarmouth.
6.How is a 2 metre path to be constructed and where ?
7.Why have the two other sites 0449/0067 been dispelled, because of the developments being opposite each other the main services would be easier to install, being that side of Lingwood would reduce the through traffic in Lingwood itself giving quicker and safer access to the main dual carriageway. A new footpath could be easily created and connected to the footpath a short distance away which gives safe walking access to the school. This area lends itself to further expansion in the future. Emergency services would have quicker access to these developments as they will have to use the new junction to gain access to Lingwood when the dualling at Burlingham is completed when coming from Norwich.
8. I have lived in Lingwood for nearly 14 years and have known and been here on occasions for nearly 50 years and in all that time I have seen it expand from a small village into quite a large village but in all that time we still have the same small winding roads coming into the village, I feel instead of increasing traffic, caused by building more and more house we first need to upgrade the roads and address the flooding issues.

Re GNLP Norwich Local Plan Vended Site Preference for Development in Lingwood on the north side of Post Office Road.

As a resident of XXXX and the proprietor of the property XXXX I must write to object to the proposed application for allocation to land abutting Post Office Road for development land.

Any development will immediately impact on my privacy with properties overlooking my garden.

The impact of the visual amenity of the hedgerow that runs the length of my western boundary would be affected.

As I understand it my property will be directly affected with unconfirmed information on that my front hedges on the southern boundary of my property will have to be removed
to create a footpath for pedestrians. Upon what authority can my boundary be interfered with.

The vista of the Grade 1 medieval church pf St. Peter's over open farmland would be gone forever. Based on this factor alone this should be the last site chosen rather than the first preferred site in the village.

The visual landscape character and the view from Post Office Road to St. Peter's church and the landscape character value:-
A. Seek to conserve the landscape setting of Manor Houses, Halls and churches.
B. Seek to maintain key views towards churches which are often key landscape features.
D. Seek to ensure new development does not disrupt the uninterrupted skyline within the area.
E. Once the view to the church is gone, it is gone forever, it should be a setting to preserve for future generations.

Building on the land with the only access and egress onto Post Office Road will impact on the road safety of the village. 100 cars plus delivery vehicles will impact on road safety and lead to unreasonable increase in traffic.

Proposed road widening is a potential safety hazard and speed of road
traffic speed will increase. (at the moment the natural narrowing of the road slows the traffic.) speed down Post Office Road causing danger for pedestrians crossing to the Millennium Green play park which also has serious road parking problems.

The proposal has increased considerably in geographical area from 1 to 4 hectares and the erection of 50-60 homes.

It does concern me that the original allocation of GNLP0379 was not notified to me at the time. I would be obliged if would acknowledge and confirm it has been given due consideration.

What is the reason for such a large area being allocated in this part of Lingwood? It is much more reasonable to to use GNLP3080 as the extra vehicles would not need to go through the village. Mature trees would not need to be cut down and land at Neves Close is of a lower grade of farmland than the Post Office Road site. GNLP0379 is grade 1 farmland.

The site of the Old School on Chapel Road should be built on first, and the more desirable option of the Lingwood Parish Council and they also support the development of the Neves Road site for several reasons.

GNLP0379 has flooding at the south of the field and the removal of the ditch is likely to cause flooding on Post Office Road if not addressed.

Lingwood school does not have the capacity for a large number of families to join the school and Lingwood does not have a doctor's surgery. Acle, Blofield and Brundall are severely strained with appointments taking 3 weeks.

Are there any plans to widen Blofield Road which at present is very dangerous with numerous passing places along the route. Access to the village via Lingwood Lane is being closed by the dualling of the A47 Burlingham Bypass. This will increase the traffic using Blofield Road and increase danger. A fatal road accident occured on Blofield Road during February 2020.

The loss of the footpath walk to St. Peter's church from Post Office Road would be a great amenity to villagers.

I cannot see that the allocation of this site for development is in line with the Greater Norwich Local Plan and in particular does not support environmental or infrastructure matters and therefore at this juncture I have no option other than
to object to the proposals.





















.

