GNLP0131
Object
Site Proposals document
Representation ID: 13644
Received: 07/03/2018
Respondent: Mr Ken Barnes
This site is on a bend of a narrow lane with no footpaths and poor drainage. Any further accesses would have poor road visiability. It has already been rejected for general housing and has only had permission for one property.
This site is on a bend of a narrow lane with no footpaths and poor drainage. Any further accesses would have poor road visiability. It has already been rejected for general housing and has only had permission for one property.
Object
Site Proposals document
Representation ID: 13767
Received: 11/03/2018
Respondent: Mr john Phillips
- Caistor Lane is a country road which cannot support the levels of development proposed. In particular heavy lorries and other building traffic will have a severe impact. This proposal has road frontage near a dangerous bend and accidents will occur given there are no footpaths or street lighting.
- Environmental issues and loss of natural habitat for wildlife.
- Increased pressure on local services, in particular health services where the adjacent area of Poringland has to be relied upon.
- Caistor Lane is a country road which cannot support the levels of development proposed. In particular heavy lorries and other building traffic will have a severe impact. This proposal has road frontage near a dangerous bend and accidents will occur given there are no footpaths or street lighting.
- Environmental issues and loss of natural habitat for wildlife.
- Increased pressure on local services, in particular health services where the adjacent area of Poringland has to be relied upon.
Support
Site Proposals document
Representation ID: 13921
Received: 13/03/2018
Respondent: Miss Frances Kemp
I am writing out of concern particilarly for my mother, other older people and school students who live on Caistor Lane but also all residents. If GNLP sites 0131, 0485 and 0131 are to go ahead then the infrastructure for pedestrians must be significantly improved to secure the safety of pedestrians that currently have to walk in the road on that part of Caistor Lane that is within the parish of Caistor St Edmund. Also, this needs to be done before additional traffic is generated during any construction phase.
I am writing out of concern particilarly for my mother, other older people and school students who live on Caistor Lane but also all residents. If GNLP sites 0131, 0485 and 0131 are to go ahead then the infrastructure for pedestrians must be significantly improved to secure the safety of pedestrians that currently have to walk in the road on that part of Caistor Lane that is within the parish of Caistor St Edmund. Also, this needs to be done before additional traffic is generated during any construction phase.
Object
Site Proposals document
Representation ID: 14155
Received: 16/03/2018
Respondent: Mr Brian Grundy
In recent years planning permission has been sought on two occasions (2014/1325 and 2016/1595) for developing this parcel of land. On both occasions the applications were rejected, the first following appeal to the Planning Inspectorate. The grounds for refusal in the earlier applications would largely still hold good whatever design might be proposed, and thus make this site unsuitable to be adopted in the GNLP.
In recent years planning permission has been sought on two occasions (2014/1325 and 2016/1595) for developing this parcel of land. On both occasions the applications were rejected, the first following appeal to the Planning Inspectorate. The grounds for refusal in the earlier applications would largely still hold good whatever design might be proposed, and thus make this site unsuitable to be adopted in the GNLP.
Object
Site Proposals document
Representation ID: 14363
Received: 18/03/2018
Respondent: Mr Paul Chapman
Planning permission has already been rejected on two previous applications. The reason being, poor access and visibility on the bend of a narrow lane and poor drainage, which both still apply.
Planning permission has already been rejected on two previous applications. The reason being, poor access and visibility on the bend of a narrow lane and poor drainage, which both still apply.
Support
Site Proposals document
Representation ID: 14772
Received: 20/03/2018
Respondent: mr Barry Catchpole
As a resident living opposite the site and probably most affected by it I support the application as separate from that to the north of it..
As a resident living opposite the site and probably most affected by it I support the application as separate from that to the north of it..
Object
Site Proposals document
Representation ID: 14875
Received: 20/03/2018
Respondent: Ms Ann Symonds
This development would produce a lot of additional traffic on what are small lanes.
Environmentally it would spread the urbanisation further into the country side.
The housing requirement for the area has already been achieved without the need for further development.
The local infrastructure is not in place to support a development of this size.
This development would produce a lot of additional traffic on what are small lanes.
