GNLP0391

I object to the development of these two sites for the following reasons:

1. Both these sites are outside the current Framingham Earl Village Development Boundary as shown in the current Local Plan. We are already experiencing unmanageable pressure on our local schools, which due to physical restrictions are incapable of further growth.

2. Framingham Earl and Poringland have experienced residential growth of 10% between 2010 and 2017 compared to an average of 5% residential growth across the region for the same period.

3. The B1332 through Poringland/Framingham Earl currently sees 250,000 vehicles per month and traffic is quite often stationary at peak periods. An increase in housing development would also have further adverse impact on the surrounding approach roads.

4. Site GNLP0391-A is permanently flooded throughout the year. The known localised problem with natural springs and the increase in residential development has worsened this flooding over recent years. Development of this site would increase the risk of flooding in adjacent areas. The water table in the adjacent Old Rectory can be less than 0.5 metre below ground level.

5. The Grade 1 Norman church of St. Andrew is only 70 metres from Site GNLP0391-A and would be totally overwhelmed by the close proximity of a new high density housing development.

6. The Gull Lane road from the very busy A146, being used as the main route (following the introduction of Sat Nav) to the eastern approach to Framingham Earl is a narrow single track lane with inadequate passing places. This lane suffers from permanent running water (from natural springs) which causes road surface damage making it unsuitable and dangerous for pedestrians, cyclists and any increased vehicular traffic.

7. The junctions of Long Road/Hall Road and Burgate Lane/Hall Road are dangerous for pedestrians due to restricted visibility and lack of pavements. Any increase of traffic would make this much worse.

8. The rural nature of these sites and surrounding fields currently supports a wide variety of wildlife including Little, Barn and Tawny owls, bats and a large variety of other bird life. This eastern area of Framingham Earl should be protected from further development because it is the only rural approach to this village.

The land outlined is notoriously waterlogged.
There is no pedestrian provision on Burgate Lane.
The access onto Hall Rd/Rectory Lane from Burgate Lane has very restricted vision and would not accommodate increased traffic.
The site is not within the development boundary.
Distance from amenities would be a problem for residents.
Housing would block access to farm land behind the site.

I learned, at the recent Public Consultation, that the individual Suitability Assessments for each proposed entry have largely been conducted as a desktop exercise with no site visits for GNLP 0391A & B (Hall Road & Burgate Lane proposals) and I am alarmed that the Assessments and [more importantly] Conclusions can be put forward, to those who will approve them for inclusion to The GNLP, without a site visit

1 Drainage
The "Suitability Assessment" for GNLP 0391A concludes it should be "considered suitable for the land availability assessment". However, it also states "there are small areas within the site at risk of surface water flooding". This is a gross misunderstanding of the local issues. A natural spring rises in an adjacent plot and the resultant water table is only inches below the surface. I have lived in the area for over 30 years and this field regularly (i.e. more than once a year) floods over almost 50% of its area and stays in that condition for many weeks/months and any development on this land would only exacerbate this problem and the effects of resultant water run off.

Surface drainage from the GNLP 0391A & B proposals runs off through the ditch drainage systems running along boundaries and across several properties and normally amounts to a water depth of 2 inches. However after periods of heavy or prolonged rain that ditch floods up from a trickle to a torrent 3 feet deep. This water flow eventually discharges to a ditch adjacent to Yelverton Road. As a result this road regularly floods, making it impassable for a week or more at a time. This situation has been reported to NCC [Ref: ENQ-0309485] over 12 months ago. Equally the water ends up in the ditch drainage system serving Gull Lane [already an accepted flood risk area] and results in water drainage issues in that vicinity i.e. increases the flood risk in an adjacent Parish. These issues would seem to fall under the National Planning Policy Framework [NRRF] Para 94 and 103 which expressly suggests flood risk should not be increased elsewhere.

2 Environment
The NPPF document issued by The Department for Communities & Local Government makes much about the need to preserve the rural aspects, aesthetic attributes and local feel of village life but developments on these two plots (with the 140 home density proposal being submitted) would destroy the existing soft edge to the rural nature of the village and create a hard edge "town density" development totally out of keeping with the existing village environment. These two submissions fail to improve the character and quality of the area and the way it functions and does not address the relevance to existing Parishioners. Both of these are prime stipulations in the NPPF [Paras 61 and 64].

Whilst the GNLP Settlement Summary Document says "the sites are within walking distance of two primary schools and bus services" it glosses over the fact the roads in the area are largely single track twisty country lanes with passing places, with absolutely no street lighting or footpaths and that walking to one of the primary schools is totally inappropriate and unsafe.

