GNLP0485

Showing comments and forms 1 to 25 of 25

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 13327

Received: 26/02/2018

Respondent: Mrs Vicki Clover

Representation:

I

Full text:

Site is out of scale with village as proposed 180 houses would increase size by 150% - currently approx. 120 households. Country park is completely unnecessary as it is adjacent to High Ash Farm (www.highashfarm.com) which is a country park with 5 miles of maintained walks (with visitor signposting/maps) that are open to the public. Caistor also has the Roman Town and is only a couple of miles away from Trowse Country Park. We don't need another country park!! Caistor Lane is too narrow to support this level of increased traffic only wide enough for one car at points.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 13481

Received: 03/03/2018

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Keith & Deborah Wilson

Representation:

This is massive urban sprawl on top of what has already been built in the last 20 plus years and threatens to link us to Norwich. Furthermore, as with almost all of the proposed sites in Poringland this will increase traffic through the village. The roads are already in a dire state and traffic movements are excessive. This is beautiful walking country and it will be destroyed forever.

Full text:

This is massive urban sprawl on top of what has already been built in the last 20 plus years and threatens to link us to Norwich. Furthermore, as with almost all of the proposed sites in Poringland this will increase traffic through the village. The roads are already in a dire state and traffic movements are excessive. This is beautiful walking country and it will be destroyed forever.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 13645

Received: 07/03/2018

Respondent: Mr Ken Barnes

Representation:

This is a totally inappropriate size of development for a village the size of Caistor St Edmund. It would significantly extend the linear form of the village.The offer of a Country Park is unnecessary as it is already country side with an ancient woodland. You can not get a good access from this site to Caistor Lane and the lane can not take the amount of traffic the houses would generate. Caistor Lane already has a significant amount of traffic which is often well beyond what the lane can cope with.

Full text:

This is a totally inappropriate size of development for a village the size of Caistor St Edmund. It would significantly extend the linear form of the village.The offer of a Country Park is unnecessary as it is already country side with an ancient woodland. You can not get a good access from this site to Caistor Lane and the lane can not take the amount of traffic the houses would generate. Caistor Lane already has a significant amount of traffic which is often well beyond what the lane can cope with.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 13761

Received: 11/03/2018

Respondent: Mr john Phillips

Representation:

- Caistor Lane is a narrow country road with dangerous bends which cannot support this level of development/traffic. Fatalities will occur.
- There is no need for a country park which will bring even more traffic to make the lane more dangerous with no footpaths available and no street lighting. Countryside exists now, it does not need to be made into a park.
- Loss of ancient woodland, farmland and wildlife habitat.
- There are no services to support this level of development and extreme pressure will be put on services in Poringland, particularly health services.

Full text:

- Caistor Lane is a narrow country road with dangerous bends which cannot support this level of development/traffic. Fatalities will occur.
- There is no need for a country park which will bring even more traffic to make the lane more dangerous with no footpaths available and no street lighting. Countryside exists now, it does not need to be made into a park.
- Loss of ancient woodland, farmland and wildlife habitat.
- There are no services to support this level of development and extreme pressure will be put on services in Poringland, particularly health services.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 13886

Received: 13/03/2018

Respondent: Bixley Parish Council

Representation:

We consider that it is inappropriate development which would fail to protect the gap between the settlements.

Full text:

This site has only a small area within the parish of Bixley but runs adjacent to it for a distance. Our primary concern with this proposal is that it would remove the spatial division between Poringland/Caistor St Edmund and Arminghall, effectively joining Arminghall to the Poringland urban area.

We believe that this separation is important in retaining the identity of Arminghall and the strong sense of place that the settlement has. The proposed urbanisation of the intervening land would also dramatically change the character of the landscape of the area, removing the existing urban to rural transition and interrupting the key views across this stretch of land and the setting of the rural hinterland between these settlements.

In the context of the overall shape of the development in and around Poringland, this site would not contribute to the compact development of the urban area and instead would extend the linear form of the village.

Traffic issues are significant local concern and it would seem that the most probable point of access for this site would be on Caistor Lane, with traffic flow onto the B1332, which would contribute to congestion on this route at peak times.

In terms of access to services, the site is some distance from local schools, shops, recreation areas and public transport, the nearest bus routes being the B1332 and Arminghall Lane.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 14156

Received: 16/03/2018

Respondent: Mr Brian Grundy

Representation:

Proposed development would change the character, and more than double the residences in the village. Farmland should not be used (other than as last resort), and the ancient woodland within the site would be seriously threatened. Who would manage and protect the woodland and proposed Country Park? Inevitable consequence of the development would be substantial increase in traffic on Caistor Lane, and further pressure on already stretched local services.

