GNLP0165

Such a beautiful meadow in a predominantly arable landscape. Too special to lose

Football field is important to me as a beautiful meadow at the entrance to our village. It also holds a special memory walking past on my way to school in the village with its beautiful oak tree & cows grazing. I would be very sad to see it changed & for future generations not to know it as I do

I believe this site to pose significant difficulties for road access, sitting as it does between two sharp bends in the road. Whichever point is chosen for egress will bring cars out near blind corners.

Rockland St Mary needs additional housing to increase the population of the village to provide the support needed to maintain the viability of the school, bus service, doctor's surgery, post office, shop and other local services. Primarily there is a requirement for family homes to increase the number of families with young children, but there is also a requirement for premium bungalows to allow older people to down-size whilst remaining in the village. Conversely, Rockland St Mary can offer the necessary infrastructure and support that would be required by any additional housing. This proposed site is not ideal, but in the absence of other more suitable sites I would support the development of this site in the greater interest of the village.

The site is outside the development boundary.
The site is on the corner of an uneven slope with a number of blind sharp bends with no safe access or egress. There is a pond at the top of the site that always flood over and water cascades onto the road, runs to the corner causing regular long term hazardous flooding causing the overspill to cascade down Run lane resulting in road damage and danger to road users especially during icy conditions.

I already have concerns over the speed and volume of traffic leaving and approaching the village through this area. An increase in car ownership arising from further development would increase risk.

The road is not suitable and was constructed many years ago with a lot less traffic, vehicles have grown in size (HGVs now 2.6m wide 18+M long, Busses 12m long and farm machinery taking the two thirds or more of the road)and volume. It is noticeable that the roadside verges are being pushed back by large vehicles exposing the road edge causing pot holes and damage. We have seen an increase in vehicles from the Loddon area who use this route to avoid the now congested A146. The road is on a recognised cycle route which is in regular use. We have seen an increase in Van deliveries from home delivery and supermarket deliveries.
We are in a rural farming community.


My conclusion is that this is not a viable site for development.

This site is unsuitable for development.
It is outside the village development boundary.
There are severe highway issues with inadequate and hazardous visibility, narrow road width, slopes, bends, junctions and no public pavements.
Road flooding and surface water on the site is an issue.
A large part of the site is elevated and it would alter the rural landscape and character as you enter the village also impacting views and the setting of several listed buildings in the vicinity.
This site was previously a village football pitch and amenity, sadly lost.

I've lived here most of my life (moved here in 1962 at the age of six and am 61 now) I've seen this village fill up with houses and has too many now to be honest.
Putting aside the distress it would cause myself and others I don't think the infrastructure would be sufficient (I include school, doctors, amenities & traffic on the only access route in and out), plus it would put a greater burden on facilities and not wanting to bandy around words would probably increase risks of more crime.

We think that access to the site would be difficult as it would be on or near a blind bend which could be dangerous.

Also, our view would be spoiled, not to mention the roads and facilities available to cater for these extra occupants would need to be enhanced.

This area is outside the village boundary.
The road here is extremely narrow and visibility for road users is very poor in both directions.
Includes a blind junction with Cross Lane.
Cars pulling out from an access on this side of the road would create a real danger for drivers, cyclists and walkers.

I'm very concerned about the affect this will have on the road structure coming to the village as the site is on a nasty bend. Also the affect it will have on the local doctors surgery and the local school.

This land is on a raised elevation on a tight bend and the roads are not equipped for any increase in regular traffic that this proposed site would add to the village. Verges and gardens are already being ruined by the amount of traffic which includes large HGV's and numerous school minibuses and the ever increasing size of farm vehicles.

This development is totally inappropriate. As there are currently around 400 dwellings in the village a development such as this would destroy the character of the village forever. The local roads are incapable of dealing with levels of traffic that would be generated. Traffic would cut into the A146 rather than queue at the Southern bypass traffic lights. The doctors surgery is already overstretched. The village school would need funding for expansion. Do we need to destroy our rural villages to meet housing need when development closer to Norwich, increased City housing density and smaller rural schemes would be better?

Building on this site will significantly impact on the infrastructure of the village. The proposed site is on a particularly dangerous bend on Rookery Hill/the Street, which will impact on safe entry and exit of the village(the Street is the only access road through the village). The site features trees and hedgerows which sustain wildlife which includes hares, deer, owls and yellow hammers. Residential properties will have a significant impact on landscape adjacent to the Broads

General comments for both GNLP0165 and GNLP0531

The current highway links to Norwich struggle to meet the present capacity of vehicles without an additional three hundred plus journeys being added by a development of 200 houses. There are several locations along the Kirby Rd, The Street and Rockland Rd where two vehicles cannot currently pass. Most of the additional vehicle movement will be pushed through a village where school crossings are between blind bends add to the hazard of vehicle movements. Recent Road closures and traffic management has caused traffic incidents through vehicles trying to negotiate narrow country lanes. Large scale vehicle movements on unsuitable roads will only cause more damage to infrastructure such as the water mains buried within it. Several failures of the main between Bramerton and the city have occurred in the last 12months.