Environmentally it would spread the urbanisation further into the country side.
The housing requirement for the area has already been achieved without the need for further development.
The local infrastructure is not in place to support a development of this size.
Object
Site Proposals document
Representation ID: 15319
Received: 21/03/2018
Respondent: Caistor St Edmund Parish Council
In recent years planning permission has been refused on two occasions (2014/1325 and 2016/1595) for developing this parcel of land. The grounds for refusal in the earlier applications would largely still hold, including not in keeping with the village, drainage and site access.
In recent years planning permission has been refused on two occasions (2014/1325 and 2016/1595) for developing this parcel of land. The grounds for refusal in the earlier applications would largely still hold, including not in keeping with the village, drainage and site access.
Object
Site Proposals document
Representation ID: 15751
Received: 22/03/2018
Respondent: Mr Trevor Lewis
As the current District Councillor for this site, I favour Option 1, Development Close to Norwich, but noting that
(a) This excludes South and South East Fringe Sectors, and limits village development to the current baseline.
(b) Windfall sites should not be added to the 7,200 homes required by this Plan,
(c) I favour a new settlement close to Norwich (possibly Mangreen) that would contribute to the 7,200.
On that basis, there is no need for development on this site. In itself, it is also an isolated development in a significant rural landscape.
As the current District Councillor for this site, I favour Option 1, Development Close to Norwich, but noting that
(a) This excludes South and South East Fringe Sectors, and limits village development to the current baseline.
(b) Windfall sites should not be added to the 7,200 homes required by this Plan,
(c) I favour a new settlement close to Norwich (possibly Mangreen) that would contribute to the 7,200.
On that basis, there is no need for development on this site. In itself, it is also an isolated development in a significant rural landscape.
Object
Site Proposals document
Representation ID: 15889
Received: 22/03/2018
Respondent: R Woods
This site has had 2 previous applications for planning refused and I believe these are still valid. It is out of keeping for the location with poor access and visibility. Caistor Lane is already suffering from increased traffic due to the nearby David Wilson development.
This site has had 2 previous applications for planning refused and I believe these are still valid. It is out of keeping for the location with poor access and visibility. Caistor Lane is already suffering from increased traffic due to the nearby David Wilson development.
Object
Site Proposals document
Representation ID: 15944
Received: 22/03/2018
Respondent: Mr Nicholas Dennis
Stoke Holy Cross/Poringland/The Framinghams/Caistor St. Edmund have taken and are still taking a huge increase in homes. The B1332 is overloaded and Stoke Road, Poringland/Poringland Road SHX/Long Lane is being used as a relief road to the B1332. Stoke Road, Poringland/Poringland Road SHX/Long Lane, can not cope with the extra volume of traffic already let alone what this scale of development will add. The GP surgeries are stretched to more than capacity as are water supplies.
No more development in this area.
Stoke Holy Cross/Poringland/The Framinghams/Caistor St. Edmund have taken and are still taking a huge increase in homes. The B1332 is overloaded and Stoke Road, Poringland/Poringland Road SHX/Long Lane is being used as a relief road to the B1332. Stoke Road, Poringland/Poringland Road SHX/Long Lane, can not cope with the extra volume of traffic already let alone what this scale of development will add. The GP surgeries are stretched to more than capacity as are water supplies.
No more development in this area.
Object
Site Proposals document
Representation ID: 15945
Received: 22/03/2018
Respondent: Mr Nicholas Dennis
Stoke Holy Cross/Poringland/The Framinghams/Caistor St. Edmund have taken and are still taking a huge increase in homes. The B1332 is overloaded and Stoke Road, Poringland/Poringland Road SHX/Long Lane is being used as a relief road to the B1332. Stoke Road, Poringland/Poringland Road SHX/Long Lane, can not cope with the extra volume of traffic already let alone what this scale of development will add. The GP surgeries are stretched to more than capacity as are water supplies.
No more development in this area.
Stoke Holy Cross/Poringland/The Framinghams/Caistor St. Edmund have taken and are still taking a huge increase in homes. The B1332 is overloaded and Stoke Road, Poringland/Poringland Road SHX/Long Lane is being used as a relief road to the B1332. Stoke Road, Poringland/Poringland Road SHX/Long Lane, can not cope with the extra volume of traffic already let alone what this scale of development will add. The GP surgeries are stretched to more than capacity as are water supplies.
