GNLP0169

Showing comments and forms 1 to 10 of 10

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 13478

Received: 03/03/2018

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Keith & Deborah Wilson

Representation Summary:

This is massive urban sprawl on top of what has already been built in the last 20 plus years. Furthermore, as with almost all of the proposed sites in Poringland this will increase traffic through the village. The roads are already in a dire state and traffic movements are excessive. The location is greatly spoilt and we as residents are fed up with the disruption.

Full text:

This is massive urban sprawl on top of what has already been built in the last 20 plus years. Furthermore, as with almost all of the proposed sites in Poringland this will increase traffic through the village. The roads are already in a dire state and traffic movements are excessive. The location is greatly spoilt and we as residents are fed up with the disruption.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 13657

Received: 08/03/2018

Respondent: Susan Astbury

Representation Summary:

There is already a lot of development along Shotesham Road, this further site proposal will inevitably add to the already increasing number of vehicles along Shotesham Road and Chapel Lane and therefore through Shotesham village.

Full text:

There is already a lot of development along Shotesham Road, this further site proposal will inevitably add to the already increasing number of vehicles along Shotesham Road and Chapel Lane and therefore through Shotesham village.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 13748

Received: 10/03/2018

Respondent: Ms Gwenda Porter

Representation Summary:

This development will increase traffic both through Poringland and also through Shotesham, which is a current 'rat run'. The roads are not wide enough and of robust enough structure to sustain such traffic.

There is current pressure on Medical, dental and educational facilities.

Full text:

This development will increase traffic both through Poringland and also through Shotesham, which is a current 'rat run'. The roads are not wide enough and of robust enough structure to sustain such traffic.

There is current pressure on Medical, dental and educational facilities.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 13749

Received: 10/03/2018

Respondent: Ms Gwenda Porter

Representation Summary:

This development will increase traffic both through Poringland and also through Shotesham, which is a current 'rat run'. The roads are not wide enough and of robust enough structure to sustain such traffic.

There is current pressure on Medical, dental and educational facilities.

Full text:

This development will increase traffic both through Poringland and also through Shotesham, which is a current 'rat run'. The roads are not wide enough and of robust enough structure to sustain such traffic.

There is current pressure on Medical, dental and educational facilities.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 15950

Received: 22/03/2018

Respondent: Mr Nicholas Dennis

Representation Summary:

Stoke Holy Cross/Poringland/The Framinghams/Caistor St. Edmund have taken and are still taking a huge increase in homes. The B1332 is overloaded and Stoke Road, Poringland/Poringland Road SHX/Long Lane is being used as a relief road to the B1332. Stoke Road, Poringland/Poringland Road SHX/Long Lane, can not cope with the extra volume of traffic already let alone what this scale of development will add. The GP surgeries are stretched to more than capacity as are water supplies.
Schools are also over subscribed
No more development in this area.

Full text:

Stoke Holy Cross/Poringland/The Framinghams/Caistor St. Edmund have taken and are still taking a huge increase in homes. The B1332 is overloaded and Stoke Road, Poringland/Poringland Road SHX/Long Lane is being used as a relief road to the B1332. Stoke Road, Poringland/Poringland Road SHX/Long Lane, can not cope with the extra volume of traffic already let alone what this scale of development will add. The GP surgeries are stretched to more than capacity as are water supplies.
Schools are also over subscribed
No more development in this area.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 15952

Received: 22/03/2018

Respondent: Mr Nicholas Dennis

Representation Summary:

Stoke Holy Cross/Poringland/The Framinghams/Caistor St. Edmund have taken and are still taking a huge increase in homes. The B1332 is overloaded and Stoke Road, Poringland/Poringland Road SHX/Long Lane is being used as a relief road to the B1332. Stoke Road, Poringland/Poringland Road SHX/Long Lane, can not cope with the extra volume of traffic already let alone what this scale of development will add. The GP surgeries are stretched to more than capacity as are water supplies.
Schools are also over subscribed
No more development in this area.

