GNLP0491

Showing comments and forms 1 to 19 of 19

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 13646

Received: 07/03/2018

Respondent: Mr Ken Barnes

Representation Summary:

A small part of this site already has permission for a limited amount of houses. Any further development would be difficult. The access is fairly narrow and could not take significant extra development. Such development would be inappropriate infill development not suited to the scale of the surrounding properties.

Full text:

A small part of this site already has permission for a limited amount of houses. Any further development would be difficult. The access is fairly narrow and could not take significant extra development. Such development would be inappropriate infill development not suited to the scale of the surrounding properties.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 13760

Received: 11/03/2018

Respondent: Mr john Phillips

Representation Summary:

- Very narrow entrance to this proposal. Caistor Lane is a country road which already has far too much traffic going through to A47. Fatalities will occur if the area becomes too busy with no footpaths or street lighting.
- Recent housing has already put pressure on the area
- Caistor Lane suffers surface water flooding which will be exacerbated by this proposal;
- Loss of prime farmland and wildlife habitat.

Full text:

- Caistor Lane is a country road which is carrying far too much traffic for its size and includes several dangerous bends. This proposal has very narrow access and would introduce even more danger to schoolchildren and the elderly population given there are no footpaths and no street lighting.
- Increased heavy lorry traffic and building works will wreck the local environment.
- Recent building on Caistor Lane of 200 houses has already put pressure on local services and the road network. Where are the services to support all these homes coming from?
- Caistor Lane suffers from surface water flooding. Proposal is higher than current housing and covering the ground with concrete will significantly increase the problems with water drainage.
- Significant loss of prime farmland and wildlife habitat.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 14020

Received: 15/03/2018

Respondent: Mr Charles Bussey

Representation Summary:

This proposed site is outside the development boundary. It is not adjacent to any development and therefore is encroaching onto open countryside. The proposal is out of proportion to the existing village which has very few amenities and therefore this is a development proposal that is I believe unsustainable.
It is breaking the natural edge of the village and is by its restricted access is virtually separated from the existing village.
I therefore object to this site being included as an approved site.

Full text:

This proposed site is outside the development boundary. It is not adjacent to any development and therefore is encroaching onto open countryside. The proposal is out of proportion to the existing village which has very few amenities and therefore this is a development proposal that is I believe unsustainable.
It is breaking the natural edge of the village and is by its restricted access is virtually separated from the existing village.
I therefore object to this site being included as an approved site.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 14158

Received: 16/03/2018

Respondent: Mr Brian Grundy

Representation Summary:

Proposed development would change the character, and potentially more than double the number of residences in the village. Farmland should not be used (other than as last resort). Inevitable consequence of the development would be substantial increase in traffic on Caistor Lane, and further pressure on already stretched local services.

Full text:

- Though numbers are not specified, the amount of housing which would inevitably go onto this substantial site would fundamentally change the character of the village from its existing linear form;
- Potentially it could 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;
- 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;
- 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: 14774

Received: 20/03/2018

Respondent: mr Barry Catchpole

Representation Summary:

As a resident of Caistor Lane I object to this proposal.

Full text:

As a resident of Caistor Lane I object to this proposal.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 14817

Received: 20/03/2018

Respondent: Mr Paul Chapman

Representation Summary:

This large piece of farmland should not be considered for housing, brown sites must come first. Traffic on Caistor Lane already impacted by latest developments in the Poringland area and would again be significantly increased on an already dangerous, winding byway. Impact on local services, schools, GP and other services already struggling and would be seriously affected. 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 sites must come first. Traffic on Caistor Lane already impacted by latest developments in the Poringland area and would again be significantly increased on an already dangerous, winding byway. Impact on local services, schools, GP and other services already struggling and would be seriously affected. This is good farmland for growing crops and raring livestock, should not be considered for development.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 15047

Received: 21/03/2018

Respondent: Mr Nicholas Bowers

Representation Summary:

I object to the inclusion of Plot GNLP 0491 because:
1Encroach 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 by this development.