I object because:

Views of Grade 1 Medieval St. Peters Church will disappear forever.
Road safety issues - children's play park opposite site.
Road widening proposal will not deter but will increase speeding.
Wild life - bats inhabit church and are often seen in the vicinity, also deer.
Roads in and out of the village are already inadequate and dangerous.
When A47 is dualled, Church Road will be closed off, consequently more traffic through village.
This site is high grade agricultural land, why is this being considered for development?
Site slopes down to Post Office Road, flooding is inevitable.

I

This is a busy area with young children. The widening of the road would be a danger to them.

I object for the following reasons:
Infrastructure:
Roads:
- Roads linking Lingwood to the A47 Westbound (Blofield Rd, Heater Lane) are narrow (at times single vehicle width), with bends and prone to flooding. There have been many car accidents and recently a fatality.
- The dualling of the A47 and closure of Lingwood Road will force more traffic through Lingwood and along Post Office Rd.
- If houses are built along Post Office Rd this will add to the increased traffic volume, will cause problems at the junction and long delays.

Schooling:
- sufficient school places? There is currently extra pressure on Lingwood Primary from neighbouring schools who are oversubscribed and further building development in these villages will only add to the demand (Strumpshaw, Blofield and Brundall).
- High schools - lack of parent choice. Lingwood children are no longer getting into Thorpe St. Andrews due to the increase in population in Thorpe's catchment area caused by building development. Only option is Acle Academy or Flegg High Ormiston Academy (10 miles) / Broadland High Ormiston Academy (11 miles away)(long journeys).

Health:
Doctors - it's very difficult to get appointments. Current building development in Acle, Brundall, Strumpshaw and Blofield will make this worse let alone new development in Lingwood..
Dentist - NHS dentist waiting list at Brundall, (we have been on the list for over 18 months). Nearest other NHS dentist is Thorpe St. Andrews.

Safety:
- Recreational Park on Post Office Road, it's likely the road access onto the new estate will be near the park due to the height of the land.
- Safety issues around children crossing the road to get to the park from the new development (busy road due to Lingwood Road closure).
- If roads are widened it is likely that traffic speeds will increase. There is a growing number of families along Post Office Road. A lot of pedestrians use Post Office Road to access the park/school.

Environmental:
- Increased flood risk. Land on the suggested site is sloped and is approx 1.5metres above road level at the Chapel Road end. The road currently floods but with building there will be less natural drainage available and risk of further flooding. Roads will need to be built on the new development which will be sloped due to the land - will this cause more flooding onto Post Office Road?
Trees - numerous tree species along PO Road at risk. The oak trees along Post Office Road are approximately 200 years old and have TPOs. Home to various species and birds. They have been a part of the Lingwood landscape for centuries.
Wildlife - Deer, foxes, rabbits, hedgerow birds and insects etc - destruction of their habitat. Dualling of the A47 will force them further into Lingwood but we are destroying their habitat with building.
- Loss of the church view for people living along Post Office Road and those walking - the only view of the church from the village.

I object to the development, the GNLP planners need to take into account building developments/road developments in the neighbouring villages and area and their impact on the services and infrastructure - not just consider developments in isolation!! There needs to be expansion in schools, health services and infrastructure (i.e. roads, sewerage) before this area takes any more building developments.
The main objection reasons are:
- lack of infrastructure in the village and access to health services (building development in neighbouring villages is already making this worse).
- the primary school doesn't have many spaces available and neighbouring village developments are likely to take these places. Kids have to go to school somewhere! High school access? - Acle is to have major building development and Lingwood children can no longer get into Thorpe St.Andrew High school.
- Sewerage and flooding - can our antiquated drainage and sewerage systems cope? Post Office Road already floods - will building on this land make it worse?
- Loss of prime agricultural land - land is already being lost to the dualling of the A47. What about protecting our local farming communities?
- Loss of habitat for the local wildlife and destruction of ancient trees to widen the road/enable the development.
- Church - view of the church from the village and park will be lost.
- Road safety - access to the A47 is poor and traffic will increase along Post Office Road due to the closure of Lingwood Road. Children will be crossing the road to get to the Park.
- Road widening - surely this will increase traffic speeds? If widened I also believe cars will park along Post Office Road to visit the park along with residents/visitors of the development due to lack of car parking spaces on new developments - this will cause congestion and there is the risk that children will cross in-between parked cars getting to/from the park and not be seen.
- Shops - yes, we have a Spar but further parking would need to be provided to prevent congestion/blocking of residents' drives along Norwich Rd.
- I understand the need for housing development and affordable housing but do it somewhere with the infrastructure to cope. In addition there are plenty of brown-field sites, let's protect our natural environment and trees for our children!

