GNLP0531

I object to this proposal. I feel that this would spoil the rural and agricultural nature of this area. It is too close to an area of outstanding natural beauty. . The road infrastructure, footpaths and utility services are inadequate. It is outside the development boundary and would alter the character of the existing village and encourage unnecessary additional development.

For these three reasons:
Three reasons why I feel this development should not take place:
1. It will change the dynamics of village life
2. There is no infrastructure to accommodate 200 new homes:
1. roads are not suitable for an additional 200+ cars and access.
2. services of schools, doctors, buses, facilities. Currently it is taking 3-4 days to see a doctor now.
3. the environmental impact of building houses and the pollution which this many people will bring.

This development is wholly inappropriate for the existing community, it would totally change the nature of the village. In addition I object on the following grounds:
1) Insufficient infrastructure - Rockland St Mary is located on an unclassified highway. Over some sections of the likely commuter route the carriageway width is insufficient for two vehicles to safely pass. The asphalt is already nearing end of life and the construction traffic from a development of this size is likely to cause it to disintegrate. Other services are also likely to be insufficient regular water leaks are a feature in the area.
2) The development would significantly expand the village envelope.

Putting this number of houses into the few remaining fields that separate the villages of Rockland St Mary & Claxton will disrupt village on many levels. 1. Aesthetically this is an area of beauty on the edge of Rockland Marshes & the South Norfolk Broads. 2. The village roads flowing from Claxton through to Rockland at the bottom of this southerly point are too narrow to handle the increased traffic from 200 properties / likely 400 additional cars. 3. There is significant wildlife in these few remaining fields and the hedgerows that surround this area. Owls, deer, birds of prey, etc. etc.. 4. Water flow: water levels. this area is on one of the few sloped areas in the villages, and acts as good drainage and soil soakaway for the high flood risk tidal becks and floodplane. If this area were to be carpeted in roadways and houses where would this water go / run off too? Properties closeby already have issues getting insurance because of this postcode area (and the environmental agency definition of high risk areas).


Finally IF this were to go ahead, how would the local internet (BT openreach) / telephone exchange capacity handle the additional load? Perhaps the landowner who would look to gain in selling off this land could get behind the local B4RN Community Fibre Broadband initiative, and permit his/her land to be used to route the community funded and installed fibre ducts under/through his/her land by means of improving the lot of the wider community.

This development is outside the village, it's also outside the village plan. We have no identified need for further housing above the already agreed 20house housing expansion of Bee Orchid Way. This development proposal is disproportionate to the size of the current village. Additional vehicular activity would be a burden on already busy small roads; it would make sense larger developments are located as near as possible to major roads. 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.

ENVIRONMENT This area is adjacent to the Broad Authority National Park and will have an impact on this internationally wildlife site. The area is daily used by Marsh Harriers as a hunting ground, as well as barn owls and buzzards. Any Surface Water Drainage will undoubtedly end up in the Hellington Beck and overflow into the dykes on Rockland Marsh affecting breeding Norfolk Hawker dragonfly and rare plants such as water soldier etc. The Beck is tidal and already liable to flooding and would be adversely affected by drainage from proposed development. Also road to narrow for increase traffic.

There is a public footpath through the development which I and many other walkers regularly use. It is an area of outstanding natural beauty with great environmental value and this will destroy this peaceful, tranquil area. The landowner has only identified this area out of spite as the villagers opposed him trying to close local footpaths walked for generations. We have lost too many footpaths and countryside. He is a greedy landowner trying to make money. I feel so strongly i would sit in front of the bulldozers, even though I am a pensioner.

This proposal is not suitable for the site or the village of Rockland. There are no services in place for an additional 200 homeowners. The increased traffic would create a significant problem on already busy roads. There are limited footpaths from the site to either Rockland or Claxton. The run off created by the site would have a detrimental affect on the surrounding marshes, including those sites with environmental designation. It would change the water quality on these sensitive sites. The issue of flooding in this area would be significantly increased if this development went ahead.

