GNLP0202

The proposed development would have an adverse impact on traffic safety, sewerage and surface water run off. The surrounding roads are relatively narrow and a "rat run" at peak times, making them dangerous for cyclists and walkers/runners. Surface water run off is an issue during periods of sustained rainfall, when water runs down Long Lane like a stream. The proposed development would have a significant visual impact on the area. The village currently remains relatively rural . Further development would effectively join Stoke Holy Cross to Upper Stoke and Poringland beyond, destroying the village's character.

1. There has already been considerable development within SHC, the full effects of which are yet to be realised, especially the impact upon the amenities and infrastructure. Surely we need to see the sites allocated under the existing plan developed out before adding additional land.
2. Road network - this is already under increasing pressure from the existing developments, with usage set to rise (along with disruption). The recent inclement weather served to highlight the deficiencies. On two days all means of access and egress from SHC were closed.
3. Infrastructure - the water, sewerage and surface water run off provision is already not sufficient for the developments which have taken place, how will this be accommodated with yet further development.
4. This site, along with the two other sites in this area, will change the feel and attraction of Lower Stoke from a desirable green belt location to one to be avoided. If all sites are allocated the effect will be to double the size of SHC.
5. We do not require any further green space - there has already been upgrade works to the communal playing field and the second Hopkins phase provides play space and a green/common.
6. Public realm provision is already insufficient when taking account of the existing consented developments (especially when considered alongside the developments at Poringland ) e.g. school provision.
7. Public services - SHC is a small settlement with a local shop and no other amenities of this nature. Doubling the size of SHC will only exacerbate this.

1.Sufficient allocation in Stoke Holy Cross already with 85 "remaining
dwellings" as at 1/4/2017 per the GNLP Site Proposals document, across 3
existing and separate sites.
2.Water supply and sewerage provision is already overstretched and
insufficient for more homes in SHC over and above those recently agreed and
under construction. Long Lane in SHC is regularly closed for long periods
for attention to burst pipes.
3.Surface water run-off is already a major problem with frequent flooding
already experienced in gardens of occupied homes on the existing Salamanca
development site. Adjacent significant development would exacerbate this
issue.
4.Road traffic. Surrounding roads are narrow and are not conducive to a
significant increase in road traffic movements, particularly with a Primary
School situated on the main road thoroughfare of Long Lane.
5.Lack of amenities eg. shops, medical facilities, dentist etc. Village
amenities are already insufficient to serve the existing community of SHC,
never mind a significant increase in the size of that community.
6. Character. Proposed development would have a significant visual impact
on the village and adversely affect the existing character of it.

Same comment as on GNLPO197

* Stoke Holy Cross is a relatively small village with limited facilities that are already under pressure from the recent housing development that has taken place in the village.
* The proposed site is 1.28 ha in size and could accommodate in excess of 40 dwellings. Stoke Holy Cross has already had over 140 dwellings built over the last three years, representing a 33% increase in households in lower Stoke, where most facilities in the Parish are located. This scale of increase well exceeds that envisaged in the Joint Core Strategy that identified it as a village suitable for 20 dwellings, given its limited facilities. A further substantial development of this nature would therefore put severe pressure on existing infrastructure serving the village, and inevitably lead to the need for people to seek community facilities elsewhere, especially Poringland and Norwich. Apart from the inconvenience of this, there would be a consequent increase in traffic movements along roads which are already well trafficked.
* The development would increase the amount of traffic on Long Lane and Norwich Road through Stoke Holy Cross, which is already experiencing significantly higher traffic flows as a result of the new developments in the village and those from the major developments in Poringland. This would increase the amount of traffic past the school, which is already severely congested at peak traffic hours. It would also increase traffic using Norwich Road, through Stoke, which is relatively narrow, has a series of substandard junctions, and no pavements or footways along much of the route.
* The development would represent an intrusion into the attractive valley landscape that separates Upper and Lower Stoke Holy Cross, which is an important feature of the village that is highly valued by its residents. It would als0 spread the village beyond its 'natural' development boundaries and outside the settlement boundary, into open fields, to the detriment of the existing rural landscape.

1) Traffic on Long Lane already extremely heavy for a country lane especially at peak times.

2) Surface water drainage inadequate as some gardens at newly built Salamanca development already flood after snow or heavy rain.

3) Sewage and fresh water systems inadequate for additional houses.

4) Visually development of any of the 3 sites proposed at Stoke Holy Cross would spoil the beautiful surrounding countryside close to the village.

5) Local amenities already over stretched.

The village already appears to be at capacity in terms of local infrastructure such as water and sewage. There are limited doctor and dental facilities with residents already needing to travel to Poringland for these services. With Poringland expanding at a significant speed, additional housing at such a close proximity will only compound the problem. The road between the village and Poringland is increasingly busy and becoming more dangerous particularly for pedestrians.

