GNLP0165

I feel that the future residential development would put a large strain on the amenities of the village including the school. Adding that amount of dwellings to this quiet village would increase traffic drastically and I have concerns over highway safety. The increased traffic will cause access to the school and church to become busy, noisy and difficult to access due to the road being narrow only allowing for one car at a time. I feel the development would look unsightly and over developed therefor altering the character of the village especially with the listed buildings in the area.

I am writing with regard to the above proposed sites, I object most strongly, as the proposed developments would overwhelm such a small village and its existing community.

The infrastructure is such that our small school and medical practice would be unable to cope with such numbers. Rockland has no railway station and a very limited bus service, which was very recently in danger of being lost altogether due to cuts and is unable to run in our recent bad weather.
Therefore, the community is highly reliant on their cars and many residents cycle to work etc. An increase in households would undoubtedly have a major impact, as the considerable increase in traffic through the village would not only create noise/air pollution but a significant hazard.

Access to the village is either via long winding single lane roads (Run Lane/Bullockshed Lane) or along Bramerton Lane. Not only are all these roads prone to flooding and are treacherous in severe winter weather, there are blind bends/accident spots and entrances/exits to several farmyards and their very large, slow farm vehicles. In particular site GNLP0165 is on a blind bend which floods across the whole road frequently and is also the main route for farm traffic (tractors, trailors and combine harvesters) throughout the year, as the farm is located at the beginning of Run Lane.
Many parents park on The Street to take their children to the primary school on School Lane, they have to do this, as School Lane is a small cul-de-sac and there is little suitable parking there. This means they are then crossing The Street near another bend with very young children, those near enough to walk are also doing the same. Many drivers already approach this part of the village far too fast, an increase in traffic would just compound this safety issue.

Furthermore, Rockland is well known by many as a National Cycleway, not only by locals but tourists alike, Rockland sees many cyclists using the route, sometimes in large groups. Although very good to see, this also can make it tricky for drivers to pass by safely. With several Environmental Conservation Sites, the Wherryman's Way, wonderful views, the entrance to Rockland Broad via the Staithe, (with its free moorings) fishing, kayaking and holiday cottages near proposed site GNLP0531, Rockland attracts many visitors. Many of these visitors are therefore enjoying the outdoor pursuits on offer and are on foot or cycling. A significant increase in traffic would inevitably have a devastating impact on all of the above with regard to the health and safety of the residents, visitors and wildlife and the view as you enter the village would be lost forever. No matter what style of housing is proposed at GNLP0165, it would be the first thing you see as you enter the village and could not make up for the loss of sloping green pastures, with grazing livestock and the Norfolk skyline that greets visitors and residents as we see our village sign and the entrance to our home.

As you can see, Rockland St. Mary although small, holds so much of what is wonderful about Norfolk countryside, do we really want to risk losing this and changing it forever.

Michaela Martin
4 Rookery Hill, Rockland St. Mary

- The development is outside the village plan.
- It has been agreed for 20 houses to be put on the land next to Bee-Orchid Way which is a suitable increase in houses to Rockland St Mary.
- It would look out of place to add houses past the obvious end point of the village.
- The access road would be a problem because there is a blind bend. It also would not be good to add extra traffic to the local roads that are already not the best for cars, bikes and pedestrians.

- Road infrastructure inadequate for increased volume of traffic
Access points to estate would be dangerous for volume of additional traffic, especially as this stretch of road is notorious for minor accidents, with no pedestrian path infrastructure with the villages
- The proposed development already has regular problems with the water supply infrastructure, with frequent broken main.
- There are already problems with the drainage of runoff water from the pond at the western end of the site across Bramerton Lane
- The village is a relatively dark sky area. The lighting from an additional houses would destroy the night skies in this area
- The proposed development would adversely affect local rare wildlife, e.g. barn owls, marsh harriers, cuckoos, etc.

