GNLP0531

Showing comments and forms 1 to 30 of 87

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 12891

Received: 02/02/2018

Respondent: Mr Steve Jones

Representation Summary:

GNLP0531 has far too many issues with access, landscape impact, settings of local beauty, and utilities development and cost to make this a viable plan.

Full text:

GNLP0531 - approx.. 200 houses will cause a number of issues to Rockland St Mary. Not only that, it will dramatically impact on the surrounding area, around Rockland Staite / Broads Authority area. This area is an outstanding place of natural beauty, with highly diverse wildlife in the surrounding area. Having 200 houses added around it would only cause issues to the surrounding wildlife, and reduce the quality of the entire area around the staithe of natural beauty. The view from the broad and the staithe itself would be impacted on dramatically.

Access - the only access at the moment is either through Rockland St Mary, and therefore through Bramerton, or via Claxton. Another 200-300 cars would cause major issues with the road. Not only that, but Rockland St Mary itself has only 200 houses - to DOUBLE the size of the Village would result in strains on roads / services / local providers. The local roads already struggle to cope with traffic. Doubling the traffic would cause accidents and issues. There has also been a number of accidents on the road in the last 2 years with cyclists and cars. As Rockland St Mary is a 'Cycle route 1' national cycling pathway, it is likely 200-300 cars would dramatically impact upon that, and would result in further accidents.

Bee Orchard Way has added 20 houses as state on the plan. This has been in a controlled manner, in a non-impact area of development. This same proposal should be reconsidered to 20 houses as a maximum, as this so far has too many issues in the surrounding area to make it viable.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 12919

Received: 06/02/2018

Respondent: Belinda Davies

Representation Summary:

The village does not have the infrastructure to support this development. It would also destroy the character of the village which is ribbon development. A smaller development could be considered, but 200 houses could not be built without major disruption to current householders. Expansion would be needed at the school and GP and the roads into and out of the village would require improvement, especially for those heading to Loddon or Beccles rather than Norwich. Increased traffic through the village would probably lead to the need for traffic calming.

Full text:

The village does not have the infrastructure to support this development. It would also destroy the character of the village which is ribbon development. A smaller development could be considered, but 200 houses could not be built without major disruption to current householders. Expansion would be needed at the school and GP and the roads into and out of the village would require improvement, especially for those heading to Loddon or Beccles rather than Norwich. Increased traffic through the village would probably lead to the need for traffic calming.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 12976

Received: 12/02/2018

Respondent: Mr Simon Thomas

Representation Summary:

I am trying to see how this improves villagers' lives. At the moment the only pro I can think of is if they make the bus timetable accommodating. Every other thought is a negative- increased traffic,pollution, loss of walks we enjoy going on, building works meaning a massive increase in heavy goods vehicles travelling through the village, noise, uncertainty of who will be given the opportunity to move into the houses, what type of houses are going to be built i.e. 'box estates', a school that would be unable to accommodate such a growth in numbers.

Full text:

I am trying to see how this improves villagers' lives. At the moment the only pro I can think of is if they make the bus timetable accommodating. Every other thought is a negative- increased traffic,pollution, loss of walks we enjoy going on, building works meaning a massive increase in heavy goods vehicles travelling through the village, noise, uncertainty of who will be given the opportunity to move into the houses, what type of houses are going to be built i.e. 'box estates', a school that would be unable to accommodate such a growth in numbers.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 13014

Received: 13/02/2018

Respondent: HALSTEAD PHILIP HALSTEAD

Representation Summary:

1. Location

On the edge of the Policy Area the village has poor, narrow roads, blind corners, danger spots and few pavements, is not adjacent to major road or rail and will not enhance economic growth around major arteries.

2. GNLP Policy objectives

Environment
GNLP0531 is adjacent to European and International Designated Wildlife sites, a SSSI and a County Wildlife site. The development could have damaging effect.

The area is prone to flood, rainfall in recent winters has become more torrential.

Communities.
GNLP0531 will not enhance the village; it could distort and put unreasonable pressure on people, services and environment.

Full text:

Proposal GNLP0531

I strongly object to this proposal.

My main concerns are

1. Situation in relation to GNLP

Rockland St Mary is situated on the edge of the Norwich Policy Area.
The village suffers from poor roads many of which are narrow, have a series of blind corners and danger spots with few pavements.

The roads are prone to flood, a matter that has worsened in recent winters as the pattern of rainfall has become more torrential.

Further, Rockland is not adjacent to major road, rail or air arteries. The proposed policy suggests an aim to enhance the economic viability around those arteries.

I do not believe this will be achieved by the development of GNLP0531



2. Policy objectives of GNLP

The GNLP describes that one of 6 key objectives will be

Environment, the protection and enhancement of the built and natural environment, making the best use of natural resources, mitigating against and adopting to climate change.

a. GNLP0531 overlooks a SSSI, is adjacent to European and International Designated Wildlife sites and will be in close proximity to a County Wildlife site on Hellington Low Common. I feel strongly that the development will impact detrimentally on the above.

A further key objective identifies communities.

b. I do not believe GNLP0531 will enhance the village community. It will distort and put unreasonable pressure on people, services and the environment

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 13015

Received: 13/02/2018

Respondent: HALSTEAD Harriet HALSTEAD

Representation Summary:

My primary objections are
The proposed development is out of scale with the village
It would further increase the dangers along the road to Norwich which is part of the national cycleway, accessed from Norwich via Trowse country park.
The area has outstanding beauty and should be kept as an asset for the health and leisure of Norwich residents, locals, and tourists, cyclists, sailors, birdwatchers, walkers and artists.
The plot presents a threat to local biodiversity in an area which is noted for it's plants and wildlife and includes several sites.

Full text:

I object on the grounds of Access and road safety, environmental impact, the large scale of the proposal in relation to the village and the likelihood that the kind of homes proposed will do nothing to alleviate the shortage of affordable homes for local people and first time buyers on low incomes.

