GNLP0379

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.

The reason I am objecting to the development on GNLP0379, Post Office Road:-

1. SAFETY. Access in and out of the village; all are windy roads and the Blofield Road is already dangerous. Add a volume off another 60-100 cars and delivery vans and it will be a nightmare. The site is opposite a children’s playground which will be extremely dangerous with children running out to access the play area. The road is currently quite narrow (1 car width near the playground), this acts as a natural decrease in speed for car users. Widen this road and it will become another rat run like the Blofield Road. Safety must be our first priority!!

2. The amount of homes that are being talked about 50-60 on site 379 and 25 on the brownfield site at the old school. However, numbers are ambiguous with talks it could be 129+. Far too many new houses for the size of the village and infrastructure.

3. The view a across the field to the church will be lost, an important part of the village character. This part of rural life needs to be conserved. Although there has been talk of creating an ‘avenue of trees’ leading to the church, it is unsure if this would actually happen.

4. The farmland is the highest quality level, why use this for building when there are other sites which are much lower levels and more ideal for building on. This site has also been prone to flooding so how would drainage cope with this amount of new houses?

Infrastructure is not present nor planned to support this additional housing.
With the improvements to the A47 there needs be improved roads in and out of Lingwood to the NW and NE.
Improved facilities are needed within the village : lcoal shops, doctors surgery, etc...

In response to the "support" comments of NPS:
1. The plan attached by NPS does not show the avenue of open space protecting the view of the church which we were told at the Parish meeting had been offered as a "sweetener". If this plan goes ahead there will be no view of the church
2. The existing footpath from PO Rd to Church Rd appears to have vanished.
3. There is no detail of the pedestrian improvement at the PO Rd/Close junction
4. There clearly is a conflict between the proposed housing development and adjacent residential occupiers

I am writing to object to GNLP0379. This land balances harmoniously with the Millennium Play field opposite. The views of the historic St. Peters Church across highest-grade agricultural land 'NPPF' should remain untouched. Road widening at this point would create a faster, free flowing dangerous amount of traffic and would put children whom play on the Millennium site at instant greater danger. This would also be threatening wildlife and the mature oak trees. The area is currently prone to flooding: removal of ditches, road widening and more houses would add to the problem. Sewerage system would be overwhelmed.

I do not agree with NPS’ comments and plan. Whilst the field is level it is at points 1.5m above Post Office Road level. The road already suffers with flooding - development on this scale will add to the problems. The entrance to the development is opposite the entrance to the park for pedestrians - is this safe? I strongly urge the GNLP planners to read the ‘objection’ from Lingwood & Burlingham Parish Council - they do not agree with the increased number of houses for this site for a number of reasons. There is also a brownfield site that had planning permission in the village.

OBJECTION TO SITE GNLP0379
I object to the ‘Illustrative Layout’ submitted in ‘Support‘ by NPS Property Consultants for the following reasons:
1. The late submission of design layout by NPS, is unacceptable and indicates a lack of transparency in process. The GNLP consultation period started on 29 January and terminates tomorrow, 16 January at 5pm. Received 13/03/2020 and with the time lag 15/03/2020, this gives the public less than 24 hours to comment/object.
2. Throughout this consultation period we have been presented with ambiguous information to comment on: variable house numbers and no specific layout in terms of houses, open space or access – i.e. no site layout. The ‘Illustrative Layout’ should have been on the GNLP website throughout the consultation period and available at the Roadshows.
3. A conflict of interest: I understand that the NPS represents NCC in the promotion of land owned by the NCC for the development.
4. The ‘illustrative layout’ is also unacceptable and does not take into consideration the following factors:
• Child safety in the vicinity of the Millennium Green Children’s playpark - a mayor concern as a result of the proposed road widening and increased volume of vehicles. The existing layout provides automatic traffic calming, which a road safety survey would verify.
• The road widening would mean “a lot of mature trees on the frontage would need to be removed”. The GNLP Site Assessment Workshop 3 - Highways Comments (FOI request) refers. Many of the oak trees on Post Office Rd are veteran trees.
• The ‘Illustrative layout’ does not preserve the ‘Landscape Character Value’, the ‘Strategic Gap’ and the important views of ‘Historic Assets’, i.e. St. Peter’s Church.
This is contrary to all planning guidelines of the ‘Landscape Character Assessment Document issued by Broadland district Council. part 3 of 5 C2: FREETHORPE’, The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the GNLP strategy policies. This is a unique site, the only site with a Grade 1 Medieval Church over open farmland. The design offers NO view of the St. Peters Church for Lingwood residents.
• The existing field has a footpath on the LHS from Post Office Rd towards the church and is frequently used by walkers and those with dogs taking in the panoramic view. This layout prevents this option.
• The main vehicular access/ entrance to the site is proposed on the southern boundary, where there is surface water flooding. The removal of the banking to facilitate this access combined with the site sloping onto Post Office Rd will cause flooding.
5. The development of this site is not necessary for the aforementioned reasons.
The Village Cluster allocation can be met:
• The Old School Site, Ref: 20190278, which was missed off the GNLP document, had planning permission granted on 16 October 2019 for 22 -25 homes. This is a brownfield Site and lies within the existing settlement boundaries and therefore should be the first choice of site allocation. This is not part of the 44 homes with planning permission and therefore should be taken into account within the 50 -60 homes allocation.
• GNLP0380 – Land West of Blofield Rd. Has none of the issues detailed above and is promoted for approx. 30 dwellings, therefore in conjunction with the old school site would meet the requirements of the village.
• The Lingwood & Burlingham Parish Council meeting on 3rd March 2020 confirmed their first choice of development as the Old school Site, ref:20190278 and GNLP0380.