Full text:

- Even if no more than the 180 residences proposed were to be built, it would fundamentally change the character of the village from its existing linear form;
- In terms of scale, it would more than double the 120 or so current residences;
- The land is arable farmland and should not be considered for housing use, unless as a very last resort;
- The ancient woodland of Caistor Wood would no doubt get appropriate protection during any later planning process, but whatever theoretical protections are applied, a sensitive site so close to human living would inevitably result in severe disturbance to both flora and fauna;
- There would be a question about who would have the ongoing responsibility to manage and protect the woodland/country park;
- Current access to the proposed site is very restricted, and even if that could be improved, the generated traffic coming onto Caistor Lane would significantly impact a "Byway" which already struggles to cope with existing (and already increasing) traffic volumes;
- The creation of "Country Park" might lead to "tourist" traffic adding further to the pressure on Caistor Lane;
- Local services, particularly schools, GP and Pharmacy services already struggling from significant recent development in neighbouring villages, would be seriously affected.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 14388

Received: 18/03/2018

Respondent: sandra browne

Representation:

The scale of development is completely inappropriate for this rural area.
The narrow access between existing housing is undesirable and Caister Lane is an unclassified minor road which already bears a far too heavy burden of traffic.
There are no footpaths to the Bungay Road, which also has far too much traffic for a minor road.
The site is adjacent to ancient woodland and to Boudicca Way, part of the national network of footpaths. Adjacent farmland is managed to sustain and protect wildlife, and the disruption caused by this proposed site would cause significant harm.

Full text:

The scale of development is completely inappropriate for this rural area.
The narrow access between existing housing is undesirable and Caister Lane is an unclassified minor road which already bears a far too heavy burden of traffic.
There are no footpaths to the Bungay Road, which also has far too much traffic for a minor road.
The site is adjacent to ancient woodland and to Boudicca Way, part of the national network of footpaths. Adjacent farmland is managed to sustain and protect wildlife, and the disruption caused by this proposed site would cause significant harm.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 14457

Received: 21/03/2018

Respondent: Mr Nicholas Bowers

Representation:

Reasons for Objection
1. Large areas of the site have significant landscape value.
2. It extends the linear form of Poringland/Framingham Earl northwards contrary to the aims of the GNLP.
3. Encroaches upon land which effectively forms a green belt between Norwich and Poringland/Framingham Earl.
4. There is already a facility similar to a Country Park in Caistor Lane.
5. Site access from B1332 is poor and Caistor Lane would require improvement.
6. There is a risk of surface water flooding.
7. Potential pollution of nearby chalk aquifer.
8. Natural habitats have the potential to be adversely impacted on.

Full text:

I object to the inclusion of plot GNLP 0485 in the site allocation proposal for the following reasons:
1. Our property which fronts on to north side of Caistor Lane also backs on to this land allocation.
2. Large areas of this site have significant landscape value. At present there are unbroken views over open countryside to the north with the outskirts of Norwich urban fringes just visible in the distance. There is every likelihood that, with the development of this land, these views, and those from other directions will be lost.
3. More importantly, this high quality agricultural land north of Caistor Lane, along with other land forms a "green belt" type buffer between Norwich and the proposed Service Centre of Poringland/Framingham Earl providing distinct separation and definition between the two built up areas. The reallocation of this site or part thereof as building land would significantly erode the boundary of any such "green belt" by encroaching on land that is essentially agricultural. I contend that land south of Norwich Southern Bypass and north of the built up area of Caistor St Edmund should remain as a buffer between the two built up areas and not be built on.
4. The proposal extends the linear form of the built up area which is contrary to the aims of the GNLP.
5. Approximately two thirds of this site are proposed as a Country Park. This begs the question as to who will own the Country Park, who will manage it and maintain it and what controls will be placed on its usage. Often such planning benefits are offered at the early stages of planning but fall by the wayside as details emerge or unforeseen project costs crop up. What constraints will SNC place on the owners to follow through with delivery of a viable Country Park?
6. Land west of this site is already a Natural England country park /nature type facility. There seems little benefit in creating another one next door which will generate further traffic on roads which are in poor condition and sub standard..
7. The development of this site will create an increase in the volume of traffic on the B1332. Other recent developments within the Poringland area have already caused a noticeable increase in traffic along the B1332 road and further developments of this nature will merely exacerbate the situation.
8. The development will also create an increase in traffic volumes along Caistor Lane itself. Again the recent Mulberry Park development on the south side of Caistor Lane (130 new dwellings) has led to increased traffic flows down the country lane. No road improvements of adequate consequence were initiated with this development and this has resulted in a serious deterioration of the narrow lane. The surface is of poor quality and edges of the road pavement are extensively broken and damaged. The increase in traffic has resulted in traffic encroaching on and eroding the verges. Roadside drainage has been damaged allowing water to spill over the carriageway causing danger particularly in icy weather. Further development of this proposed site will add to the woes.
9. Access to the site from Caistor Lane appears to be via two existing accesses. Both these accesses appear to be of insufficient width to facilitate a new access road. The western access onto Caistor Lane is located close to a blind bend. There does not appear to be any access to the site from Arminghall Lane.
10. There will be an increased risk of flooding due to faster surface water run off created by the hardened ground surfaces within the residential area. The flood risk occurs between the site and drainage discharge into Rive Tas. Furthermore the River Tas floods regularly during the winter months into the adjoining fields. The potential for increased flooding is a significant issue.
11. Anglian Water abstract drinking water from the chalk aquifer near the Stoke Road about 1 mile to the west of the site. Potential pollution of the aquifer due to any surface water or other discharges from the site would need to be seriously looked into.
12. Any allocation of this site for development would need to be accompanied by a water cycle study to demonstrate no harm to the water environment of any nearby European sites, in relation to water abstraction and to waste water both in isolation and in combination with other developments.
13. The Caistor St Edmund chalk pit itself is a SSSI site.
14. There is a potential risk that established wildlife habitats in the area will be permanently disturbed by this development and the pollution caused by it. Ancient woodland and CWS all have the potential to be adversely impacted upon
15. Community facilities within the Service Centre are already stretched as a result of recent developments (completed and planned). A further development of the scale proposed would necessitate an upgrade of these facilities