Full text:

Stoke Holy Cross/Poringland/The Framinghams/Caistor St. Edmund have taken and are still taking a huge increase in homes. The B1332 is overloaded and Stoke Road, Poringland/Poringland Road SHX/Long Lane is being used as a relief road to the B1332. Stoke Road, Poringland/Poringland Road SHX/Long Lane, can not cope with the extra volume of traffic already let alone what this scale of development will add. The GP surgeries are stretched to more than capacity as are water supplies.
Schools are also over subscribed
No more development in this area.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 16216

Received: 10/04/2018

Respondent: Ms Sue Butters

Representation Summary:

6. GNLP0524 p1049
6.56 hectares is a large site and you do not propose how many residential units are proposed: this causes concern.
The local road network is unsuitable, as stated in your HELAA report. I believe this development would have a detrimental impact on the townscape, local services, and heritage and also open space.
7. GNLP1069 p885
for the above reasons

Full text:

I wish to lodge an objection to the following site proposals as referred to in the HELAA document:
1. GNLP0488 p227
This is prime agricultural land, it boarders ancient woodland, and access is poor. neighbouring Poringland and Framlingham Earl are saturated with new development which has had detrimental effects on roads, local schools and GP surgeries are over burdened.
2. GNLP0491 p229
Again this is prime agricultural land, access is very poor and feeds onto the caster lane (as above) which is far too narrow for the longest busy two way traffic. Verges are bear, eroded and damaged. It puts unnecessary pressure on local wildlife, flora and fauna.
3. GNLP0197 p1043
This is prime agricultural farm land, the local road network is unsuitable, and as the site is on high ground the visual impact to the landscape would be devastating.
4. GNLP0202 p1045
Again this is prime agricultural land, as stated in your HELAA document. The local road network is unsuitable and visual impact on the landscape would be detrimental.
5. GNLP0494 p1047
This site has not got suitable access, and it would impact detrimentally on neighbouring wildlife and woodland sites.
6. GNLP0524 p1049
6.56 hectares is a large site and you do not propose how many residential units are proposed: this causes concern.
The local road network is unsuitable, as stated in your HELAA report. I believe this development would have a detrimental impact on the townscape, local services, and heritage and also open space.
7. GNLP1069 p885
for the above reasons

General comments
The HELAA traffic light system does not seem to correlate with weather a site is considered suitable/ appropriate or not.
I would like to see much more development on brownfield sites in Norwich or existing settlements, where these sites exist.
Each new residential unit generally means two more cars and our small lanes and country roads are not designed for heavy two way traffic vehicles use. The detrimental effect of excessive vehicles can be seen all over the county of Norfolk. Even the county busses are too large for the roads they travel on.

Attachments:

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 16416

Received: 19/03/2018

Respondent: Poringland Parish Council

Representation Summary:

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

Full text:

Site Specifics

GNLP1032 - Favour: Site is to north of the village so would not create traffic through the village. Matches up the other side of the road. Against: Is Grade 2 ag land, and contributes to the linear vision of the village. SUPPORT

GNLP0485 - This huge site would at a stroke integrate Arminghall/Bixley with the Poringland conurbation. It has significant landscape, archaeological and environmental issues. It is far too far from any facilities and would be unsustainably reliant upon cars. OPPOSE

GNLP0131 - This is a smaller site but again unsustainably far from public transport, excessively reliant upon cars with no pavement in the vicinity and little prospect of being able to construct one. OPPOSE

GNLP0491 - This would significantly alter the form and size of Caistor St Edmund on archaeologically important site in open countryside. It is a form of 'backland' development. Access is severely limited. No access to public transport, no pavements to village and schools. OPPOSE

GNLP0494 - The access to this site is significantly constrained. Flood risk, no drainage, comes out very near a junction. OPPOSE

GNLP1047 - Access to this site is severely constrained. It is former RAF site so may well be subject to contamination. Site dominated by the mast towers. Form would consolidate development each side of the Stoke Road leading to further infill development. OPPOSE