Full text:

I object to the inclusion of plot GNLP 0491 in the site allocation proposal for the following reasons:
1.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 B road and further developments of this nature will merely exacerbate the situation.
2.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.
3.Access to the site via Caistor Lane appears to be via an existing access which appears to be of insufficient width to facilitate a new development.
4. 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 potential for increased flooding is an issue.
5. 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.
6.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.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 15335

Received: 21/03/2018

Respondent: Caistor St Edmund Parish Council

Representation Summary:

Traffic already excessive on Caistor Lane especially since D Wilson development. Main Poringland Rd already congested throughout the day.
Out of keeping with a village that is only 120 residences today with little amenities.
Schools are already up to capacity with villagers unable today to obtain places at local schools.

Full text:

Traffic already excessive on Caistor Lane especially since D Wilson development. Main Poringland Rd already congested throughout the day.
Out of keeping with a village that is only 120 residences today with little amenities.
Schools are already up to capacity with villagers unable today to obtain places at local schools.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 15754

Received: 22/03/2018

Respondent: Mr Trevor Lewis

Representation Summary:

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: 15806

Received: 22/03/2018

Respondent: Mr Nicholas Bowers

Representation Summary:

I object to the inclusion of Plot GNLP 0491 because:
1. Site access from B1332 is poor and Caistor Lane would require
improvement.
2. There is a risk of surface water flooding.
3. Natural habitats have the potential to be adversely impacted on by this
development.

Full text:

I object to the inclusion of plot GNLP 0491 in the site allocation proposal
for the following reasons:
1.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 B road and
further developments of this nature will merely exacerbate the situation.
2.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.
3.Access to the site via Caistor Lane appears to be via an existing access
which appears to be of insufficient width to facilitate a new development.
4. 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 potential for increased flooding is an issue.
5. 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.
6.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.

Comment

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 15898

Received: 22/03/2018

Respondent: R Woods

Representation Summary:

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: 15938

Received: 22/03/2018

Respondent: Mr Nicholas Dennis

Representation Summary:

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: 15939

Received: 22/03/2018

Respondent: Mr Nicholas Dennis

Representation Summary:

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: 15976

Received: 22/03/2018

Respondent: Lynette Yaxley

Representation Summary:

This proposed development is outside the development bounday & out of all proportion to the existing village, which has few existing facilities.
The roads are totally inadequate to take any more traffic - Caistor Lane is only one-width wide in many places, whereby vehicles have to pull in & stop at passing places when 2 vehicles meet.
The route that traffic would have to take to access the A47 is narrow & dangerous.
Caistor Lane already suffers from surface water flooding, which would be exacerbated by any further developments.
The loss of prime farmland & wildlife habitat would be disastrous.

Full text:

This proposed development is outside the development bounday & out of all proportion to the existing village, which has few existing facilities.
The roads are totally inadequate to take any more traffic - Caistor Lane is only one-width wide in many places, whereby vehicles have to pull in & stop at passing places when 2 vehicles meet.
The route that traffic would have to take to access the A47 is narrow & dangerous.
Caistor Lane already suffers from surface water flooding, which would be exacerbated by any further developments.
The loss of prime farmland & wildlife habitat would be disastrous.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 16211

Received: 10/04/2018

Respondent: Ms Sue Butters

Representation Summary:

2. GNLP0491 p229
Again this is prime agricultural land, access is very poor and feeds onto the caster lane (as above) which is far too narrow for the longest busy two way traffic. Verges are bear, eroded and damaged. It puts unnecessary pressure on local wildlife, flora and fauna.