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 14773

Received: 20/03/2018

Respondent: mr Barry Catchpole

Representation:

As a resident of Caistor Lane and a Parish Counsellor, I wholeheartedly support the views expressed by Mr Brian Grundy objecting to the proposal.

Full text:

As a resident of Caistor Lane and a Parish Counsellor, I wholeheartedly support the views expressed by Mr Brian Grundy objecting to the proposal.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 14807

Received: 20/03/2018

Respondent: Mr Paul Chapman

Representation:

This large piece of farmland should not be considered for housing, brown field sites must come first. Site of Caistor Ancient Woodland would be at risk of disturbance to both Flora and fauna. Access to site is very poor. Traffic on Caistor Lane already impacted by latest developments in the Poringland area and would again be significantly increased on a dangerous, winding bylane. This is good farmland for growing crops and raring livestock, should not be considered for development.

Full text:

This large piece of farmland should not be considered for housing, brown field sites must come first. Site of Caistor Ancient Woodland would be at risk of disturbance to both Flora and fauna. Access to site is very poor. Traffic on Caistor Lane already impacted by latest developments in the Poringland area and would again be significantly increased on a dangerous, winding bylane. This is good farmland for growing crops and raring livestock, should not be considered for development.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 14878

Received: 20/03/2018

Respondent: Ms Ann Symonds

Representation:

This development would produce a lot of additional traffic on what is already a very busy B road.

Environmentally it would spread the urbanisation further into the country side. The development would take away farm land which could and should be used to produce food.
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.

Full text:

This development would produce a lot of additional traffic on what is already a very busy B road.

Environmentally it would spread the urbanisation further into the country side. The development would take away farm land which could and should be used to produce food.
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: 15331

Received: 21/03/2018

Respondent: Caistor St Edmund Parish Council

Representation:

Traffic - volume and speed of traffic in Caistor Lane and poor access to the site. Huge increases in traffic from the new David Wilson site.
Schools - schools are already up to capacity and we are aware of families in our village and being unable to obtain places at local school
Healthcare - despite the recent building of a doctors surgery in Poringland, waiting times already excessive.
Caistor St Edmund will no longer feel like a village with only 120 residences at present.
Who will maintain the proposed park?Concerned that ancient Caistor Wood will be at risk.

Full text:

Traffic - volume and speed of traffic in Caistor Lane and poor access to the site. Huge increases in traffic from the new David Wilson site.
Schools - schools are already up to capacity and we are aware of families in our village and being unable to obtain places at local school
Healthcare - despite the recent building of a doctors surgery in Poringland, waiting times already excessive.
Caistor St Edmund will no longer feel like a village with only 120 residences at present.
Who will maintain the proposed park?Concerned that ancient Caistor Wood will be at risk.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 15713

Received: 22/03/2018

Respondent: Mrs Sue Hartley

Representation:

Scale: Vastly out of keeping with open rural environment. Character of village & parish would be altered.
Access: Poor and inadequate. Castor Lane inadequate to handle extra traffic volumes generated. No access to B1332.
Need: More appropriate sites (size & 'brownfield') exist: they should be utilised first.
Farmland: Once lost, it will be gone forever. As will the habitats of many bird & animal species.
Country Park: Unnecessary in the context of this countryside location, in which alternatives for Green Infill already exist via a well-developed system of public rights of way and permissive paths.

Full text:

The scale of this proposed development is vastly out of keeping with the open rural environment in which it is located and the number of properties would radically alter the character of both the village and the parish.
Access is poor, with Caistor Lane being of insufficient size and standard to cater for the likely increase in associated vehicle movements. No access is proposed to the B1332.
Alternative brownfield or smaller-scale sites must exist. They should be utilised, rather than land being taken out of vital agricultural use and, in so doing, destroying the natural and thriving habitats of many species of birds and animals.
The creation of a Country Park in order to 'sweeten' this proposed development is not necessary. Members of the public (both local residents and visitors) already make considerable use of the open spaces overlooking the eastern Tas valley, through a combination of public rights of way and permissive footpaths.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 15753

Received: 22/03/2018

Respondent: Mr Trevor Lewis

Representation:

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.

Full text:

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.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 15892

Received: 22/03/2018

Respondent: R Woods

Representation:

Out of keeping for a small village that has 120 residences at present. This area has met its allocation of development sites.It will lead to a huge increase in traffic on Caistor Lane having got worse since the new David Wilson development at the top end of the lane was built.
Schools - many schools are already up to capacity and we are aware of families moving into our village and being unable to obtain places at the local catchment school of Stoke Holy Cross.
How will the ancient Caistor Wood be protected?