Both of these sites separately exit onto narrow lanes and would significantly increase the traffic flow to already overloaded tight, poorly sighted junctions.

I understand the GNLP 0391B site could be Grade 3A agricultural land [it has certainly appeared to produce regular good crops over the years] and as such under NPPF Para 112 it should be considered a very low priority for development.

Both sites and the surrounding areas benefit from a very diverse and thriving wildlife including Muntjac, Roe and Fallow deer, Barn and Tawny owls, Bats and Buzzards along with frogs and a variety of Newts which are all partially or wholly sustained by the existing nature of the two sites with the mix of ground conditions, 3 ponds, arable land and hedgerows. We need to celebrate and enhance these aspects as recognized by the statements in The NPPF Para 109 and any development would be contrary this.

The NPPF recognises [Para 132] that great weight should be given to considering the impact on heritage assets and their conservation, in particular Grade 1 and 2 listed buildings and that any harm to these should be wholly exceptional. There is a Grade 1 round tower church within tens of meters of the GNLP 0391A Hall Road site with its graveyard, containing many historically significant plots, visited by a very large number of people each year, closer still. Any development on the Hall Road site, at the density being proposed, would undoubtedly detract from the tranquil nature and aesthetics associated with this historic building and surrounding site.

As residents of Burgate Lane, we strongly oppose the plans for the above. We have seen over the last 6 months planning going in for another 160 houses on the opposite side of Burgate Lane, which although not decided yet is known that infrastructure of the area cannot cope with this volume of houses. The lane that leads to the houses is not wide, it is not safe for the volume of traffic that these houses would create. The access to Burgate Lane is dangerous - children use the road to commute to High School.

Site 0391A, this site is unsuitable for development for many reasons, chief among them is the flooding and surface water on the site, the water remaining for many weeks at a time. When the water leaves the site it goes via an ancient system of ditches some of which are near to the adjacent properties. The water then goes via Yelverton Road(which at times is impassable due to flooding), and then flows on to Gull Lane where it often comes to the surface causing erosion of the road surfaces. Any building on this site would destroy the natural water courses, and create problems elsewhere.
In the GNLP it is stated that development should be "within 2 miles of safe walking distance to schools". This site is over that limit, on a country lane with no refuges for pedestrians.
The site is also about 70 meters from the historic Grade 1 listed round tower church of St Andrews Framingham Earl, development would have a very detrimental effect on the setting of this ancient church. The NPPF policy 132 states "substantial harm to designated heritage assets of the highest significance-notably Grades 1 & 2 listed building should be wholly exceptional".
Finally the area is know to support a wide variety of wild life, bats,barn and tawny owls, roe deer, muntjac deer as well as frogs and newts. Development would destroy not only these habitats, but the exceptional natural rural aspect of the area, which is highly valued by all the residents in the area.
THe same can be said of site 0391B, which again has water related problems. It is well beyond the 2 mile safe walking to schools etc. It would result in car journeys, adding to the already busy lanes. These are rural narrow single track lanes not capable of sustaining the increases in traffic. There are inadequate safe sight lines from the junction of Burgate Lane on to Hall Road. Put constructions large vehicles into the mix and it would not meet NPPF policy 32 of "safe suitable access for all people". These lanes are used by walker, cyclist, horse riders and local traffic, any increase in vehicle usage would render them totally unsafe.
There is a wide range of wildlife as mention previously and also this site has 2 wet land areas on the boundaries which support colonies of frogs and newts. Once this habitat is disturbed by construction it would be lost forever. Both sites are unsustainable and would destroy the natural rural aspect of this part of Framingham Earl.

As with the current application by Gladman Homes to develop 165 new properties on farmland off Burgate Lane, another 140 homes in this location would be totally inappropriate in view of the difficult access, both along Burgate Lane which is a narrow country lane with dangerous, unsighted bends which was never designed for large volumes of traffic, and from Upgate/Hall Road which has no pavements, no street lighting and no safeguards at all for pedestrians, cyclists, horse riders, children walking to school daily, etc. A large development(s) here would severely compromise the safety of local residents. Gull Lane, although the quickest route to the A146, is a single track road with limited passing places and quite inappropriate for additional traffic (it was also totally impassable for several days during recent snow).

There is no infrastructure capacity, e.g. schools, medical facilities, etc. to support such expansion and the distance to local amenities (shops, etc.) would inevitably result in residents of any new developments here using their cars along the local road network.