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

OBJECTIONS GNLP0379, POST OFFICE RD, PROPOSED GREENFIELD SITE:

• Proposed widening of Post Office Rd and potential increased traffic speeds.

I refer to the online documentation for ‘Lingwood, Burlingham, Strumpshaw & Beighton’ New allocations proposed POLICY GNLP0379 ‘notes’, which states:

“A larger site, along the whole road frontage, would enable road widening to an acceptable standard and encourage a reduction in vehicle speeds”.

The existing layout of the road creates a natural traffic calming effect. Post Office Road narrows at the point where there are hedgerows and trees on both sides and in the location of the Millennium Green children’s playground. As a resident of Lingwood, I can confirm that traffic travelling along Post Office Rd, from Norwich, will automatically slow down and stop to allow oncoming vehicles through. A traffic survey would verify this.

A Highways email, dated 13 June 2019 (FOI request) states:

’60 dwellings might be pushing it as Post office Road is not a very good standard’

The phrase ‘pushing it’ implies an opinion and not an evidence-based statement. Please can you confirm what evaluation processes have been conducted to confirm that the widening of the road would result in a reduction of traffic speed? I can find no references to this. The widening of the road would, I believe, create the opposite effect and increase speeds.

• Child safety issues - The only proposed site located near to a play park:

The Millennium Green playpark lies directly opposite the proposed site; therefore, any development needs to take into consideration the following child safety issues:

o The increased traffic speed associated with the road widening.
o The increased volume of traffic on Post Office Rd, residents and deliveries.
o The access/crossing point from the new development to the children’s playpark.
o No street lighting in the village.


• Loss of ‘Landscape Character Value’, the ’Strategic Gap’ and important views of ‘historic assets’.

This is only site with a grade 1 Medieval Church with a view over open farmland. The uniqueness of this location is a combination of the open view across farmland and the important Heritage Landscape Character view of St. Peter’s church. The significance of St. Peter’s church setting has been identified in these documents:

‘Landscape Character Assessment Document issued by Broadland District Council. Part 3 of 5 C2: FREETHORPE’: ‘Summary of visual character’ and ‘Landscape Planning Guidelines’

The following quotes refer specifically to the ‘Freethorpe Plateau Farmland Landscape Character Type’, i.e. the ‘Strategic Gap’ from Post Office Road to St. Peter’s church and the intrinsic landscape character value:

o Seek to conserve the landscape setting of Lingwood;
o Seek to conserve the landscape setting of manor houses, halls and churches;
o Seek to maintain key views towards churches, which are often key landscape features;
o Seek to conserve open views across the farmland;
o Seek to ensure new development does not disrupt the smooth, predominantly uninterrupted skyline within the area.