Such a large development here would have a devastating effect upon the local area. The village has extremely few facilities, with a tiny shop, small school and a virtually non-existent bus service! The local infrastructure would be put under enormous strain and completely ruin the rural feel of the community. All new residents would have to rely on private transport, having a dramatic effect upon local traffic and pollution. Any new housing development in the area must be small and sympathetic to the village. Wildlife including otters, kingfishers, herons, owls, bats, cuckoo's and many more species would be severely affected.

I strongly object to this proposal for the following reasons
1. This will have a major environmental impact on a rural landscape in an area of outstanding natural beauty.
2. The impact on local infrastructure will increase traffic and the lack of services and ultities in this area.
3. The highways and access are inadequate in this area.
4. Safety will be affected for pedestrians and cyclists throughout the whole village.
5. The impact on local wildlife whose habitats would be destroyed with a developement of this scale.

Reasons for objecting:
A 50% increase in the number of dwellings in Rockland would be overbearing and out of scale.
The traffic in and out of the village would increase significantly, particularly during rush hour, many more people would be commuting into Norwich.
The village school would not be big enough for the extra children in the new houses so they would have to be driven to schools elsewhere.
This site is on a potentially dangerous stretch of road, a situation which would be made worse by so many more cars pulling out.

Planning complaint regarding Greater Norwich Local Plan Site Proposal: GNLP0531

I am making this complaint on behalf of myself and 11 residents of Eel Catcher Close - who were unable to access the GNLP website due to its complexity. If you require signatures and personal details of each of the 11 residents please email me and I will provide this immediately.

We are writing to raise serious concern about the proposal to build 200 houses behind Eel Catcher Close, in Rockland St Mary.

Rockland St Mary is a village adjacent to Rockland Broad, a Broads protected area. The proposal would fundamentally damage, erode and alter the character of the village and Rockland Broad. The scale of the proposed development will increase the size of the village exponentially and is out of all proportion with the current footprint of the village.

In addition, there are other serious concerns about the proposal:

1. The village is categorised as meeting four criteria for core services (see page 144 of document entitled "GREATER NORWICH LOCAL PLAN REGULATION 18 CONSULTATION GROWTH OPTIONS." We believe this is incorrect. The village does not meet the criteria for journeying to work by public transport.

2. This is because although a skeleton bus service operates from the village to Norwich, it does not operate sufficient services to enable residents to get to and from work at the hours and with the flexibility expected by all employers.

3. Residents of Rockland who are employed out of the village either drive or cycle to work as a result of this. This is supported by any consultation with Rockland residents and by monitoring the demographics of bus passengers. Rockland bus passengers are predominantly elderly and disabled people, unemployed people and parents with young children. We request that you remove this categorisation as it is incorrect and misleading.

4. The existing utilities in Rockland including drainage will not be able to sustain the addition of 200 houses.

5. The village will not be able to safely sustain the substantial increase in car traffic that will be incurred by this proposal. Access to and from the village will be jeopardised. There has been a linear increase in the number of cars per household year-on-year in the East of England for the last two decades, particularly in rural areas. This proposal could bring an additional 400 vehicles into Rockland St Mary. This would lead to serious congestion, environmental and safety issues.

6. Specific safety issues surround any increase in traffic on School Lane. School Lane is the only means of access to the village school. It is so narrow that cars cannot pass unless they drive onto the footpath to do so. There is insufficient space at the bottom of the lane for cars to turn around. School Lane cannot cope with the huge increase in school traffic that the proposal would trigger. Evidence suggests that most parents would drive their children to school in the morning, not walk to the other end of the village carrying school bags, lunches and the other requirements that go with transporting young children to school, especially in inclement weather.

7. Public rights of way. There are two footpaths in the area designated for development which have been used by the public for well over 100 years. One joins the village with the Community nature reserve at Hellington and Hellington village. Some time ago, the farmer owning the fields tried to prohibit residents from using these historic footways. The village united in challenging this action, and, to avoid the matter going to court, the farmer relented and temporarily erected signs for permissive footpaths in recognition of their use. Residents of the village will not hesitate to challenge any suggestion that these footpaths may be removed. Law assumes that if the public use a path without interference for some period of time - set by statute at 20 years - then the owner has intended to dedicate it as a right of way. There is no doubt that the village would successfully uphold a legal challenge on this issue.