Please find my comments regarding the unsuitability of sites GNLP0391-A and B as submitted in the current GNLP documentation. In addition to the sites being outside the current Development Boundary as identified in the current Local Plan and associated policies, my key objections are as follows:

Access
The two sites submitted will not conform with Policy No 32 or No 35 of the National Planning Policy Framework -March 2012, which clearly states that all developments that generate significant amounts of movement should ensure that "safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people". I do not believe this requirement will be achieved for either of the sites for the following reasons:-


1) Site 03961-B. The junction of Burgate Lane and Upgate/Hall Road does not and cannot offer sufficient sight lines to ensure the junction can be negotiated safely during site development (by construction traffic) or residential occupation (by increased volume of domestic and service vehicles) without compromising the safety of motorists, cyclists, riders or pedestrians.


2) Site 03961-B. Access to this site will place a considerable burden and increase safety risks at the junction of Long Road and Hall Rd


3) The additional volume of traffic from any developments on these sites will increase pressure on other access routes leading to key arterial roads which are too narrow to accommodate any incremental traffic volume. This will lead to safety being compromised for drivers, pedestrians, cyclists and riders over unnecessary distances. These routes include:


Access to B1332 -

0.8 miles along Upgate and Rectory Lane

1.1 miles along Upgate and Long Road


Access to A146 -

1.3 miles along Upgate. Hall Road and Gull Lane(Single lane road)

2.2 miles along Upgate, Hall Road, Yelverton Road(Single lane road)and Slade Lane(Part single lane road)

2.3 miles along Burgate Lane(Single lane road), Wheel Rd (Alpington), Church Road(Part single lane road)and Slade Lane(Part single lane road)


During peak hours, traffic congestion at the "5 Ways" roundabout on the B1332 is problematic and any development of these two proposed sites will exacerbate the problem.


Drainage

Site GNLP 0391-A has been misrepresented in the "Suitability Assesment". This plot is regularly affected by standing water, any amelioration of which will increase pressure on historic ditch and drainage systems incapable of managing additional flows. This will lead to the amplification of problems caused by high water tables and run off which are experienced regularly on Gull Lane, Yelverton Road and Burgate Lane. This contravenes NPPF Policy No. 103.
Natural springs are prevalent either on or close to both sites which adds to the unsuitability of the proposed plots.

Wildlife and Ecology
Both sites are recognised as holding and maintaining a broad range of wildlife including bats, barn owls, tawny owls, buzzards, skylarks, lapwing, Chinese water deer, muntjac, roe deer amongst others. Site 0391-B has two wet land areas on its boundary which help to support a diverse range of reptilian and aquatic life. Any development on these sites would disrupt all of these important habitats which would contravene NPPF Policy No 17 and Policy No. 109.

Loss of quality agricultural land
The sites are both of high agricultural value being graded 3a. Loss of these sites would contravene NPPF Policy 112.

Impact on Heritage Assets
The boundary of Site GNLP 0391-A is within 65 metres of St Andrews Church, Framingham Earl, a Grade 1 listed monument. It is within 40 metres of the St Andrews Church graveyard. Any development of this site will impact on the setting of this monument which would contravene NPPF Policy no. 132 which states "Substantial harm to ...designated heritage assets of the highest significance, notably ...,Grade 1 and Grade 2* listed buildings,...should be wholly exceptional." There is no reason to believe that any development on this site should be viewed as exceptional.

In general, the Poringland/Framingham Earl area has seen exceptional residential growth (10% growth compared to an average of 5% growth across the Norfolk region). This has seen enormous pressure placed on infrastructure not least roads (250,000 vehicle movements through the village each month) and local primary and secondary school places which are now nearing, or have achieved capacity with minimal opportunity for growth.

The two sites identified are wholly unsuitable for residential development and contravene many of the principles contained in the National Planning Policy Framework.

I am opposed to the development of sites GNLP0391-A and B as submitted in the current GNLP documentation as they are outside the current Development Boundary as identified in the current Local Plan and associated policies.

Furthermore, the two sites do not offer "safe and suitable access" as required by policies No 32 or No 35 of the National Planning Policy Framework as the road layouts and road intersections at various local points do not offer sufficient sight lines and will increase safety risks due to increased traffic. In particular, the junction of Burgate Lane and Rectory Lane, and Long Road and Hall Road.

Access routes to these two sites are not suitable to accommodate any development as they are primarily single track routes. These include Gull Lane, Burgate Lane, and Yelverton Rd which would all be used to access the A146.
Additionally, distances to the B1132 would be either 0.8 miles or 1.1 miles along residential streets with limited pavements and no street lighting. This would impact on the safety of pedestrians and cyclists.