Equally, The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) refers:

(Ref. Draft GNLP Local Plan Strategy Policies Policy 1 ref 5 Jan 2020, GNLP Policy 2.5 landscape NPPF 2.8.(c) 3.20 (d)

‘The NPPF requires local plans to recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. Accordingly, the policy requires development to respect
landscape character, based on existing and any future landscape character
assessments, and protects locally valued landscapes from inappropriate
development. It continues the well-established approach in Greater Norwich
of having strong landscape protection policies.’

Additionally, the Site Assessment Booklet (ST6 development Manager) quotes:

‘Potential landscape impact with views impacted towards the Grade 1 listed church. Also, townscape issues with erosion of the rural character’

And last but not least the Draft GNLP Local Plan Strategy Polices refers:

‘Policy 3 Environmental, protection and enhancement’

Para 180. ‘The strategic approach to heritage is first to consider the potential location of development, for example does the location itself ”fit” well in relation to adjoining settlements, and does it avoid intruding in important views of historic assets’

The GNLP0379 site proposal is completely at variance with all the above stated planning guidelines. St. Peter’s church should be seen from the village without compromising and obscuring the view with a new development.

At the Broadland District Council Planning Committee meeting, planning application was refused in respect of: Church View, Church Road, Lingwood, NR13 4TR (ref:20190881)

The Broadland District Council Planning Agenda, dated Wed 2/10/20, pages 9-11 refers:

‘the dwelling would dominate the isolated and undeveloped rural setting of the Grade 1 listed church’. The respective planning authority guidelines are quoted within this refusal statement. The reasons for objection are equally applicable to the GNLP0379 site proposal.

The intrinsic Landscape Value of St Peters suggests no development should be justified nor any attempt be made to mitigate the impact of any such a development without adversely affecting the Landscape Character Value and setting of the St Peter’s Church. Once it is gone, it is gone forever, a setting to preserve for future generations. Based upon this factor alone, this should be the last site chosen rather than the first preferred site in the village.

• GNLP0379 has the highest-grade agricultural land

GNLP Lingwood & Burlingham Cluster Assessment Booklet HELAA Conclusion (Stage 6) refers:

GNLP0379 – ‘the site is in agricultural land classes 1 and 2.’
GNLP0296 – ‘agricultural land class 2’
GNLP0380 – ‘agricultural land class 2’.

The government website 1.2 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2012 refers:

‘4.1 Grade 1 - excellent quality agricultural land’
“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.”

1.2 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 201

“LPAs should make decisions that contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by:
“protecting landscapes, geology, and soils”
“considering the economic and other benefits of BMV agricultural land, and try to use areas of poorer quality land instead of higher quality land”
“preventing soil, air, water, or noise pollution, or land instability from new and existing development”

GNLP0379 by definition has Grade 1 - excellent quality agricultural land, therefore other sites which have poorer quality land should be chosen first.


• Change to road frontage, loss of veteran trees, surface water flooding and Sewerage issues:

o Firstly, the proposed widening of Post Office Rd would mean the loss of several veteran trees on Post Office Rd. One oak tree has been assessed as being 200 years old.The GNLP Site Assessment Workshop 3 (FOI request) ‘Highways Comments refers:

“Narrow road but widening could make it acceptable, a lot of mature trees on the frontage would need to be removed”

In view of the loss of a significant number of trees, the other site proposals should be measured in this regard. I am not aware of any trees with TPO’s on Site GNLP0380, for example
o Secondly, Hedgerows and the wildlife habitat would be destroyed.
o Thirdly, “There are areas within the site at risk of surface water flooding”. This particularly applies to the southern border where the land does not drain easily. The removal of the field banking combined with the site sloping onto Post Office Rd on the south side, the concreting over of much of the site and increased rainfall due to climate change will exacerbate the problem and cause flooding.
o Drainage issues at present are a huge concern for Lingwood and Strumpshaw, at times of heavy rainfall, water struggles to get away. See EDP article dated 7 October 19 relating to fire crews attending flooding incidents in Lingwood and other villages. Highway surface water flooding problems occur with Post Office Rd/Post Office Close junction.
o Concerns that the village sewerage system will be over whelmed.


