GNLP1047
Object
Site Proposals document
Representation ID: 14726
Received: 20/03/2018
Respondent: Stoke Holy Cross Parish Council
Stoke Holy Cross is a small village which has recently experienced a 33% increase in households; it has limited facilities and the infrastructure is under severe pressure. Allowing for the green infrastructure a site of 2.81 ha has potential for 60 new homes. Any development would increase traffic on roads already severely congested at peak times, all of which have inadequate or no foot ways and pavements. Access to the site via the ex RAF road is completely inadequate for this scale of development.It would represent a major intrusion into land outside of the village settlement boundary.
* Stoke Holy Cross is a relatively small village with limited facilities that are already under pressure from the recent housing development that has taken place in the village.
* The proposed site is 2.81 ha in size, and whilst it is stated that much of this could be green infrastructure, there must still be potential for in excess of 60 dwellings. Stoke Holy Cross has already had over 140 dwellings built over the last three years, representing a 33% increase in households in Lower Stoke, where most facilities in the Parish are located. This scale of increase already well exceeds that envisaged in the Joint Core Strategy that identified it as a village suitable for 20 dwellings, given its limited facilities. A further substantial development of this nature would therefore put severe pressure on existing infrastructure serving the village, and inevitably lead to the need for people to seek community facilities elsewhere, especially Poringland and Norwich. Apart from the inconvenience of this, there would be a consequent increase in traffic movements along roads which are already well trafficked.
* The development would increase the amount of traffic on Long Lane, Chandler Road and Poringland Road through Stoke Holy Cross, which is already experiencing significantly higher traffic flows as a result of the new developments in the village and those from the major developments in Poringland. This would increase the amount of traffic past the school, which is already severely congested at peak traffic hours. It would also increase traffic using Norwich Road, through Stoke, which is relatively narrow in places, has a series of substandard junctions, and no pavements or footways along much of the route. The access to this site is also totally unacceptable for this scale of development, the access is a single track ex RAF road for access to the Radar site. The ability to widen this road is doubtful due to adjoining properties.
* The development would represent a major intrusion into land outside the village boundary/settlement area.. It would also spread the village beyond its 'natural' development boundaries and the settlement boundary, into open fields, to the detriment of the existing rural landscape.
Object
Site Proposals document
Representation ID: 14844
Received: 20/03/2018
Respondent: Mr Danny Manthorpe
My property will be severely affected.We are organic gardeners,members of NOG/NSTG and have had open gardens.Building work will disturb the wildlife/owls that use our hedgerow/oak trees,cause noise/light pollution to what is an idyllic setting of clean air,sunrises/sunsets.Our home will be greatly devalued,not just monetary but our privacy and health.Of course we take it as a given that we will be compensated for this intrusion. To extend the colossal amount of building work that is taking place in the village will put an even greater strain to already struggling doctors/schools/service utilities and traffic on the roads;whilst green spaces are rapidly disappearing.
My property will be severely affected.We are organic gardeners,members of NOG/NSTG and have had open gardens.Building work will disturb the wildlife/owls that use our hedgerow/oak trees,cause noise/light pollution to what is an idyllic setting of clean air,sunrises/sunsets.Our home will be greatly devalued,not just monetary but our privacy and health.Of course we take it as a given that we will be compensated for this intrusion. To extend the colossal amount of building work that is taking place in the village will put an even greater strain to already struggling doctors/schools/service utilities and traffic on the roads;whilst green spaces are rapidly disappearing.
Object
Site Proposals document
Representation ID: 15760
Received: 22/03/2018
Respondent: Mr Trevor Lewis
As the current District Councillor for this site, I favour Option 1, Development Close to Norwich, but noting that
(a) This excludes South and South East Fringe Sectors, and limits village development to the current baseline.
(b) Windfall sites should not be added to the 7,200 homes required by this Plan,
(c) I favour a new settlement close to Norwich (possibly Mangreen) that would contribute to the 7,200.
On that basis, there is no need for development on this site, also insufficient detail.
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, also insufficient detail.
Object
Site Proposals document
Representation ID: 15896
Received: 22/03/2018
Respondent: R Woods
This area has already seen a huge amount of development over the past 5 years adding to increased traffic and a stress upon all local services.
This area has already seen a huge amount of development over the past 5 years adding to increased traffic and a stress upon all local services.
Object
Site Proposals document
Representation ID: 15911
Received: 22/03/2018
Respondent: Caistor St Edmund Parish Council
This area has seen huge developments in the past 5 years and another potential 60 homes will add to the existing traffic problems. Access to the site is poor and will place pressure on schools that are already up to capacity.
This area has seen huge developments in the past 5 years and another potential 60 homes will add to the existing traffic problems. Access to the site is poor and will place pressure on schools that are already up to capacity.
Object
Site Proposals document
Representation ID: 15934
Received: 22/03/2018
Respondent: Mr Nicholas Dennis
Stoke Holy Cross/Poringland/The Framinghams/Caistor St. Edmund have taken and are still taking a huge increase in homes. The B1332 is overloaded and Stoke Road, Poringland/Poringland Road SHX/Long Lane is being used as a relief road to the B1332. Stoke Road, Poringland/Poringland Road SHX/Long Lane, can not cope with the extra volume of traffic already let alone what this scale of development will add. The GP surgeries are stretched to more than capacity as are water supplies.
No more development in this area.
Stoke Holy Cross/Poringland/The Framinghams/Caistor St. Edmund have taken and are still taking a huge increase in homes. The B1332 is overloaded and Stoke Road, Poringland/Poringland Road SHX/Long Lane is being used as a relief road to the B1332. Stoke Road, Poringland/Poringland Road SHX/Long Lane, can not cope with the extra volume of traffic already let alone what this scale of development will add. The GP surgeries are stretched to more than capacity as are water supplies.
No more development in this area.
Object
Site Proposals document
Representation ID: 15947
Received: 22/03/2018
Respondent: Lynette Yaxley
This is a totally innapropriate & unacceptable development site, crossing the parish boundaries of Upper Stoke Holy Cross & Caistor St. Edmunds.
Stoke Holy Cross already has developments - recently built or in progress of being built, which has increased the size & population of the village by over 1/3rd.
The local infrastructure, in terms of roads, surface & foul water drainage, medical & educational services cannot cope with yet more development in what has been a rural green belt area.
This is within the green belt, would occupy valuble agricultural land & destroy the natural habitat of local wildlife.
This is a totally innapropriate & unacceptable development site, crossing the parish boundaries of Upper Stoke Holy Cross & Caistor St. Edmunds.
Stoke Holy Cross already has developments - recently built or in progress of being built, which has increased the size & population of the village by over 1/3rd.
The local infrastructure, in terms of roads, surface & foul water drainage, medical & educational services cannot cope with yet more development in what has been a rural green belt area.
This is within the green belt, would occupy valuble agricultural land & destroy the natural habitat of local wildlife.
Object
Site Proposals document
Representation ID: 16406
Received: 19/03/2018
Respondent: Poringland Parish Council
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
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: 16573
Received: 11/03/2018
Respondent: Mr John Henson
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
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