The village infrastructure is not developed to allow an addition of such last numbers of houses. The current residence struggle with broadband, electric and gas links. Having to compromise on quality due to the remote location from central infrastructure.

The school, doctors and other local services only have the capacity for the existing population. These would need appropriate planning to ensure growth is planned in advance of large scale development.

Location GNLP0531

* The proposed development is adjacent to the Rockland environmental area. This is populated by bats, owls, birds of prey, butterfly and other species. These do not just inhabit the set aside areas but the surrounding locations that would be destroyed as part of the development.
* The location is an area of outstanding beauty that would be compromised by structures within the rolling hillside.
* Access to the site onto the current highway is restricted. The eastern end is between blind bends while the western end would link onto a hill with limited view.
* Considerable pollution from both light and noise will result during construction and after any development.
* There are currently public footpaths including Wherryman's Way that utilise the rural location to allow the enjoyment of the environment by many people. Any development at GNLP053 would restrict this access.
* An increase in nearly 50% of the current population would alter the current character and village environment.
* Public transport is limited. Any increase in this would require alterations to the highway between Rockland and Norwich.
* Currently Rockland St Mary consists of low density housing. The proposals for an area of high density buildings changes the environment for all the current inhabitants and village atmosphere.
* The proposal is outside the allocated settlement boundaries.

Location GNLP0165

* Access to the location is limited by highway constraints. It is located on a bend and hill that restrict access.
* The southern area of the plot currently floods restricting use without substantial changes to the surrounding infrastructure.
* The proposal is outside the allocated settlement boundaries.
* Public transport is limited. Any increase in this would require alterations to the highway between Rockland and Norwich.
* Currently Rockland St Mary consists of low density housing. The proposals for an area of high density buildings changes the environment for all the current inhabitants and village atmosphere
* Considerable pollution from both light and noise will result during construction and after any development.

I do not see how this site could be approved for even minimal development.
It is situated on a sharp bend with narrow roads as you leave the village and any access to and from the site would create a hazard to all road users.
We already have approval for 21 new homes in the village. Infrastructure, road system, village facilities cannot support more.

Building on this site would spoil the character and countryside feel of the entrance to the village. Due to the gradient of the land I feel any housing would look quite overpowering from the road and they would signicantly detract from the view of the village across the fields from Bullockshed Lane.
I don't believe that the argument put forward in the settlement summary as 'being close to the bus stop' is a justifiable reason for building houses on a very pleasant area, especially as the bus service is at best unreliable and overpriced.

This site is adjacent to entrance to the village with its views of "The Norman" -a grade 2 listed building and the Village Church. The access from the site would be onto a narrow meandering road with limited visibility. The site is hilly and doesnot lend itself to development.

1. There is already a problem with flooding on the corner of Rookery Hill and if that land were to be mainly concrete that road would be constantly flooded.
2. The nature of the village is one road straight road through it such infrastructure is totally inadequate for increased volume of traffic. Access onto this road would be difficult.
3. Utilities are not in place.
4. We have a tourist trade to preserve with regard to the Broads, Countryside and wildlife preservation
5. Other proposals in surrounding areas as well as this will impact on the already busy A146.
6. On a National Cycle Route.

- proposal does not support the traditional image and character of a idyllic Norfolk village
- The proposed site is on an extreamly sharp bend at the entrance of the village and therefore access would be an issue
- what population data supports the proposed increase in housing
- local doctors surgery could not support such an increase in the population of the village]
- local schools have limited capacity and could not support increase in population
- public transport is in adequate
- applicants would appear to be profiteering and have no vested interest in the village

The road directly in front of this piece of land spends a large percentage of the year under water; making the bend in the road a dangerous area as cars have to drive on the opposite side of the road to steer clear of the water. If this field that currently is absorbing some of this water, was changed into concrete for example the run off would be much worse causing further disruption and danger to drivers on this road

I strongly believe the site is unsuitable for development and would have a negative impact on the village as a whole. Owing to its elevated position, new properties would have an imposing presence on the landscape and drastically change the views upon leaving/entering the village. Furthermore, access to the site would be unsafe as it is situated on a blind bend presenting a high risk to all road users. This issue would be particularly concerning during development and would obstruct access to the village.

This would be an unnecessary and unsafe development , It's location on double bends would produce a traffic hazard as access would be extremely unsatisfactory . It is also an elevated and heavily undulating field and buildings on this site would have a dominating and adverse affect on the currently pleasant and rural appearance to the entrance of the village.
If extra development is felt necessary in this village there are far more suitable sites .

The proposed development site would significantly alter the landscape at this end of the village. It would be a great shame to lose this picturesque meadow.