Full text:

Out of keeping for a small village that has 120 residences at present. This area has met its allocation of development sites.It will lead to a huge increase in traffic on Caistor Lane having got worse since the new David Wilson development at the top end of the lane was built.
Schools - many schools are already up to capacity and we are aware of families moving into our village and being unable to obtain places at the local catchment school of Stoke Holy Cross.
How will the ancient Caistor Wood be protected?

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 15941

Received: 22/03/2018

Respondent: Mrs Ann Gordon

Representation:

Too many housing developments already under way.
Lack of infrastructure. Strain on existing services
Poorer quality of life for residents.
TRAFFIC

Full text:

We have lived on Caistor Lane for over twenty years. Our concerns are generally for the huge amount of development which in recent years has taken place in this area and the detrimental effect that this has already had on the quality of life in this community. Services are already stretched to capacity. There is no mention in the plans of increasing school places, nor of new doctors surgeries yet it is already increasingly difficult to get appointments at the doctors and schools are oversubscribed. This is before the huge amount of building already in process in the area is completed. How is it expected to cope with further development still?
Obviously the new developments have served to increase the volume of traffic in the area and all the roads, none of which are main roads, are becoming congested and dangerous.
Caistor St Edmund is described as a small rural community, yet is becoming anything but. This development will continue the suburbanisation of this lovely area and the character of each individual community will be lost as it becomes one sprawling housing development.
Caistor Lane is a LANE, just about wide enough for two cars to pass and in places, if cars are large as many now are, not even wide enough for this. The amount of traffic now using the lane has increased several fold due to the continued development of Poringland. When the large new estate at the top of Caistor Lane was built (250 houses) and concerns expressed about the further increase in traffic that this would lead to, we were told that the traffic coming from the new estate would not generally use Caistor Lane, but would turn right out of the estate and use the Norwich Road. As we all knew would be the case, this has not happened as Caistor Lane is a cut through to the A140 and A47. It has become increasingly dangerous to drive, particularly as many now drive beyond the speed limit and in the middle of the road. The suggested new development of 180 houses with access only onto Caistor Lane will further exacerbate this already big problem.
Additionally, the lane is becoming dangerous to walk.There are no pavements, nor is there any street lighting. Caistor Lane is home to many elderly residents and is used by an increasing number of young children due to the recent building at the Poringland end of the lane. To reach the services of the area without a car, it is necessary to walk to Poringland, up Caistor Lane. Anyone in a wheelchair, pushing a buggy or using a walking stick, has to walk on the road and these are the people least able to move out of the way of the speeding traffic.
We are lucky in this area to have access to some beautiful walks easily accessible from our homes, particularly around High Ash Farm but to access these, have to walk down Caistor Lane, a walk which is blighted by volume of traffic and the need to stop to allow it to pass. 180 new homes will significantly add to this problem. The proposal for a County Park in this development will only serve to further increase the traffic on this lane as again, access to it would be from Caistor Lane. Without any further development, there would be no need for any County Park as Whitlingham Country Park is very close and as previously mentioned, we already have access to walks. Finally, why do we need this development when houses already built are remaining empty?

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 15943

Received: 22/03/2018

Respondent: Mr Nicholas Dennis

Representation:

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.

Full text:

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: 15967

Received: 22/03/2018

Respondent: Mr Clive Gordon

Representation:

The area around Poringland has already had a large number of new houses and the local infrastructure (schools, doctors etc.)is already not coping with the increasing numbers of people.
Caistor Lane, as the name suggests, is not suitable for the increasing amount of traffic which it has to cope with.
We have 250 houses at the top of the road already. The plan is for 180 more plus a County Park. This all brings more traffic on to the lane. Caistor Lane is not a main road. Such an increase in traffic flow threatens the safety of local residents

Full text:

The Poringland area has been an area which has already seen a significant rise in its population. The result of this is that the local infrastructure is not coping with the influx of new residents. Getting appointments at the doctors' surgery is becoming more difficult, even though there is a new surgery with more doctors. Some of the current residents of Poringland are not getting their children into the local primary school because it is over subscribed. They are having accept that their children will have to travel to Trowse Primary School. Where will the new families have to send their children. There is no mention of new school building in the plan!
The greatest problem for us is the extra traffic on the local roads, in particular Caistor Lane. The amount of traffic on the lane has been increasing steadily as the population of the Poringland area has grown and more and more cars turn down Caistor Lane to avoid the congestion on the Bungay Road and the A146. It is used as a cut-through to the the Stoke Road to gain easier access to Norwich, the A140, Tesco at Harford Bridge and the A47 going west. The building of Mulbery Park (250 houses) at the top of Caistor Lane has led to another significant increase in cars driving up and down the lane. This, despite the reassurance we were given that people moving into Mulberry Park would use the Bungay Road. Vehicles frequently exceed the speed limit and this is a real problem for old people and children walking to school as there are no pavements. The only access to the 180 new homes on the proposed new site is from Caistor Lane. This "LANE" is not suitable for the increasing volume of traffic that it is having to cope with. There are narrow, dangerous bends which are not really wide enough for cars to pass each other without slowing up significantly and brushing the hedges to avoid collisions. If a County Park is included in the development, that will bring even more traffic on to Caistor Lane. Why do we need a County Park? We have a lot of lovely footpaths across the surrounding rural land and we have Whitlingham Country Park not far away. This area has had enough of suburbanisation. The "small rural community" of Caistor St Edmund is being lost as is becomes subsumed by the growth of Poringland and its surrounding villages.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 15987

