GNLP0003

GNLP0003.
I object to this site as it is outside the area for development.
The lack of access pavements is of concern.
Waterlogging of the land is an issue.
Access to the site is not suitable.

This site does not meet any of the criteria set out in the GNLP document. It is in effect "out on a limb" well away from any of the facilities within the Framingham Earl/Poringland area. It is certainly not within 2 miles of "SAFE" walking to the primary schools or the shops and doctors surgeries. It is on a blind bend on the narrow windy Burgate Lane and it is totally outside the building boundary of Framingham Earl. I would suggest that officers should visit the site and not rely on what can be seen from a desk top computer screen.
The extra traffic this site would bring onto this lane is unacceptable, the dangers for all users is obvious to anyone who knows this lane. There are no safe passing places and many blind bends, making it very hazardous at anytime.

The site is on a narrow, winding and dangerous country lane, in the midst of rural countryside. A very small development (2 or 3 houses) may be acceptable, but the number of new properties is not specified. A larger development would not be appropriate in this location as, apart from the very poor access and traffic issues, it would not be connected to any local services.

Outside the agreed development boundary in a rural area and any development would be out of character. I also strongly object due to the nature of Burgate Lane being a single track country lane, safe access is unachievable due to its situation close to the 90 degree Z bends. The location is out on a limb from the 2 major settlements of Poringland and Alpington and any occupants would be forced to drive as foot traffic is dangerous, no footpaths or street lighting. This section of Burgate Lane is prone to flooding.

Previous comment should be recorded as an OBJECTION.

My reasons for objecting are as follows:
Existing Use and Location
Site GNLP0391-B is agricultural land and site GNLP0003 is orchard land. Both are outside the development boundary for Poringland and Framlingham Earl and should remain so.
Highway Safety
The sites are at the furthest eastern edge of the village and a mile plus away from the main B1332 highway through the villages of Poringland/ Framingham Earl.
Burgate Lane is an unclassified country lane that, for most of its length, is only wide enough for one vehicle to travel safely along; passing another vehicle necessitates the use of a few "passing sections" in the lane or mounting the verge. Large agricultural vehicles make frequent use of Burgate Lane, adding to the difficulty.
As a lane, Burgate Lane is totally unsuitable to access further housing development and to carry the volume of traffic that will be generated from the use of sites GNLP0391-B and GNLP0003 for housing.
The vast majority of the vehicles from the proposed development sites will be travelling to the junction of Burgate Lane with Upgate/Hall Road. This junction is very dangerous with no highway vision-splay areas. This makes accessing Upgate/Hall Road a very cautious procedure with vehicles having to edge out slowly from the junction (from Burgate Lane) before drivers can safely see both ways. Coupled with this, there are motorists who travel along Upgate/Hall Road at speed, which adds to the danger of exiting this junction.
At peak times, the traffic generated by housing development on sites GNLP0391-B and GNLP0003 will be backed up Burgate Lane for a considerable distance, exposing residents to unacceptable levels of pollution from car engines.
Not only is the junction of Burgate Lane with Update/Hall Road unsafe for motorists but it places pedestrians (including parents walking young children to school at peak times along Upgate/Hall Road) in danger.
There is no footpath along Upgate/Hall Road, from close to the corner of Rectory Lane to Long Road, to safeguard pedestrians.
During the winter months, snow and icy conditions place motorists and pedestrians in a dangerous situation at this junction with the lack of adequate vision splays. In addition, as Burgate Lane is an unclassified lane, the junction is not treated against adverse winter conditions and is often very icy as you approach the junction from Burgate Lane. Heavy snowfall blocks the road.
From Norwich and the A47, the filter lane to Bungay and Poringland (B1332) at the traffic lights on the A146 Trowse By-Pass is inadequate to cope with the existing volume of traffic turning off it, especially at peak time. Traffic is left queuing in the outside lane of a dual carriageway, which is extremely dangerous.
Any additional development in Poringland and Framingham Earl will only exacerbate these problems and compromise safety.
The B1332, between the A146 and the south of Poringland, is not fit for purpose. The road surface is continually breaking up creating dangerous potholes for car drivers, motor-cyclists and cyclists to negotiate. A stripping of the existing surface and provision of a new road surface is long overdue by the County Council which, we all know, is 'strapped' for funding.
Further high-density housing development off this road, in Poringland and Framingham Earl, will lead to greater volumes of traffic and continuing further damage to the road surface. If a place of work were to have flooring as defective as the road surface on the B1332, the area(s) would be taped off and a warning sign provided. However, it is deemed safe for motorists to use this highway with its defects at 60 mph.
Drainage
Site GMLP039-B falls towards Burgate Lane. It is known locally that there are drainage problems and any housing development on this particular site will exacerbate existing problems and impact on areas beyond the site.
Environment & Ecology
The development of these two sites for high density housing is completely out of keeping with the character of the area and is a creeping urbanisation of a rural location.
The two sites support an abundance of wildlife, including bats and owls, which will be displaced.
The trees along the southern boundary to site GNLP0391-B and the hedging to the site, together with the hedging on the northern boundary of the field on the opposite side of Burgate Lane, are part of the rural landscape and are of benefit to wildlife.
Once this landscape is lost to development and built upon, it is lost forever to future generations.
Impact of existing housing developments on Infrastructure and Services
The villages of Poringland and Framlingham Earl have already absorbed a disproportionate amount of new housing development from high volume developers, including Norfolk Homes, David Wilson Homes, Bennett Homes and Charles Church.
With the housing development that has already taken place in the villages, and the continuing development of sites that have already been granted permission, there is already a noticeable strain placed on the facilities and services in Poringland and Framingham Earl. The further expansion of the two villages is unsustainable.
There is not the space for additional pupils, or site expansion, in the villages' schools. The two Health Practices cannot absorb even more patients on their lists from more new developments without detrimentally impacting on the services they can provide to their patients. Already there can be a wait of three weeks plus to see a GP.
With patients unable to get a Doctor's appointment for weeks, the A&E Department at the N&N becomes the default first contact point for many patients, putting additional strain on the Hospital and its resources.
Strategic Overview
Local Planning Authorities need to acknowledge now that they are always going to be playing 'catch up' with Government policy imposing higher and higher house building targets.
Meeting one Government Department's policy and targets on housing without due consideration being given to the detrimental impact on the provision of the associated services provided by other Government Departments e.g. the NHS, Education and Transportation is illogical and it is local communities that suffer as a result of the lack of any strategic 'joined up' thinking at Central and Local Government level.
Instead of identifying sites in existing villages for more and more housing development without acknowledging, or providing for, the inevitable negative impact on infrastructure and services, the local planning authorities should be grasping the nettle and identifying an area or areas in Norfolk where a new village or villages can be built - with adequate infrastructure and services to meet the needs of the proposed population.
A much greater percentage of the cost of the new infrastructure and services should be met by the developers. One only has to read the newspapers to see the eye-watering profits the developers are currently making.
This should be the planning priority for the future to cope with higher and higher Government imposed targets.
It has been done in Cambridgeshire with the creation of Cambourne. The proposed development of Bourn Airfield to create a new village is currently under consideration.
Presumably, similar development of new villages to meet housing demand has been done in other parts of the country so it is a mystery why it is something that Norfolk seems unable to deliver.