• Ambiguous number of houses and no site plans:

o The village cluster has 44 houses with planning permission PLUS the GNLP documentation states “GNLP0379 is likely to accommodate 50 -60 homes” AND “More homes subject to an acceptable design being achieved.”

The GNLP Draft Local Plan – part 2 site allocations, under ‘New allocations proposed’ refers:

‘POLICY GNLP0379 Land north of Post Office Road, Lingwood (approx. 4.74ha) is allocated for residential development, including a large are of open space. The site is likely to accommodate 50 -60 homes, 33% of which will be affordable’


Crucially, it also sates: ‘More homes may be accommodated, subject to an acceptable design and layout being achieved’. Critically, this would have a significant effect on the local infrastructure.

o The plan is unclear where the landscape or open space will be located. The GNLP Draft Local Plan – part 2 site allocations, under ‘New allocations proposed’ states:

‘Housing to be focussed on the part of the site fronting Post Office Road with landscaping to the north to minimise the impact of the development on the wider landscape and Grade 1 listed church.’

Discussions at the GNLP Roadshow, i.e. the Consultation forum, suggested that other layouts may be considered, however there was no specific information available or site plans to see.

We are in the public consultation period, this being the only opportunity to object and make comments, and we are presented with ambiguous information to comment on: variable house numbers, no site plans, no details of access to the site etc.

• Unexplained change in the size and ranking of the GNLP0379 site – Why?

o In 2018 the 1st Regulation 18 Consultation GNLP Site Proposals Document, dated 08.01 -22.03.18 (page 65, section 3.25 Lingwood & Burlingham, refers:

“To conclude, if Lingwood is identified for development, GNLP0380 and GNLP0296 could produce sustainable housing development with appropriate mitigation. If more growth is needed in Lingwood, GNLP0379 and the western part of GNLP0067 may also be acceptable for housing”

In 2018, GNLP0379 was the 3rd option. In 2020, the GNLP have stated that GNLP0379 is their preferred option. Please can you confirm what information relating to the sites has changed and what site assessments have taken place on all the sites that specifically indicate GNLP0379 to be a better option?

o The GNLP Site Assessment, HELAA comparison table, page 4, stage 2, identifies the following AMBER constraints for GNLP0379:

‘Site Access, Access to services, Utilities Capacity, Flood Risk, Significant Landscapes, Sensitive Townscapes, Biodiversity & Geodiversity, Historic Environment, and Transport & Roads.’

There are 9 AMBER HELAA indicators for GNLP0379. No other assessed site for Lingwood has more than 7 AMBER indicators, including sites GNLP0296 and GNLP0380. Why therefore, is this not reflected in the proposed preferred site choice?

Given the aforementioned points of concern, GNLP0379 is not the right site.
There are reasonable alternatives which would match the GNLP village cluster requirement on housing numbers. (see below - Meeting the Village Cluster requirement)


LINGWOOD VILLAGE INFRASTRUCTURE

• Increased housing numbers are too large for the village infrastructure:

o Lingwood has 44 dwellings with planning permission on small sites, in addition to the 50 -60 homes required for ‘Village Cluster’ with a school. This ‘gives a total deliverable housing commitment for the cluster of between 94 – 104 homes between 2018 – 2038.’

Firstly, Schooling: The first GNLP statement taken from the GNLP Site Assessment Booklet – Settlement Hierarchy 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.’

The GNLP Site Assessment Booklet – stage 7 states:

‘Space at Lingwood Primary School is forecast to be taken up in future years but Norfolk County Council (as education authority) has indicated they would accept development in the order of 50-60 new homes’

The does not take into account the GNLP statement ‘More homes may be accommodated, subject to an acceptable design and layout being achieved ‘and the fact that the Education Authority have not approved a higher number.

The fact that the education authority would accept 50 - 60 homes, should not dictate which site is chosen. (The GNLP appear to have positioned their preferred suite option based on numbers provided by the Education Authority – there are other sites which would meet the quota.

This is a considerable divergence from the original assessment and the implications to the village infrastructure as a whole.

o Other infrastructure concerns are in relation to: Doctor and medical services – these services are already severely strained without the addition of new developments at Acle, Brundall, Blofield and the proposed development at Lingwood. There is one shop with inadequate parking and concerns that the village sewerage system will be overwhelmed.