The site would elongate further this linear village. It is unsuitable due to major problems with access.The site is at a junction with some visibility issues from a sharp sloping bend. There are constant problems on this corner with flooding after rain and further excess water from any run off from a development here would exacerbate this problem. A small estate on a relatively high slope would dominate the entry point to the village and would be out of keeping with the rural ethos.

Access will be impossible and for that reason alone this site should be rejected. It is outside the village development area, the road bounding the site is narrow, mostly a tight bend with a blind spot at the top and the surface often floods. The contours of the land are not conducive to development. The services are already stretched and would not cope with additional development. The entrance to the village is attractive at present, framing The Normans , a fine old farmhouse nearby, and that would be lost if site approved.

I feel extremely dismayed that this site has been put forward for development. The character of the village would be irreversibly destroyed with the hard landscaping that new builds bring and would be exaggerated by this elevated field. The additional traffic accessing the site would pose a real hazard at peak commuting times on what is already a difficult double bend entering the village.

While this site is considered appropriate without detrimentally affecting the existing community, I object on the following grounds:
1) The development would lead to an increase in the village envelope
2) Access to this site would be located on a bend that has poor visibility, although if a significant improvement to the highway with footway was put in place this could be overcome.
3) This site may be of significant geodiversity potential. A full and rigorous geodiversity assessment would be required to assess this.

This settlement would be hugely detrimental to the character of the village. Rockland broad is an area of outstanding natural beauty and as such, could be in great danger with an influx of houses and people. The village simply cannot cope with further development. The level of environmental and noise pollution would negatively impact on the variety of local wildlife species. Furthermore, the site is proposed on a sharp bend on the entrance to the village. It is a certainty that road traffic accidents will occur as a direct result of the development.

I believe that this development is unnecessary and unsafe. The proposed site is on a sharp bend on the entrance to a beautiful village. The character and charm of the village will be negatively impacted, not to mention the local environment. There are far more appropriate sites in the South Norfolk Area. The local broad wiill suffer and the site will almost certainly cause an increase in road accidents.

We have no identified need for further housing above the already agreed 20house housing expansion of Bee Orchid Way. Access would be problematic given the significant blind bends and being multiple road convergence point. The additional vehicular traffic would increase traffic risk to both pedestrians and cyclists. The development is outside the village plan; the field is an ideal marker for the end of the village.

The proposed site would have a huge and negative impact on the local area both in relation to the local infrastructure and services and the environment. Due to the poor bus services, residents would be forced to rely on private transport thus increasing traffic and local pollution levels.

My reasons for objecting are:
A 50% increase in the number of dwellings in Rockland St Mary would be overbearing and out of scale.
The traffic in and out of the village would increase significantly, particularly at rushhour, many more people would be commuting into Norwich.
The village school would not be big enough for the extra children in the new houses so they would have to be driven to schools in other places.
This site is on a stretch of road which is already dangerous, a situation which would be made worse by so many more cars pulling out.

This field is positioned on a very dangerous series of bends into the village where many accidents have occurred over the 30 years we have lived in Rockland and is also on the rat run from the A146 when there are difficulties on this road .
The road at this point often becomes blocked by tractors and delivery accessing the village.

1. The site is outside the village development boundary.
2. The site slopes sharply towards a narrow road with a bend. The road floods badly during heavy rain.
3. No suitable access is available.
4. There are significant concerns at this end of the village regarding the speed and volume of traffic.
5. The site is totally unsuitable for development.