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

Site GNLP 0321 adjacent to B1332
We would support the possible development of this site. It is opposite the current development on the west of the B1332 by Bennett Homes. Traffic from this site GNLP0321 would have access to the B1332 without adding to the traffic passing through Framingham Earl/Poringland at peak times. However, as this road is very congested at peak times some form of traffic management (possibly a roundabout) would be required in order from traffic exiting the site and turning right in the direction of Norwich, to be able to do so quickly and safely. There would still be the woodland buffer between the development and the more residential parts along the main road. It would however be somewhat extending the boundary which is of concern to residents, as that could lead to the area being even more built-up in the future. Thereby destroying the open countryside aspect of the area, which at present gives a very definite boundary between the city and the countryside.

Site GNLP 0589A Pigot Lane

This site which is adjacent to the Earlsmead development on Pigot Lane would be a natural continuation. However, it must be borne in mind that there are grave concerns regarding the amount of extra traffic that further development along Pigot Lane would create. The EACH hospice being built at the west end of Pigot Lane will bring an increase in traffic and not all of it would necessarily be using the main B1332 to get to the hospice. Sat Navs direct traffic up Fox Road, Pigot Lane, from the A146 Lowestoft Road. These are narrow twisty lanes with no pavements or street lighting, they are not capable of sustaining big increases in traffic. The junction between Pigot Lane and Long Road is extremely hazardous as it is on a bend with limited sight lines, increases in traffic using that junction
will only exacerbate the dangers. One of the major concerns to residents is the well-known surface water and drainage problems in the whole of the Framingham Earl/Poringland area. Disturbance of the natural water courses increases the risk of flooding, and not necessarily on the site being developed, it just moves the problem elsewhere. This is also true for the many natural springs in the area.