• Blofield Rd access to Lingwood – increased traffic will compromise safety even further:

At present, there is a significant safety factor regarding notified and unnotified incidents. (e.g. wing mirrors being taken off).
The website: crashcamp.co.uk provides data in respect of the number of reported accidents in the last 9 years:

‘4 slight accidents (6 vehicles/6 casualties)’
‘2 serious accidents (2 vehicles/6 casualties)’
‘1 fatal accident (1 vehicle/1 fatality)’ (Recent)

The original narrow road, with designated passing places traffic does not reflect the significant increase in road use today. Additionally, the proposed new housing quota will considerably increase traffic volumes in respect of residents and deliveries. Additional traffic due to the permanent closure of the Lingwood Lane, following the expansion and dualling of the A47, will compound the situation.

There are no proposals to mitigate against the increased volume of traffic within the GNLP Site Assessment guide regarding overall access to Lingwood via the western approach, i.e. Blofield Rd. A safety assessment needs to be conducted in respect of the safety of pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles and their occupants.

Blofield Rd requires significant safety improvements regardless of the site chosen. This statement is also endorsed by the Lingwood & Burlingham Parish Council:

‘With any development in Lingwood, Blofield Road will need to be made wider instead of narrow with passing places.’

MEETING THE VILLAGE CLUSTER REQUIREMENT:

For the reasons specified above GNLP0379 is not the right site. I recognise that the need to provide housing in line with the village cluster requirement however I am aware of the significant impact the increased dwelling numbers will create for Lingwood, particularly in view of the dangerous Blofield Rd.

So how to meet the requirement of 50 -60 homes? (in addition to the 44 dwellings with planning permission in the cluster)





• The Old School Site, Chapel Road:

• The Old School site, could take 22- 25 homes and meet the requirement for housing numbers. This is a brownfield site and lies within the existing settlement boundaries and therefore should be the first choice of site allocation. The GNLP quote:

‘we will continue to protect the most valued parts of our area and enhance the green infrastructure for nature and people. To help do this, the GNLP will maximise the amount of development on ‘brownfield sites.’

Planning permission was granted on 16 October 2019, as detailed in the the BDC/NCC Deed of Planning Obligation Sec 106. TCP Act 1990 Lingwood First and Nursery School, Chapel Rd, Ref: 20190278.

This is in addition to the 44 dwellings with planning permission; therefore, the school brownfield site of approx. 22 -25 homes should be taken into account within the overall 50 -60 homes allocation.

• GNLP0380 – Land west of Blofield Rd:

• The site is promoted for approx. 30 dwellings therefore in conjunction with the Old School Site would meet the requirements of the capacity of the cluster.

When comparing the distance to the shops and school the from the GNLP0380 site and from GNLP0379 the results are marginal:
GNLP0380 to the shop 0.5 miles and to the school 0.7 miles
GNLP0379 to the shop 0.7 miles and the school 0.5 miles

The GNLP Draft Local Plan – part 2 site allocations ‘states that the GNLP0380 site ‘would act as a gateway site into the village creating a sense of place’. The site could also be expanded if needed, at a later date. Additionally, there are a number of factors why this would be a better choice than GNLP0379: less traffic around the Millennium Park, thereby alleviating the safety issues in terms of access to the park and road widening. Protection of better-quality farmland and the far-reaching Landscape Character Value view of St. Peter’s Church over open farmland. Given the aforementioned points GNLp0380 should be the GNLP preferred site.

In 2018, the Lingwood & Burlingham Parish Council submitted a ‘Support’ in relation to GNLP0380. Representation ID: 12989, dated 12/02/2018 refers:

‘Representation: The preferred option as on entering the Village so does not encourage ‘through’ traffic. N.B the Parish Council would prefer the brownfield site at the Old 1st School, Chapel Road, shown as a commitment, to be used before any greenfield site’

In line with their historical views, at the Parish Council meeting on Tue 3 March 2020, the Parish Council confirmed their first choice of development as the Old School Site and GNLP0380.

