GNLP1047

Showing comments and forms 1 to 9 of 9

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 14726

Received: 20/03/2018

Respondent: Stoke Holy Cross Parish Council

Representation:

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.

Full text:

* 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

Representation:

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.

Full text:

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

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, also insufficient detail.

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, also insufficient detail.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 15896

Received: 22/03/2018

Respondent: R Woods

Representation:

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.

Full text:

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

Representation:

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.

Full text:

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

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: 15947

Received: 22/03/2018

Respondent: Lynette Yaxley

Representation:

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.

Full text:

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

Representation:

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

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: 16573

Received: 11/03/2018

Respondent: Mr John Henson

Representation:

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

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