GNLP0589

I object to the proposals that Framingham Earl and Poringland is going to double in size and does not have the infrastructure to sustain the proposals under the GNLP. Its taken enough development to date.

F Earl and F Pigot, Pigot Lane is a small lane and cannot sustain more developments and currently be kept as it is. Pigot Lane sustain traffic via from the main Lowestoft Road as a rat run, which is totally inappropriate and the road speeds regulations are currently far too high for this lane.

This is a lovely village, do not spoil this.

I definitely have objection about this future development. We recently moved to Framingham Earl from the Bowthrope area. The reason we moved was a shorter way to work, less time in traffic. We agreed to pay a huge price for the house because we were told that nothing else would be built nearby. We wanted to move to a quiet area. Unfortunately, the traffic in Poringland is already bad, and any additional home will just make traffic more difficult. We moved here because the traffic on Bowthrope, Cosstesy after years has changed and it was dramatic. Enormously long traffic jams on Earlahm Rd, as well as Dereham Rd, and this worsened after the Costessey and Queens Hill farms were built. Framingham Pigot and Earl were supposed to be a peaceful place !!!! Consider planning your transport desire before enabling other development. Long queening are made each morning in Poringland and A146. House prices here are huge and the reason for this was the price for a quiet, easier connection to the center. The last bus goes after 6pm from the center and is definitely too early for working people. I understand that as a council you want to claim for additional municipal taxes, but you do not seem to give enough to support existing residents. I do not know what affects the decision to build new homes, but it is bad as it is now. I do not want to feel like living in Queens hill because I paid twice more for my home. New homes have become attractive to people who can not afford them so they go through the help to buy scheme. Unfortunately, this is not any help because after 5 years you have to go double credit and then people will be forced to sell their new homes which they may not be able to sell for a high price they paid for.

I am objecting to the traffic issues at the junction of Pigot Lane with Long Road. This junction is close to the blind bend coming from the roundabout on the B1332 Norwich Bungay Road. Extra traffic will make this even more dangerous. Traffic turning left into Long Road from Norwich travels very fast and it is immediately onto you if you are pulling out of Pigot Lane. There is also confusion with left hand turn indicators on vehicles travelling in this direction as they are still operating giving the impression they are continuing to turn left into Pigot Lane.

Additional traffic onto the B1332 would cause congestion.
Site is waterlogged with insufficient drainage.
No pavements for pedestrians.

I object to development on Pigot Lane because its an area of natural outstanding beauty. There is an abundance of wildlife that will be disrupted, this has already happened with the latest development.
The road infrastructure is not designed for the additional traffic that it would create, from the A146 at Fox Lane to Long Road is already used as a rat run with traffic travelling at speed.
Safety is paramount in view of the new children's hospice being built on Pigot Lane.
Framingham Earl should remain a beautiful, small rural village and does not need extra air/noise pollution.

This is not an easy one to deal with as I support the possible development of site GNLP0589A as this is adjacent to the Earlsmead development on Pigot Lane. This would be a continuation , but it would produce more traffic onto Pigot Lane and with the EACH hospice being built at the west end of Pigot Lane which would also increase the levels of traffic.

I do not support development on the site GNLP 0589B. This is at present a natural open space providing a wildlife habitat for 3 types of wood peckers, barn owl tawny owl, roe and muntjac deer not to mention grass snakes, it is also a sandy heathland, which we are losing too much of. This land would be better used as a natural nature area for the whole of the community to enjoy, thereby enhancing and retaining the rural setting of Pigot Lane and Spur Lane. It would also be beneficial for the hospice, as the site was chosen for being in a woodland setting. Building on this site would mean the hospice was in a housing estate. As the site is like many in this area prone to flooding, and any disturbance of the natural flows of water results in problems elsewhere for someone else.

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.

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.