I have just seen the presentation from the developer and I wish to comment on that.
1) this is the first time we have seen this "plan" for the development and if anything it is worse than we imagined. The "New strategic landscaping/planting" protects nothing, there will be no view of the church left as this is a small strip of trees that basically hides the church.
2) the number and location of the houses is a joke
3) I have objected to this and I see nothing in this statement that changes anything, it is ill thought out and disruptive to the village.
4) WHY has this only just been released??????? This makes a mockery of the planning "consultation". Has it been put in so late so that the local residents have no time to comment??? This is a blatant attempt to push something in through the back door.
5) This is and remains the least best option in the village, as agreed by the parish council and the residents.
6) WHY weren't these plans cited at the start of the process??
7) WHY weren't they available at the local meetings i.e Acle or Norwich?????
8) WHY didn't members of the GNLP at these and subsequent meetings not explain these disruptive and ill conceived plans?

This site is unique in the world, the only rural vista of Grade 1 listed Lingwood Church & dates back to 1400s
Other sites previously regarded as acceptable or preferred provide more than the number of homes required of Lingwood.
Serious specific issues:
Road safety in immediate area
Child access from new homes to Millinium Green
Large increase in traffic along already dangerously inadequate Blofield road
School unable to take this level of extra pupils & cannot be enlarged
Already seriously overstretched doctor provision
Totally contravenes Boroadland DC guidelines "preserve landscape character value & important views of historic assets"

The local area and amenities cannot support or sustain this new development .Loss of Green land loss of habitat to nature .Widening post office road will do nothing to reduce massively increased traffic on already dangerous and narrow country lanes into Lingwood village.If you are going to build do it on brownfield land and where there are adequate facilities to support this.

I wish to object in the strongest possible terms to the outrageously late submission by NPS in support of this plan.
This has left absolutely minimal opportunity for Lingwood residents and others to comment, challenge and directly contradict much of what it contains before the consultation period deadline at 1600 hrs today.
There are errors, misstatements , misleading and contradictory elements to that supporting statement.
In the interests of common justice and decency in public office additional time must be allocated to allow careful consideration and meticulous examination of that statement and a detailed response to be put before the GNLP decision makers.
There is a strong suggestion of conflicted interests here, amongst other serious matters, and I intend to take this to the highest possible level, including our MP and if necessary beyond, to ensure fair play.

I don't believe the village has the facilities to support the extra housing i.e lack of doctor's surgery. Loss of the views over the fields to the church and loss of habitat for wildlife. Already dangerous narrow country lanes into the village will become even more dangerous due to increase in traffic.

I am writing to put forward my objection to the proposed houses being built on post office road. I do not think this is the best place for them to be built for a number of reasons.It will take away the view of the medieval church. It will take away the grade 1 farmland for growing crops. It will be on a very narrow piece of road which enough cars already speed along.It will put a lot more traffic along the piece of road directly by the children's play area which well used and will obviously pose a danger.
There are other proposed sites for building on which are Neves Close and the old school site which obviously already has a building on which is Chapel road. I think these sites would be better ones to consider using at least first. I understand houses have to be built but somewhere for the growing population but I think where and what type needs to be carefully considered.

OBJECTION TO SITE GNLP0379
I object to the ‘Illustrative Layout’ submitted in ‘Support‘ by NPS Property Consultants for the following reasons:

1. The late submission of design layout by NPS, is unacceptable and indicates a lack of transparency in process. The GNLP consultation period started on 29 January and ends 16th March at 5pm.
The NPS layout has only come up on the 15/03/2020, this gives the public less than 24 hours to comment/object if they even see the plans in time. Also most people work weekdays 9.00 – 5,00 giving no time to reply.

2. Throughout this consultation period we have been presented with ambiguous information to comment on: variable house numbers and no specific layout in terms of houses, open space or access – i.e. no site layout. The NPS plans should have been shown to the public much earlier.

3. A conflict of interest: I understand that the NPS represents NCC in the promotion of land owned by the NCC for the development. Has the contract been let out for tender or is the land choices influenced by NPS? If the publics consultancy matters, have NPS made plans for the other sites as this seems set before anything has meant to of been decided on.