Access
There would be considerable impact on the small and somewhat dangerous road up New Inn Hill and the corner by Eel Catcher Close. 200 homes potentially means 300 cars joining and leaving Lower Rd at some point.

Lower Road is prone to subsidy on the dyke edge, and this development is likely to enhance damage.

The current pavement on New Inn Hill Road is narrow and uneven, to improve access could put old and important trees at risk.

New Inn Hill Road has 2 'black spots'. I am concerned about the impact of potentially 300 vehicles on the road.



Environmental impact

An area of outstanding natural beauty and peace would be utterly spoilt. The lines of beautiful old oak trees, the sweep of those lovely open fields and the wild areas in the valley would all vanish permanently.

The area is rich in wildlife and unspoilt habitat, with good footpaths providing beautiful views and the opportunity for recreation.

It is attractive to tourists, cyclists, walkers, birdwatchers, sailors and those seeking peace and fresh air. Witness the increased numbers of holiday properties in this part of south Norfolk.

Currently there is a lack of light pollution, which is now considered to have a considerable impact on wildlife. This would be spoilt and it is likely that all night street lighting would be required along the road for safety, and no doubt street lighting on the estate.

The Community Reserve, which is a Norfolk Wildlife Trust county wildlife site, would struggle to absorb the massive increase in footfall and dog walking, which would follow.

Although some measures taken by the current landowner have been unpopular he has claimed that an increase in the owl and raptor population has taken place along the Hellington Beck valley. It is sad that apparently this is no longer a consideration.

This area is home to rare plant species such as orchids, and provides a significant wildlife corridor, which would be disturbed.

It is close to Wheatfen Broad, the Yare Valley Bee corridor, Dugan's Marsh, and on the Wherryman's Way and opposite to the RSPB reserve at Brundall. This is a rare and disappearing type of landscape and this is the aspect of this area we should be developing, so that people have somewhere to take in healthy outdoor pursuits and our pollinators, plants, bugs, birds and beasts have somewhere to live and feed too.


Scale
In relation to the village, this is another half again. 200 houses means potentially 300 cars, at least 500 people and probably at least 100 dogs.

Currently the village has a mix of housing stock, which has grown organically over time producing visual interest and variety and allowing the community to gradually absorb changes and to welcome newcomers as people who could join and enrich the existing community.

Large new developments like these are suburban rather than rural in appearance and culture.

Furthermore at a time when global food security is increasingly an issue should good agricultural land be tarmaced over in this way?

Could there be an impact on flooding due to run off?

There is no guarantee the village school will be revived, it could still be closed / merged with the larger school in Poringland. This would not support the notion of a Rockland St Mary as a Service Village and could undermine the community.



Whilst small developments of affordable housing are indeed necessary, the size and nature of this proposal is utterly unacceptable and a cynical attempt to gain more wealth for already wealthy individuals at the expense of the environment and the whole community.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 13065

Received: 14/02/2018

Respondent: mr ingo wagenknecht

Representation Summary:

I object as GNPL 0531 is an over allocation to already existing GNPL (Bee Orchid way) allocations in progress. Very limited services, dangerous access and footpath evidenced to have been used for over 30 years. The site infringes on the AONB of Low Road and the character of a linear designed village.

Full text:

I. Wagenknecht, 17 the Oaks, Rockland St. mary nr14 7hd

I'm objecting to GNPL0531, an unsuitable over allocation to Rockland St. Marys development at Bee Orchid way has been approved and fulfils our part of the GNLP allocation.
Traffic and access to an already very busy, badly maintained B road from GNPL0531 is unsafe. The site is criss crossed with footpath used for over 30 years and the land is on a south facing down slope surrounded by AONB's. Services in the village are at best limited, a small shop, a primary school with a questionable future and a surgery with reduced opening hours.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 13077

Received: 17/02/2018

Respondent: Mr Matthew Piper

Representation Summary:

Services and facilities must be expanded. The village doesn't currently have pavements on both sides of the road.
The road is busy with both cars and cyclists and provision should be made to keep the two separate and safe - ie a designated cycle route into the city.
The first bus of the day is regularly full to standing already.
The internet, Broadband and mobile phone signals must be significantly improved.
An expansion of 50% of a village is not sensitive and I believe the site is suitable for a far more limited development - e.g. 50 homes maximum.

Full text:

Services and facilities must be expanded. The village doesn't currently have pavements on both sides of the road.
The road is busy with both cars and cyclists and provision should be made to keep the two separate and safe - ie a designated cycle route into the city.
The first bus of the day is regularly full to standing already.
The internet, Broadband and mobile phone signals must be significantly improved.
An expansion of 50% of a village is not sensitive and I believe the site is suitable for a far more limited development - e.g. 50 homes maximum.

Support

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 13113

Received: 19/02/2018

Respondent: Mr Malcolm Robinson

Representation Summary:

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. 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.

Full text:

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.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 13201

Received: 21/02/2018

Respondent: Paul Sanford

Representation Summary:

I support proportionate village growth to allow us to keep and enhance vital local services (school, bus, doctors etc), but not at this scale and not in this location. The volume of traffic moving through the village would have an adverse impact on safety and character. Verges are already becoming damaged through heavy traffic flow. On street parking already makes much of the street like a chicane. Development at the Bramerton end of the village makes more sense from a traffic perspective and is closer to main amenities.

Why damage an area of such beauty when other sites exist?

Full text:

I support proportionate village growth to allow us to keep and enhance vital local services (school, bus, doctors etc), but not at this scale and not in this location. The volume of traffic moving through the village would have an adverse impact on safety and character. Verges are already becoming damaged through heavy traffic flow. On street parking already makes much of the street like a chicane. Development at the Bramerton end of the village makes more sense from a traffic perspective and is closer to main amenities.

Why damage an area of such beauty when other sites exist?

Comment

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 13239

Received: 23/02/2018

Respondent: Mr and Mrs David Richardson

Representation Summary:

In summary this proposal is, in our view, entirely without merit and would blight the lives of many of the existing occupiers in the village. The proposals do not provide for safe access, the services and local facilities would not be able to cope and the pleasant rural nature of the village would be lost. I sincerely hope the proposal is rejected.

