GNLP0494

Showing comments and forms 1 to 12 of 12

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 13786

Received: 11/03/2018

Respondent: Ms Lauren Parker

Representation:

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.

Full text:

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.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 14042

Received: 15/03/2018

Respondent: Mr Ken Barrell

Representation:

Same as on GNLPO197

Full text:

Same as on GNLPO197

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 14691

Received: 20/03/2018

Respondent: Lynette Yaxley

Representation:

This site is wholly unsuited for a new housing development.
It is outside the existing settlement boundary & in a green belt area.
The roads, medical & education services are already at full capacity.
There is no footpath connecting this site with the village & school of Stoke Holy Cross.
This is a rural site, which has been farmed for many years - there will be an adverse impact on the wildlife in the adjoining protected woodland.
It has already been recognised that there is potentially some surface water flooding risk to nearby properties.

Full text:

This site is wholly unsuited for a new housing development.
It is outside the existing settlement boundary & in a green belt area.
The roads, medical & education services are already at full capacity.
There is no footpath connecting this site with the village & school of Stoke Holy Cross.
This is a rural site, which has been farmed for many years - there will be an adverse impact on the wildlife in the adjoining protected woodland.
It has already been recognised that there is potentially some surface water flooding risk to nearby properties.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 14717

Received: 20/03/2018

Respondent: Mr Robert Monument

Representation:

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.

Full text:

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.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 15458

Received: 21/03/2018

Respondent: Mr Nicholas Dennis

Representation:

This development is not sustainable due to Drs. surgeries, schools, roads water supplies etc being stretched too far.

Full text:

I strongly object to this development. The Poringland/Stoke Holy Cross/Framinghams area has already taken a huge amount of development, and some are not complete yet. The water supplies are poor both pressure and flow. NHS England has made representations to South Norfolk Council about this development and the fact that the two local GP surgeries are already at capacity and do not have space for anymore patients - please see South Norfolk Council website, planning portal, ref. 2017/2871 to access NHS and other documents. Poringland Road is becoming increasingly busy, and is like a race track at times. The schools are at capacity, and there are flooding concerns. Local transport is poor, so cars are needed. 54 houses equates to at least 108 extra cars.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 15704

Received: 22/03/2018

Respondent: Mrs Anne Harper

Representation:

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.

Full text:

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.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 15741

Received: 22/03/2018

Respondent: Mr Trevor Lewis

Representation:

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.

Full text:

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.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 16214

Received: 10/04/2018

Respondent: Ms Sue Butters

Representation:

5. GNLP0494 p1047
This site has not got suitable access, and it would impact detrimentally on neighbouring wildlife and woodland sites.

Full text:

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.

Attachments:

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 16405

Received: 19/03/2018

Respondent: Poringland Parish Council

Representation:

GNLP0494 - The access to this site is significantly constrained. Flood risk, no drainage, comes out very near a junction. OPPOSE

Full text:

Site Specifics

GNLP1032 - Favour: Site is to north of the village so would not create traffic through the village. Matches up the other side of the road. Against: Is Grade 2 ag land, and contributes to the linear vision of the village. SUPPORT

GNLP0485 - This huge site would at a stroke integrate Arminghall/Bixley with the Poringland conurbation. It has significant landscape, archaeological and environmental issues. It is far too far from any facilities and would be unsustainably reliant upon cars. OPPOSE

GNLP0131 - This is a smaller site but again unsustainably far from public transport, excessively reliant upon cars with no pavement in the vicinity and little prospect of being able to construct one. OPPOSE

GNLP0491 - This would significantly alter the form and size of Caistor St Edmund on archaeologically important site in open countryside. It is a form of 'backland' development. Access is severely limited. No access to public transport, no pavements to village and schools. OPPOSE

GNLP0494 - The access to this site is significantly constrained. Flood risk, no drainage, comes out very near a junction. OPPOSE

GNLP1047 - Access to this site is severely constrained. It is former RAF site so may well be subject to contamination. Site dominated by the mast towers. Form would consolidate development each side of the Stoke Road leading to further infill development. OPPOSE