Site GNLP 0589B Pigot Lane/Spur Lane

This site, known locally as the 40 Acre plantation, whilst it would look on paper an ideal site to be developed, it is a natural sandy heathland of which we are losing a great deal. In the GNLP document it says that one of the environments that should be protected is heathland. Our residents feel that this site would be better retained as an open space for recreation, considering the rapid loss of natural open areas within the parish. This is a haven for the local wildlife including bats, tawny owls, 3 species of woodpecker, muntjac and roe deer and it could become a welcome nature amenity to be enjoyed by all residents of the area, much as the Poringland Woods is enjoyed.

The EACH hospice (to the west of the site) chose this site as it would be in a woodland setting, giving quiet and peaceful surroundings, not sitting next to an big housing estate. A wildlife haven next to the hospice would enhance the outlook for all those using the hospice and bring a welcome area of natural tranquility. The Spur Lane, Pigot Lane and Long Road aspect is totally rural which is appreciated by residents, any housing development would destroy that tranquility.
Therefore as a parish council we could not support development on this site.

Site GNLP 0391A Hall |Road

This site is of very great concern to both the residents and the parish council. The reasons being:-

1) Drainage
The water table at this point is only just below the surface, and this site is regularly underwater remaining so for many weeks, this has been getting worse in the last few years. The water leaves the site via the network of drains and ditches around the site, and they would not be able to sustain an increase in any run of from this site, as they are regularly seen to be almost overflowing. The water eventually finds its way via Yelverton Road into Gull Lane, both of which have springs which come to the surface causing the lanes to be flooded. At times this results in Yelverton Road being impassable due to the flooding. Gull Lane in particular (it was originally a gully hence the name Gull Lane)is seeing an unacceptable increase in traffic using it due to SatNavs directing vehicles from the A146 up the lane to get to Framingham Earl, including wagons over the statutory weight limits. This in turn results in serious erosion of the road surface. These lanes were never intended to carry the volumes of traffic now using them, should development go ahead, the lanes would then have to cope with construction traffic using the lane as a "short cut" further adding the dangers on the lanes.

2) Access
This site is on a very rural tree lined lane, with no pavements or street lights. Development on this site would increase considerably the volumes of traffic accessing the local schools, shops and other facilities in the area by using Hall Road and Long Road. This in turn increases the risks to pedestrians, cyclists (school children cycling to the local High School) and drivers, and as much of any construction traffic would also use these roads it all adds to the dangers.

3) Environment
This site is 65 meters from the boundary of the historic Grade 1 listed round tower church of St Andrews Framingham Earl and only 40 meters from the graveyard. Any development would have a severe impact on the setting of this historic church. The NPPF policy 132 states "Substantial harm to designated heritage assets of the highest significance-notably Grade 1 & Grade 2 listed buildings should be wholly exceptional" This site does fall into that category.
The area is well known for supporting a wide variety of wildlife, bats, buzzards, barn owls, tawny owls, roe deer, muntjac deer as well as frogs and newts. Development would destroy much of these important and valued habitats which give the area its very rural aspect.

For these reasons the parish council could not support the inclusion of this site within the plan.

Site 0391B Burgate Lane

This is another site which causes grave concerns to the residents and the parish council. It has all the same problems as site 0391A.

1) Drainage
The site is known to have standing water which drains into the ditches around the site, and as stated for site 0391A, it follows the same routes into Yelverton Road and onto Gull Lane, with all the attendant problems stated in the above submission regarding 0391A. Both sites have natural springs in and around their boundaries, which when the natural courses are disturbed by construction, resurface elsewhere creating problems for others living in the vicinity.

2) Access
The site is described as accessible to 2 primary schools, one in Framingham Earl and one in Alpington. It is stated in the GNLP that access to schools "should be within 2 miles of SAFE walking facilities". This is clearly not the case for this site. It can be over 2 miles to get to the B1332 using Burgate Lane and Hall Road, certainly not safe walking distance for anyone, let alone people with children walking to school along narrow windy unpaved lanes and having to do it 4 times a day. Therefore those journeys would be made by car adding yet more traffic to these narrow lanes. The junction from Burgate Lane onto Hall Road does not have safe sight lines now, add in all the extra vehicles a) during construction and b) from the development, it would not meet the NPPF policy 32 -of "safe suitable access for all people". These are all narrow single track lanes totally unsuited and unable to cope with any further increases in traffic.

3) Environment
This site is similar to site 0391A in supporting a wide range of wild life- bats, barn owls, tawny owls, buzzards, muntjac deer and roe deer. It also has two wet land areas on the boundaries and these have a variety of frogs and newts in them. Development would destroy much of this important and very much valued habitat which is an integral part of the rural setting of the area.