Full text:

We have set out below our views of the proposal GNLP0531 for 200 houses submitted by the landowner in connection with the Greater Norwich Local Plan.
We are absolutely opposed to the development for the following reasons:-

1. It is outside the area only recently defined in the South Norfolk Plan as being suitable for residential development. That decison was reached after a tortuously long consultation period of several years and surely, if the proposed area was not included after extended consideration then, it should not be included now.
2. The land is most attractive prime agricultural land overlooking and visible from the Broads Authority area of responsibility. The loss of greenbelt agricultural land should be resisted and the hilltop location of much of the proposed area ( closest to the main village ) means it would be visible for miles around.
3. The proposal would adversely impact on the setting of a listed building, namely our home The Old Hall, which has most rooms overlooking the land in question. Obviously this would impact on the value of our property and the enjoyment of the occupiers, of its garden in particular.
4. We are in the process of building a smaller new home to the south of The Old Hall, for our own occupation. The house is carefully sited and designed so it is only visible from the Old Hall from one upstairs window ( a dressing room ) and from no ground floor windows. The house will enjoy extensive views to the east and south, which views would be lost if the proposal is supported. The large full height windows would then overlook a building site, again adversely and significantly effecting enjoyment of the property and its value. If the proposal is adopted we would move out of the village.
5. The proposal would adversely effect virtually all of the existing houses and bungalows from one end of the site to the other, many of which back on to the land.
6. Rockland St Mary is a pleasant rural village, just 6 miles from Norwich. It has a good community, and assetts and services appropriate for its size. The nature of the village would change drastically if this proposal is allowed and most certainly not for the better. The linear nature of the village would be still further extended making it difficult to get to the shop or school without driving and isolating the eastern part from the west.
7. The school would be overwhelmed. Delivery and collection of children is already a nightmare as there is no parking for parents and this would be so much worse if this development proposal goes ahead. The enjoyment of the owners of homes in School Lane and nearby areas would be very adversely affected.
8. The potential access points are entirely inadequte. That at the extreme western frontage is very narrow and is not currently used other than on rare occasions for a tractor and is hemmed in by residential properties, which would prevent a more intensive use. In any event the sight lines are inadequate and do not meet modern standards. The access point at the top of New Inn Hill would be very dangerous, with inadequate sight lines, is opposite another junction and on the brow of a hill on a bend . We note that planning permission was recently turned down for a single dwelling almost opposite this point, partly due to access concerns.
9. The proposed development would create perhaps 2000/2500 traffic movements a day, greatly increasing the associated risks to road users and pedestrians alike.
10. The services in the village are inadequate to serve this site. We know from our own experience that the drainage system is at maximum capacity, that the electrical infrastructure could certainly not cope ( even for our new dwelling we have had to have a reduced power supply, because of capacity ) and we have no doubt that the water supply is also inadequate.
11. There are many much more suitable sites shown on the Norwich Local Plan.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 13247

Received: 23/02/2018

Respondent: Mrs Susan Plaw

Representation Summary:

The scale of this proposed site is totally out of character with the village and surrounding environment which includes a listed building. Access to and from the site would be a traffic hazard. There is limited public transport - no rail link, a restricted daily bus service. Additional volume of cars and delivery vehicles to and from this site would severely impact on existing residents especially as most vehicles go via The Street and onwards to Bramerton to access the A146.
21 dwelling extension to Bee Orchid Way is approved.
Infrastructure does not support more.

Full text:

The scale of this proposed site is totally out of character with the village and surrounding environment which includes a listed building. Access to and from the site would be a traffic hazard. There is limited public transport - no rail link, a restricted daily bus service. Additional volume of cars and delivery vehicles to and from this site would severely impact on existing residents especially as most vehicles go via The Street and onwards to Bramerton to access the A146.
21 dwelling extension to Bee Orchid Way is approved.
Infrastructure does not support more.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 13295

Received: 25/02/2018

Respondent: Mr Paul Davies

Representation Summary:

This site is much too large for Rockland St Mary, a ribbon development of approx 400 houses. A single block of 200 houses is out of keeping with the linear nature of the village and will increase the number of dwellings by 50%. There is insufficient local infrastructure to cope with such a huge single site and will not suit an essentially rural area. This site should be part of a much larger village / town where it's impact can be much more easily absorbed.

Full text:

This site is much too large for Rockland St Mary, a ribbon development of approx 400 houses. A single block of 200 houses is out of keeping with the linear nature of the village and will increase the number of dwellings by 50%. There is insufficient local infrastructure to cope with such a huge single site and will not suit an essentially rural area. This site should be part of a much larger village / town where it's impact can be much more easily absorbed.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 13364

Received: 28/02/2018

Respondent: mr kevin stirling

Agent: mr kevin stirling

Representation Summary:

.this site is outside the settlement boundary. Main road through village would not cope with approx 200+ more vehicles travelling daily.It is a 'c' classed road & would need significant updates & pavements installed from the street all the way to the pub for safety reasons. is unsuitable re visibility & too narrow.
Village amenities would not be able to cope, would have a detrimental impact on the rural wildlife & small rivers that lead to the broads & disrupt the landscape.
have a direct impact on the properties adjacent & de-value such properties.