Not sure of the safety of having houses on these bends- paths etc would have to be created

I object most strongly, as the proposed developments would overwhelm such a small village and its existing community. Each development has a major impact both by location, sensitivity of sites and scale affecting the character, residential amenity, highway safety and impact on the village setting and community.
Road Safety and Convenience.
The infrastructure is such that our small school and medical practice would be unable to cope with such numbers. Rockland has no railway station and a very limited bus service, which was very recently in danger of being lost altogether due to cuts and is unable to run in our recent bad weather. Therefore, the community is highly reliant on their cars and the route is I believe a national cycle route but without any cycle path here. Any increase in traffic will increase the hazard to cyclists which is a major deterant to cycling thus impacting cycling rates due to genuine concerns over highway safety.
An increase in households would undoubtedly have a major impact, as the considerable increase in traffic through the village would not only create significant noise and air pollution but a significant hazard. During peak periods the route becomes a 'rat run' and this will be increased significantly with the developments
Access to the village is either via long winding single lane roads (Run Lane/Bullockshed Lane) or along Bramerton Lane. Not only are all these roads prone to flooding and are treacherous in severe winter weather, there are blind bends/accident spots and entrances/exits to several farmyards and their very large, slow farm vehicles. In particular site GNLP0165 is on a blind bend which floods across the whole road frequently and is also the main route for farm traffic (tractors, trailers and combine harvesters) throughout the year, as the farm is located at the beginning of Run Lane. This 0.7 Ha site is on a 'S' bend has significant visibility issues already and more traffic will compound the problem. The parish has arranged a voluntary speed check system such were the issues and I have remonstrated with speeding and careless traffic in this area.
Many parents park on The Street to take their children to the primary school on School Lane, they have to do this, as School Lane is a small cul-de-sac and there is little suitable parking there. This means they are then crossing The Street near another bend with very young children, those near enough to walk are also doing the same. Many drivers already approach this part of the village far too fast, an increase in traffic would just compound this safety issue.
Furthermore, Rockland is well known by many as a National Cycleway, not only by locals but tourists alike, Rockland sees many cyclists using the route, sometimes in large groups. Although very good to see, this also can make it tricky for drivers to pass by safely. With several Environmental Conservation Sites, the Wherryman's Way, wonderful views, the entrance to Rockland Broad via the Staithe, (with its free moorings) fishing, kayaking and holiday cottages near proposed site GNLP0531,
Rockland attracts many visitors. Many of these visitors are therefore enjoying the outdoor pursuits on offer and are on foot or cycling. A significant increase in traffic would inevitably have a devastating impact on all of the above with regard to the health and safety of the residents, visitors and wildlife and the view as you enter the village would be lost forever. No matter what style of housing is proposed at GNLP0165, it would be the first thing you see as you enter the village and could not make up for the loss of sloping green pastures, with grazing livestock and the Norfolk skyline that greets visitors and residents as we see our village sign and the entrance to our home.
As you can see, Rockland St. Mary although small, holds so much of what is wonderful about Norfolk countryside, do we really want to risk losing this and changing it forever.
Adverse Impact on the residential amenity and the visual impact.
Sensitivity of Locations: Site GNLP0165 is at the entrance to the village that helps to define the character of the area. This area is visible on the approach to the village with the main older farmhouse helping to define a country village. The surrounding trees and open grassland and fields are greatly valued preventing connection of built areas and allowing open views. These areas are habitats and natures background sound of owls, bird life and alike help define the existing rural character at the ends of the village and to the either side of the residential area. The site is used for cattle and changing this to a built environment will dramatically reduce the amenity of this neighbourhood and community. This site has a major impact on the visual appearance and character of the village being at the key location entering Rockland St Mary.
Scale and Mass
The other site is so large that by its scale it will totally distort the village. Cumulatively they add 50% to the village being overbearing in scale where previously only incremental development was permitted in keeping with the village size and character. The proposals are vastly disproportional to the village and setting. Whatever the design the bulk and mass of such development would distort the village and remove views of farmland and countryside afforded when walking, cycling and travelling through the village into a continuous build street scene. This is detrimental to the amenity and character of the village. Given the village is on Rockland Broad and attracts visitors for the countryside, the broads and the wildlife the impact is detrimental to other tourism, sustainable travel and environmental strategies. It will become town like rather than a village character.
If more housing were provided within Norwich City, where I understand the City Council would prefer it, then this would stimulate regeneration, reduce travel and the environmental impacts whilst protecting the countryside and villages that people from Norwich enjoy when visiting this area. The proposals are bad for Norwich, bad for the village, the countryside and environment.
Noise and Disturbance.
The only available control over post development noise is statutory nuisance and this is a high threshold being ultimately a criminal offence. Therefore the only protection of the amenity of the neighbourhood from noise and disturbance from development is through the planning system. To allow these either or both of these sites would add noise to the neighbourhoods around them. The noise impact compared to the extremely low natural countryside background noise level would be highly detrimental from traffic and even normal levels of neighbour noise.
Summary
I object to each site for the reasons above and to allow either one of them would impact detrimentally visually as well as on the character of the village and by way of noise, lost views, road safety deterioration and the loss of countryside and green spaces. Alternative sites within or next to the City would have far less impact.

