GNLP0316

I wish to put on record my opposition to any planning for re-development of the Meadow at Bungay Road, Poringland - Ref: GNLP0316. This area of meadowland would appear totally unsuitable for housing as I am aware it is very wet, boggy land with a stream running through it and if housing were put on this land, one wonders were the water would go and I do fear we could have a flooding issue.In addition, the meadow is an area of natural beauty, with a great deal of wildlife, - deer, hedgehogs, frogs & newts and many species of birds including owls, buzzards and kestrels. Indeed we have a nest box at the end of our garden which looks out over the meadow that is home to a pair of kestrels who have nested there for the past three years with the chicks fledging. I hear much about hedgehogs, owls and kestrels being more and more endangered and it's no wonder when their habitats are being destroyed with the building of more and more houses. I would like to be kept informed of this proposed planning as I would vehemently contest it as I am sure all local residents would. I am all for the building of new homes but not on natural green-belt land such as this - it would be a disaster!

Nigel Coombs

This site has been a meadow for many years and is used for conservation grazing. It has mature hedges on its boundary, and a pond that has been undisturbed for years, potentially with an abundance of wildlife such as newts and frogs. There are wild flowers all over the site, meaning that an ecological investigation would have to be undertaken.
Wildlife I have seen and have some photographic evidence of are as follows:
Barn owls, field fares, grass snakes, thrushes, pheasants, partridges, moorhen, goldfinches, robins, blackbirds, blue tits, great tits, long tailed tits, deer, foxes, bees, buzzards, wild geese, rooks, crows, magpies, squirrels, hares, and bats. They have all been seen on or around the meadow. I have witnessed a significant increase in starlings in the last two years, and they nested last year in my roof. I have also seen evidence of nesting kestrels. Personally, the presence of wildlife on the meadow are important to me and my family, and any building works on this site would have a negative effect on, and interfere with, our enjoyment of the property. I am also concerned about the impact such works would have on the resale value of my property; a family home my husband built himself.
As well as the implications on local wildlife, there is poor access to the site. The infrastructure in Poringland is severely tested at the moment with 250,000 vehicles passing through the village every month, which this site would add to. The site also has a source to the River Chet running through it, and therefore the land is boggy.
Whilst I appreciate the demand for housing across the U.K. is rising, Poringland has recently seen a huge increase in population due to the amount of new-build developments already underway. The village does not have the appropriate amenities to allow for such a rise as it is, and I would strongly advise South Norfolk Council to consider other options for further housing.

Reference GNLP0316 - Objection to land allocation framework behind Bungay Road Poringland being included within planning framework.

I am stating my objection to land (4.9 ha) being offered for planning permission for residential development The land is currently in use for agricultural purposes and is designated as a meadow.
Reasons for this objection are:
1 Locality
1.2 Any potential building on this land would have a negative effect and would interfere with the overall enjoyment of the adjoining properties.
1.3 The local vernacular buildings are diffuse and varied; some buildings are listed buildings and date from the early 17th Century.
1.4 Local Economic growth is doubtful as any additional housing on this site would likely add to the village as a dormitory outreach for the city of Norwich and it would contribute to the linear growth of the village. It is noted that allocations from the last two local plans have not promoted linear growth,
1.5 Housing commitments within Poringland have not yet been built - JCS 2014 para 5.57.
2 National Planning Framework
2.1 The introduction to the NPPF 2012 by Rt Hon Greg Clark, Minister for Planning acknowledges that "our natural environment is essential to our wellbeing".
2.2 NPPF states that planning should be relevant, proportionate and necessary. (Ref 1 para .2) and should have economic, social and environmental considerations.

2.3 Green field sites support low carbon outputs and any change of use could negate this. NPPF supports conserving and enhancing the natural environments. ( Ref Introduction & para 17).

2.4 NPPF favours conservation of heritage assets ( para 17): It could be argued that the C17th buildings and a Victorian ( or possibly earlier) mature hedge is such an asset as it supports wildlife and cleaner air, and hedges absorb carbon.