Therefore for all the reasons stated above for both sites 0391A and 0391B the parish council cannot support these sites being included in the plan.
Site GNLP 0003 Burgate Lane/Bella Vista

This site is totally outside the building boundary of Framingham Earl. It is situated on a very sharp narrow corner of Burgate Lane, and would have all the same access problems as sites 0391A & B. That is more than the 2 miles safe walking to the primary schools, and other facilities in Framingham Earl and Poringland. The volumes of traffic it would engender using this very narrow lane, which has very limited "passing "places makes access to the site inherently dangerous to all users.

Conclusion

In conclusion, whilst we appreciate that there are many sites which have been put forward and that it may not be easy to visit them all. However, in certain areas, with known drainage problems, and sites being proposed that are in or near "lanes" it should be a necessity for officers to visit these sites rather than just relying on what can be seen from a desk top computer screen. We are sure it is fully appreciated that there is detailed hydrological data which can be assessed to ensure all surface water and drainage problems are effectively reviewed to minimize any potential flooding or associated ineffective drainage by not taking this data fully into account. This is of particular relevance to sites put forward in Framingham Earl, but also in the wider Poringland catchment area.
There has already been a vast amount of development in the area, the whole of Norfolk has seen 5% between 2010 and 2017 whereas Framingham Earl and Poringland has seen 10% twice as much as the rest of Norfolk.

Residents feel that they are being swamped and that the character of the two villages has been and will be irrevocably changed.

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

Site GNLP 0589A - AGAINST

When planning consent was allowed on the adjoining land in May 2012 (2011/1284) the planning officer specifically stated, and I quote," As the site is located outside the current development boundary in an area of open countryside (as defined by the SNLP 2003) the application is clearly contrary to saved local plan policy ENV8. The proposal should therefore be refused unless there are material considerations that dictate otherwise." At the time the main considerations centred around the lack of a 5 year housing supply and the fact that the site was adjacent to a Key Service Centre and this was deemed sufficient to give consent. This was despite the fact that over 600 local residents were against the development and signed petitions to this effect.

This latest application seeks to extend the incursion into the countryside and in the GNLP it states 'it may be a sustainable location'. Yet this would be an extension to linear growth, along a country road and is against the reports own preferences.

This is one of only two rural approaches to the village and should be resisted at all costs. If one takes the trouble to walk down Pigot Lane you will clearly see that this rural aspect has already been ruined and is becoming an unsightly appendage. The site is also outside the current development boundary, and so clearly contrary to saved local plan policy ENV8.

Site GNLP 0589B AGAINST

Although, despite numerous objections, planning consent was given on part of Forty Acre Plantation in January 2014, it was partly on the (in my view false ) premise that it was a brown field site. Such a claim cannot be attributed to the whole of this site as the old temporary RAF station, on which application 2013/1904 was based, was accessed off Long Road, and limited in extent.

The trees and scrubs on this site were cleared by the owners deliberately to give the impression of an open field but this is part of a vital buffer of land and should not be encroached upon, especially as the tree felling has not helped the waterlogged nature of the land. I believe this site is located outside the current development boundary and therefore clearly contrary to saved local plan policy ENV8. Any development would also lead to further linear growth which the plan seeks to avoid. It is also only one of two rural approaches to the village.

With the approval of a new hospice for EACH on land just south of this application, it was assumed by local people that the young residents of the home would be allowed to have peace and quiet in their remaining time and this would not be possible with such a large additional development on its doorstep.

site GNLP 0391A - AGAINST

This site is within close proximity of the grade 1 listed church of St. Andrews, Framingham Earl and, although only a recent ruling, it will not have escaped the producers of the GNLP notice that in a similar situation in a Norfolk village, planning consent was recently declined. This was for land very close to a grade 2 listed church; support for refusal came from English Heritage and thus there is a precedent for declining any application on this site. To develop around this 1000 year old, late Saxon building is beyond belief.
Any development would also see linear growth along Hall Road out into the countryside which the GNLP seeks to avoid.

This land has a particularly high water table and is frequently flooded as could be evidenced over the last four weeks and is still so at the time of writing.

* sites GNLP 0003 and 0391B AGAINST

Both these sites are on the fringe of the village along a very narrow and dangerous lane. It would be against council policy to extend development further into the countryside where there are no facilities in place and to see a significant negative visual impact. It would certainly not protect the countryside or give tranquility.

PLEASE ALSO SEE GENERAL COMMENTS RELATING TO THE GROWTH OPTIONS CONSULTATION DOCUMENT.