8. Residents of Eel Catcher Close are also concerned about the health implications of building so many houses close to a number of adults and children with asthma on the Close, due to the levels of dust and debris that would be generated.

Concern about the model and method of consultation

Many residents of Rockland St Mary have expressed serious concern at the complexity of the GNLP website, the consultation model and materials. Older people who cannot use the internet, Blind and visually impaired people who use screen readers and other assistive technology to read web information and people with learning difficulties and low literacy levels have been unable to access it. None of these residents had even been made aware that a proposal had been made to build a large estate of 200 houses in their Broads village. No local authority had approached them with information announcing the proposal that they could access. The Roadshows were not well publicised and relied on people owning or driving a car to attend them.

We request under the Freedom of Information Act evidence of how you complied with the Duty to pay due regard to equality (Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010) in developing the consultation model and materials, to ensure that people in the village with protected characteristics were made aware of the consultation and could meaningfully participate in it.

Very best wishes

Joanna Fincham-Richardson

The development would spoil an area rich in wildlife, located closely to Rockland Broad and marshes. Development on the site would have a detrimental impact on scenic countryside which is crossed by public footpaths used by ramblers and bird watchers.

The site falls outside the main boundary and linear shape of the village.

Local roads are inadequate to cope with the increased volume of traffic that would be generated. Traffic travelling to and from the development would have to pass through the village street which is obstructed by on road parking, narrowing the road to a single carriageway in a number of places. The Norwich road from Rockland St Mary to Kirby Bedon is narrow, winding and prone to flooding and is not suitable for increased traffic volumes.

Rockland St Mary could take a little extra growth, say 20-30 extra homes. This would be of benefit to school and local businesses.

There is no way 200+ new houses could be supported by the village. I am in full agreement in the reasons given by a neighbour, which I list below.

I would also like to add and this is of extreme importance, that many of our residents are elderly and the use of a computer to register their comments and concerns is extremely difficult or not even a possibility! Also the road from Rockland to Norwich is in very bad condition, with lots of pot holes and flooding. Plus the impact of all the extra traffic on that road will cause a terrible knock on effect to the village of Bramerton and Kirby Bedon. Which again I am unsure of wether the residents that live in Bramerton and Kirby Bedon are even aware of this proposal! Finally on the road subject, it is a very dangerous stretch of road with bends and blind spots used by lots of farm traffic and bicycles.

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.

A large scale development at GNLP 0531 site would be entirely out of keeping with the rest of this rural village.Moreover, the development of such a large housing development would lead, inevitably to a significant increase in the volume of traffic along a narrow country lane which is simply not designed for high volumes of traffic. It would result in the likelihood of accidents.

There is more than enough brown field sites in and around Norwich to meet housing needs in this area. Priority should be given to developing these sites rather than building on green field sites.

This proposal is not acceptable, the infrastructure would not cope, the traffic in the village would be a huge problem and the wildlife would suffer. Rockland is a small village with great community spirit, something of this scale is completely out of character and would have many negative implications.

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

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

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

General comments for both GNLP0165 and GNLP0531

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

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

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

Location GNLP0531

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

Location GNLP0165

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

I would like to submit an objection to the proposal of 200+ new houses in Rockland St Mary (near to the Staithe).I'm not against more houses in the village per se - but 200+ sounds like far too many. The traffic in the village would significantly worsen - and I can't imagine a safe, sensible access point. It would also ruin the beautiful views surrounding the staithe.

The parish of Claxton would be adversely affected by any development at this location. There is a major risk of further severe flooding given the likely run-off from 200 houses on an elevated site. The increase in traffic would heighten the risk to residents who already have to cope with excessive speeding between New Inn Hill and The Street in Claxton, and would likely increase the congestion on very narrow roads which already get more than their share of large agricultural and commercial vehicles.