Received: 22/03/2018

Respondent: Mr Chris Troise

Representation:

Although my full letter is a general submission opposing GNLP0485 it does include reference to GNLP0131. I am opposed to any further development along Caistor Lane which would give rise to additional traffic. We have an ongoing current development by David Wilson Homes for around 200 homes, most of which have access on to Caistor Lane. The lane has already become a short cut to the A47/A140 junction as well as a rat run route to the Hall Road area of Norwich. I also object for matters relating to drainage, wildlife and a lack of need for a Country Park.

Full text:

Mr C J Troise
34 Caistor Lane
Caistor St Edmund
Norwich
Norfolk
NR14 8RB

22 March 2018

Dear Sirs

The Greater Norwich Local Plan (GNLP) - GNLP0485

I recently received a leaflet delivered on behalf of Caistor St Edmund Parish Council in relation to The Greater Norwich Local Plan (GNLP). I subsequently attended one of a series of Roadshows and have viewed section 5.17 Caistor St Edmund and, necessarily, section 5.59 Poringland of the Site Proposals document.

My initial observation, and possibly that of fellow residents of our village, was the surprise inclusion of Caistor St Edmund within the section on Poringland. I have lived in Caistor St Edmund for over fifteen years and it has its own identity separate from neighbouring villages. In my opinion, it is a little disingenuous to regard this village as an extension of Poringland. Our village may be regarded as an Other Village in the JCS dependent upon services outwith its boundaries but to the average person locally very few, if any, would regard the village as part of Poringland.

However, with that noted, it is obvious to residents of Caistor St Edmund and other villages as well as residents of Poringland that the infrastructure in the surrounding area is already close to breaking point.

In recent years, the amount of housing development in the local area has been more than extensive. Others will be better placed than me to identify exact numbers of new homes but the effect on the local infrastructure and services has been immense. I have little doubt that successive applications for development in villages around Poringland have relied upon the services seemingly available in Poringland.

From a personal perspective the proposed site which is of most relevance to me is GNP0485 since it is a proposed site which borders my own property. However, other sites in the village, such as GNLP0131 do concern me as well,

Naturally one of the main concerns of the site proposals is in relation to highways. Even before the presently ongoing development by David Wilson Homes of around 200 new homes, most of which have their access on to Caistor Lane, the lane has become a short cut to the A47/A140 junction as well as a rat run route into the Hall Road area of Norwich. In relation to GNP0485 and GNLP0131 the proposed access points are on to Caistor Lane. Some of the proposed access points are, at present, little more than farm tracks and even if they could be widened by acquiring adjoining properties, the lane is already overused and would need significant improvement and widening from the junction with the B1113 Bungay Road along the extent of the lane to the Stoke Road. This could only be achieved by the requisition of land at the edges of the current lane. In addition, there is no street lighting or pavements for pedestrians beyond the Poringland boundary on Caistor Lane, close to the B1113 junction.

Other areas of concern to me in relation to the proposed sites, although not within my expertise, would be drainage issues which have become seemingly worse in the area as well as the impact on wildlife. I also have some reservations about the suitability and viability of locating a country park in an area when we already have inadequate highways to cope with existing traffic. We are however blessed with public footpaths and are in close proximity to Whitlingham Broad and the extensive services it provides to its visitors.

Referring specifically to section 5.59 of the Site Proposals document it states that Poringland contains a range of services. The list of services may be accurately stated but these remain virtually unchanged from when I moved to our village over fifteen years ago, long before the recent extensive housing developments. There are aspects of local services on which I may not be best placed to comment, particularly as to the ability of some services to extend their respective capacities, for example, schools and surgeries. However, I can provide an objective opinion on one local family where the parents have lived in the area since childhood but whose second child has not been offered a place at the same primary school as their sibling due to no places being available.

My other objective opinion is on the first service noted in section 5.59, namely the post office. This is located within the local One Stop convenience store. I appreciate that successive development applications may cite this service as being within walking distance but it is already inadequate such that it is extremely rare to visit the store without vehicles being illegally parked. My general point is that many residents do not walk to these services when it is easier and quicker to visit by car. I have little doubt if an application were made to position the store where it is today it would be refused by planners.

It is apparent from the GNLP that after taking account of sites which are already permitted or allocated totalling between 35,000 and 36,000 homes, new sites, including a buffer allowance, for 7,200 homes will be needed. From a personal viewpoint, I would like it to be confirmed that a large majority if not nearly all of those already permitted or allocated would be developed before the proposed sites in this new consultation are developed. This is, after all, a Plan to take us well into the 2030's and there should be no need for hardly any of these newly proposed sites to be developed any time soon.

