GNLP0531

I strongly object to the proposed site for the following reasons.

The location of the site is inappropriate as it almost doubles the extent of the village development area. It is at the wrong end of the linear village for access to the schools/shop/doctors' surgery and would necessitate families driving to these facilities rather than walking.

The road through the village and access to Norwich or Loddon is a minor C road and forms part of the National Cycle Route 1. The traffic on this road has already increased and there are ongong issues with motorists exceding the speed limit. This road could not support a potential increase of 200+ vehicles.

The scale of the proposed development is unnaceptable. The site is on high raised ground. The amount of run-off water from 200 houses and hard landscaping would be considerable and would increase the flow of the Hellington Beck to the south of the site - an area that already has a flood risk status.

The proposed site is in the South Yare valley, part of The Broads National Park, with Sites of Special Scientific Interest and County Wildlife Sites nearby. The impact of 200 homes in this area would be hugely detrimental to the incredibly important natural landscape aesthetically and, far more importantly, environmentally.

Kaarin Wall

I accept that there is a need for more housing throughout Norfolk in order to satisfy growing demand resulting from a projected population growth. How that is achieved is what is important. In my view any developments must satisfy the following criteria:
1. They must be of small scale so that they can be readily absorbed into the existing community and be of a size that will attract local builders who are more likely to build houses in keeping with the area.(and retain wealth in the area rather than it being transferred elsewhere!)
2. They must not impact on the unique Norfolk landscape that is the Broads.
3. They must not overly elongate a community such that any feeling of a centre is lost.
4. They must not put an undue strain on the infrastructure (roads, schools, doctors etc.)

I believe that this specific proposal satisfies none of my criteria and I therefore strongly object to it.

The proposal for 200 houses on a field over looking Rockland broad would over whelm the village school, doctors surgery, and ulilities including sewage, broadband, and water, gas, and electricity. It would also increase the size of the village by 50& and totally destroy village life by becoming a dormitory of Norwich.

This development in a very visible site overlooking the Broads National park is intrusive and inappropriate. Further there are not the infrastructures to support such a development. The roads access plan has restricted visibility and would result in serious congestion in a village already struggling with parking and cars. The land would drain into a marsh and beck which is subject to regular flooding already. The sewage system would not cope with the additional house resulting in risk of pollution to the Broads and surrounding drainage systems which support the grazing land and wildlife areas. Including county wildlife site.
The local school is at capacity and could not take additional growth. There are very limited transport links currently 3 aDay.
There has been creeping ribbon development in Rockland which now extends nearly to Claxton Corner and Bramerton in the other direction. This destroys the countryside both visually and ecologically.
All developments which have infrastructure consequences must be funded by the developer and add value to the neighbourhood not destroy.

This would increase the size of the village by 50% which whilst benefiting the pub and local shop would significantly change the structure of the village. It would greatly affect an area of outstanding natural beauty and wildlife habitats.
It would require major improvements to
The village highways and to Norwich
All services and broadband
A new school, current plot and access would be inadequate
Doctors surgery hours and additional parking
Any New build would need to be very small unless these issues were addressed and then Rockland St Mary would cease to be the village community it currently is.

I am not totally against any building for houses in this location as I understand that the population is growing. I feel that there is not the infrastructure to accommodate 200 houses, this would mean an increase in traffic, schools and other facilities needed to occupy the new residence, we would need an increase in bus services to the area. The wildlife really needs to be protected, the RSPB and the RSPCA wildlife should really produce an impact report on the area before any building is carried out as there maybe a negative impact on protected species.

As a local resident I think this development is totally unacceptable as it will increase the number of dwellings by over 50% This will overwhelm the village infrastructure and the amount of additional traffic going through the village will be highly dangerous as most of the existing housing directly adjoins the road.

1. There is already a problem with flooding as you enter the village a huge site of 200 homes is likely to cause more flooding and affect conservation.
2. The nature of the village is one straight road through it such infrastructure is totally inadequate for increased volume of traffic. Access onto this road would be difficult.
3. Utilities not in place.
4. There is a tourist trade to preserve with regard to the Broads, countryside and wildlife preservation.
5. Other proposals in surrounding areas as well as this will impact on the already busy A146.
6.Dangerous as on National Cycle Route.