The proposed site is outside the Rockland development boundary. The only possible site access would be at the top of New Inn Hill, but bends, the hill and poor sight lines means this would present an unacceptable level of risk of traffic-related incidents. Services (surgery and school) could not cope with such an increase in population. The minor C road is also National Cycle Route 1 and an estimated 300+ vehicles from 200 homes would severely affect passing cyclists, walkers and tourists alike. Much of The Street in Rockland is already taken up with on-street semi-permanent parking without the increased congestion any such development would produce. The site borders The Broads National Park, with SSSI and County Wildlife Sites nearby. The impact of 200 homes would be hugely detrimental to this environmentally important landscape.

I wish to express my OBJECTION to the proposed site of GNLP0531. I understand this to be a 15.52 ha site to the east of Rockland St Mary village, for approximately 200 dwellings.

I object on the following grounds for the construction of anything approaching this number of dwellings:-

1) The proposal would drastically alter the character of the village,
2) The proposal would significantly increase traffic on the principal, "C", road through the village and beyond,
3) There is already inadequate services in that area of the village,
4) Any public or publically-accessible footpath(s) or land area(s) would have to be preserved, regardless of scale.

I want this to be considered as a response to the GNLP consultation. With respect to GNLP0531 I object to this site being included in proposed housing development plans. The proposed development is far too large for a village of this size and would undoubtedly alter the character of the village. I also feel the road to the village would be unable to safely take such an increase in traffic, especially as it is used as a cycling route.

GNLP0041 - Wroxham Football Club 20 dwellings
Where would the current football club go? This might also visually impact on the Broads landscape and the existing Wroxham Conservation Area - early discussion about this would be welcomed. This site is also within the Wroxham Conservation Area.