Full text:

ref larger site GNLP0531 NOT in keeping with the village ethics.this site is outside the settlement boundary & an increase of 50% of properties( 200) current infrastructure would not cope. Main road through village would not cope with approx 200+ more vehicles travelling daily.It is a 'c' classed road & would need significant updates & pavements installed from the street all the way to the pub for safety reasons.Due to the gradient of road to the pub any access from this site proposed is unsuitable re visibility & too narrow.
Village amenities would not be able to cope, the doctors ( no obligation to increa area of New Inn pub is on a flood plain & thus potential issues with new builds & obtaining house insurance.
this site would have a detrimental impact on the rural wildlife & small rivers that lead to the broads & disrupt the landscape.
With such a large development site proposed would have a direct impact on the properties adjacent & de-value such properties.on a personal note would impact on my privacy & my quality of life & infringe on my human rights based on such values as fairness, respect, equality & dignity.
I have lived in the village for over 20 years & accept some very small developments within the development boundary are acceptable to our lovely village but this would not benefit the village in any way.
The whole dynamics of the village would change & the village countryside would be spoilt ruining it permanently.
Policy 15 of the joint core strategy states that this village has land allocated for small scale growth for 10-20 dwellings only between '08 & '26 not 200 dwellings.
There are many other more suitable sites in other larger villages in south Norfolk that could accept such a large dwelling site with little impact.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 13446

Received: 01/03/2018

Respondent: Mrs Pia Saunders

Representation Summary:

My main objections are:

Scale of development completely out of proportion with current village.
Proposed entrance to site on a dangerous bend on a hill
Lack of local services. Everybody would have to travel by car to access those
Near to SSSI which would have severe detriment to the environment
Lack of local infrastructure/suitable road system. No cycle path/pavement.
Most facilities within the village at the opposite end of the village (over a mile) such as school, shop, church, village hall
As the site is in an elevated location it would be visible from miles around

Full text:

I strongly object to the proposals for "approximately" 200 dwellings on this site.

Rockland St Mary is a small rural village with particularly difficult road transport system; with narrow roads in all directions, frequent flooding of said roads, and largely ineffectual public transport. The proposed site is also adjacent to Rockland Broad which is an area of significant scientific importance.

According to the 2011 Census, the village has 810 inhabitants, living in less than 325 households according to the 2001 Census. To add "approximately" 200 households would have a massive detrimental effect on the area and completely alter the village forever. there is already severe pressure on local services; such as the surgery, which is a satellite of Poringland Surgery. Patients often have to travel to Poringland for appointments due to lengthy waiting list for appointments.

An extra 200 households would increase the village by over 50% and add immense pressure on the already difficult road system. Assuming an average of 4 vehicle movements per property, that would add 800 vehicles per day - not including construction traffic and subsequent delivery movements in the future.

There is only one road out of the village where two vehicles can comfortably pass each other - the others are single track roads with passing places. When that road gets blocked due to flood/snow/accidents the village grinds to a complete halt, thus making it impossible for emergency vehicles to get through.

Residents living on New Inn Hill and Green Lane, which is opposite the entrance to the proposed site, have already been informed by Highways that they would object to any further developments - even single properties - as the bend in the road makes it impossible to get enough visible distance. I am therefore puzzled how a site containing 200 properties can be considered acceptable.

I have no objections in principle for the provision of housing for local people. However, the scale of the proposed development is completely out of proportion with the existing village.

Finally; when the previous developments - Bee Orchid Way and Eel Catcher Close, was proposed, the village was assured that no further development would take place in the village. With that in mind, can "approximately 200" be considered just the tip of the iceberg?

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 13448

Received: 01/03/2018

Respondent: Ms Nicola Colbeck

Representation Summary:

Access routes are unsuitable 1 is on the brow of a hill the other there isn't enough space for 2 vehicles a path and a splay onto The Street. The road is in a poor state of repair due to The Street not being wide enough for 2 vehicles to pass when vehicles are parked in lay-by. Facilities in the village are inadequate to cope with an increase of this size. Permission has already been granted for more housing at Bee-Orchid Way. Concerns regarding loss of habitat for wildlife, once our fields are built on we can't get them back.

Full text:

As the owner of one of the houses next to the entrance of 1 of the proposed access routes (the 1 on the blind bend not the 1 on the brow of a hill!) I have concerns about how the foundations of my house and the barns nearby would cope with traffic coming directly past. The access next to my house isn't wide enough for 2 way traffic and a path nor is there enough room for there to be a splay onto The Street. This particular section of road is in a very poor state due to the road not being wide enough to pass when cars parked in lay-by opposite. The roads through the village aren't suitable for such an increase in traffic. The school is too small and access and parking is poor. The GP is only open part time , phone signal, internet, sewage system (due to flooding of raw sewage after heavy rainfall)and bus services are inadequate for a village of the proposed increase. Planning permission has already been granted for additional houses at Bee-Orchid Way and behind existing properties on The Street. I'm am also concerned about the loss of habitat for the wildlife. Once this land is built on we will never get it back. Also the impact on the wildlife at the nearby Staithe and marshes due to the increased traffic and noise pollution. To increase the village by 50% is out of keeping the surrounding villages.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 13484

Received: 04/03/2018

Respondent: Mr Philip Ellis

Representation Summary:

The site is unsuitable being outside the development boundary, contrary to SNDC and national policies.
Situated in a rural area isolated from village services and (capacity constrained) utilities.
10-15m land height would have a detrimental impact on skyline, landscape and views of SSSI/AONB. Out of context with village form and character.
No need, with 21 houses already approved.
Risk to local water courses.
Inadequate highways, no pedestrian pavements and access issues
Not sustainable, no economic, social, environmental benefits.
Loss of amenity and footpaths
Unintended consequences of additional adjacent development.
Against the precedent of previous planning decisions.
Site has questionable viability.

Full text:

This is an objection to the proposed site GNLP0531 - Site west of Lower Road and south of New Inn Hill, Rockland St Mary (the site). I want this to be considered as a response to the consultation. A short summary of these comments has been put on the consultation website www.gnlp.org.uk

Introduction

This is a speculative proposal for a large scale residential housing development on a very elevated, elongated and irregular shaped site in a sensitive rural area.

The scale and impact of the site is out of context with the historic linear growth, size and design of the existing village. Development at this height would negatively impact the wider rural landscape including views to and from two river valleys, sensitive internationally important environmental/ecological areas and the setting of nearby listed buildings. It would also create further pressure for subsequent "infill" development around the proposed site in the future.

Planning and policy context

The site is significantly outside the village development boundary.

It is not contiguous, adjacent or relevant to any previous development in the village and is surrounded by existing farmland, a conservation area and river valley, smallholdings, listed buildings and The Broads Authority area.