I want this to be considered as a response to the GNLP consultation; Re GNLP0165 & GNLP0531
One is not surprised that there is demand and reasonable expectation for additional housing provision in this area, but there are concerns about the placement, and what might be developed. The style of housing determine if these new development meet the real demand and aspiration of new property owners in the area.
At present as an outline there is presumably no guide view on the types, quality and affordability of the housing proposals.
Does the village infrastructure cope with a 50% increase; drains, telecommunications and road width for safe pedestrian movement? Bus services hardly operate to satisfy communting needs.
Regarding the suitability of the sites put forward for this consulatation;
A) GNLP0165. This is a small area of uneven topography, and the existing road system may become more dangerous depending on the placement of any estate access.
The roadway is heavily curved, already liable to flooding and depending on the point of access decided upon may require more footpath access to provide safe pedestrian travel to village amenities.
Buses already run wide round this corner, and an access road may have limited view of traffic proceeding along the road. It is outside the current 30mph limit.
Given the limited area, what can be economically developed? Consider this an objection with present knowledge.
B) GNLP0531 At the Eastern end of the village, I have less knowledge but does this area lie in a "floodplain"? It certainly seems at a lower level, and close to the staithe.
It is quite some distance from the Surgery and Post Office/store, so is the footpath provision adequate for increased traffic and the fact the roadway is narrow for buses and agricultural tractors.
One is always concerned about the style of development and housing provision. Thinking of the other recent development proposal in RSM, the estate road seemed inadequate and partly "unadopted".
Finally, If there is to be substantial development, the road system from our outlying villages should be considered for an upgrade.
At present the roadway is narrow enough to be problematic with school buses and commercial vehicles at some pinch points (approach to Bramerton, is just one place).
As more people find the main Loddon road busier, there is already increased road traffic along our alternative road.
Consider this a comment, but with considerable scepticism as to Norfolk's planning capability, to use this area effectively and without detriment to existing people.
Overall /Whole GNLP Plans. Surely housing alone is insufficient; the better way to ensure viability of this region is also to plan for new business parks, and employment areas. Most of Norfolk's road structure is grid-locked daily, and unsafe junctions abound on many radial roads. The infrastructure requirements need to be determined too.

I object to the sites assigned on the following basis:-

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 wish to object to GNLP0165 site rookery hill rockland st mary. Would completely destroy the perception of the village.
Perennial flooding of road near site would only be made worse.

Having lived in this village for some fifty years I have seen the population steadily grow with additional housing being added between existing houses in the form of ribbon development and by the building of some modestly sized estates.
This may have doubled the population compared to the 1950,s but has been a gradual process and to date Rockland has remained a rural village surrounded by green fields ,woodlands and marsh land including brilliant walks and areas of natural beauty.