GNLP0321 - Site is to north of the village so would not create traffic through the village. Matches up the other side of the road. However is Grade 2 agricultural land, and contributes to the linear vision of the village. SUPPORT

GNLP0589A - This would exacerbate the 'octopus' nature of the conurbation and would detract from an area of scenic value otherwise sadly lacking in this area. OPPOSE

GNLP0589B - Leading on from the development of the Long Road, Hibbett and Key site and the EACH site this would be a logical development. It would mean the loss of significant landscape value in Spur Lane. If it could be developed at a distance from the tree lined Spur Lane it might well be viable. Will have a significant impact upon the subterranean drainage flow towards Long Road and Poringland surface water drainage systems. SUPPORT

GNLP0391A - Flooding issues. Road network not suitable. Semi-detached from the village - contributing to the 'octopus' of development with drainage issues. Intrudes upon an area of landscape value between Framingham Earl and St Andrew's Church. OPPOSE

GNLP0391B - Similar arguments to those against the site south of Burgate Lane. OPPOSE

GNLP0003 - Isolated site in open countryside, contrary to policy, detached from the conurbation should not even be considered as a valid site. OPPOSE

GNLP0223 - Significant access problems with no comfortable access through the Norfolk Homes development. Would alter significantly the 'shape' of the conurbation into the form of an 'octopus'. Would reduce the distinctions between Poringland and Stoke. Would have significant Governance issues between Stoke and Poringland. Would significantly negatively alter the drainage problems of Boundary Way - known surface water, flooding issues.. Isolated. OPPOSE

GNLP0169 - Would contribute to the disjointed form of development of the conurbation. Extends beyond the comfortable walking/ cycling distance to schools, doctors and shopping. Makes the village an 'octopus' with its tentacles extending into open countryside. Dominant over the village approaches from Shotesham. OPPOSE

GNLP0316 - Land North of Bungay Road, east of Rectory Lane and south of White House. This land has significant environmental assets, hedges ponds - it would require a significant environmental audit. Would contribute to the perceived linear vision of the conurbation. Site has significant landscape value as the headwaters of the Well Beck and is one of the few views of landscape available to the road traveller between Poringland and Brooke. OPPOSE

GNLP0280 - Some problems over access, perhaps requiring the demolition of one house. Drainage problems. Disconnected from the built form of the conurbation. Would contribute to the linear form of the conurbation. OPPOSE

GNLP0323 - would be a welcome development if access along the lane can be seen as adequate. OPPOSE

Support

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 16525

Received: 22/03/2018

Respondent: Glavenhill Strategic Land

Agent: Lanpro Services Ltd

Representation:

These representations are submitted on behalf of Glavenhill (Number 10) Limited (Glavenhill) in response to the Greater Norwich Local Plan Regulation 18 consultation and relate primarily to Land to the rear of 16 Poringland Road, Upper Stoke. These representations follow on from the proposed allocation site's submission to the Greater Norwich Local Plan 'Call for Sites' consultation in July 2016. The proposed allocation site has been assessed for its suitability for residential development within the HELAA and has also been assessed by Glavenhill's project team for its suitability for housing and an application for outline planning permission was submitted in December 2017. See full submission for more details.

Full text:

1. Executive Summary

These representations are submitted of behalf of Glavenhill (Number 10) Limited (Glavenhill) in response to the Greater Norwich Local Plan Regulation 18 Consultation and relate primarily to Land to the rear of 16 Poringland Road, Upper Stoke (hereon in referred to as the 'proposed allocation site') (see Section 3 for site extent).

These representations follow on from the proposed allocation site's submission to the Greater Norwich Local Plan 'Call for Sites' consultation in July 2016.

The proposed allocation site has been considered by the Greater Norwich Growth Board and is assessed for its suitability for residential development within the Housing and Employment Land Availability Assessment (December 2017) (HELAA) which is released in support of this Regulation 18 Consultation under site reference: GNLP0494.