I have a lot of concerns regarding the suggested development.

The main one is the fact that the village doesn’t have a doctors surgery; those in the nearby villages are already at capacity. Another huge concern is the lack of schooling infrastructure we have; we can not accommodate all these new families. The church is a wonderful view which will be completely compromised too, and these are just the tip of the iceberg!

I have multiple concerns regarding the proposed development above.
My primary concern is an environmental issue which is particularly poignant this year with regards to all the flooding we have seen. This field is very often flooded and under standing water. I understand from the plans to place the road across one of the ditches which is important for drainage and I am therefore very concerned as to the risk of flooding on the new development and the disruption this would cause the future residents. You also need to consider if this important and large area is turned into residential area, this water would drain into the surrounding area/existing village and lead to damage here.
My second concern is also environmental and is about the important and protected habitat as well as some of the resident trees which are extremely valuable both from an aesthetic point of view but also to the ecosystem.
A third concern is one of traffic and congestion in the area. The current villages supply roads are thin and not designed to cope with major traffic. The increase in residents would not only come with an increase in traffic from the new residents, but would also incur increases in traffic for the increases in school/shops etc in the area. Couple this with the proximity of the new development to an existing park and pedestrian and cycle traffic, this would inevitably lead to increased risk of road accidents, the like have which have already been seen locally with devastating consequence.
I hope you take my concerns seriously when considering your actions.

I object to the proposed development of this site, however if we are to meet the housing targets which are forced upon our village cluster, a partial development of this site may be a reasonable compromise that I could support.

I understand that GNLP0379 is proposed for allocation over a larger area than previously submitted, with development along the whole road frontage to permit the widening of Post Office Road. A linear parkland to the north is also proposed to mitigate the impact on the church.

I believe this enlarged proposal is incorrect for the following reasons:

1: Widening Post Office Road would not encourage a reduction in vehicle speeds, on the contrary, it would increase them. The present width and layout of the road naturally slows vehicles, especially in the section alongside the village green where cars have to stop to permit oncoming traffic to pass.

2: Development along the whole road frontage would obliterate the views from Post Office Road and toward the church across open farmland. This open view has been enjoyed by the residents of Lingwood for generations. The proposed parkland to the north of the site is insufficient as it would only preserve views of the church from behind the proposed development.

3: Development along the whole road frontage and widening Post Office Road would mean the felling of several mature trees. This is unacceptable, the trees must not be felled. Felling would be a great loss of biodiversity and the character of mature trees in the landscape.

Therefore, I suggest that a development to the eastern end of the site, larger than the previous submission, yet smaller than the current one, could be acceptable as an alternative development to meet the housing allocation for the cluster subject to the following conditions:

1: Post Office Road is not widened.
2: The mature trees along Post Office Road are retained.
3: The western end of the site is left open in its entirety to preserve the view to the church from Post Office Road.

Please see the modified site plan which is attached with this submission.