4. The ‘illustrative layout’ is also unacceptable and does not take into consideration the following factors:
• Child safety, cars would speed down this road, Children can cross the road at many points on this road.
• The road widening would mean “a lot of mature trees on the frontage would need to be removed”. The GNLP Site Assessment Workshop 3 - Highways Comments (FOI request) refers. Many of the oak trees on Post Office Rd are veteran trees.
• The ‘Illustrative layout’ does not preserve the ‘Landscape Character Value’, the ‘Strategic Gap’ and the important views of ‘Historic Assets’, i.e. St. Peter’s Church.
This is contrary to all planning guidelines of the ‘Landscape Character Assessment Document issued by Broadland district Council. part 3 of 5 C2: FREETHORPE’, The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the GNLP strategy policies. This is a unique site, the only site with a Grade 1 Medieval Church over open farmland. The design offers NO view of the St. Peters Church for Lingwood residents.
• The existing field has a footpath on the LHS from Post Office Rd towards the church and is frequently used by walkers and those with dogs taking in the panoramic view. This layout prevents this option.
• The main vehicular access/ entrance to the site is proposed on the southern boundary, where there is surface water flooding. The removal of the banking to facilitate this access combined with the site sloping onto Post Office Rd will cause flooding.

5. The development of this site is not necessary for the aforementioned reasons.
The Village Cluster allocation can be met:
• The Old School Site, Ref: 20190278, which was missed off the GNLP document, had planning permission granted on 16 October 2019 for 22 -25 homes. This is a brownfield Site and lies within the existing settlement boundaries and therefore should be the first choice of site allocation. This is not part of the 44 homes with planning permission and therefore should be taken into account within the 50 -60 homes allocation.
• GNLP0380 – Land West of Blofield Road. Has none of the issues detailed above and is promoted for approx. 30 dwellings, therefore in conjunction with the old school site would meet the requirements of the village.
• The Lingwood & Burlingham Parish Council meeting on 3rd March 2020 confirmed their first choice of development as the Old school Site, ref:20190278 and GNLP0380

The late submission of design layout by NPS, is unacceptable and indicates a lack of transparency in process. The GNLP consultation period started on 29 January and ends 16th March at 5pm.
The NPS layout has only come up on the15/03/2020, this gives the public less than 24 hours to comment/object if they even see the plans in time. Also most people work weekdays 9.00 – 5,00 giving no time to reply.

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 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 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 at the bottom of the road have flooded twice in the last year.

I strongly object to allocating this site (GNLP0379), off Post Office Road, in the Local Plan for the following reasons:

1. Post Office Road is narrow and has section with no footway. To widen this road to any reasonable width will result in the loss of the avenue of mature oak trees, this is unacceptable.
2 Most of the facilities are in the south of the village, some distance from this site. Though a walkable or cyclable distance, undoubtedly these facilities will be accessed by cars.
3 It could be that this field has been undeveloped to date due its close proximity to the Church and also Manor Farm, which are all listed buildings. The view up the slope, from Post Office Road, to the church is a pleasant break from the surrounding housing estates and closing in on these special buildings should be prevented.

Please do not allocate this site.

Just to clarify; the preferred site of Lingwood & Burlingham Parish Council for development is GNLP0380. This site (GNLP 0379) if developed should also allow for an avenue of trees from the Millennium Green on Post Office Road to the Church and an area of parkland to protect the Church not just a block of land at the front or back.

Unlike other allocation policies there is no reference to water efficiency forming part of the design

Please also see comments relating to Policy 2 of the Sustainable Communities of the Strategy document.

I strongly object to site GNLP0379 for the following reasons:

1. As per my earlier comments - this site is the wrong side of the village for the school, Spar shop and chip shop.
2. Residents from this site would all use Blofield Road as the main route to Norwich resulting in an unacceptable increase in usage - other sites allow for different routes to be taken.
3. Post Office Road would need to be widened resulting in the loss of the mature trees.
4. There is a better option.

I strongly object to site GNLP0379 for the following reasons:
The site has a major problem with surface water flooding along the frontage of the proposed site.
The siting of the site would restrict the views of the Grade I listed St Peters Church.
The proposed site is some distance from the main facilities in the village
The Post Office Road is narrow and has limited footway. To widen this road to will mean the loss of mature oak trees, which can not be right!
Do not allocate this site.