The South Norfolk Place-Making Guide defines the area as "Rockland Tributary Farmland" with a presumption against large development. Characteristics are "small nucleated settlements inland including Rockland St Mary" and "Important views towards.... The Broads which provide a sense of place". Key design principles for any development (none of which the proposed site meets) are;

- Respect the existing characteristic pattern of linear settlements at The Broads fringe
- Ensure the rural quality is maintained
- Ensure that the integrity of important landmarks is respected
- Consider the impact of development on the skyline of open areas

Under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) this site does not meet the three specific criteria for sustainable development as follows;

- Economic - there would be no local employment provided or supportable in the local area.
- Social - new houses would be provided but the volume is excessive and unnecessary for the need in this location being at least equal to the current allocation of houses for Loddon.
- Environmental - there would be major negative environmental impacts including traffic movements, light and noise pollution to sensitive landscape.

Ideally NPPF requires developments to achieve all these criteria but the proposed site meets none.

It would be appropriate for this site allocation to be considered by The Broads Authority as parts of Lower Road and some of the dwellings are within The Broads Authority Boundary.



Situation and location

The site is uniquely situated prominently between two sensitive environmental/ecological areas with a very high aspect and views stretching several miles. It is in an entirely rural area, adjacent to a semi-rural area, which in turn is an extension of the village that developed in a linear fashion over the last century providing a mix of ages and styles of housing giving it a specific form and character.

The proposed site boundary has been drawn within existing fields broadly parallel to the line of an existing footpath which would "carve up" the open rural landscape.

The site location (especially for the provision of any retirement accommodation) does not encourage interconnectivity with the existing village. It would be an unduly isolated settlement and separate community preventing inclusion of residents and access to local services.

Landscape impact

The significant height of the site (15 metres above sea level at its highest points) provides the highest land on the eastern side of the village. It overlooks sensitive RSPB reserves, marsh, woodland, meadows, a conservation area and the River Yare and The Beck river valleys which include sites of special scientific interest (SSSI)/areas of outstanding natural beauty (AONB). Land adjacent is the Mid-Yare National Nature Reserve (NNR) which is a Ramsar site - a wetland of international importance and a European Union Natura 2000 site.

It would cause the loss of good quality (grade 3) agricultural land and views of any new development would clearly be seen from all areas around the River Yare, Rockland Broad and The Beck as well as local roads and footpaths. The skyline, for several miles, would be affected by any development becoming out of context with the surrounding landscape.

It should be noted that any (much older) development in this vicinity has been very limited, almost entirely of bungalows, on existing road frontages and at lower height levels.

Scale and need

There is no need for additional provision of c 62% to the existing housing stock (325 dwellings at 2001 census) on a site equivalent to c 75% of the already developed village area. At a density of 12-14 houses per acre there is potential for the allocation of c 460-540 dwellings on the whole site. There are also sufficient new sites for development with planning permission already allocated.

FW Properties (www.fw-properties.com) are currently progressing the planning permission for the development of 21 new homes in Bee Orchid Way, Rockland St Mary. "The scheme will provide a variety of three, four and five bedroom homes". This site is adjacent to existing residential areas with infrastructure and all utilities existing and providing sufficient further housing capacity. It is also at a lower level than surrounding areas, on a sloping gradient with less impact on the landscape.

Natural water courses and additional flooding risk

This area is a natural source of water drainage into Rockland and Claxton marshes, Rockland Broad and The Beck hence development could lead to pollution of the natural water system impacting water quality. DEFRA have previously issued guidelines in this area as a Nitrate Vulnerable Zone (NVZ) to bring about improvements in water quality which may be threatened by any development.

There are existing houses in this locality that have their water supply from boreholes not Anglian Water mains. There would be a risk of contamination (as has recently occurred at Coldham Hall Surlingham) or diversion of natural water away from these private supplies.
The Environment Agency (EA) classifies the Norwich and Broads Water Resource Zone (WRZ) as an area of "serious water stress". The EA Flood Map for Planning shows the areas to the east and south (including Lower Road and The Beck) are designated Flood Zone 3 which are areas at most serious risk of flooding in the UK.

The land (and the site access) falls to c 0-5 metres above sea level at Lower Road to the east. A large development and diversion of surface water provides potential for "knock on effect" flooding of Lower Road and areas such as Rockland and Claxton marshes which are also areas in Flood Zone 3. The River Yare is higher than the adjacent marsh and farmland. A single pumping station on the River Yare at Claxton irrigates farmland and marshes. In autumn 2017 the pump failed requiring emergency repairs. Significant risks occur after snowfalls. Anglian Water, EA, The Broads Authority and landowners need to be consulted on this risk.

Highways and access

The A146 Norwich/Beccles road is the only main road around Norwich NOT classified as a "growth corridor. The Kirby Road to Rockland St Mary is inadequate to cope with the additional level of traffic. Particularly unsuitable sections of carriageway exist in Bramerton, entering Rockland St Mary as well as south through Claxton. Poor road features include narrow carriageway width without central line marking, right angle blind bends, hills and tyre worn verges.

Any development would create additional traffic movement through the whole of the village where there is already much on street parking causing congestion, potential hazards and disruption. It would also impact other much smaller rural settlements such as Claxton, Carlton-St-Peter and Ashby St Mary where roads are inadequate e.g.; Church Lane, Claxton which is the closest road to the proposed site, a narrow single lane road with high hedges and blind corners.

Lower Road is on the Sustrans National Cycle Network Route 1 and is "a series of quiet, on road-cycling and walking routes". There are only footpaths on one side of the road at this point in the village where a site entrance is proposed and these would be inadequate for highway safety of pedestrians.

No existing formal road access currently exists into the proposed site. Any access points would encourage additional development, provide poor visibility and would lead to excessive traffic on green belt land encouraging additional vehicular movements on The Broads Boundary. The vehicle access point is toward Claxton breaking up the rural landscape adjacent to The Broads. The road into the site that is proposed is c300-350 metres long and c50% of the whole estate road. Tree planting to the access would create a false feature reminiscent of a golf course or hotel entrance and would be an inadequate "buffer zone".