Stoke Holy Cross is already at full capacity in terms of the local infrastructure - water, sewage, medical facilities & school places.
The surrounding narrow roads are "rat runs" especially at peak times, making them very dangerous for pedestrians & cyclists.
There is no foot or cycle path between Lower Stoke & Upper Stoke - pedestrians have to jump onto the verges & banks of the fields when 2 vehicles pass on the road.
This development would also have a huge negative impact on the landscape of the tas Valley.

The surrounding area infrastructure cannot handle additional housing development. Roads would need upgrading, footpaths and cycle paths installed to enable safe and sustainable access to local schools, drainage and water supply would need upgrading due to frequent leaks and flooding in the area and a full assessment of travel access to the A140 (via Mill Road and Markshall Lane) and Norwich is needed before this site allocation is agreed. The impact of further allocation of sites in Poringland will be severely felt in this area and must be taken into account when considering this site allocataion.

If Stoke Holy Cross is identified as an option for growth, the land owner is flexible in terms of density. Landscaping could provide a soft edge when viewed across the valley and any existing hedgerows could be retained. The site lies to the west of the building line established by the recent Hopkins Homes development and could be accessed via the existing Salamanca site. We would be happy to work with all local stake holders to develop a suitable scheme.

1.Allocation of housing is sufficient in SHC already with 85 "remaining dwellings" per the GNLP Site Proposals document.
2.The water supply/sewerage provision is already overstretched.
3.Surface water run-off is already a major problem with frequent flooding in gardens of occupied homes on existing Salamanca development.
4.Surrounding roads are narrow-not conducive to a significant increase in road traffic movements.
5.Amenities are very limited in Stoke Holy Cross eg. shops, medical facilities, dentist even for existing community of SHC.
6.Proposed development would have a significant visual impact on SHC and adversely affect it's character.

The comments I have made on GLPO19 also apply to this site

As the current District Councillor for this site, I favour Option 1, Development Close to Norwich, but noting that
(a) This excludes South and South East Fringe Sectors, and limits village development to the current baseline.
(b) Windfall sites should not be added to the 7,200 homes required by this Plan,
(c) I favour a new settlement close to Norwich (possibly Mangreen) that would contribute to the 7,200.

On that basis, there is no need for development on this site, and Stoke Holy Cross has already received more development than was initially contemplated by the current local plan.

Stoke Holy Cross/Poringland/The Framinghams/Caistor St. Edmund have taken and are still taking a huge increase in homes. The B1332 is overloaded and Stoke Road, Poringland/Poringland Road SHX/Long Lane is being used as a relief road to the B1332. Stoke Road, Poringland/Poringland Road SHX/Long Lane, can not cope with the extra volume of traffic already let alone what this scale of development will add. The GP surgeries are stretched to more than capacity as are water supplies.
Schools are over subscribed.
No more development in this area.

I wish to lodge an objection to the following site proposals as referred to in the HELAA document:
1. GNLP0488 p227
This is prime agricultural land, it boarders ancient woodland, and access is poor. neighbouring Poringland and Framlingham Earl are saturated with new development which has had detrimental effects on roads, local schools and GP surgeries are over burdened.
2. GNLP0491 p229
Again this is prime agricultural land, access is very poor and feeds onto the caster lane (as above) which is far too narrow for the longest busy two way traffic. Verges are bear, eroded and damaged. It puts unnecessary pressure on local wildlife, flora and fauna.
3. GNLP0197 p1043
This is prime agricultural farm land, the local road network is unsuitable, and as the site is on high ground the visual impact to the landscape would be devastating.
4. GNLP0202 p1045
Again this is prime agricultural land, as stated in your HELAA document. The local road network is unsuitable and visual impact on the landscape would be detrimental.
5. GNLP0494 p1047
This site has not got suitable access, and it would impact detrimentally on neighbouring wildlife and woodland sites.
6. GNLP0524 p1049
6.56 hectares is a large site and you do not propose how many residential units are proposed: this causes concern.
The local road network is unsuitable, as stated in your HELAA report. I believe this development would have a detrimental impact on the townscape, local services, and heritage and also open space.
7. GNLP1069 p885
for the above reasons

General comments
The HELAA traffic light system does not seem to correlate with weather a site is considered suitable/ appropriate or not.
I would like to see much more development on brownfield sites in Norwich or existing settlements, where these sites exist.
Each new residential unit generally means two more cars and our small lanes and country roads are not designed for heavy two way traffic vehicles use. The detrimental effect of excessive vehicles can be seen all over the county of Norfolk. Even the county busses are too large for the roads they travel on.