No more development in this area.
Object
Site Proposals document
Representation ID: 16403
Received: 19/03/2018
Respondent: Poringland Parish Council
GNLP0131 - This is a smaller site but again unsustainably far from public transport, excessively reliant upon cars with no pavement in the vicinity and little prospect of being able to construct one. OPPOSE
Site Specifics
GNLP1032 - Favour: Site is to north of the village so would not create traffic through the village. Matches up the other side of the road. Against: Is Grade 2 ag land, and contributes to the linear vision of the village. SUPPORT
GNLP0485 - This huge site would at a stroke integrate Arminghall/Bixley with the Poringland conurbation. It has significant landscape, archaeological and environmental issues. It is far too far from any facilities and would be unsustainably reliant upon cars. OPPOSE
GNLP0131 - This is a smaller site but again unsustainably far from public transport, excessively reliant upon cars with no pavement in the vicinity and little prospect of being able to construct one. OPPOSE
GNLP0491 - This would significantly alter the form and size of Caistor St Edmund on archaeologically important site in open countryside. It is a form of 'backland' development. Access is severely limited. No access to public transport, no pavements to village and schools. OPPOSE
GNLP0494 - The access to this site is significantly constrained. Flood risk, no drainage, comes out very near a junction. OPPOSE
GNLP1047 - Access to this site is severely constrained. It is former RAF site so may well be subject to contamination. Site dominated by the mast towers. Form would consolidate development each side of the Stoke Road leading to further infill development. OPPOSE
GNLP0321 - Site is to north of the village so would not create traffic through the village. Matches up the other side of the road. However is Grade 2 agricultural land, and contributes to the linear vision of the village. SUPPORT
GNLP0589A - This would exacerbate the 'octopus' nature of the conurbation and would detract from an area of scenic value otherwise sadly lacking in this area. OPPOSE
GNLP0589B - Leading on from the development of the Long Road, Hibbett and Key site and the EACH site this would be a logical development. It would mean the loss of significant landscape value in Spur Lane. If it could be developed at a distance from the tree lined Spur Lane it might well be viable. Will have a significant impact upon the subterranean drainage flow towards Long Road and Poringland surface water drainage systems. SUPPORT
GNLP0391A - Flooding issues. Road network not suitable. Semi-detached from the village - contributing to the 'octopus' of development with drainage issues. Intrudes upon an area of landscape value between Framingham Earl and St Andrew's Church. OPPOSE
GNLP0391B - Similar arguments to those against the site south of Burgate Lane. OPPOSE
GNLP0003 - Isolated site in open countryside, contrary to policy, detached from the conurbation should not even be considered as a valid site. OPPOSE
GNLP0223 - Significant access problems with no comfortable access through the Norfolk Homes development. Would alter significantly the 'shape' of the conurbation into the form of an 'octopus'. Would reduce the distinctions between Poringland and Stoke. Would have significant Governance issues between Stoke and Poringland. Would significantly negatively alter the drainage problems of Boundary Way - known surface water, flooding issues.. Isolated. OPPOSE
GNLP0169 - Would contribute to the disjointed form of development of the conurbation. Extends beyond the comfortable walking/ cycling distance to schools, doctors and shopping. Makes the village an 'octopus' with its tentacles extending into open countryside. Dominant over the village approaches from Shotesham. OPPOSE
GNLP0316 - Land North of Bungay Road, east of Rectory Lane and south of White House. This land has significant environmental assets, hedges ponds - it would require a significant environmental audit. Would contribute to the perceived linear vision of the conurbation. Site has significant landscape value as the headwaters of the Well Beck and is one of the few views of landscape available to the road traveller between Poringland and Brooke. OPPOSE
GNLP0280 - Some problems over access, perhaps requiring the demolition of one house. Drainage problems. Disconnected from the built form of the conurbation. Would contribute to the linear form of the conurbation. OPPOSE
GNLP0323 - would be a welcome development if access along the lane can be seen as adequate. OPPOSE
Object
Site Proposals document
Representation ID: 16569
Received: 11/03/2018
Respondent: Mr John Henson
This is a smaller site but again unsustainably far from public transport, excessively reliant upon cars with no sidewalk in the vicinity and little prospect of being able to construct one. Oppose
Bixley
1. GLNP1032 Site to north of B1332 Boundary Farm: This site would contribute dramatically to the linear vision of the conurbation. Grade 2 agricultural land. Drainage problems However it could offer industrial and employment spaces necessary in this conurbations.
