GNLP0380

The preferred option as on entering the Village so does not encourage 'through' traffic. N.B. The Parish Council would prefer the brown field site at the Old 1st School, Chapel Road, shown as commitment, to be used before any green field site.

I strongly object to this site being proposed as suitable for development.
It is high grade agricultural land. There is also a flooding risk across the front of the site. I have witnessed flooding in this area on many occasions when there is heavy rainfall. Development of this site would remove the ability of this field to naturally soak up any heavy rainfall and increase flood risk to the surrounding area.

Entrance to this site would be on the blind side of a bend with limited visibility. To put an entrance to a site on the blind side of a bend would increase the risk to dangerous levels. Near misses on this bend occur on a daily basis, due in part, to the lack of visibility and the volume of traffic speeding around it.

The proposed site falls outside of the defined development area for the village, it is also at the very corner of the village. This site, if developed, would break out into open countryside. Development of the site will adversely affect the landscape setting of Lingwood and the open rural character of the area. Development of the site will therefore cause harm to the landscape character of the area and the appearance of the surrounding countryside.

This development has no benefit whatsoever to the local community. It is neither needed nor wanted by local residents who are concerned it could take precedence over other developments that might actually benefit the community. It is located on a difficult and dangerous to access site with its own inherent topographical issues. Existing infrastructure and services within the locality are already stretched and it is thought that should this site be developed it will be to the detriment of existing residents.

The brown field site at the Old 1st School on Chapel Road, shown as commitment, should be used before any green field site.

These state that GNLP0380 and GNLP0296 are preferred to provide140 dwellings, with GNLP0379 adding 27 and GNLP007 possibly adding more. While my comments relating to the Growth Options point to the fallacy of this requirement, I must reinforce this view by pointing out the severe problems that would ensue if either of the preferred sites were to be considered in detail.
GNLP0380 lies beside Blafield Road, the main road into the village from the west - basically single track with passing places. At present two roads enter Blafield road opposite 0380's eastern boundary. With 30 dwellings two entry/exits would be preferred but with the eastern approach being via virtual double bend with very poor sight lines, NCC are likely to raise concerns regarding safety as even three opposite entries would lead to this stretch becoming 'accident prone'. Additionally, the much higher housing density would compare badly with Neve's Close opposite.
GNLP0296 is bounded by a single carriageway Buckenham Lane on its West side, The wide verge contains a dry ditch and an avenue of mature trees. The lane is much used by villagers, particularly dog walkers and occasional joggers, causing cars to slow down to pass .as the verge banks are high in places. Despite the ditches, the lane tends to flooded in the lower middle section, sometimes being too deep for cars to proceed. It also provides an enjoyable link to footpaths off the lower Buckenham Road leading to Buckenham Woods or around the Amenity Site giving extensive views over the Yare Valley The proposed site is part of a much larger field of high grade Agricultural land which has been fully cropped for the last 25 years ( at present with a winter cereal).The present electricity supply to our house (and adjacent properties on Norwich Road Lingwood and Strumpshaw) crosses the above field on poles running NW from Buckingham Road to the 4th pole pole, a 'stones throw' from our fence, from where it is taken underground to a pole on the Strumpshaw side of Buckenham Lane.
and then overhead to poles feeding our and adjacent properties. Clearly any planning consent would require the complete re routing of this supply even though a substantial part of the line lies outside 0296. The likely route via Buckenham Road and Lane is likely to conflict with poled telephone lines so it may require 'under grounding' with consequent higher cost. Site entrance is best achieved via Buckenham Road as it has been widened to two lanes past the Council houses. Here there are just two trees, much smaller and more widely spaced those in Buckenham Lane so their removal results in much less interference with Nature. Thus overall, although the site is large, and its haphazard shape presents difficulties in arranging well proportioned housing layouts, the overriding factor is that it would not only be both an unwarranted destruction of prime agricultural land but also the presence of a substantial estate alongside it would destroy what is now a pleasing invigorating and healthy country walk for villagers, with potential to extend it to satisfying and enjoyable views.