I would like to register my objection to any new building developments in the area.
I appreciate some have already been started, partially completed and infringed on a beautiful village
I would like to object against new building in Stoke Holy Cross. GNLP0197,GNLP2091 ,GNLP0524,GNLP0202.

The developments that have started have brought about a massive change in road traffic this directly affects me and my family on the Norwich Road at Stoke Holy Cross. The noise from traffic has increases tenfold. In the mornings and evenings at peak times it is difficult to get out of the drive of my home.

The Tas Valley is a beautiful area and should be preserved.

GNLP0524

The vast majority of the Lower Stoke residents objected to this site which is situated on either side of the Long Lane road. This is because it involves the expansion of the village boundaries into greenfield areas, most of which is good arable agricultural land. Also the infrastructure cannot support this, having already had large developments over the last 30 years!

Anglian Water Stated many years ago that the water and sewage resources were at maximum limits. The roads are only minor 'C' narrow roads and the traffic using them has increased by factors of 3 or 4 times over the last few years.

The residents stated at the time that this development would lead to further sites being put forward towards Upper Stoke along the Long Lane road and this is now happening!


GNLP0197 & GNLP0202

These sites have been put forward by opportunistic land owners, agents and developers who see a chance to make a killing involving huge amounts of money at the expense of the village and surrounding countryside. These sites are outside the village boundaries and involve building on greenfield sites regardless of the infrastructure, water resources and roads to support them! Also if these sites are accepted will create a precedent and will lead to the march of development, field by adjoining field along the Long Lane road to join up with Upper Stoke Village! This would also again involve a huge loss of prime agricultural land, overcrowd the whole area and result in a massive housing sprawl!


GNLP2091, GNLP2111 & GNLP2124

These sites are situated in countryside overlooking the Tas Valley and would be an environmental catastrophe to allow any development in these sites. They are again in greenfield areas and outside the settlement boundaries. The GNLP2091 site, which is in the Tas Valley, is owned by an absentee landowner who has no interest in the village and is trying to maximise his dormant investment from his home in Scandinavia via La Ronde Wright, Development & Planning Agents in Norwich.



In conclusion, the sites submitted during REG 18 and call for sites in 2016 have resulted from the statement made by the GNLP that 36,000 homes are required to satisfy the local needs by 2026! Nobody knows how the GNLP has arrived at these figures or how they have been calculated, it seems to be an arbitrary figure snatched out of thin air! This has resulted in a huge amount of speculative building site applications arriving at local district councils planning departments. The ridiculous ruling by the government that local planning departments of the district councils must have a 5 year bank of approved sites has caused mayhem in our village communities. The building developers have taken full advantage of the situation and especially here in Stoke Holy Cross! Our local Parish magazine is called 'Free For All' and that is what is happening by a huge land grab of potential building sites in the middle of the countryside!

The sites submitted during REG 18 and call for sites in 2016 also are all outside the current settlement boundaries and will result in a massive expansion of the village, which has endured constant development over the past few years. Also the arable land lost questions the future of producing food for the next generations of this country.

I have to question further the remit of the Greater Norwich Local Plan department, how it is made up, how decisions are made and who benefits from the outcomes and results. As I see it the Land Owners get a huge cash windfall, Christmas has definitely come early for them together with the land agents and developers. The councils involved in the GNLP, Norfolk County Council and the utilities derive a fantastic stream of income in council taxes and charges per property built!

The sad state of affairs is that until the Planning Laws are reformed the applicants (developers) will have all the advantages against the objectors. The developers have the resources in lawyers, finances and staff in mounting constant appeals on planning refusals until they get their way. The objectors should at least have the same rights of appeal against planning decisions, similar to the applicants, without the huge costs of a judicial review.

The GNLP states there is a local need for all these thousands of homes to be built but most of these properties are being purchased by investors, second home owners and retirees from outside the county. Our local young couples are priced out of the market with prices starting over £300,000 and very few can afford to buy them.

There should be an independent lawful body or organisation looking out for the interests of the villages, residents, farming resources and the countryside involved in decisions taken by the GNLP! Instead we have a situation where any field or piece of land in the countryside can have a development planning application put on it because of the relaxing of the planning laws by the government! This happens even if the land has a special interest or order on it, look what has happened in the Tud Valley in Costessey. This is now happening in the Tas Valley where it is being attacked on all sides by planning applications!

We are now concreting over valued food producing arable land in an area supposed to be the bread basket of the UK.

I myself have had constant disruption over the last 20 years due to construction traffic, noise, dust and damage caused to roads and landmarks. I think I should get a council tax rebate to compensate for all the sites approved by the District Council.