GNLP0321 - Site is to north of the village so would not create traffic through the village. Matches up the other side of the road. However is Grade 2 agricultural land, and contributes to the linear vision of the village. SUPPORT

GNLP0589A - This would exacerbate the 'octopus' nature of the conurbation and would detract from an area of scenic value otherwise sadly lacking in this area. OPPOSE

GNLP0589B - Leading on from the development of the Long Road, Hibbett and Key site and the EACH site this would be a logical development. It would mean the loss of significant landscape value in Spur Lane. If it could be developed at a distance from the tree lined Spur Lane it might well be viable. Will have a significant impact upon the subterranean drainage flow towards Long Road and Poringland surface water drainage systems. SUPPORT

GNLP0391A - Flooding issues. Road network not suitable. Semi-detached from the village - contributing to the 'octopus' of development with drainage issues. Intrudes upon an area of landscape value between Framingham Earl and St Andrew's Church. OPPOSE

GNLP0391B - Similar arguments to those against the site south of Burgate Lane. OPPOSE

GNLP0003 - Isolated site in open countryside, contrary to policy, detached from the conurbation should not even be considered as a valid site. OPPOSE

GNLP0223 - Significant access problems with no comfortable access through the Norfolk Homes development. Would alter significantly the 'shape' of the conurbation into the form of an 'octopus'. Would reduce the distinctions between Poringland and Stoke. Would have significant Governance issues between Stoke and Poringland. Would significantly negatively alter the drainage problems of Boundary Way - known surface water, flooding issues.. Isolated. OPPOSE

GNLP0169 - Would contribute to the disjointed form of development of the conurbation. Extends beyond the comfortable walking/ cycling distance to schools, doctors and shopping. Makes the village an 'octopus' with its tentacles extending into open countryside. Dominant over the village approaches from Shotesham. OPPOSE

GNLP0316 - Land North of Bungay Road, east of Rectory Lane and south of White House. This land has significant environmental assets, hedges ponds - it would require a significant environmental audit. Would contribute to the perceived linear vision of the conurbation. Site has significant landscape value as the headwaters of the Well Beck and is one of the few views of landscape available to the road traveller between Poringland and Brooke. OPPOSE

GNLP0280 - Some problems over access, perhaps requiring the demolition of one house. Drainage problems. Disconnected from the built form of the conurbation. Would contribute to the linear form of the conurbation. OPPOSE

GNLP0323 - would be a welcome development if access along the lane can be seen as adequate. OPPOSE

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 16583

Received: 11/03/2018

Respondent: Mr John Henson

Representation Summary:

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

Full text:

Bixley
1. GLNP1032 Site to north of B1332 Boundary Farm: This site would contribute dramatically to the linear vision of the conurbation. Grade 2 agricultural land. Drainage problems However it could offer industrial and employment spaces necessary in this conurbations.

Caistor St Edmund
2. GNLP0485 This huge site would at a stroke integrate Arminghall/Bixley with the Poringland conurbation. It has significant landscape, archaeological and environmental issues . It is far too far from any facilities and would be unsustainably reliant upon cars. Oppose

3. GNLP0131 This is a smaller site but again unsustainably far from public transport, excessively reliant upon cars with no sidewalk in the vicinity and little prospect of being able to construct one. Oppose

4. GNLP0491 This would significantly alter the form and size of Caistor St Edmund on archaeologically important site in open countryside. It is a form of 'backland' development. Access is severely limited. No access to public transport, no sidewalks to village and schools. Oppose

Stoke
5. GNLP0494 The access to this site is significantly constrained. Oppose

6. GNLP1047 Access to this site is severely constrained. It is former RAF site so may well be subject to contamination. Site dominated by the microwave towers. Form would consolidate development each side of the Stoke Road leading to further infill development. Oppose

Framingham Earl/Pigot
7. GNLP0321 To North of B1332 next Boundary Farm - detached from the conurbation by Poringland Wood. Contribute to the linear profile of the conurbation. This could offer employemnt and business opportunities that the conurbation is dramatically short of.