2.5 Reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and congestion is encouraged (Ref 4. Para 30).
2.6 Road usage by private cars, commercial transport and lorries together with public transport on the B1332 has considerably increased and is still increasing as it provides a direct route in and out of Norwich. The PCC stated that over 250,000 vehicle movements, excluding resident's vehicles, take place through the village every month.
2.7 The road should no longer be considered to be a B road. Access to this road can be severely restricted at busy times. Safe and suitable access to the site should be considered (Ref 4 para 32). Access to the above site would be in an unrestricted speed area and speeding is already much in evidence within the 30mph area.
2.8 Local infrastructures, utilities and services are not in place to meet any further growth. Schools, in particular, have reached capacity with no further growth possible. GP surgeries are under pressure in the past year (2016 - 2017). With limited opportunities fro growth.
3 Environmental issues
3.1 The Environment Agency Flood Map indicates medium to high risk of flooding from surface water for this postcode. The Agency states that flooding can affect transport, power and communications.
3.2 The land includes a stream which is in effect the headwater of the River Chet and includes a natural pond and copse. Water run-off is therefore managed naturally. Interference to this could cause local flood risk.
3.3 Biodiversity - the JCS 2014 has a map which shows that the above land/stream/river abuts one of the core areas in the plan - ref P 34 area 05.
3.4 The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local
Environment and lists this under NPPF 7 para109. Similarly, Objective 9 of the JCS 2014 notes to protect, manage and enhance the natural, built and historic environment, including key landscapes, natural resources and areas of natural habitat or nature conservation value.

3.5 A Mature hedge of many mixed species - hawthorn, ivy, ash, holly, bramble on the north side provides food and habitat for flora and fauna. (NB There may well be other species within this hedge but as it is private land I can only comment on the hedge adjacent to me).

3.6 A Bat Survey (TG2701 attached) carried out 4/5/6 July 2017 (findings to be forwarded to Norfolk Wildlife Trust) indicated recordings of 9 species of bats plus 4 other species 2 not assigned with confidence) and included the pipistrelle species. Recording of one species of bush cricket was also recorded.
3.7 The mature hedge is habitat to starlings - a declining species, hedge sparrows also a declining species, magpies and jays. House sparrows and all species of tits including long tailed tits fly over this meadow as do sparrow hawks, kestrels (breeding) tawny owls, buzzards, rooks, jackdaws, green and greater spotted woodpeckers and herons.
3.8 Butterflies - blue butterflies, skippers, tortoiseshell, red admirals, peacocks, little white and cabbage white have all been observed. Moths are also numerous but not identified except the hawk moth and humming bird moth in warm summers. The nettles and wild flowers provide food and breeding sites. Pollinating insects as well as beetle species are present.
3.9 Hedgehogs (an endangered species) are present by the hedge; roe and muntjac deer, foxes have also been observed in the meadow at dawn and dusk.
3.10 Prior to any decision being made a comprehensive inspection should be carried out of the pond and surrounding areas as well as a detailed environmental impact survey due to the wildlife present should be instructed.

I live on Rectory Lane and back onto the field. We have a high level of wild animals which are on the meadow, we have a pair of Kestrels which have been using our Kestrel box and laying eggs the past two years. If houses do get built then the wild life will disappear. I have read that Kestrels are in a serious decline because their natural habitat is disappearing due to new housing estates being built on the outskirts of villages. Does Poringland need more houses! There is also a river and a pond in the middle of the meadow which attracts different wildlife.

This is 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. Poringland is losing its character and we as residents are fed up with the disruption.

Objection to land allocation Reference ID 13172, Section SNDC Poringland GNL P0316

My reasons for this objection are:
SUMMARY GNL P0316

●The land has a medium to high risk of flooding ( Environment Agency Flood Map) and water run off is managed naturally The stream on the meadow is the headwater for the River Chet.
●It is not in accordance with NPPF in conserving the natural environment. NPPF7 para 109.
●The meadow is home to and supports varied wildlife, many of them declining species.
●Linear development is not encouraged. Land refused twice before.
●Road access dangerous and land is outside 30mph zone therefore speeding prevalent.
●Sufficient land already allocated for building in Poringland. JCS 2014 para5.57

1 Locality
1.1 The land is currently in use for agricultural purposes and is designated as a meadow.Any potential building on this land would have a negative effect and would interfere with the overall enjoyment of my property. Our natural environment is essential to our wellbeing. NNPF 2012 introduction.
1.2 The local vernacular buildings are diffuse and varied; some buildings date from the early 17th Century.
1.3 Local Economic growth ( ie within the village) is doubtful as any additional housing accelerate the village as a linear dormitory outreach for Norwich and with attendant road traffic issues.
1.4 Housing commitments within Poringland have not yet been built - JCS 2014 para 5.57. Only 100 - 200 additional houses are now needed.
2 National Planning Framework
2.1 NPPF states that planning should be relevant, proportionate and necessary. (Ref 1 para .2) and should have economic, social and environmental considerations.