I believe it may be premature at this stage to further comment about the suitability of the proposed sites referred to above in more detailed terms but I do understand they are attractive and of interest to planners by way of their size but just because they cover a large area does not necessarily make them more suitable for development than other sites, some of which may yet be proposed. In respect of the two proposed sites noted above, I do not believe there is anyone who bought a property along this lane in a village location expecting such development of housing on good arable land.

Yours faithfully

Chris Troise

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 16023

Received: 22/03/2018

Respondent: Lynette Yaxley

Representation:

This is outside the development plan, in green belt countryside & would merge with the new housing developments in Poringland & Framingham Earl to become one big urban sprawl with Norwich.
The narrow winding road from the B1332 to the crossroads in Caistor St. Edmund, giving access to the A47, is already hazardous, with 2 vehicles unable to pass in many places.
There would be loss of prime agricultural land & wildlife habitat.
Development should be focused on brown field sites.
A country park is not needed - there are permissive pathways & Caistor Ancient Woodland already in the area.

Full text:

This is outside the development plan, in green belt countryside & would merge with the new housing developments in Poringland & Framingham Earl to become one big urban sprawl with Norwich.
The narrow winding road from the B1332 to the crossroads in Caistor St. Edmund, giving access to the A47, is already hazardous, with 2 vehicles unable to pass in many places.
There would be loss of prime agricultural land & wildlife habitat.
Development should be focused on brown field sites.
A country park is not needed - there are permissive pathways & Caistor Ancient Woodland already in the area.

Support

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 16333

Received: 22/03/2018

Respondent: Glavenhill Strategic Land

Agent: Lanpro Services Ltd

Representation:

The site is some 36ha in area and is located north of
Caistor Lane on the northern edge of the urban area comprising the linked villages of Framingham
Earl, Caistor St Edmund, Upper Stoke and Poringland. A Location site plan is attached.
The land is controlled by Glavenhill and is immediately available/deliverable to meet planned
housing targets and to address existing acknowledged shortfalls in accessible public open space.
300 new dwellings, including affordable housing, and
a large area of permanent green infrastructure in the form of the new Caistor Country Park. This
24.5 ha area of new strategic green infrastructure

Full text:

The site promoted has already been submitted into the previous call-for-sites process and has
been assigned the reference GNLP0485. The site is some 36ha in area and is located north of
Caistor Lane on the northern edge of the urban area comprising the linked villages of Framingham
Earl, Caistor St Edmund, Upper Stoke and Poringland. A Location Plan showing the location of the
site is contained at section 3 of this document.
The land is controlled by Glavenhill and is immediately available/deliverable to meet planned
housing targets and to address existing acknowledged shortfalls in accessible public open space
within this part of the Norwich Policy Area.
This promoted site can accommodate circa. 300 new dwellings, including affordable housing, and
a large area of permanent green infrastructure in the form of the new Caistor Country Park. This
24.5 ha area of new strategic green infrastructure can be delivered early in the Local Plan period
to offset growth impacts from on-going major developments at Caistor St Edmund, Poringland,
Hethersett and Wymondham on the Broads National Park.
The site is within a short walk-time of the Key Service Centre of Poringland and Framingham Earl.
The surrounding area contains a wide range of community facilities, including a primary and
secondary school, village halls and a community centre, GP surgeries, dentist surgery, post office,
library, public houses, a variety of other shops and services and a regular bus service into the City
of Norwich. The quantum of housing and green infrastructure proposed is considered appropriate
to the surrounding urban area.
This new park will be laid out as open space and new woodlands and will be equipped for a high
standard of recreation and leisure. It will have car access and parking accessed directly off Caistor
Lane.
The entire scheme has been designed to meet existing acknowledged green infrastructure
shortfalls in Broadland District and the Norwich Policy Area. It will deliver major public benefits to
existing residents within the linked villages of Framingham Earl, Caistor St Edmund, Upper Stoke
and Poringland. As such it is an appropriate location for the level of housing growth and green
infrastructure proposed.
Although the Country Park would constitute an abnormal cost in scheme delivery terms, the full
cost of laying-out the space, construction of the access road and car parking area, and supplying
and maintaining the play equipment proposed has been factored into the business plan.
The scheme has been devised having regard to planning guidance contained in the National
Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). This development will provide social gain through increased
recreation and sporting opportunities which leads to community development and social
inclusion; economic gains through making the linked settlements of Framingham Earl, Caistor St
Edmund, Upper Stoke and Poringland more attractive to housing and new business. The scheme
will also deliver net environmental gains for nature and improve existing and future residents'
quality of life.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 16402

Received: 19/03/2018

Respondent: Poringland Parish Council

Representation:

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

Full text:

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

Comment

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 16532

Received: 20/03/2018

Respondent: Norfolk Wildlife Trust

Representation:

We are pleased to see recognition of constraints relating to CWS. Any country park development should ensure continued management and protection of [the CWS]

Full text:

General comments:
All allocations need to be considered in relation to the Greater Norwich GI Strategy and the emerging Norfolk GI maps, in relation to both opportunities and constraints.
As for previous consultations, our comments on site allocations relate to information that we hold. This relates mainly to impacts on CWS. These comments are in addition to previous pre-consultation comments on potential allocations. However, we are not aware of all impacts on priority habitats and species, or on protected species and further constraints may be present on some proposed allocations. Similarly, we have flagged up impacts on GI corridors where this is related to CWS but there should be an assessment of all proposed allocations against the emerging GI maps for Norfolk, which should consider both locations where allocations may fragment GI and areas within allocations that could enhance GI network. As a result, lack of comment on sites does not necessarily mean that these are supported by NWT and we may object to applications on allocated sites, if biodiversity impacts are shown to be present?