Caistor St Edmund
2. GNLP0485 This huge site would at a stroke integrate Arminghall/Bixley with the Poringland conurbation. It has significant landscape, archaeological and environmental issues . It is far too far from any facilities and would be unsustainably reliant upon cars. Oppose
3. GNLP0131 This is a smaller site but again unsustainably far from public transport, excessively reliant upon cars with no sidewalk in the vicinity and little prospect of being able to construct one. Oppose
4. GNLP0491 This would significantly alter the form and size of Caistor St Edmund on archaeologically important site in open countryside. It is a form of 'backland' development. Access is severely limited. No access to public transport, no sidewalks to village and schools. Oppose
Stoke
5. GNLP0494 The access to this site is significantly constrained. Oppose
6. GNLP1047 Access to this site is severely constrained. It is former RAF site so may well be subject to contamination. Site dominated by the microwave towers. Form would consolidate development each side of the Stoke Road leading to further infill development. Oppose
Framingham Earl/Pigot
7. GNLP0321 To North of B1332 next Boundary Farm - detached from the conurbation by Poringland Wood. Contribute to the linear profile of the conurbation. This could offer employemnt and business opportunities that the conurbation is dramatically short of.
8. GNLP0589-A This would exacerbate the 'octopus' nature of the conurbation and would detract from an area of scenic value otherwise sadly lacking in this area. Favoured by GNLP. Opposed
9. GNLP0589-B Leading on from the development of the Long Road, Hibbett and Key site and the EACH site this would be a logical development. It would mean the loss of significant landscape value in Spur Lane. If it could be developed at a distance from the tree lined Spur Lane it might well be viable. Will have a significant impact upon the subterranean drainage flow towards Long Road and Poringland surface water drainage system. Favoured by GNLP. The overall triangle site has already been intruded upon and there is no reason not to develop the whole Pigot Lane Spur Lane and Long Road area.
10. GNLP0391-A East of Hall Road - semi-detached from the village - contributing to the 'octopus' of development with drainage issues. Intrudes upon an an area of landscape value between Fram Earl and St Andrew's Church. Oppose
11. GNLP0391-B North of Burgate Lane Similar arguments to those against the site south of Burgate Lane Oppose
12. GNLP0003 Isolated site in open countryside, contrary to policy, detached from the conurbation should not even be considered as a valid site. Oppose
Poringland
13. GNLP0223 Significant access problems with no comfortable access through the Norfolk Homes development. Would alter significantly the 'shape' of the conurbation into an form of an 'octopus'. Would reduce the distinctions between Poringland and Stoke. Would have significant Governance issues between Stoke and Poringland. Would significantly negatively alter the drainage problems of Boundary Way - known surface water, flooding issues. Favoured by GNLP doc. Oppose
14. GNLP0169 Would contribute to the disjointed form of development of the conurbation. Extends beyond the comfortable walking/ cycling distance to schools, doctors and shopping. Makes the village an 'octopus' with its tentacles extending into open countryside. Dominant over the village approaches from Shotesham. Favoured by GNLP. Oppose
15. GNLP0316 Land North of Bungay Road, east of Rectory Lane and south of White House. This land has significant environmental assets, hedges ponds - it would require a significant environmental audit. Would contribute to the perceived linear vision of the conurbation. Site has significant landscape value as the headwaters of the Well Beck and is one of the few views of landscape available to the road traveller between Poringland and Brooke. Oppose
16. GNLP0280 Some problems over access, perhaps requiring the demolition of one house. Drainage problems. Disconnected from the built form of the conurbation. Would contribute to the linear form of the conurbation. Oppose