This site is not the preferred site. Views of the medieval church will be compromised if the whole width of the site is used. This is Grade 1 agricultural land so it would be preferable to use a smaller area to the right for building, as per the original plan, and parkland to the left of the site. The widening of Post Office Road would take away the natural traffic calming effect it has at present, we can’t have traffic calming measures put in as we are a dark village. Flooding, drains, sewers are already an issue in the area.
The figure of 50 - 60 can be reduced if we use the brownfield site at the Old School Site on Chapel Road, (outline 22-25). The first permission 20140979 was an outline permission given on 22/4/2015 so this would have lapsed on 21/4/2015. The later permission 20190278, again outline, was given permission on 16/10/2019. The GNLP housing figures are based on the permissions as at 1 /4/2019; so the former school site was not included in the GNLP figures (as the first permission had lapsed and the second permission had not been given). Therefore it should be taken into account in considering the scale of development in Lingwood. With the original permission, Lingwood & Burlingham Parish Council were given the Nursery Building to try to encourage a Doctors Surgery to service the Village, this has been taken away.
With any development in Lingwood, Blofield Road will need to be made wider instead of narrow with passing places. Increased housing of 50 - 60 on top of our 44 commitment will be too much for the School to take.

This is the only site with an aesthetic view of the Village’s Grade 1 Medieval Church with a view over open farmland. The view of the Church can currently be enjoyed from Neves Close and Post Office road. This build would ruin the heritage and history of the village by blocking the view over the fields to the Church. It is such an important part of the village that the Church and open field feature on each side of the Lingwood Village Sign. The field on this site has the highest grade agricultural land as opposed to the other sites.

Accessibly in and out of the village is currently poor. The traffic through Blofield road will be significantly increased after closing the exit onto the A47 when the road is duelled (Church Road through to Lingwood Road then A47). Having more cars flow out onto Post Office road to Blofield road will massively impact traffic in Lingwood. Both roads opposite this site, Church Road and Blofield Road are dangerous single lane roads with limited spaces for passing. Being a rural village the roads are also used a lot by farmers. The spaces on the lanes can only fit two cars pulling in and a tractor down these lanes means cars would have to reverse down the road to allow tractors to pass which is an obvious danger. The park and children’s playing field is opposite this site. Currently the roads speed is only controlled as two cars can’t get passed the lane at the same time. If Post Office road is duelled it will increase the speed in traffic making the road near the park unsafe. Also currently children don’t cross the road here, the footfall of kids crossing the road would increase as there would be a cut through on the new site, increasing chances of a road accident.

The site size has changed several times. The number of houses is far beyond what is needed in the village cluster as there are 44 dwellings to be built at the old school site. There is also room at the old school site to accommodate more new houses.

It is very unclear what the plans would be. Any landscaping or open space would not work. There is already a huge open space opposite this site at the park. The open space would increase noise levels for everyone on Neves Close. The bedrooms on Neves Close are facing the site. New houses would either overlook the bedrooms on Neves Close of the houses on Post office road causing loss of privacy.

In the report attached for our house conveyancing, the area has a low risk of subsidence.
The document stated it would only be a concern if building work was to take place or changes in drainage ect. There is already a lot of flooding and sewage problems around the site. This build would increase everyone’s chances for housing subsidence and is not a suitable site.

Building on the field would be damaging to local wildlife. There are hedgerows and mature oak trees that have there for over 100 years. The field has deer’s as it is access to the other fields. There is also an owl that frequently stays in the trees in this field.

The increased housing numbers in and around Lingwood are too large for the village infrastructure. Lingwood has no doctors surgery and the local medical services are already strained. The local dentists are already not taking on new patients.
The School will be full in the next few years. It is currently 74% full and can only accommodate a small increase of children. There is limited off road parking. The sewers often flood.

Representing Norfolk County Council (as landowner):

Norfolk County Council (NCC) own the land and they are committed in bringing the site forward for a high quality well designed development to deliver the housing growth required in Lingwood identified in the GNLP.

In 2019, NCC undertook initial work to identify the suitability and availability of the site for residential development and to assess whether the site can deliver a sustainable, policy compliant housing scheme.

Land Use

A County Farms tenant currently farms the site. This land is let under a Business Farm Tenancy. Following the grant of planning permission, the land would be available for the County Council to take back to enable development to come forward.

In view of its size, the site would be developed in a two to three-year period following the granting of a detailed planning permission.

Site Characteristics

The site is relatively flat and topography would not offer any constraints to development.