This Comment is not a New Comment. It is New Evidence, and as such requires full consultation with Residents and Parish Council members alike. It is significant that this New Evidence was presented and thereafter verified by GNLP for public viewing on the GNLP Consultation website within (maximum)of 24 hours prior to the closure of the Consultation Webpage. This is deserving of critical analysis and comments, Support and Objections over a longer period of consultation. If there is no additional time to be awarded to this Significant Material Change re the proposal, then it must be withdrawn. It is not a Comment.

Furthermore, the GNLP Reg 18 (c ) Consultation period has a finite time and the very late presentation of this New Evidence within this very short window of ‘public access’, prevents inclusivity which is against Best Practice and ‘tone’ of what the GNLP Team wished to promote.

NPS as promoters of this Site Development (0379) proposal are also the Promoters in securing planning permission for the Old School Site (16.10.19). At no time has this figure been referenced in any GNLP Documentation and given its approval (16.10.19) its omission from the identified additional number of 44 number of dwellings with planning permission within the Lingwood Village Cluster suggests a level of opaqueness, perhaps obfuscation during this process. It was only ‘declared’ after enquiries from the Parish Council during Jan/Feb 2020. The fact that this was not on the GNLP Teams ‘radar’ compliments this opinion.

Therefore, the Site (0379) and the additional housing from the old school site, when assessed together clearly exceeds the stated housing allocation for Lingwood. The direct correlation between this clear stated fact compliments the premise that this site is not proportionate in scaling, is oversized and compromises the Site Assessment Process. It is clearly dismissive of NPPF and NCC /BDC planning guidelines and is open to being robustly challenged were this was to be submitted under the Reg 19 process.

In summary, I strongly disagree that this New Evidence is categorized as a Comment.
As a point of procedure this New Evidence must be open to Public Scrutiny to which the access for due consideration be as per the Consultation period or otherwise be withdrawn. To do otherwise undermines the integrity and entire openness of the GNLP Consultation process.

Lingwood is losing its character as a village. (changes to railway crossings)
The school will need increased capacity and it has very little facilities to support further families.
The road into Lingwood from Blofield is already over used with speed being a factor making it more dangerous. Post Office Road is already a road that is already heavily used more traffic will only make it more dangerous. Widening the road will impact on the safety of the nearby park, with additional fencing needing to be erected losing more natural habit.

I strongly object to the preferred housing allocation for Lingwood and Burlingham on site GNLP0379 (land north of Post Office Road, Lingwood) for the following reasons:
1. HIGHWAYS - BLOFIELD ROAD - VOLUME OF TRAFFIC/ SAFETY CONCERNS
2. POST OFFICE ROAD - SITE ACCESS, WIDENING & SAFETY
3. FLOOD RISK
4. SEWAGE CAPACITY ISSUES
5.     VILLAGE INFRASTRUCTURE
6. POLLUTION AND EFFECT OF DEVELOPMENT ON WILDLIFE, TREES AND BIODIVERSITY
Wildlife
Trees and hedging
Pollution - environment, light and noise
Conservation

7. LOSS OF AGRICULTURAL LAND GRADE 1 AND 2
8. HERITAGE ISSUES - GRADE 1 LISTED MEDIEVAL CHURCH
9. OTHER ISSUES

COMMENT

The views of Lingwood and Burlingham Parish Council have already been expressed. Our preferred site remains as GNLP0380 (approx 30 dwellings) along with the brownfield site of the old school on Chapel Road (approx 20-25 dwellings). We would expect no new building anywhere in the village until after the Chapel Road site is developed.

Re GNLP0379 – Following Representation ID 20900 (NPS Property Consultants Ltd), I fully appreciate no-one is entitled to a particular view in planning Law, but it is essential the view of the church is kept open to the village for all time. The church is already divorced from the village physically, and to allow any building to obstruct this view from the Millennium Green and its surrounds would have the effect of further isolating the community from its spiritual heart. What is more important to planners, developers and Norfolk County Council - maximising building space to make as much money as possible, or supporting the long-term aesthetic, emotional and spiritual welfare of a whole community?

Cathy Pye – Chairman Lingwood and Burlingham Parish Council

For full representation, please refer to attached documents

See attached for full submission and supporting documents.

Whilst we agree with the overall strategy for the village clusters contained in Policy 7.4, we object to the preferred site and do not agree this is the best option to deliver this amount of housing. The site at Buckenham Road offers a good opportunity with minimal constraints/ impact on the character of the village.