We are aware that the GNLP process will be taking place at the same time as Natural England work on licensing with regard to impacts of development on great-crested newt. This work will include establishment of zones where development is more or less likely to impact on great-crested newt. We advise that this ongoing work is considered as part of the evidence base of the GNLP, if practicable to do so in the time scale.

Broadland
Coltishall:
0265 There is a substantial block of mature trees within this proposed allocation which we understand provides nesting site for common buzzard and is part of wooded ridge. Although not protected under schedule 1 of the Wildlife & Countryside Act, in our view this should be seen as a constraint on development and wooded ridge should be protected.

Drayton
0290: In our view development within the Drayton Woods CWS is not acceptable and this site should not be allocated.
We agree with constraints due to proximity to CWS that are assessed for other proposed allocations in Drayton

Frettenham:
0492 we are pleased to see that impact on CWS is recognised as a major constraint and the need for area within CWS to be recognised as GI, if there is any smaller development outside of CWS

Hevingham:
Adjacent CWS represents a potential constraint as has been recognised.

Honingham:
We note that the presence of CWS and river valley are recognised as constraints, although assessment is that impacts on these areas can be avoided by becoming green space in a larger development. If taken forward, plans would need to include a buffer to all CWS and assessment of biodiversity value of each CWS to establish whether they have particular sensitivity. At this stage, NWT take view that 0415 should not be allocated, even if part of a large development.

Horsford:
0469 and 0251 should be recognised as having CWS or priority habitat constraint. There should be no development on CWS and should be a buffer to CWS.

Postwick:
0571 This would be a new settlement and we are pleased to see that a biodiversity constraint is recognised. However, Witton Run is a key GI corridor linking to Broads National Park. It is essential that impacts on GI corridors, such as Witton Run, are recognised even when not made up of designated sites, if the Greater Norwich GI strategy is to have any value.

Reepham:
1007: This is STW expansion. If expansion is necessary at this STW, there will need to be mitigation and/or compensation with regard to impacts on CWS
1006: There are potential impacts on CWS 1365, which need to be considered

Sprowston:
0132 We are pleased to see that GI constraints and opportunities are recognised. However, need to ensure that allocation allows for protection and enhancement of GI corridor.

Taverham:
0563: Recognition of impact on CWS is recognised but need to ensure no development within CWS, plus buffer to the CWS, if this is taken forward.
0337: Buffer to Marriott's Way CWS needs to be recognised

Thorpe St Andrew:
0228 and 0442: Pleased to see that the impact on CWS 2041 and GI corridor seen as a major constraint and that all sites proposed will have an adverse impact. These sites should not be allocated.

Norwich:
Deal ground 0360: Previous permissions allow for protection and enhancement of Carrow Abbey Marsh CWS. There is great potential for restoration of this CWS as a new nature reserve, associated with the development and a key area of GI linking the city with Whitlingham Park. This aim should be retained in any renewal of the allocation and new permissions

0068: Development should not reach up to riverside but allow for creation of narrow area of natural bankside semi-natural vegetation to link with similar between adjacent river and Playhouse. This will help to deliver the (Norwich) River Wensum Environment Strategy

South Norfolk

Barford:
0416: We are pleased to see that biodiversity constraints are recognised but there is a need to mitigate for impacts on adjacent CWS 2216 though provision of buffer.
1013: There are potential biodiversity constraints, with regard to semi-natural habitats

Berghapton:
0210: We are pleased to see that impacts on CWS, existing woodland and protected species seen as major constraint.

Bixley:
1032: There may be biodiversity constraint in relation to habitats on site

Bracon Ash:
New settlement 1055: We are pleased to see that affects CWS and priority habitats are recognised. There is potential for significant additional impact on Ashwellthorpe Wood SSSI. This site is open to the public but is sensitive and not suitable for increased recreational impacts, owing to the wet nature of the soils and the presence of rare plants, which are sensitive to trampling. We are also concerned about increased recreational impacts on of a new settlement on Lizard and Silfield CWS and on Oxford Common. These sites are already under heavy pressure owing to new housing in South Wymondham. Unless impacts can be fully mitigated we are likely to object to this allocation if carried forward to the next stage of consultation.