- proposal does not support the traditional image and character of a idyllic Norfolk village
- The proposed site is on an extreamly dangerous section of road e.g.New Inn Hill therefore access would be an issue
- what population data supports the proposed increase in housing
- local doctors surgery could not support such an increase in the population of the village
- local schools have limited capacity and could not support increase in population
- public transport is in adequate
- applicants would appear to be profiteering and have no vested interest in the village

200 houses would fundamentally change the village; the road changes from 30mph to 60mph with a large amount of farm vehicles using the road, taking up 3 quarters of the road and therefore causing cars to swerve, etc to move out of their way. This is an agricultural area and therefore farm vehicles are to be expected however the increase in traffic this development would create more danger for cyclists and walkers who are encouraged to come to the area.

I think this proposal has really not been thought out at all, anyone can see that,so many more sites which are more suitable and have already the social frame to support it. This would increase the village on a scale that it would not coupe,like schools, shops, roads, paths,local people,nature and the all over beauty of Rockland as a whole....200 new builds is just to much,on average that's 800 more people,300-350 more car and more domestic pets....Don't get me wrong, I am all for expansion, but there needs to be frame work in place to begin with to support such a massive leap,In Rockland we don't simply have that, any reasonable person would agree with that. The fact is we just don't want it here, you can see that for yourself in the other comments.

I think this proposal has really not been thought out at all, anyone can see that,so many more sites which are more suitable and have already the social frame to support it. This would increase the village on a scale that it would not coupe,like schools, shops, roads, paths,local people,nature and the all over beauty of Rockland as a whole....200 new builds is just to much,on average that's 800 more people,300-350 more car and more domestic pets....Don't get me wrong, I am all for expansion, but there needs to be frame work in place to begin with to support such a massive leap,In Rockland we don't simply have that, any reasonable person would agree with that. The fact is we just don't want it here, you can see that for yourself in the other comments.

I wish this statement to be considered as a response to the GNLP consultations.
I strongly object to the proposals for GNL0531 for the following reasons:-
1. For over 25 years I have lived in The Old Hall, a Grade 2 listed building, probably the oldest in the village being built around 1650. It is in fact itself outside the village development area and its setting adjoining and overlooking beautiful unspoiled rolling countryside towards the marshes is very dear to me. If this proposal is allowed, then all this will be lost as the site proposed immediately adjoins our house and garden. It is the planners policy and duty to prevent any development that has a deleterious effect on listed buildings ( the adjoining barns are also listed ) and these proposals would be very damaging to our property and enjoyment.
2. Just 3 or 4 years ago there was a long consultation , which lasted several years to review the possibility of development sites being defined in this village. This was part of the Local Plan process and the conclusion was that no new sites should be defined. Surely it should not be necessary to repeat that exercise, thereby blighting the village and all properties at the eastern end. This proposal should be rejected immediately as being without merit.
3. The land is outside the village development area, is a truly beautiful area of high grade land overlooking and virtually adjoining the Broads Authority area in the Yare river valley. This is a very special part of broadland, unspoiled and virtually unchanged since time began. Building on this site, much of it effectively a hilltop would be seen from miles around and ruin the beauty for ever.
4. The land extends to 15.52 hectares and is said to be suitable for 200+ dwellings. Whilst that in itself would increase the village by about 50%, it should be noted that planning policy requires a density of 30 dwellings per acre, thus the land proposed could produce 465 additional dwellings. Either way this proposal would overwhelm a pleasant and quiet Broadland village.
5. The infrastructure barely copes with the existing village. The roads are narrow, the services are at full capacity ( specfically, electricity which has NO room for expansion, and drainage ) and the existing bus service is threatened with closure. The roads would not cope with the huge increase of traffic created by this site, thousands of additional traffic movements every day.
6. The owners of the land have themselves erected notices on permissive paths running through the land, stating how important is the area for great bio diversity, there are several conservation areas virtually adjoining this site and these important assets of great ecological importance would be lost if development is accepted.
7. Although not immediately obvious the submitted proposal suggests a long convoluted road access from Claxton corner, or close by. Surely this is unacceptable from a planning point of view, and would ineviatbly lead to further submissions for developmnent at the western ( Claxton ) end of the site. Furthermore additional access points closer to the village are totally unsuitable for use. That adjoining 136 The Street is too narrow for vehicles, being hemmed in by existing dwellings, and has no vision splays being situated on a dangerous corner. That at the top of New Inn Hill is on the crest of a hill, on a bend, opposite another junction and has inadequate vision splays. Both are exceedingly dangerous.
8. The nature of the village would be changed adversely by development here, even on a small scale. The loss of a beautiful area of land would be bad enough, but the rural nature of Rockland St Mary would also be lost and it is this quiet rural tranquility that the residents seek, not to be part of an urban overspill. There is one approved development area at Bee Orchid Way which will provide some 20 dwellings and that is sufficientfor such a small village.