Full text:

I wish to lodge an objection to the following site proposals as referred to in the HELAA document:
1. GNLP0488 p227
This is prime agricultural land, it boarders ancient woodland, and access is poor. neighbouring Poringland and Framlingham Earl are saturated with new development which has had detrimental effects on roads, local schools and GP surgeries are over burdened.
2. GNLP0491 p229
Again this is prime agricultural land, access is very poor and feeds onto the caster lane (as above) which is far too narrow for the longest busy two way traffic. Verges are bear, eroded and damaged. It puts unnecessary pressure on local wildlife, flora and fauna.
3. GNLP0197 p1043
This is prime agricultural farm land, the local road network is unsuitable, and as the site is on high ground the visual impact to the landscape would be devastating.
4. GNLP0202 p1045
Again this is prime agricultural land, as stated in your HELAA document. The local road network is unsuitable and visual impact on the landscape would be detrimental.
5. GNLP0494 p1047
This site has not got suitable access, and it would impact detrimentally on neighbouring wildlife and woodland sites.
6. GNLP0524 p1049
6.56 hectares is a large site and you do not propose how many residential units are proposed: this causes concern.
The local road network is unsuitable, as stated in your HELAA report. I believe this development would have a detrimental impact on the townscape, local services, and heritage and also open space.
7. GNLP1069 p885
for the above reasons

General comments
The HELAA traffic light system does not seem to correlate with weather a site is considered suitable/ appropriate or not.
I would like to see much more development on brownfield sites in Norwich or existing settlements, where these sites exist.
Each new residential unit generally means two more cars and our small lanes and country roads are not designed for heavy two way traffic vehicles use. The detrimental effect of excessive vehicles can be seen all over the county of Norfolk. Even the county busses are too large for the roads they travel on.

Attachments:

Support

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 16341

Received: 22/03/2018

Respondent: Glavenhill Strategic Land

Agent: Lanpro Services Ltd

Representation Summary:

A strategic site delivering circa. 99 dwellings. The site has been previously promoted through the emerging Greater Norwich Local Plan and assigned the reference GNLP0491. The promoted scheme is further designed to enable the delivery of some 3ha of new green infrastructure to meet existing public open space deficiencies in this part of the Norwich Policy Area. It is located on the northern edge of the wider Framingham Earl/Caistor St Edmund/Upper
Stoke/Poringland urban area

Full text:

This site on the south side of Caistor Lane, Caistor St Edmund is being promoted as a strategic
housing site delivering circa. 99 dwellings. The site has been previously promoted through the
emerging Greater Norwich Local Plan and assigned the reference GNLP0491. The promoted
scheme is further designed to enable the delivery of some 3ha of new green infrastructure to
meet existing public open space deficiencies in this part of the Norwich Policy Area.
Part of the land promoted already benefits from an extant planning permission (South Norfolk
Council reference 2014/1302/O) for 16 no new dwellings. In allowing the appeal the Planning
Inspector found that "...there would be no harm to the character and appearance of the area..."
from residential development and that "...the proposal would satisfy the environmental
dimension of sustainable development." This appeal decision (PINS reference
APP/L2630/W/15/3039128) is contained in Appendix F of this submission document for
information purposes. As such it is logical and entirely appropriate to allocate the GNLP0491 site
for further residential development to meet planned housing requirements within the Norwich
Policy Area.
The site is located on the northern edge of the wider Framingham Earl/Caistor St Edmund/Upper
Stoke/Poringland urban area that is within the Norwich Policy Area. The expanded and linked
villages have been a focus for major housing growth in South Norfolk Council area over recent
years. This part of the Norwich Policy Area is particularly sensitive due to the proximity of The
Broads. Specific parts of The Broads are designated Site of Special Scientific Interest, Special
Protection Area, Environmentally Sensitive Area, National Nature Reserve and Ramsar. The green
space being delivered over-and-above normal requirements is sufficiently large to be attractive to
for informal play and dog-walking to act as an alternative to visiting more sensitive sites including
The Broads.
The scheme proposed is highly sustainable as it will deliver net environmental gains for nature as
well as improving public health and community wellbeing within the Framingham Earl/Caistor St
Edmund/Upper Stoke/Poringland urban area.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 16404

Received: 19/03/2018

Respondent: Poringland Parish Council

Representation Summary:

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

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

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 16570

Received: 11/03/2018

Respondent: Mr John Henson

Representation Summary:

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.

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: 16686

Received: 04/05/2018

Respondent: Mr John Pitchford

Representation Summary:

Caistor Lane and Markshall Lane form a 'rat run' for access to the southern by pass. The carriageway edges have little or no support and are being 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 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

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.