2.2 Green field sites support low carbon outputs and any change of use could negate this. NPPF supports conserving and enhancing the natural environments. ( Ref Introduction & para 17).

2.3 NPPF favours conservation of heritage assets ( para 17): eg C17th buildings and heritage hedges hedge is such an asset as it supports wildlife and reduction in green house gas emissions. Ref 4 para 30.

2.4 Road usage by private cars, commercial transport and lorries together with public transport on the B1332 has considerably increased and is still increasing as it provides a direct route in and out of Norwich. . Safe and suitable access to the site should be considered ( Ref 4 para 32). Access to the above site would be in an unrestricted speed area and speeding is already much in evidence within the 30mph area.
2.5 Local infrastructures, utilities and services are not in place to meet any further growth. Schools in particular have already reached capacity. GP surgeries are already under pressure in the past year (2016 - 2017).
3 Environmental issues
3.1 The Environment Agency Flood Map indicates medium to high risk of flooding from surface water for this postcode. The land includes a stream which is in effect the headwater of the River Chet and includes a natural pond and copse. Water run-off is therefore managed naturally. Interference to this could cause local flood risk. Soakaways as a means of drainage would not be appropriate.
3.3 Biodiversity - the JCS 2014 has a map which shows that the above land/stream/river abuts one of the core areas in the plan - ref P 34 area 05.
3.4 The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local
Environment and lists this under NPPF 7 para109. Similarly, Objective 9 of the JCS 2014 notes to protect, manage and enhance the natural, built and historic environment, including key landscapes, natural resources and areas of natural habitat or nature conservation value.

3.5 A "heritage" hedge of many mixed species - hawthorn, ivy, ash, holly, bramble on the north side provides food and habitat for flora and fauna. The hedge is habitat to starlings - a declining species, hedge sparrows also a declining species, magpies, jays. House sparrows and all species of tits including long tailed tits fly over this field as do sparrow hawks, kestrels (breeding) tawny owls, buzzards, rooks, jackdaws, green and greater spotted woodpeckers and herons.

3.6 A Bat Survey carried out 4/5/6 July 2017 (and findings to be forwarded to Norfolk Wildlife Trust) indicated recordings of 9 species of bats plus 4 other species 2not assigned with confidence) and included the pipistrelle species. (Details can be provided including distribution and activity maps). Recording of one species of bush cricket was also recorded.
3.7 Butterflies - blue butterflies, skippers, tortoiseshell, red admirals, peacocks, little white and cabbage white have all been observed. Moths are also numerous but not identified except the hawk moth and humming bird moth in warm summers. The nettles and wild flowers provide food and breeding sites. Pollinating insects as well as beetle species are present.
3.8 Hedgehogs (an endangered species) are present by the hedge; roe and muntjac deer, foxes have also been observed in the field at dawn and dusk.
3.9 I have been unable to inspect the pond sited on this meadow A detailed environmental impact survey is necessary due to the wildlife present.
Sheila Hoyle
Mission Hall
Bungay Road
Poringland NR14 7NA

I am writing to comment against the proposed residential development on this site.
The infrastructure of Poringland is stretched to breaking point, 250,000 vehicles pass through this village monthly.
Local schools, doctors & other amenities are being severely tested to their limits, more housing would increase this further.
The meadow is abundant with birds & wildlife, I have seen many things including buzzards, bats, pheasants, partridges, field fares & deer.
The meadow has a pond & a source to River Chet.
I strongly feel building on this site would be devastating to wildlife & spoil my enjoyment of living here.

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 over subscribed.
No more development in this area.

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

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

Submission made in respect of site GNLP0316, Bungay Road, Poringland - see attachment

Please find attached additional information for GNLP Reference GNLP0316, site east of Bungay Road, Poringland, relating to the Regulation 18 Consultation. Additionally, please find attached the Appendices (initial Site Plan & aerial plan). I have also attached further information in relation to Ecology and Landscape.

See attachments.