Brenda Richardson.

I strongly object as

1 The proposed site is outside the village boundary

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

3 The transport infrastructure cannot accommodate further traffic of this magnitude

4 Inadequate utilities infrastructure for this development

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

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

7 The site would interfere with the pr-existing footpath across the field

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

9 Site would result in overlooking issues for many existing homes, which would result in loss of privacy and being located in a rural location

10 Elevated location detrimental to the skyline

Proposal at odds with the existing village layout containing about 400 homes; 200 more homes will unbalance the village. Is outside existing village plan which limits development to small sites maintaining two distinct parts of village. Existing road poor, potholes, flooding and narrow, will not cope with hundreds of extra vehicle movements each day. Site access not viable at top of New Inn Hill due to bends, hill and poor sight lines. Will have detrimental effect on environment and landscape, to both land overlooking The Beck valley and towards Yare valley marshes in National Park. Separate, extensive email submitted.

1. Would contravene existing planning and local policies including the Rockland Tributary final report which states that any development must, for example, respect the character and landscape assets of the Rockland Tributary Farmland and should respect the existing characteristic pattern of linear settlement at the Broadland fringe with settlements dispersed across the landscape elsewhere and prevent the growth of edge-of-settlement development that would create uncharacteristic large settlements within the area.
2. The site is outside the identified village development boundary.
3. New development would be more appropriate on sites fringing Norwich or in transport corridors.
4. Access will be problematical with narrow roads and significant bends. Any development will involve excessive traffic movement and exacerbate congestion, cause potential hazards and disruption given that the development is some distance from village facilities. More traffic will result in potential danger to Wherrymans Way and National Cycle Route users.
5. Impact on watercourses, boreholes and flood risk. Run off water from any development has the potential to flood properties in Lower Road.
6. Impact on listed buildings, the environment and ecology. The site is close to sensitive and important environmental areas including a Site of Special Scientific Interest.
7. Existing provision (21 dwellings near Bee Orchard Way) for residential development in the village is sufficient for the foreseeable future.
8. New development should not be allowed in the Green Belt. There are sufficient brownfield and other sites within the Greater Norwich area to cater for future development which will not adversely affect the quality of rural life.

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

GNLP0531 should not be considered for circa 200 dwellings. Rockland is a small rural linear Norfolk village which will be overwhelmed by a development of this scale. The local character & environment will changed immeasurably by the scale proposed, adding 200 houses with and the extra cars will overload services, the access roads, street parking and generate a lot of extra noise pollution. All of this will be on the doorstep of a currently tranquil broadland Nature reserve. Please note I appreciate the village can benefit from development and a smaller plan for perhaps 25 houses may be suitable.

Site totally out of character for Rockland St Mary which is a 'Service Village' which the SNC Local Plan & Policy 15 of the JCS designates as suitable for "small scale housing growth"
200 + description of site dwelling density looks contrary to central government guidance to Local Authorities e.g. "major developments of less than 30 dwellings per hectare should not be supported". The potential number of dwellings based on the guidance would give rise to 465 dwellings and a more realistic proposed dwelling number should have been the basis on which the consultation was carried out. Had a more realistic figure been used I am certain even more objections would had been made.
No identified local need for further housing
There's already an agreed village housing expansion of 20 houses on land adjacent to Bee Orchid Way. This is more than sufficient 'block' expansion up to 2036.
The development is outside the village plan & contrary to SNDC and national policies.
Additional Housing to support the GNLP should be concentrated around the Northern Distributor Road, on the A11 corridor or within the City of Norwich itself. Unconstrained and exponential housing growth in rural villages threatens the quality of life of residents, impacts on wildlife and the local ecology and erodes the natural beauty of the area which is a tourist destination being on the fringe of the Norfolk Broads National Park.
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.
Substantial increase of vehicular traffic (minimum 600 car journeys per day including residents and delivery vehicles) through Rockland, Bremerton and Kirby Beadon on a road that is already struggling to accommodate a variety of large vehicles including agricultural harvesters and tractors.
Detrimental to the National Cycle Route and the safety of cyclists
Would be visible from Broad Area National Park
Access road onto the Low Road would lead to car headlights projecting over Rockland Marshes as cars descended the access road disturbing a variety of wildlife and nesting birds.
The land owner's own signage at the edge of the proposed site claims the presence of barn owls stating that "Each pair needs up to 50 hectares of rough grassland or 20 hectares of strips within 2km of their nest site to successfully rear chicks." Having laid claim to creating large areas dedicated to environmental good practice, ecology has been encouraged to settle on the proposed site. A development of the size, or of any size, on this site would be catastrophic to wildlife.
The site has a rich ecology with many species of wild life flourishing on or immediately adjacent to the proposed site
Risk to local water courses due to run off.
Increased roadside litter
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 decision.
Additional Light pollution in a Dark Skies Area