Traffic during peak hours is a major issue in the village with 250,000 vehicle movements a month and any development on sites GNLP0391-A and B would exacerbate the issues currently encountered.

The two sites have a history of problematic drainage and surface water.
Site GNLP 0391-A is regularly affected by standing water and the local ditch and drainage systems are incapable of managing additional drainage flow. Flooding is already regularly experienced on Gull Lane, Yelverton Road and Burgate Lane due to high water tables and natural springs. Any development on these sites will create additional flood problems. This contravenes NPPF Policy No. 103.

Both sites are known as habitats for a range of wildlife including bats, barn owls, tawny owls, buzzards, skylarks, lapwing, Chinese water deer, muntjac, roe deer amongst others. There are also wetland areas on both sites which help to ensure a broad range of wildlife and hold aquatic life in their own right. Development on these sites will compromise the biodiversity and environmental value of the sites. This would contravene NPPF Policy No 17 and Policy No. 109.


Site GNLP 0391-A is within close proximity to of St Andrews Church, Framingham Earl, a Grade 1 listed monument. Development of this site will negatively impact on the setting of this historic monument.

Land is outside the agreed development boundary in a rural area and any development would be out of character and detrimental to residents enjoyment of the landscape. 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 site is totally unsuitable for development.

Previous comment should be recorded as an OBJECTION

GNLP 0391A

Astonishment is the only word I can find to express my reaction to the fact that this scheme ever got through the suitability assessment stage. It has apparently done so on the basis of a desktop exercise, relying on unspecified geographical information which has proved to be totally inadequate for the purpose.
A resident's experience is that, in reality, the water table lies only a few cm below the surface of the site, and that floods that occur at least once every year can inundate local ditch drainage to a depth of a metre or so. The flow finally discharges into a drain running below Yelverton Road, which in turn regularly floods, making it impassable for a week or more at a time. I have seen a photo of the road flooded on 14 March 2018. Any development on the scale envisaged will worsen and spread the problem, since displaced water will not simply conveniently disappear.
I see this matter as highlighting the undesirability of desktop research serving as the default solution in dealing with sensitive planning issues.

I object to the proposed planing for GNLP0391 A AND B
The reasons for this is : Unsuitable roads. This is a rural area with single track roads, that are already struggling with too much traffic . A further increase in traffic would be unsafe for walkers cyclists and vehicle uses (frequent minor accidents occur ) these narrow lanes are lined with Ancient hedge rows and ancient trees including protected Oaks, Ash Elder, blackthorn and many other species. A High diversity of wildlife lives in this habitat , including birds on Amber and Red alert. I have personally observed Bull finches, yellow hammers skylarks, Lapwing, many different species of Raptors. Different variety of bats reside on both sites. These sites have high water tables and natural springs are in the immediate vicinity, the proposed site near the church has longstanding standing water, newts toads and frogs all inhabit the areas, as do grass snakes slow worms and adders, and wild flowers and have been observed. the proposal of homes near framingham Earl church is highly unsuitable, this church with its Norman Tower is a historic building it is a grade 1 listed. in its existing setting it has outstanding beauty, to build next to it would be completely wrong, and destroy its picturesque setting. To conclude we must preserve our heritage, unique wildlife on theses specific sites and protect road users from increased traffic.

I object to the proposed planing for GNLP0391 A AND B
The reasons for this is : Unsuitable roads.
This is a rural area with single track roads, that are already struggling with too much traffic . A further increase in traffic would be unsafe for walkers cyclists and vehicle uses, these narrow lanes are lined with Ancient hedge rows and ancient trees including protected Oaks, Ash Elder, blackthorn and many other species. A High diversity of wildlife lives in this habitat , including birds on Amber and Red alert. I have personally observed Bull finches, yellow hammers skylarks, Lapwing, many different species of Raptors.
Different variety of bats reside on both sites. these sites have high water tables and natural springs are in the immediate vicinity, the proposed site near the church has longstanding standing water, newts toads and frogs all inhabit the areas, and have been observed. the proposal of homes near framingham Earl church is highly unsuitable, this church with its Norman Tower is a historic building it is a grade 1 listed. in its existing setting it has outstanding beauty, to build next to it would be completely wrong, and destroy its picturesque setting. To conclude we must preserve our heritage, unique wildlife on theses specific sites and protect road users from increased traffic.

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 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

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.

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.