GNLP0400 Land at Church Meadow Alpington;
The Alpington Settlement Summary's acknowledges that site GNLP0400 is sympathetic to the form and character is welcomed. As is the HEELA's conclusion that the site is considered suitable for development.
However, the Settlement Summary's conclusion that the site is more constrained than site GNLP0433 is incorrect. The Constraints Analysis for GNLP0400 included in the HEELA incorrectly categorises certain issues as Amber. For instance Accessibility to Services is shown as Amber, despite the conclusion confirming that the site is well related to services. Also, Planning Application 2014/2608 confirmed that the Highways Authority did not object in principle to the proposed development of the site on highways grounds. They did suggest the widening of Church Road, and upgrade to bus stops and minor haunching work at the junction with Back Lane. These are all deliverable (and relevant to other sites in the village), and for this reason and the conclusion that the issue can be reasonably mitigated would suggest that the assessment should be Green.

GNLP0405 Land to the north and South of Brooke Road, Seething;
The Seething Settlement Summary's acknowledgement that site GNLP0405 is suitable for small-scale residential development is welcomed. The HEELA's conclusion that the site is considered suitable for development is also welcomed. In terms of the HEELA's conclusion, issues such as access, utilities, water infrastructure/drainage, heritage and biodiversity issues are being considered. Discussions with the School in respect of the new car park also continue to be progressed.

GNLP0406 Land to the west of Seething Street, Seething;
The Seething Settlement Summary's acknowledgement that site GNLP0406 is suitable for small-scale residential development is welcomed. The HEELA's conclusion that the site is considered suitable for development is also welcomed. The HEELA suggest that combined sites GNLP0406; GNLP 0507 and GNLP0588 could deliver 29 homes is an over estimate of housing numbers. The actual number would be a lot lower than this. Taking into account local character considerations, the combined number for these 3 sites would be up to 10 dwellings. A lower number would also take into account the issues over the suitability of the local road network to accommodate traffic arising from the 3 sites. Issues including access, drainage and sewerage are being considered in more detail.

GNLP0587 Land to the west of Seething Street; Seething;
The Seething Settlement Summary's acknowledgement that site GNLP0587 is suitable for small-scale residential development is welcomed. The HEELA's conclusion that the site is considered suitable for development is also welcomed. The HEELA suggest that combined sites GNLP0406; GNLP 0507 and GNLP0588 could deliver 29 homes is an over estimate of housing numbers. The actual number would be a lot lower than this. Taking into account local character considerations, the combined number for these 3 sites would be up to 10 dwellings. A lower number would also take into account the issues over the suitability of the local road network to accommodate traffic arising from the 3 sites. Issues including access, drainage and sewerage are being considered in more detail.

GNLP0588 Land to the west of Seething Street; Seething;
The Seething Settlement Summary's acknowledgement that site GNLP0588 is suitable for small-scale residential development is welcomed. The HEELA's conclusion that the site is considered suitable for development is also welcomed. The HEELA suggest that combined sites GNLP0406; GNLP 0507 and GNLP0588 could deliver 29 homes is an over estimate of housing numbers. The actual number would be a lot lower than this. Taking into account local character considerations, the combined number for these 3 sites would be up to 10 dwellings. A lower number would also take into account the issues over the suitability of the local road network to accommodate traffic arising from the 3 sites. Issues including access, drainage and sewerage have been adequately dealt with in a recent planning application 2017/1442 for 2 dwellings. The main reason for the application's refusal was that it constituted development in the Countryside, which had at the time a 39.6 years housing supply, although since the application was considered the Council have confirmed that there is no longer a 5 year housing supply in the South Norfolk Rural Area.

GNLP1035 Land South of Wheelers Lane, Seething;
The Seething Settlement Summary's does not include site GNLP1035 in the list of sites that are considered to be suitable for small scale development. This is at odds with the HEELA conclusion for the site, which suggest that the site is considered suitable. The Seething Settlement summary should be amended to reflect the fact the site abuts the village's playing fields and is adjacent newly constructed properties and should be considered suitable, as established in the HEELA.

GNLP0589A&B Land North and South of Pigot Lane, Framingham Earl.
The Poringland/Framingham Earl Settlement Summary's acknowledgement that sites GNLP0589A&B are sustainable locations for development is welcomed. The HEELA's conclusion that the site is considered suitable for development is also welcomed.
The Constraints Analysis for site GNLP0589B suggest that the site was a former RAF camp and could be subject to contamination is incorrect. The RAF camp was a satellite accommodation area, and built development was focussed on land at Long Road, and did not extend into this site. Issues including access, drainage and sewerage are being considered in more detail.