The site has clearly defined boundaries on three sides. The site has the rear gardens of existing housing on the east and west side (with mainly hedge boundaries) and is open to the north. The southern boundary, on the north side of Post Office Road, is marked by a small embankment with a partial hedge and a number of mature trees along the hedge line.

The current lawful use is agricultural. There is no evidence of any unstable ground and previous uses suggest no risk of contamination.

The site falls within flood zone 1 as defined by the Environment Agency.

Furthermore, their mapping identifies no risk of flooding from surface water. The site has been part of the County Farms Estate for many years and in this time, there has been no evidence of flooding.

The adjacent uses to the site are mainly residential. Land south of Post Office Road forms an area of public open space (previously owned by Norfolk County Council). There would be no conflict between the proposed housing development and adjacent residential occupiers, subject to normal design and layout considerations.

Site Access

The site is currently in an agricultural use and access to the fields exists from the north (from Church Road), so development of the preferred allocation will not prejudice access to the agricultural land to the north of the allocation.

In view of the location of the visibility requirement associated with creating a new vehicular access from Post Office Road, the access positioned in the central portion of the Post Office Road frontage would appear appropriate. As part of the scheme, Post Office Road is required to be widened to 5.5 metres with a new footway on its north side (to meet the preferred allocations policy aspiration) and this would require removal of existing hedge and trees on the north side of Post Office Road. In addition, scope may exist to create a new footpath link(s), which would pass through the site to link with Church Road to the north.

Site Services

Infrastructure and services exist on Post Office Road, including main sewers, water supply and electricity. As part of the development of the allocation, electricity, main sewers and water will be extended into the site.

Infrastructure costs are not likely to be abnormal for a greenfield site.

Site capacity

Based on site size, its edge of village location and character of surrounding development, the site would accommodate about 60 dwellings. Within the development, a policy compliant level of affordable housing would be provided.

The boundary to the north is open and therefore needs substantial new planting (with an element strategic woodland) to protect the setting of the Parish Church. An area of open space would be included within the scheme to serve the development.

Attached is an initial layout plan that shows a manner in which the site could be developed.

Viability and Delivery

Delivery of an estate scale of residential development would help support local services and facilities.

NCC’s development company, Repton Property Developments Ltd., will develop the site.

The greenfield nature of the site and the availability of services suggest at this stage no abnormal infrastructure or servicing costs to prevent the timely development of this site.

As a result, at this stage, there is no reason to suggest any obstacle to the delivery of 33% affordable housing (policy compliant on the site).

The above is based on the development of some 60 dwellings, of which 40 would be for open market sale.

We object to the preferred site and do not agree this is the best option to deliver this amount of housing. This site is in a sensitive area in terms of the surrounding countryside, the church and approach to the village along Post Office Road. Development of the allocated site would be at odds with this rural character and would very much limit views of the church from Post Office Road.

There is also an existing recreation ground along Post Office Road. Not only would additional houses in this location present more traffic near to the play area, but any further open space in this area would focus too much public open space in the north of the village, providing an imbalance with the southern end of the village. This site has a HIGH risk of surface water flooding to the frontage of the site and at the access point.

PLEASE REFER TO MY ATTACHMENT DETAILING AUDIT
REVIEW AND DETAILED SUBSTANTIATED OBJECTIONS

Non adherence with stated procedures
Approval for Old School Site for housing not referenced
Significant inconsistencies, flaws, false data used within Assessment process
The Merit of the nomination is discordant with National and Local Planning Guidelines
No assessments made regarding Lingwood’s overall suitability to sustain extra housing demands.
Increasing school capacity, 60 plus houses or more is arbitrary
The divergence from LCA National and Local Planning Guidelines specific to the loss of valuable intrinsic Landscapes
Millennium Green proximity to 0379 presents road safety issues
Loss of Veteran Trees

I would have thought that development to the South of the railway line would be better for the village and the proposed development as most of the facilities (school, shops, village hall) are in that sector. It would still impact existing properties but to a lesser extent than the other preferred options. The impact of building work would probably be less disruptive along Buckenham Lane. However, I still need to be convinced that the village infrastructure can cope with the number of proposed developments in terms of drainage, school places and medical support.