Services and utilities capacity

The village school would suffer additional congestion being situated within a small cul-de-sac.

Any potential development would require significant utility investment. Those such as water and electricity have suffered regular disruption. All utilities are a significant distance away from the proposed site with insufficient capacity for a proposed development of this scale.

It is not clear how suitable foul and surface water drainage could be achieved to mains sewers.

Existing brownfield sites and infill development

There are brownfield and infill sites in the village (and Hellington, Bramerton, Surlingham, Claxton, Ashby St Mary and Carleton St Peter) that have not been brought forward. These would provide housing in a more sustainable manner retaining the villages form and character and protecting the landscape. This would be a preferred route supported by planning policy and local opinion.

Employment

There is no local employment in Rockland St Mary for this scale of development. It would require most jobs to be in Norwich and require all occupiers to commute through the length of the village (c 1 mile) by car adding little or nothing to the community or the sustainability of the development. Alternative journeys through Claxton and other local villages would be on unsuitable roads.

Listed Buildings and archaeology

The Old Hall is a Grade II listed building adjacent to two other Grade II listed barn buildings. These buildings immediately adjoin the western boundary of the proposed site.

St Andrews Church, Claxton is a Grade I listed building of Saxo-Norman origin to the south.

This site would affect the context and setting of both these buildings.

Rockland has 81 recorded site finds on the Norfolk Heritage Explorer (www.heritage.norfolk.gov.uk). This site would have provided a commanding defence position for early settlements. Recorded finds include "a prehistoric burnt mound and Neolithic flint finds near Claxton Beck" (Grid Reference TG 3268 0415) close to the site.

Ecology and biodiversity

To the immediate south of the site is a conservation area, part of Claxton Manor Estate (see www.claxtonmanor.com and "wildlife and nature"). This is an area where animals, birds and butterflies including raptors (buzzards, falcons, harriers, every native owl, sparrow hawks and goshawk), otters, bats, swans and many other species thrive. Wild and other rare plant species have been documented in the surrounding area. Any development would damage these natural habitats.

There are established trees, including impressive oaks, in two existing fields which may be established "bat highways" from woodlands that are unsuitable for alteration or diversion in this sensitive location.

The impact of light and noise from buildings, people and traffic will affect the biodiversity. As stated on a Claxton Manor Estate on the conservation area "wildlife thrives much better if undisturbed".

Amenity areas and public footpaths

The loss or variation of public footpaths would limit access to the countryside and views in this area.

The public footpath across the proposed site is not marked out and is inconsistent with the existing footpaths on the proposed site. There are additional tracks over which public rights are exercised.

There is a commercial shoot run on adjacent land that may have to close or would become unsustainable if any development occurred.

Public objection and localism

There is little local support for the allocation of this proposed site for housing and most residents are opposed to development of this scale in the village. On the GNLP website for comments there are as at today 30 objections/comments for this site and 3 supporting comments (albeit they mainly suggest much smaller development) indicating the strength of feeling.

Unintended consequences and opening to other local sites

If the site were approved, then this would lead to other adjacent sites coming within the village curtilage and development boundary. This would generate further promotion and applications for planning and infill development on neighbouring sites that SNDC would not be able to oppose. This would lead to an oversupply of housing land in the village, inappropriate and unsustainable development, downward pressure on house values and further pressure on infrastructure.

Relevant additional planning information

Planning decisions on other sites in the vicinity are also important to consider as follows;

Land to west of 1 New Inn Hill, Rockland St Mary - Proposed new house (2017/0638/O). This was refused in May 2017 for the following reasons;

- Outside the development boundary
- Impact on character and landscape of the rural area
- Unsustainable development

Eel Catcher Close off New Inn Hill, Rockland St Mary (2009/00254/F). This planning application was approved as part of a Section 106 Agreement as Affordable Housing after a Local Housing Needs Survey was undertaken and an "Exception Site" was allocated. This was funded by The Homes and Communities Agency and built by Broadland Housing Association offering different types of affordable tenure providing accommodation for local people to live in the village.

Viability

If the site was approved, it would demand extreme sensitivity in siting and landscaping severely reducing the developable site area. It would also require abnormal costs for highway infrastructure, access, archaeology, flood risk alleviation, Section 106/Community Infrastructure Levy charges, an affordable housing provision of 35-50% and extensive utility capacity upgrades particularly for water, electricity, gas, broadband, drainage and sewers. Any development would have to be phased over many years with uncertainty on maintaining values with a large supply of new houses. All of this would question the viability of the scheme and it would only be profitable to a developer if mass scale housing was secured (as has been proposed).

Summary

At every level the proposed site is unsuitable for allocation of a new housing development of any size. It has many potential adverse impacts, risks and uncertainties as follows;

1. Against planning policy - sited outside the village development boundary, contrary to the South Norfolk Local Plan Development Management Policies and national planning policy.
2. Situated in a rural area and isolated from the existing village.
3. The site height of 15 metres is the highest on the eastern side of the village having a detrimental impact on the skyline, rural landscape and views of SSSI/AONB.
4. No need for a development of this scale, out of context with the form and character and with existing planning permissions in the village for 21 additional houses.
5. Risks of pollution to local water courses and adjacent flooding risks from diversion of surface water.
6. Severely limited existing highway infrastructure, access, footpath and National Cycle Network issues.
7. Inadequate services and existing utilities location, capacity and cost of upgrade.
8. There are alternative brownfield and infill sites in the local area.
9. It is not sustainable development - no economic, social or environmental benefits.
10. The impact on views of listed buildings, archaeology, ecology and biodiversity of the area.
11. Loss of local amenity and public footpaths
12. Lacking local support.
13. Site would have the unintended consequence of leading to additional adjacent development
14. This site goes against the precedent of previous planning decisions.
15. The site would have questionable viability unless developed as a mass scale housing site.


Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 13485

Received: 04/03/2018

Respondent: Dr Joanne Norris

Representation Summary:

I object on the grounds of:

Detrimental to Red (Cuckoo) and Amber (Marsh Harrier) listed bird species, who inhabit this area throughout the year.
Increased road traffic accidents, by increased volumes of traffic, due to poor infrastructure and blind hills.
Hazard to children accessing the playground at the top of Green Lane.
Loss of green space and rural footpaths. It is currently a tranquil and peaceful area, with wide open space and landscape.

Full text:

As a regular visitor and semi permanent resident of the village, I strongly object to the housing proposal on land west of New Inn Hill and Lower Road. The area attracts a wide variety of wildlife, including endangered bird species: cuckoos (Red listed species), marsh harriers (Amber listed), common redpolls and winter migrants, tawny, barn and little owls, red kites, buzzards and sparrow hawks, as well as mammals which support these species.

The area is surrounded by conservation sites (Claxton estates and the Hellington and Rockland Nature Reserve), and on the opposite side of the road by the RSPB Rockland Broad site. A complex of 200 houses would be detrimental to the wildlife this area supports.

Access to the site is very limited and if one of the main accesses was placed opposite Green Lane, an already very difficult junction to exit from, this would make for a hazardous cross roads on a blind hill. There would also be an increased risk of road traffic accidents for children accessing the playground at the top of Green Lane.

The holiday cottage complex at Oxnead House would be ruined by the noise and increased traffic a significant housing estate makes, and visitor numbers would decrease.

There would be a loss of green space and rural footpaths. It is currently a tranquil and peaceful area, with wide open space and landscape, which are pleasant to walk and view at all times of the year. This number of houses would significantly destroy these views and local character not seen elsewhere in the Broads.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 13489

Received: 04/03/2018

Respondent: Mr Peter Evans

Representation Summary:

In 2014 a similar development was proposed. 95% of respondents objected including Norfolk County Council, and it was rejected. The same reasons for objection are valid today.
1) This proposal is outside the village boundary.
2) The village is linear in nature.
3) The winding road infrastructure cannot accommodate further traffic, blind corners.
4) The utilities infrastructure is completely inadequate.
5) Very close to a site of special scientific interest.
6) Damage to local community cohesion.
7) The road is a national cycle route. Increased traffic would create significant danger.
8) Detrimental effect on an area of scenic Broads countryside.

Full text:

Some five years ago a similar proposal was put forward for the village. Approximately 95% of respondents objected including Norfolk County Council, and it was rejected. There have been no changes to the village since that time, and the same reasons for objection are still valid today.
1) This proposed development is outside the village boundary.
2) The village is linear in nature and this would distort the pattern of development.
3) The road infrastructure through the village and to Norwich cannot accommodate further traffic without a major upgrade at disproportionate cost.
4) The utilities infrastructure (electricity, gas, water etc) is completely inadequate for this development.
5) The location is very close to a site of special scientific interest.
6) The proposal would damage the local community cohesion which has developed slowly over the years.
7) The road to Norwich is part of a national cycle route and the increased traffic would create significant risk to all road users, particularly due to the winding nature of the road with blind corners.
8) Rockland St Mary is recognised as an area of scenic countryside close to the Broads and this proposal would have a detrimental impact.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 13511

Received: 04/03/2018

Respondent: Mr Richard Sadd

Representation Summary:

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.

Full text:

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.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 13518

Received: 04/03/2018

Respondent: Mrs Amy Robinson

Representation Summary:

We think that 200 extra dwellings would spoil the character of the village. We also do not believe the roads or facilities are equipped to deal with this amount of extra residents. We chose Rockland St Mary to live in as it was a quiet area and we feel this would no longer be the case.

Full text:

We think that 200 extra dwellings would spoil the character of the village. We also do not believe the roads or facilities are equipped to deal with this amount of extra residents. We chose Rockland St Mary to live in as it was a quiet area and we feel this would no longer be the case.

Support

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 13556

Received: 05/03/2018

Respondent: Mrs June Green

Representation Summary:

I consider this site to be the preferred one as access would be much easier than the other. I do not think the village infrastructure could not absorb the proposed 200. I consider 50 houses would be better as this could be absorbed by this village, but there must be plans to update roads, drains, pavements etc. Traffic will obviously greatly increase so this must be taken into consideration before any building starts and dwellings must be affordable 2 and 3 bedrooms would be preferable which can be purchased at reasonable cost.

Full text:

I consider this site to be the preferred one as access would be much easier than the other. I do not think the village infrastructure could not absorb the proposed 200. I consider 50 houses would be better as this could be absorbed by this village, but there must be plans to update roads, drains, pavements etc. Traffic will obviously greatly increase so this must be taken into consideration before any building starts and dwellings must be affordable 2 and 3 bedrooms would be preferable which can be purchased at reasonable cost.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 13563

Received: 05/03/2018

Respondent: Mr David Edwards

Representation Summary:

I'm very concerned about the affect on the road structure into the village. Also the affect on the local doctors surgery and local school.

Full text:

I'm very concerned about the affect on the road structure into the village. Also the affect on the local doctors surgery and local school.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 13570

Received: 05/03/2018

Respondent: Tim Beaumont

Representation Summary:

This proposed site is absolutely ridiculous as the roads in this village are not equipped for the vast increase in traffic volume during the build and after with the increased residents. Eel Catcher Way was sold to the village as a one off.My concerns are about spoiling one of the most stunning views in the village and have having a access road at brow of hill and on a bend. This proposed development would just by its sheer scale ruin the outlook and feeling and our village. I want to express my complete objection to this site for development.

Full text:

This proposed site is absolutely ridiculous as the roads in this village are not equipped for the vast increase in traffic volume during the build and after with the increased residents. Eel Catcher Way was sold to the village as a one off.My concerns are about spoiling one of the most stunning views in the village and have having a access road at brow of hill and on a bend. This proposed development would just by its sheer scale ruin the outlook and feeling and our village. I want to express my complete objection to this site for development.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 13580

Received: 05/03/2018

Respondent: Mr Paul Briddon

Representation Summary:

This development is totally inappropriate. As there are currently around
400 dwellings in the village 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 through the village would increase and 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 villages to meet housing need
when development closer to Norwich, increased City housing density and
smaller rural schemes would be better?