Broome:
0346: We are pleased to see recognition of constraints relating to adjacent Broome Heath CWS

Caistor
0485: see Poringland

Chedgrave:
1014: There may be biodiversity constraints with regard to adjacent stream habitats

Colney
0253: Constraints relating impacts on existing CWS 235 and impacts on floodplain may be significant and should also be recognised as factors potentially making this allocation unsuitable for the proposed development

Costessey
0238: We are pleased to see constraints in relation to CWS and flood risk are recognised.
0266: We are pleased to see constraints recognised. The value of parts of this porposed allocation as a GI corridor need to be considered.
0489: We are pleased to see that constraints relating to river valley CWS recognised. This site should not be allocated

Cringleford
0461: The whole of 0461 consists of semi-natural habitat, woodland and grazed meadow and should not be allocated for development. In addition adjacent land in the valley bottom is highly likely to be of CWS value and should be considered as such when considering constraints
0244: This site is currently plantation woodland and part of the Yare Valley GI corridor. It should not be allocated, for this reason

Diss:
We support the recognition that constraints regarding to biodiversity need to be addressed. Contributions to GI enhancement should be considered. 1004, 1044 & 1045 may cause recreational impact on CWS 2286 (Frenze Brook) and mitigation will be required.

Hethersett
0177: We are concerned that constraints with regard to impacts on CWS 2132 and 233 are not recognised. These two CWS require continued grazing management in order to retain their value and incorporation as green space within amenity green space is not likely to provide this. Development of the large area of 0177 to the south of the Norwich Road would provide an opportunity for habitat creation and restoration

Marlingford:
0415: We are concerned with the biodiversity impacts of development along Yare Valley and on CWS and habitats on the valley slopes (including CWS in Barford parish). If this area is allocated it should only be as a semi-natural green space that is managed as semi-natural habitat

Poringland:
0485: We are pleased to see recognition of constraints relating to CWS. Any country park development should ensure continued management and protection of

Roydon
0526: There is potential for recreational impacts on Roydon Fen CWS. This impact needs to be considered for all proposed allocations in Roydon and if taken forward mitigation measures may be required. We are also concerned about water quality issues arising from surface water run-off to the Fen from adjacent housing allocations and these allocations should only be taken forward if it is certain that mitigation measures can be put in place. Roydon Fen is a Suffolk Wildlife Trust nature reserve and SWT may make more detailed comments, with regard to impacts.
Although appearing to consist mainly of arable fields this 3-part allocation contains areas of woodland and scrub, which may be home to protected species. These areas should be retained if this area is allocated and so will represent a constraint on housing numbers.

Toft Monks:
0103: We are pleased to see that a TPO constraint recognised and value as grassland habitat associated with trees should be considered.

Woodton
0150: Buffer to CWS could be provided by GI within development if this allocation is taken forward.
1009: Impacts on CWS 94 may require mitigation.

Wymondham:
Current allocations in Wymondham have already led to adverse impacts on CWS around the town, through increased recreational pressure. Although proposals for mitigation are being considered via Wymondham GI group, further development south of town is not possible without significant GI provision. This applies particularly to 0402. Similarly, there is very limited accessible green space to the north of the town and any development will require significant new GI. 0354 to north of town includes CWS 215, which needs to be protected and buffered from development impacts and CWS 205 needs to be protected if 0525 is allocated.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 16568

Received: 11/03/2018

Respondent: Mr John Henson

Representation:

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

Full text:

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

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 16685

Received: 04/05/2018

Respondent: Mr John Pitchford

Representation:

Caistor Lane and Markshall Lane form a 'ratrun' to the southern by pass. The carriageway edges have little or no support and are continually eroded giving rise to dangerous potholes particularly for cyclists. The highway drainage is poor with areas of standing and running water. It is narrow in places and the forward visibility is poor making it very difficult for pedestrians.
The two sites GNLP 0485 and GNLP 0491 have access only on to Caistor Lane and would, if granted, increase the danger to road users and accelerate the deterioration of the highway.

An important consideration is the disposal of surface water, particularly with regard to GNLP0485. The site is situated at the head of a valley leading to the River Tas where the chalk aquifer is much closer to the surface.

This part of Norfolk south of the city particularly the Tas Valley and areas adjacent to it has great scenic beauty and a large development such as GNLP 0845 would be particularly obtrusive. It would do nothing towards enhancing the natural environment.

Full text:

There seems to be scant regard given to the increasing damaging effects on the surrounding road network which, as a result, requires increased expenditure on maintenance.
In this context I refer particularly to recent developments and the call for sites in Caistor St. Edmund.

Caistor Lane and Markshall Lane form a popular 'rat run' for access to the southern by pass. The lane has not been christened 'wing mirror alley' without good reason. The carriageway edges have little or no support and are continually being eroded giving rise to dangerous potholes particularly for cyclists. The existing highway drainage is poor with areas of standing and running water. It is narrow in places and the forward visibility is poor making it very difficult for pedestrians. I notie today that Markshall Bridge has been damaged again.

The two sites GNLP 0485 and GNLP 0491 have access only on to Caistor Lane and given the density of development being pushed by the Government would, if granted, increase the danger to road users and accelerate the deterioration of the highway.

An important consideration for these sites, is the disposal of surface water, particularly with regard to GNLP0485. The site is situated at the head of a valley leading to the River Tas where the chalk aquifer is much closer to the surface.

This part of Norfolk south of the city particularly the Tas Valley and areas adjacent to it has great scenic beauty and a large development such as GNLP 0845 would be particularly obtrusive. It would do nothing towards enhancing the natural environment. (The vision for greater Norwich, P17). A case in point is the recent Mulberry Park development south of Caistor Lane where little thought seems to have been given to merging into the environment.