The site is a long way from the agreed development boundary.A proposal for 200 dwellings is detrimental in significant ways: massive impact on landscape as it would be seen for miles, literally borders conservation sites, huge increase in volume of traffic in and out of village, would destroy village community 'feel' as a separate estate would be formed,small rural road is a national cycle route, many partially concealed entrances near to site, an ordnance map clearly shows public right of way is within proposed site ( appears to have been unoffically rerouted by site and other land owners), flood risk.

Rockland St Mary with Hellington Parish Council

Parish council consultation process and response

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

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

Site constraints

This very large-scale site, on high quality agricultural land, is a long way from the development boundary.

Access

Access points to the site are limited and dangerous. One possible access point is part of a public right of way at the 'blind' top of a hill where planning permission was recently refused for a dwelling directly opposite because of this danger. The second possible access point is just before a blind bend. Neither access point could be widened to be suitable for traffic as the adjoining land is privately owned. Any new access point would have to be on Lower Road (outside the 30mph zone and 20 metres from the marsh land of the Yare Flood plain) - a road already considered unsuitable in terms of traffic capacity and lack of footpath provision.
A public right of way crosses the site (access from New Inn Hill). Some of the site abuts a piece of land (privately owned,) which is subject to a restrictive agricultural covenant.

Accessibility to services, utilities and utility infrastructure
Site 0531 is a long way from the limited facilities available in the village.
It is a 20 minute or one mile walk from New Inn Hill to the shop and part-time doctor's surgery, and a 25 minute walk to the small village primary school. The primary school has a maximum capacity for just 84 pupils and no surplus land for expansion. Indeed, the school has to make use of the village hall next door to provide sufficient facilities.
Much of the site is a long way from services such as gas and sewerage. (Some of the nearby properties are not connected to mains sewerage.) Broadband speeds are poor or variable as properties are a long way from the main cabling.

Flood Risk

As much of the site slopes towards the flood plain and the few existing houses on both New Inn Hill and Lower Road, there would be difficulties in dealing with the huge volume of water excess/run off from a large-scale development. In previous years, water would cascade down the slope onto the gardens of the bungalows on New Inn Hill whenever the previous landowner inadvertently ploughed his fields so that furrows channelled the water towards them. Hard landscaping of the site would lead to a high volume of water running off towards these properties and those on Lower Road. Being so close to the Staithe (fed by the River Yare) any excess water would also add to the likelihood of the road flooding when high tides occur. Flood warnings are quite frequent at this end of the village.


Impact

Traffic and transport issues
Because Site 0531 is a long way from the key facilities, the number of cars resulting from a development of 200 houses would lead to a significant increase in the volume of traffic along the fairly narrow road into the village and cause major parking issues at these facilities. There is no regular bus service from Lower Road or New Inn Hill. The very limited 85 bus service means that the vast majority of working adults are dependent on cars as their means of transport. As the site provides no employment opportunities, there would be an increase in commuter traffic on a road that has no scope for improvement.