Full text:

This development is totally inappropriate. As there are currently around
400 dwellings in the village 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 through the village would increase and 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 villages to meet housing need
when development closer to Norwich, increased City housing density and
smaller rural schemes would be better?

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 13584

Received: 06/03/2018

Respondent: Mr Michael Hayward

Representation Summary:

Outside development boundary
Flooding Risks
Unsuitable road infrastructure
Increase in traffic
The Broads area is a flood plain and a site of special scientific interest.

Full text:

The site is outside the development boundary.
Most of the site slopes towards the flood plain.
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.
Some of the site is within 50 -100 metres of the Broads Authority Boundary, some just 20 metres away, separated by the narrow busy road. The Broads area is a flood plain and a site of special scientific interest. The Broads area is a designated and strictly controlled conservation area and this large-scale site would directly border it.
My conclusion is that this is not a viable site for development.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 13594

Received: 06/03/2018

Respondent: Mrs Jane Henry

Representation Summary:

I object to this many houses being built in this village as the infrastructure doesn't allow for this many people. The School, GP Surgery and Shop are insufficient and the road into the village is not adequate. I also feel it necessary to state that planning permission was NOT granted for one house which is on the opposite side of the proposed development, due to the road, making it a nonsense.
On a personal level, this village is in a Dark Skies area and this many houses would destroy that completely

Full text:

I object to this many houses being built in this village as the infrastructure doesn't allow for this many people. The School, GP Surgery and Shop are insufficient and the road into the village is not adequate. I also feel it necessary to state that planning permission was NOT granted for one house which is on the opposite side of the proposed development, due to the road, making it a nonsense.
On a personal level, this village is in a Dark Skies area and this many houses would destroy that completely

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 13625

Received: 07/03/2018

Respondent: Mrs Sue Morris

Representation Summary:

The proposed site is adjacent to the Broads and building on it will have a significant impact on the landscape and views from the village. The land is rich in wildlife which includes hares, deer, owls and yellow hammers. Once this land has been destroyed the infrastructure of the wildlife will be detrimentally affected. Building on this site will also have a significant impact on nearby listed buildings and the infrastructure of the village. There are constraints on access as there is only one road through the village (the Street) and on utilities capacity.

Full text:

The proposed site is adjacent to the Broads and building on it will have a significant impact on the landscape and views from the village. The land is rich in wildlife which includes hares, deer, owls and yellow hammers. Once this land has been destroyed the infrastructure of the wildlife will be detrimentally affected. Building on this site will also have a significant impact on nearby listed buildings and the infrastructure of the village. There are constraints on access as there is only one road through the village (the Street) and on utilities capacity.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 13638

Received: 07/03/2018

Respondent: Mr Christopher Plaw

Representation Summary:

Huge over development which the village cannot support
Unsuitable dangerous access to the site on the brow of a hill
Conservative estimate of an increase in traffic of 300-350 additional vehicles owned by residents on this site. With delivery and service vehicles all having to go through The Street to access the main A146 would be an intolerable increase in traffic and noise through a rural village.
Detrimental impact on the environment being near a Broads Area, well used by tourists and day trippers. Impact on National Cycle route.
Impact on a nearby listed building.

Full text:

Huge over development which the village cannot support
Unsuitable dangerous access to the site on the brow of a hill
Conservative estimate of an increase in traffic of 300-350 additional vehicles owned by residents on this site. With delivery and service vehicles all having to go through The Street to access the main A146 would be an intolerable increase in traffic and noise through a rural village.
Detrimental impact on the environment being near a Broads Area, well used by tourists and day trippers. Impact on National Cycle route.
Impact on a nearby listed building.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 13641

Received: 07/03/2018

Respondent: Mr Christopher Plaw

Representation Summary:

Huge over-development of a service village.
Dangerous access to the site on the brow of a hill.
Conservative estimate that traffic volume would increase by 300-350 cars from residents, not to mention delivery and service vehicles to this development.
Intolerable pressure put on existing residents as most traffic would exit the village through The Street. Road system, existing infrastructure cannot support over-development.
Development near a Broads Authority area. Impact on tourists, walkers and residents using the area. Impact on a National Cycle route. Impact on a listed building nearby.

Full text:

Huge over-development of a service village.
Dangerous access to the site on the brow of a hill.
Conservative estimate that traffic volume would increase by 300-350 cars from residents, not to mention delivery and service vehicles to this development.
Intolerable pressure put on existing residents as most traffic would exit the village through The Street. Road system, existing infrastructure cannot support over-development.
Development near a Broads Authority area. Impact on tourists, walkers and residents using the area. Impact on a National Cycle route. Impact on a listed building nearby.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 13643

Received: 07/03/2018

Respondent: Mr Christopher Plaw

Representation Summary:

Huge over-development of a service village.
Dangerous access to the site on the brow of a hill.
Conservative estimate that traffic volume would increase by 300-350 cars from residents, not to mention delivery and service vehicles to this development.
Intolerable pressure put on existing residents as most traffic would exit the village through The Street. Road system, existing infrastructure cannot support over-development.
Development near a Broads Authority area. Impact on tourists, walkers and residents using the area. Impact on a National Cycle route. Impact on a listed building nearby.

Full text:

Huge over-development of a service village.
Dangerous access to the site on the brow of a hill.
Conservative estimate that traffic volume would increase by 300-350 cars from residents, not to mention delivery and service vehicles to this development.
Intolerable pressure put on existing residents as most traffic would exit the village through The Street. Road system, existing infrastructure cannot support over-development.
Development near a Broads Authority area. Impact on tourists, walkers and residents using the area. Impact on a National Cycle route. Impact on a listed building nearby.