The sum total of the five suggested proposed sites for development would represent a massive expansion of the population and would cause a significant over whelming of local infrastructure , turning a rural village into another urban sprawl and unlike say Poringland it has only a tenuous road link for the inevitable commute to Norwich with narrow lanes acting as "rat runs" in any other directions.
East Anglia's open landscape may seem an easy target with pressure from central government for local authorities to meet housing targets and at a time when many agricultural land owners may understandably wish to financially insure against the possible effects that the ending of CAP payments may bring.
With all this in mind surely we should be careful to limit any increase in housing to be at a rate in relation to the needs of this villages existing population and not allow it become a spill area for other overcrowded parts of the country.
We don't wish throw the baby out with the bath water and have our grandchildren see us as the generation that was responsible for allowing our countryside to be covered with bricks concrete and tarmac. Once that has happened there would be no going back.

Objections:
Where as one or two of the "back land" proposed sites either side of the
village street may be a sensible addition the village at some time in the
future the overall plan of five sites would be totally out of place.
Two sites in particular :
GNLP 0165 and GNLP0531 stand out as being completely unsuitable for
development.
GNLP 0165 (Rookery corner)
Is a hilly and picturesque site at the western approach to the village.
It is however bordered by sharp bends in the road , two road junctions a
hill and an area that already floods regularly . I fail to see how any form of
safe access to this site could be engineered. It would also have to involve a
huge amount of ground works and soil removal.
There must be far more suitable places for new housing.
GNLP 0531 (From the top of the "New Inn Hill" to "Claxton Road)
This again is a hilly area with surface water drainage problems, even as
agricultural land. It would be accessed via winding section of road and
the blind summit that is the top of the New Inn Hill that continues
eastward via another difficult bend at Rockland Stathe .
It is also an area of natural beauty that borders The Broads National Park
and lends itself to a considerable amount of wild life activity being
mostly in an elevated and prominent position it would be highly visible
from the Broads National Park and for great distance across the Yare valley
spoiling the character of the area irretrievably .
The main objection to this proposed site however at around two hundred
dwellings would be totally out of proportion to any foreseeable needs .
All traffic commuting to Norwich would do so through the complete length
of the village adding substantially to the traffic problems on what is only a
minor road.

, I would like to make clear the reasons for my opposition to all 7 of the sites put forward.

1. Given the linear plan of the village and the unlikelyhood/impossibility of major highway restructuring, all seven sites present problems in safely pulling out into Rookery Hill, The Street, New Inn Hill and Low Road etc.
In particular:-
GNLP0165 is a sloping site on a sharp bend
GNLP2063 and GNLP2064 would increase the traffic confusion and congestion already evident because access to the shop and Doctors' Surgery are nearly opposite each other.
GNLP2061 is behind the house opposite mine. Farm vehicles using the field entrance between nos. 101 and 103 are prone to partially mount the bank which borders the road in front of my property, as they turn in or out, and have been known to tear a considerable branch off a tree on the boundary of 103 and drive along The Street with it until it got caught in some overhead wires. You would not be able to see much either way when pulling out into The Street without cutting off the corners of the front gardens of both 101 and 103.

2. What happened to the concept of 'Prime Agricultural Land'? All these proposed sites violate that principle and GNLP0531 is a monstrous example: another village between Rockland and Claxton. (And a shooting estate appears to be being established just behind this!)

3. Increased traffic/lack of adequate services in, and to and from, Rockland St Mary.
Nearly all the residents in these proposed residential properties would need cars to get to work in Norwich or further afield. A school bus may remain in operation for their children - or they may end up driving them to school. Especially if we lose our already only just adequate bus service.
We already have a convoy of mini-buses through our village on weekday afternoons because they cannot get out onto the A146 turning right towards Norwich.
Increased population with more cars and more needs will, inevitably, either drive to Norwich or elsewhere to go shopping or order on line generating more supermarket delivery vans and couriers looking for a number in The Street which, on examination, turns out to be in Poringland!

4. Rockland St Mary Street is on a natural ridge, as you can see if you walk away from it in either direction. It is not a picture postcard village clustered round a green or common but it functions pretty well socially, as well as being built on land from which water can drain away adequately.

To add the proposed number of residences, with their occupants and vehicles, would entirely change the character of the place, turning it suburban. Most of us in Rockland really appreciate our rather more rural surroundings.