There are over ten concealed or partially concealed entrances from New Inn Hill to Lower Road: one of which is a car park, another leads to a playground, and one is a slip-way for launching boats. Part of the marsh grazing land is accessed via Lower Road near to the possible site access point. At the Staithe, pleasure boats are moored in close proximity to the road and opposite the New Inn Pub. Creating a much greater volume of traffic would significantly increase the risk of accidents at this popular tourist spot. The village Community Speedwatch team has over a year's worth of data to support the fact that speeding remains a problem at this part of the village.
Access points to the site are on a popular and much used National Cycle Route (Lower Road and New Inn Hill) and close to the Wherryman's' Way - a walk popular with ramblers and birdwatchers. A significant increase in traffic on this narrow country road would be very dangerous to walkers and cyclists.
Residents have already expressed concerns to the Parish Council about the increased volume of traffic coming into the village as a consequence of drivers from (ever-expanding) Loddon wishing to avoid the busy and hazardous A146. The existing road cannot accommodate a further increase in traffic arising from such a large-scale development.
Biodiversity, geodiversity and compatibility with neighbouring uses
Much of the site is within 50 -100 metres of the Broads Authority Boundary, some of it just 20 metres away and separated only by the narrow road. The Broads area that it borders is a flood plain and a site of special scientific interest. The Broads area is also a designated and strictly controlled conservation area and this large-scale site would directly border it.
The site borders a very successful conservation area that Claxton Manor Estate funds for the benefit of local residents and the indigenous Norfolk flora and fauna. Part of the conservation programme was designed to encourage an increase in raptor (including the rare marsh harrier) and owl populations. In the past four years the Estate has erected numerous nesting boxes and planted new mixed woodlands with the aim of enhancing the area for future generations. The Estate has made a significant effort to restore and re-route both a public right of way and permissive rights of way to support the conservation project and it has become a haven for wildlife.
The site is very close to Rockland Broad, Wheatfen Nature Reserve and protected marsh land some of which is owned by the RSPB and other organisations with an interest in conservation. It is part of the Yare Valley bee corridor and is much closer than 3000 metres to Special Areas of Conservation, Special Protection Areas and Sites of Special Scientific Interest, Ramsar sites and designated Nature Reserves.
Significant Landscapes and Open Space
The development site is at the very top of New Inn Hill -some 20 metres above sea level and one of the highest points in the area. 200 houses at this height would severely blight the landscape and open space because they would be very visible from a long distance (from the marshes, the Broad, the nature reserves, Wherryman's Way walks and from popular walks in the opposite direction (Hellington and Claxton).
Such a large-scale development would be totally out of keeping with the character of this end of the village which is a popular attraction for visitors and residents who value the precious diversity of wildlife. It would be incompatible with the designated conservation area that is so close to one side and the historic and listed buildings on the other side of the site.
As planning permission was recently refused for a proposed single dwelling directly opposite to Site 0531 at the top of New Inn Hill for reasons that included "impact on the character and landscape of the rural area" as well as "being outside the development boundary", it would be illogical to grant permission for housing on this site and of this scale where it would be completely unrelated to the existing village and its services.

Site totally out of character for Rockland St Mary which is a 'Service Village' which the SNC Local Plan & Policy 15 of the JCS designates as suitable for "small scale housing growth".
200 + description of site dwelling density looks contrary to central government guidance to Local Authorities e.g. "major developments of less than 30 dwellings per hectare should not be supported". The potential number of dwellings based on the guidance would give rise to 465 dwellings and a more realistic proposed dwelling number should have been the basis on which the consultation was carried out. Had a more realistic figure been used I am certain even more objections would had been made.
No identified local need for further housing.
There's already an agreed village housing expansion of 20 houses on land adjacent to Bee Orchid Way. This is more than sufficient 'block' expansion up to 2036.
The development is outside the village plan & contrary to SNDC and national policies.
Additional Housing to support the GNLP should be concentrated around the Northern Distributor Road, on the A11 corridor or within the City of Norwich itself. Unconstrained and exponential housing growth in rural villages threatens the quality of life of residents, impacts on wildlife and the local ecology and erodes the natural beauty of the area which is a tourist destination being on the fringe of the Norfolk Broads National Park.
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.
Substantial increase of vehicular traffic (minimum 600 car journeys per day including residents and delivery vehicles) through Rockland, Bramerton and Kirby Bedon on a road that is already struggling to accommodate a variety of large vehicles including agricultural harvesters and tractors.
Detrimental to the National Cycle Route and the safety of cyclists.
Would be visible from Broad Area National Park.
Access road onto the Low Road would lead to car headlights projecting over Rockland Marshes as cars descended the access road disturbing a variety of wildlife and nesting birds.
The land owner's own signage at the edge of the proposed site claims the presence of barn owls stating that "Each pair needs up to 50 hectares of rough grassland or 20 hectares of strips within 2km of their nest site to successfully rear chicks." Having laid claim to creating large areas dedicated to environmental good practice, ecology has been encouraged to settle on the proposed site. A development of this size, or of any size, on this site would be catastrophic to wildlife.
The site has a rich ecology with many species of wildlife flourishing on or immediately adjacent to the proposed site.
Risk to local water courses due to run off.
Increased roadside litter.
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 decision.
Additional Light pollution in a Dark Skies Area.