1 The roads to the a 47 are not fit for any more traffic, Blofield Road is too narrow now for safety
2 Loss of grade 1 land and mature trees with hedgerows for wildlife
3 Very dangerous for children coming from new houses to playing field across Post Office Road
4 Doctors are under pressure now
5 Views from the church and footpath will be gone for ever
6 School might have to be enlarged to cope at great expense
7 Post Office Road floods now with heavy rainfall

With the proposed development on Post Office Road in Lingwood, I am concerned about the increase of traffic on this road. Almost half the popuĺation use this road. With the added traffic of a new development, with most houses having more than one car, it would be the busiest road in the village! The route into the village from Blofield is already hazardous due to the narrow road and speeding traffic on occasions. When there is a problem on the A47 , traffic diverts through Lingwood along Post Office Road and then back to the A47 at the White House.

SUMMARY OF OBJECTIONS TO GNLP0379
My objections and comments are divided into three key sections:
1. Key objections to GNLP0379.
2. The impact the increased housing numbers will create for Lingwood.
3. Meeting the Village Cluster requirement.

I have raised a number of what I believe are significant points and therefore would be very grateful if the ‘text’ documentation is read in full.

Thank you

Our infrastructure is already under pressure with barely enough school places as it is and no medical facilities within the village. Widening Post Office Road will increase traffic and speed, concerning considering it runs along the Millennium Green the children’s play park. Having enjoyed for many years the view of our Medieval Church across high grade open farmland - our we to lose that view forever? Opposite me is a mature oak tree, and more in the proposed site, are they to be placed in jeopardy also? The picture here is SO much bigger than just putting more houses up.

Several other sites (such as 0380) are more suitable that the one to the north of Post office road. In particular, there is no mention of the old primary school - is it not best practice to use brownfield sites rather than greenfield? Particularly when things such as the grade 1 listed church, unsuitable road access, and distance from services is considered. Furthermore, the capacity of the school is not currently high enough to cater for the high demand these houses will put on it - further supporting a slightly smaller site. The proposed site will have the largest impact on the village, when there are several other more appropriate and realistic options. The parish council also feel that the proposed site is not suitable.

I have lived in Lingwood for 31 years and have enjoyed the view across the field towards the Medieval church. I am worried the increase in traffic at greater speed by widening of the road , the loss of trees . The medical centre Brundall struggles to cope . The man who owns the property across from the church was denied planning permission to demolish and rebuild because it would prevent the residents of Post Office Road having sight of the church, is this a case of a rule for one, another for Norfolk County Council they own the land.

The proposed development of 50-60 houses on this site raises significant practical, policy & process issues:
• Failures in process & application of policy – including inconsistencies, no change control process to various proposals and incorrect data.
• Disingenuous exclusion of Old School Houses in plan.
• No overall assessment of Lingwood’s ability to sustain 60+ houses, regardless of site (school capacity, traffic capacity etc.) – linked to the nonchalant housing increase on site.
• Post Office Rd Safety – plans to mitigate not substantiated and will include loss of mature trees.
• Loss of valuable intrinsic landscape value.

Objection to GNLP0379 being used for housing for the following reasons.
1. Road safety and increase in volume of transport
2. Flood risk
3. Sewage capacity issues
4. Village Infrastructure / Capacity issues
5. Effect on wildlife and biodiversity – bats, owls, hedgehogs, frogs, deer, pheasants and partridges all enjoyed in our garden which is adjacent to the site+ loss of established trees and hedges
6. Will destroy forever a perfect view of church from Post Office Road
7. Ambiguous nature of plans – we are being expected to comment on a site with no plan
8. Better suited alternatives