8. GNLP0589-A This would exacerbate the 'octopus' nature of the conurbation and would detract from an area of scenic value otherwise sadly lacking in this area. Favoured by GNLP. Opposed

9. GNLP0589-B Leading on from the development of the Long Road, Hibbett and Key site and the EACH site this would be a logical development. It would mean the loss of significant landscape value in Spur Lane. If it could be developed at a distance from the tree lined Spur Lane it might well be viable. Will have a significant impact upon the subterranean drainage flow towards Long Road and Poringland surface water drainage system. Favoured by GNLP. The overall triangle site has already been intruded upon and there is no reason not to develop the whole Pigot Lane Spur Lane and Long Road area.

10. GNLP0391-A East of Hall Road - semi-detached from the village - contributing to the 'octopus' of development with drainage issues. Intrudes upon an an area of landscape value between Fram Earl and St Andrew's Church. Oppose

11. GNLP0391-B North of Burgate Lane Similar arguments to those against the site south of Burgate Lane Oppose

12. GNLP0003 Isolated site in open countryside, contrary to policy, detached from the conurbation should not even be considered as a valid site. Oppose

Poringland
13. GNLP0223 Significant access problems with no comfortable access through the Norfolk Homes development. Would alter significantly the 'shape' of the conurbation into an form of an 'octopus'. Would reduce the distinctions between Poringland and Stoke. Would have significant Governance issues between Stoke and Poringland. Would significantly negatively alter the drainage problems of Boundary Way - known surface water, flooding issues. Favoured by GNLP doc. Oppose

14. GNLP0169 Would contribute to the disjointed form of development of the conurbation. Extends beyond the comfortable walking/ cycling distance to schools, doctors and shopping. Makes the village an 'octopus' with its tentacles extending into open countryside. Dominant over the village approaches from Shotesham. Favoured by GNLP. Oppose

15. GNLP0316 Land North of Bungay Road, east of Rectory Lane and south of White House. This land has significant environmental assets, hedges ponds - it would require a significant environmental audit. Would contribute to the perceived linear vision of the conurbation. Site has significant landscape value as the headwaters of the Well Beck and is one of the few views of landscape available to the road traveller between Poringland and Brooke. Oppose

16. GNLP0280 Some problems over access, perhaps requiring the demolition of one house. Drainage problems. Disconnected from the built form of the conurbation. Would contribute to the linear form of the conurbation. Oppose

Support

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 16786

Received: 22/03/2018

Respondent: Millard Tuddenham

Representation Summary:

Support of site on behalf of the Landowner;
The Site offers the opportunity to provide sustainable development as set out in NPPF Paragraph 7 and is deliverable in terms of NPPF Footnote 11.
The Site would provide much needed market and affordable housing to meet the housing requirements of SNC as well as the opportunity to provide further community benefit in the form of an element of residential care, employment space and open space in a sustainable and well connected location.
The Site provides an opportunity to extend development in a logical form.
In all 6 of the growth options identified in the growth options consultation document there is a requirement to facilitate growth in locations such as Poringland, and therefore The Site should be allocated to meet part of the identified housing requirement.

Full text:

GNLP 0174
1.0 - Introduction
1.1 - Millard Tuddenham are acting on behalf of the Landowner of Site GNLP0174, Land off Bell Road (The Site). We have been involved in the promotion of the adjacent 'Permission Site' through the means of a planning application which resulted in an outline planning permission being granted (SNC Ref: 2013/0854 dated 29th April 2014).
1.2 - We take the firm view that Barnham Broom should be confirmed as a Service Village as is suggested in the site growth options document due to its existing facilities and as a result of Barnham Broom's status as a Service Village, The Site should be allocated and is capable of accommodating a total allocation for 50 dwellings. We confirm that The Site is deliverable in terms of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) footnote 11 and is 'available', 'suitable' and 'viable'. The Site would also meet the 3 roles of sustainable development as set out in NPPF Paragraph 7.
2.0 - GNLP0174 - Land off Bell Road. The Site
2.1 - The Site is adjacent to the Permission Site which has already been considered by SNC, and was concluded to be suitable and sustainable for residential development through the granting of outline planning permission under reference 2013/0854. Residential development on The Site would represent logical, sustainable and sensible growth for the service village of Barnham Broom over the plan period.
2.2 - The HELAA, in the main, states that there are very limited constraints to the delivery of The Site. However, there is a concern over the means of access to The Site. The Landowner of GNLP0174 has full rights of access reserved throughout the adjacent Permission Site to the boundary of The Site which would be used to gain access to The Site. It is our position that this should be considered to be a logical extension to the adjacent Permission Site and the road network that is to be provided within that permission. The Permission Site is currently under construction and will be completed by the adoption of the GNLP and therefore access to The Site would be readily available.
2.3 - The Site would provide a road network to the northern boundary that would enable site GNLP0196 to come forward for residential development later, or beyond, the GNLP plan period. (See separate representations for GNLP0196).
3.0 - Barnham Broom as a Service Village
3.1 - Barnham Broom is currently classified as a Service Village within the existing Development Plan. We maintain this classification should be retained throughout the formulation of the GNLP due to its proximity to services and existing facilities and believe that as a consequence Barnham Broom should accommodate a level of residential growth through the means of site allocation(s). The Site represents a logical and sustainable opportunity to achieve the residential growth in Barnham Broom.
4.0- Benefits and Conclusions
4.1 - The Site represents sustainable development as set out in NPPF Paragraph 7 and is deliverable in terms of NPPF Footnote 11.
4.2 - The Site would provide much needed market and affordable housing to meet the housing requirements of BDC.
4.3 - The Site provides an opportunity to extend a consented development logically and provide coordinated long term growth.
4.4 - In all 6 of the growth options identified in the growth options consultation document there is a requirement to facilitate growth in locations such as Barnham Broom, and therefore The Site should be allocated to meet part of the identified housing requirement.
N.B - We reserve the right to add to and amend these representations up until the Regulation 19 consultation in order to allow full and proper assessment of Barnham Broom and The Site.

GNLP 0196
1.0 - Introduction
1.1 - Millard Tuddenham are acting on behalf of the Landowner of Site GNLP0196, Land off Mill View (The Site). We are also acting for the Landowner of the Adjacent Site under reference GNLP0174 (The Adjacent Site).
1.2 - We take the firm view that Barnham Broom should be confirmed as a Service Village as is suggested in the site growth options document due to its existing facilities and as a result of Barnham Broom's status as a Service Village, The Site should be allocated and is capable of accommodating a total allocation for 50 dwellings. We confirm that The Site is deliverable in terms of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) footnote 11 and is 'available', 'suitable' and 'viable'. The Site would also meet the 3 roles of sustainable development as set out in NPPF Paragraph 7.
2.0 - GNLP0196 Land to the west of Mill View. The Site
2.1 - The Site abuts the Adjacent Site on its southern boundary which would be the route used for means of access. The general area has been considered by SNC, and was concluded to be suitable and sustainable for residential development through the granting of outline planning permission under reference 2013/0854 (Land off Bell Road). Residential development on The Site would provide Barnham Broom with a long term logical, sustainable and sensible growth option that would allow development to come forward in a coordinated manner after the development of the Adjacent Site over the plan period and beyond.
2.2 - The HELAA, in the main, states that there are very limited constraints to the delivery of The Site. However, The Site is considered to be unsuitable for consideration for land availability studies due to constraints over the means of access to The Site. The Landowner of GNLP0196 has an agreement with the landowner of the Adjacent Site, which abuts the southern boundary of The Site, which would be used to gain access to The Site once the Adjacent Site has been developed. Access therefore should not be deemed to be constrained on The Site and therefore The Site should be considered as a suitable site for residential allocation within the emerging plan. It is our belief that The Site should be viewed as a long term logical extension to the Adjacent Site and the road network that would be provided to the boundary allowing The Site to be developed.
3.0 - Barnham Broom as a Service Village
3.1 - Barnham Broom is currently classified as a Service Village within the existing Development Plan. We maintain this classification should be retained throughout the formulation of the GNLP due to its proximity to services and existing facilities and believe that as a consequence Barnham Broom should accommodate a level of residential growth through the means of site allocation(s). The Site represents a logical and sustainable opportunity to achieve good long term limited residential growth in Barnham Broom in a coordinated manner.
4.0- Benefits and Conclusions
4.1 - The Site represents sustainable development as set out in NPPF Paragraph 7 and is deliverable in terms of NPPF Footnote 11.
4.2 - The Site would provide much needed market and affordable housing to meet the housing requirements of BDC.
4.3 - The Site provides an opportunity to extend a consented development logically and provide coordinated long term growth.
4.4 - In all 6 of the growth options identified in the growth options consultation document there is a requirement to facilitate growth in locations such as Barnham Broom, and therefore The Site should be allocated to meet part of the identified housing requirement.
N.B - We reserve the right to add to and amend these representations up until the Regulation 19 consultation in order to allow full and proper assessment of Barnham Broom and The Site.