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.

1. Overdevelopment of village; proposal is outside village boundary and would change the linear nature of village.
2. Detrimental effect on the character of the local area, not just RSM but also adjacent villages and hamlets. Would be a permanent change to the local area.
3. Scale of development would increase traffic on roads exponentially. Detrimental impact on the safety and quality of life of current residents would be significant, in RSM and all villages and hamlets on lanes that link RSM to Norwich or the A146 (not a GNLP designated Transport corridor).
4. Adverse visual impact on an area that is in close proximity to a National park and a SSSI, which attracts tourists (supporting local businesses).
5. Adverse environmental impact on an area that is rich in biodiversity; farmers and landowners are supported financially by the government to improve environment and habitat for wildlife, increasing biodiversity. A housing development of this scale in this location would destroy such habitats irreversibly.
6. Scale of development would not attract local businesses to tender for construction work.
7. Burden on local services, particularly healthcare.
8. Potential to dramatically increase flood risk.
9. Access to site risky.
10. National cycle route negatively impacted.
11. Further demand on already stretched utilities and infrastructure
12. Developments already agreed for the area at appropriate scale

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

- There are 20 houses going in next to Bee-Orchid way already.
- Site does not fit in with the village. Rockland St Mary is a quaint small village which is one of its main appeals. To add a site of the proposed scale would take away from the beauty of our small community.
- The proposed site is outside of the village plan.
- The site of 200 + houses seems to go against "major developments of less than 30 dwellings per hectare should not be supported" because it would rise by possibly 465 houses.
- It has not been identified that there is a local need for more housing.
- A site of that size is completely out of character with the village.
- It would be able to be seen from Broad Area National Park.
- The roads leading to Rockland St Mary are already struggling to cope with the current traffic, to add many additional cars to the roads would be hugely detrimental.
- Any development on the proposed site would be life altering to the barn owls and local wildlife that live in that area.
- Added light pollution in a Dark Skies Area

- Road infrastructure inadequate for increased volume of traffic
- Access points to estate would be dangerous for volume of additional traffic
- Increasing the population of the village by 50% in one jump would totally change village character
- Village facilities are insufficient for this potential increase; e.g. doctor's surgery and school
- The proposed development is just above the Broads flood plain. The number of houses would significantly increase the amount of natural water runoff increasing the risk of flooding
- The village is a relatively dark sky area. The lighting from an additional 200 houses would destroy the night skies
- The proposed development would adversely affect local rare wildlife, e.g. barn owls, marsh harriers, cuckoos, cetti's warblers, herons, water rail, orchids, etc.

This development would fundametally damage and alter the character of the village and Rockland Broad, which is a protected area.
The village does not have public transport (it has only a skeleton service) and fails to me regulation 18 of the growth options.
The exisiting utilities, particularly drainage would not be able to sustain 200 extra houses - the road if often flooded and the kirby road itself which is the only route in and out of the village is often blocked by water flooding (4 times this year it has been impassable).
200 houses would bring an additional 250 - 350 cars into Rockland St Mary, a completely unsustainable situation. The village is overwhelmed with on-street parking issues and very slow to move through in the morning rush hour. Everyone is the village uses private transport as there is no regular early bus service.
There are two public rights of way which run right through the new proposed development. The village has had four meetings in the past to protect the footpaths from the local landowner(s) and has succesfully fought for the right to use and access them in perpetuity.

A large settlement on greenfield land at this end of the village would be car dependent due to its distance from urban centres and the facilities in the village. A new estate of the size proposed so far from the heart of the village would operate as a separate entity and seriously detract from the sense of community that people want and choose when they live in a relatively small village.The site would be a commuter estate and a haven for 'second -home' owners
due to its beautiful location: ie for people who do not contribute anything to their community.

The infrastructure is totally inadequate to support ANY further development at the east end of the village. The roads are very narrow and already dangerous, the services would be totally overwhelmed ( electricity and drainage is already) and the access points shown are narrow, dangerous and without vision splays. This is a beautiful area of farmland adjoining overlooking the Broads Authority area and would despoil the Yare valley and its fragile ecostructure. The site bounds listed buildings to the west and very low lying marshland, the road alreadyprone to flooding, to the east. Run off would increase flooding. No merit!!