The fields in question I believe are potentially of historic and of archaeological interest. They provide a pleasant panorama when entering the village and add to ambiance of the village, this would be destroyed by development. There is also a natural spring in the field which flows regularly in the winter/spring seasons and would be an engineering challenge to overcome and may lead to flooding of any potential properties or roads(currently happens and creates pot holes) (Bramerton Lane/Rookery Hill)in the immediate vicinity.

I strongly object as

1 The proposed site is outside the village boundary

2 It is completely out of character with the existing village profile. The village is linear in nature with the exception of the development already prepared for the Bee-Orchid Way.

3 The transport infrastructure cannot accommodate further traffic of this magnitude

4 Inadequate utilities infrastructure for this development

5 The site is not suitable as would impact on the character of the village, involve loss of countryside and would impact on the natural enviroment

6 Access routes for safety reasons would have inadequate visibility due to the bend in the road. Visibility particular important as the stretch of road is part of the cycle network and heavily used by cyclists

7 Rockland St Mary is a service village and therefore this is totally inadequate due to its size

8 Site would result in overlooking issues for many excisting houses, which would result in loss of privacy and being located in a rural location

The infrastructure simply isn't there, the impact on roads, schools and all facilities are not enough to support the volume of need that this would generate.

No identified local need for further housing
There's already an agreed village housing expansion of 20 houses on land adjacent to Bee Orchid Way. This is more than sufficient expansion up to 2036.
The development is outside the village plan.
Access would be problematic given the convergence of the roads and the significant blind bend and additional vehicular traffic would increase traffic risk to both pedestrians and cyclists
The field is an ideal marker for the end of the village and further expansion along an already large linear route is not necessary.
Additional Housing to support the GNLP should be concentrated around the Northern Distributor Road, on the A11 corridor or within the City of Norwich itself. Unconstrained and exponential housing growth in rural villages threatens the quality of life of residents, impacts on wildlife and the local ecology and erodes the natural beauty of the area which is a tourist destination being on the fringe of the Norfolk Broads National Park.

This site would further 'stretch' the linear aspect of the village. There is no safe access to the sloping site which is on an already dangerous bend that floods whenever there is heavy rain. The cost of making the road, the junction and access sufficiently safe is likely to outweigh any possible profit and Highways should certainly not bear the cost.The current road system from and around the village leading to the A146 is already pressured. Any significant increase in vehicles/car ownership which would be inevitable in this context is counter to environmental targets to reduce pollution.

The Parish Council informed residents of the GNLP through council minutes, notices on the parish council noticeboard and door to door leafleting. It provided opportunities for residents to make their views known to the council by attending a Parish Council meeting, and by writing to or e-mailing the council with their views.
23 people attended the meeting. To date the Parish Council has received a total of 38 emails or letters. Of these, one was strongly in support of developing the large-scale site; another was strongly in support of further large development but preferably on land (not in the plan) closer to the centre of the village. Two responses suggested that a smaller development would provide more manageable and incremental growth.
The large majority of responses were very strongly opposed to large scale development.

The response below incorporates relevant legitimate considerations relating to the suitability assessment criteria and represents the clear majority view.

GNLP 0165 : OBJECT

The site falls just outside the development boundary.

Access and flood risk
The small greenfield site is just outside the development boundary at the entrance to this rural village. The site is on the corner of an uneven slope bounded by a sharply curving short hill and blind blend which floods badly during heavy rain. There is no footpath around the road perimeter of the site and there is currently no access to the site. It is difficult to envisage where a safe and suitable access/exit point could possibly be made.

Accessibility to services, utilities and utility infrastructure
The site is very close to the small village primary school and quite near to the doctor's surgery, shop and bus stop.

Transport and Roads
Residents at this far end of the village and parents with children at the school already have concerns over the speed and volume of traffic approaching and entering the village. Many parents park on the side of The Street which has a footpath to take their children to the primary school on School Lane; they have to do this, as School Lane is a narrow cul-de-sac with very limited parking. Parents with young children must cross The Street near the bend. There is no crossing patrol. An increase in throughput of traffic would exacerbate the dangers.

Construction work on the development would necessitate both the closing of roads which are essential for farm traffic and diverting the bus route to the other end of the village at Surlingham Lane (a kilometre away) which would make it impossible for many residents to access this form of transport.

No identified local need for further housing.
There's already an agreed village housing expansion of 20 houses on land adjacent to Bee Orchid Way. This is more than sufficient expansion up to 2036.
The development is outside the village plan.
Access would be problematic given the convergence of the roads and the significant blind bend and additional vehicular traffic would increase traffic risk to both pedestrians and cyclists.
The field is an ideal marker for the end of the village and further expansion along an already large linear route is not necessary.
Additional Housing to support the GNLP should be concentrated around the Northern Distributor Road, on the A11 corridor or within the City of Norwich itself. Unconstrained and exponential housing growth in rural villages threatens the quality of life of residents, impacts on wildlife and the local ecology and erodes the natural beauty of the area which is a tourist destination being on the fringe of the Norfolk Broads National Park.