* Salhouse
GNLP0157 - Tourism Use
This appears to be partly in the Broads area. Would welcome early discussions on this.
Likely to be too late to allocate anything in the Broads Local Plan. Other than Tourism
Use, no other details provided. What is this for? This is also partly within the Salhouse
Conservation Area.
* Acle
GNLP1049 - residential development
This is right up to the border with the Broads. Would welcome early discussions on
this. Would be extending the built up area in a way that could affect the Broads. Dark
skies. Could have significant visual impact.
GNLP0007 - 12 dwellings
This is near the border with the Broads. Would welcome early discussions on this.
Would be extending the built up area in a way that could affect the Broads. Dark skies.
Early discussions welcomed also on GNLP 0384.
* Postwick
GNLP0370 - 75 and 115 dwellings and primary school
This is right up to the border with the Broads. Would welcome early discussions on
this. Would be extending the built up area in a way that could affect the Broads. Dark
skies. Could have significant visual impact. Could have significant visual impact.
* Whittingham area
GNLP0360 - Deal Ground site - Residential led mixed use redevelopment to include
employment, retail community uses, potential primary education provision and local
greenspace and biodiversity areas.
This is right up to the border with the Broads and of a large scale. Would welcome
early discussions on this. Would be extending the built up area in a way that could
affect the Broads.
Redevelopment of site could give rise to new opportunities for pedestrian/cycleway
bridge over River Yare. The creation of this new connected access to Whitlingham and
the Broads National Park from the centre of Norwich would highlight the River
Wensum Strategy aspirations along with those of the Broads Local Access Forum.
Could have significant visual impact.
* Norwich
GNLP1011 - protect as sports centre in community use.
Support
GNLP0409 - Deallocation of Policy CC17b and the area of CC17a.
Please can you expand on what this means please? Why is this being de-allocated?
GNLP0068 - Residential-led mixed use development for an undetermined number of
dwellings (Despite its small size the site could support a high density development and
is thus considered suitable for the land availability assessment.)
This is right up to the border with the Broads and of a large scale. Would welcome
early discussions on this. Would be extending the built up area in a way that could
NB/SM/rpt/020318/Page 5 of 7/200218
affect the Broads.
There may be access issues if development was agreed at this location. The River
Wensum Strategy has identified this site as a potential continuation "link" of the
Riverside Walk and any development here would need to consider this in their
proposals. Could have significant visual impact. Issues around continued canalisation of
the river.
GNLP0401 - Residential-led mixed use development for approx. 400 dwellings with
retail and/or other appropriate city centre uses at ground floor level.
This is right up to the border with the Broads and of a large scale. Would welcome
early discussions on this. Would be extending the built up area in a way that could
affect the Broads.
Redevelopment of site could give rise to new opportunities for access to River
Wensum for small craft and canoes along with pedestrian access to the waterside.
Could have significant visual impact. Issues around continued canalisation of the river.
* Surlingham
GNLP0374 - Residential development
This is near the Broads border. Would welcome early discussions on this. Would be
extending the built up area in a way that could affect the Broads. Dark skies. Potential
for visual impact on the Broads landscape
* Rockland St Mary
GNLP0531 - 200 dwellings
This is right up to the border with the Broads and of a large scale. Would welcome
early discussions on this. Would be extending the built up area in a way that could
affect the Broads. Potential for significant visual impact on the Broads landscape.
* Cantley
GNLP0281 - Demolition of existing dwellings and residential redevelopment for approx.
20 homes with new entry road from Peregrine close
This is right up to the border with the Broads and of a large scale. Would welcome
early discussions on this. Would be extending the built up area in a way that could
affect the Broads. Potential amenity issues associated with Cantley Sugar Beet Factory
(business already in existence). Potential for high visual impact over open marsh
landscape.
* Haddiscoe
GNLP0455 - Employment, storage and distribution uses.
This is near our border. Would welcome early discussions on this. Would be extending
the built up area in a way that could affect the Broads. Dark skies. Potential for visual
impact on the Broads landscape. Also GNLP 0414 More limited potential for visual
impact but early discussions on this would also be welcomed.
* Gillingham
GNLP0274 - Residential development of an unspecified number.
This is near the Broads border. Would welcome early discussions on this. Would be
extending the built up area in a way that could affect the Broads. Dark skies. Potential
for visual impact on the Broads land scape.
* Geldeston
GNLP1004 - resi 4-5 dwellings
NB/SM/rpt/020318/Page 6 of 7/200218
This is near the Broads border. Would welcome early discussions on this. Would be
extending the built up area in a way that could affect the Broads. Dark skies. Darkest
area of the Broads. More limited potential for visual impact. Located within the
Geldeston Conservation area.
* Kirby Cane
GNLP0303 - 11 dwellings
GNLP0304 - 15 dwellings
GNLP0305 - 32 dwellings
This is near the Broads border. Would welcome early discussions on this. Would be
extending the built up area in a way that could affect the Broads. Dark skies.
* Chedgrave
GNLP0541 - 5-8 dwellings
This is right up to the border with the Broads and of a large scale. Would welcome
early discussions on this. Would be extending the built up area in a way that could
affect the Broads. Potential for visual impact on the Broads landscape.
* Loddon
GNLP0313 - 68 dwellings
This is near the Broads border. Would welcome early discussions on this. Would be
extending the built up area in a way that could affect the Broads. More limited
potential for visual impact.

I would like my comments on site no. GNLP 0531 noted as a response to the GNLP consultation.

(As I do not have an e-mail address, my comments are being forwarded by a neighbour. I understand my neighbour contacted the GNLP for advice prior to writing this e-mail, and it is perfectly acceptable to forward my comments using her e-mail and they will be logged and noted).

I wish to OBJECT to this site for the following reasons:

Over-development of the village. Rockland St. Mary is classed as a Service Village with limited facilities.
No safe vehicular access to the proposed area, being onto a narrow road and on the brow of a hill.
Substantial increase in traffic volume from residents' vehicles on a daily basis which would have to travel through The Street to access the main road
Danger to pedestrians from increase in traffic volume to and from the site.
Existing small roads and narrow pavements cannot support this development
Limited public transport in Rockland St. Mary, no train line nearby, a day time bus service dependent on continued subsidies from Norfolk County Council
Loss of enjoyment of the environment for existing residents, and the many walkers and tourists who enjoy the nearby river, footpaths and Rockland Broad.
Planning already granted for 21 new houses onto the Bee Orchid Way development, where vehicles no doubt will access The Street from Surlingham Lane.
3 additional units approved for Saffron Housing behind Cookes Terrace again accessing onto The Street.
Mrs. M. Simpson

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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