GNLP0169
1.1 - Millard Tuddenham are acting on behalf of the Landowner of Site GNLP0169, Land off Shotesham Road, Poringland (The Site). We have been involved in the promotion of The Site during various stages of consultation throughout the formulation of the now adopted Site Allocation Development Plan Document (SADPD), including appearing at the examination into the SADPD supporting the allocation of the Site.
1.2 - We take the firm view that Poringland should be reconfirmed as a Key Service Centre as is suggested in the site growth options document due to its existing facilities. The Site should be allocated and is capable of accommodating a total allocation of between 250 and 320 dwellings as well as an element of residential care, employment space and open space. We confirm that The Site is deliverable in terms of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) footnote 11 and is 'available', 'suitable' and 'viable'. The Site would also meet the 3 roles of sustainable development as set out in NPPF Paragraph 7.
2.0 - GNLP0169 Land off Shotesham Road. The Site
2.1 - The Site abuts the currently adopted development boundary as well as permitted commercial and residential development that is currently under construction and as such the broad location of development along Shotesham Road has already been considered appropriate by SNC, and has been concluded to be suitable and sustainable for residential development by virtue of allocation in the SADPD under reference POR6 and the granting of planning permission under SNC reference 2011/0476. Residential development on the Site would represent logical, sustainable and sensible growth for the Key Service Centre of Poringland.
2.2 - The HELAA, in the main, states that there are very limited constraints to the delivery of The Site. Minor concerns are raised as to the potential risk of surface water flooding in small areas of the Site. We have carried out initial infrastructure and drainage analysis which concludes that any drainage or infrastructure constraints can be adequately and suitably dealt with by an appropriate engineering solution. It is our position that The Site should be considered to be a logical extension to the adjacent development.
3.0 - Poringland as a Key Service Centre
3.1 - Poringland is currently classified as a Key Service Centre within the existing Development Plan (SADPD). We maintain this classification should be retained throughout the formulation of the GNLP due to its proximity to services and existing facilities and believe that as a consequence Poringland should accommodate a level of residential growth through the means of site allocation(s). The Site represents a logical and sustainable opportunity to achieve the residential growth identified for Poringland.
4.0- Benefits and Conclusions
4.1 - The Site offers the opportunity to provide sustainable development as set out in NPPF Paragraph 7 and is deliverable in terms of NPPF Footnote 11.
4.2 - The Site would provide much needed market and affordable housing to meet the housing requirements of SNC as well as the opportunity to provide further community benefit in the form of an element of residential care, employment space and open space in a sustainable and well connected location.
4.3 - The Site provides an opportunity to extend development in a logical form.
4.4 - In all 6 of the growth options identified in the growth options consultation document there is a requirement to facilitate growth in locations such as Poringland, and therefore The Site should be allocated to meet part of the identified housing requirement.
N.B - We reserve the right to add to and amend these representations up until the Regulation 19 consultation in order to allow full and proper assessment of Poringland and The Site.