I object to the proposal for land as noted under GNLP0379 for the following reasons:
1) The character of the village including the outlook on the church will be detrimentally affected.
2) The need for modification to Post Office Road, and access roads in to the village will undoubtedly involve destruction of mature trees and hedgerows leading to a loss of habitat for wildlife and wild plants. Planting of alternative saplings can never replicate this loss in a reasonable timespan.
3) The pedestrians walking along the footway down Post Office Road and accessing the Millenium park and the School will be put at more risk from traffic as widening the road and modifying the footway will tend to encourage higher traffic speeds.
4) The additional pedestrian and cycle traffic accessing the school will have to cross an unmanned rail crossing which may be less safe than the previous attended crossing in Station Road.
5) The surface drainage will need considerable modification to cope with the expected development and if inadequate may not be expandable to cope once constructed.
6) The existing diverse wildlife will be driven away or worse by any new construction activity and will never return.
7) The existing electricity supply to the area will need uprating to cope with the additional loading and there will be disruption to the existing supplies while this is done.
8) The drinking water supply will need uprating to cope with the existing development which will inevitably need considerable civil engineering work.
9) There is a need for community services such as a Doctors Surgery, Dentist, and additional public transport, these have not been adequately considered.
10) There is one village shop / Post office which serves the community well at present, the increase in development may well give rise to a need for additional provision, it will be necessary to ensure that any future development such as a supermarket has adequate traffic flow, road way and parking provision, but most importantly does not damage the profitability and service given by the existing shop.
11) The existing road access to the area along Blofield Road and Acle Road will need improvement to cope with increased development, this again will cause disruption, and loss of habitat.
12) The original proposal has been increased so that even more housing is expected to be constructed than originally envisaged.
13) The use of good agricultural land which should be preserved should be considered as a last resort, there must be brownfield land and developed sites that could be redeveloped in the near area.
14) During construction there will be noise, dust, air pollution and additional traffic hazards from construction traffic, there will need to be consideration of this as part of the planning process.

GNLP0379 would adversely affect the existing residential area along PO Rd. The road is lower lying than existing developments to the south of PO Rd and is significantly lower than the land proposed for development. This would make it the natural drainage point for surface run off from both developments and risk flooding homes.

The corner of PO road and chapel road is already liable to flooding whenever there is heavy rain. The land in the south west corner of the existing field (next to pump station) is always waterlogged. The high bank currently holds this water back from the road.

The proposal is for residential development to be focused on this very area, leaving the better drained land to the north free for open space. To minimise risk of flooding for existing and new homes it would be more logical to build any new homes to the north of the site, on the high.,well drained, ground. Thus allowing the proposed green space (if sited to the south) to act as natural drainage in the same way the field does currently.

Access roads would be unable to cope with increased traffic that would be generated by this development. Planned road widening on PO rd would damage roots and the stability of historic oak trees. These have been there for hundreds of years in some cases and form part of the heritage of the rural village. Furthermore damage to their roots through road works could mean they subsequently fall onto existing homes. Road widening at the south west corner of PO rd may not be possible without removing these trees due to homes already being present on both sides of the road.

There are also more general concerns around the road network into Lingwood being able to cope with additional traffic. The road to Blofield is already hazardous as highlighted by a recent fatality. This road could not cope with extra users. The planned development is a significant distance from the main part of the village (shops, school, village hall) so would increase traffic within the village itself.

Objections to GNLP 0379:
Views of St. Peters Church lost.
Bats roost in the church and use this field and places nearby as a feeding area.
Deer, pheasants, partridges and many other birds are frequently seen.
Loss of trees, and hedgerows and high grade agricultural land.
A large part of the field slopes down to Post Office Road bringing increased flood risk.
Site 20140979 Old Primary School, Chapel Road, has been vacant for six years, why has this brownfield site not been utilised?
Roads in/out of the village are inadequate and dangerous, please note the recent death on Blofield Road.

GNLP0379 an area of class 1 agricultural land of a size conducive to cost effective production, unlike the smaller sites GNLP0380, and should remain as such. Other sites would not incur the additional costs of widening the adjacent road, causing increase traffic speed and the hazards incurred with an adjacent children's play area.
Can the current services cope; water/sewage, and additional drainage caused by the area being covered in concrete.
The environmental aspects of village life are important to the residents and the open space to the church should not be impaired by a housing estate.