The proposed allocation site has since the Call for Sites exercise been assessed by Glavenhill's project team for its suitability for housing and an application for outline planning permission was submitted to South Norfolk District Council in December 2017 (LPA reference: 2017/2871). The application is pending determination. The application documentation and consultee responses submitted and received to date are referred to in these representations as demonstration of the proposed allocation site's suitability and deliverability for residential use and to assist in clarifying
those queries raised by the Greater Norwich Growth Board (GNGB) on the site within the HELAA.

Glavenhill has considered the draft Greater Norwich Local Plan and provide comment on the suitability or otherwise of the proposed Growth Options, including the level and distribution of this growth. Glavenhill has serious concerns over the GNGB's calculation of the overall housing requirement and provide a suggested alternative requirement.

It is Glavenhill's submission that the proposed housing growth is best accommodated through the allocation of a new settlement in the Cambridge-Norwich Tech Corridor, alongside a range of less strategic sites that should be located in sustainable locations in and around existing sustainable
settlements.

The allocation of Land to the rear of 16 Poringland Road, Upper Stoke, should form part of that Strategy.

The proposed allocation site has been demonstrated through the planning application process to be sustainably located on the edge of the Key Service Centre of Poringland and within the Norwich Policy Area. The proposed allocation site is an appropriate and sustainable place to accommodate new housing development.

Contrary to the conclusions of the HELAA, the site has been demonstrated through the planning application process to be safely and appropriately accessed from Poringland Road and to have easy access to a range of local services.

In clarification of the HELAA constraints and opportunities assessment, the proposed allocation site is not at significant risk of flooding or contamination and housing development can be accommodated within the capacity of the local sewer network.

There are no overriding constraints that would prevent the proposed allocation site from being developed for housing within the early stages of the Plan Period and Glavenhill respectfully request it be allocated within the emerging Greater Norwich Local Plan.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 16571

Received: 11/03/2018

Respondent: Mr John Henson

Representation:

The access to this site is significantly constrained. Oppose

Full text:

Bixley
1. GLNP1032 Site to north of B1332 Boundary Farm: This site would contribute dramatically to the linear vision of the conurbation. Grade 2 agricultural land. Drainage problems However it could offer industrial and employment spaces necessary in this conurbations.

Caistor St Edmund
2. GNLP0485 This huge site would at a stroke integrate Arminghall/Bixley with the Poringland conurbation. It has significant landscape, archaeological and environmental issues . It is far too far from any facilities and would be unsustainably reliant upon cars. Oppose

3. GNLP0131 This is a smaller site but again unsustainably far from public transport, excessively reliant upon cars with no sidewalk in the vicinity and little prospect of being able to construct one. Oppose

4. GNLP0491 This would significantly alter the form and size of Caistor St Edmund on archaeologically important site in open countryside. It is a form of 'backland' development. Access is severely limited. No access to public transport, no sidewalks to village and schools. Oppose

Stoke
5. GNLP0494 The access to this site is significantly constrained. Oppose

6. GNLP1047 Access to this site is severely constrained. It is former RAF site so may well be subject to contamination. Site dominated by the microwave towers. Form would consolidate development each side of the Stoke Road leading to further infill development. Oppose

Framingham Earl/Pigot
7. GNLP0321 To North of B1332 next Boundary Farm - detached from the conurbation by Poringland Wood. Contribute to the linear profile of the conurbation. This could offer employemnt and business opportunities that the conurbation is dramatically short of.

8. GNLP0589-A This would exacerbate the 'octopus' nature of the conurbation and would detract from an area of scenic value otherwise sadly lacking in this area. Favoured by GNLP. Opposed

9. GNLP0589-B Leading on from the development of the Long Road, Hibbett and Key site and the EACH site this would be a logical development. It would mean the loss of significant landscape value in Spur Lane. If it could be developed at a distance from the tree lined Spur Lane it might well be viable. Will have a significant impact upon the subterranean drainage flow towards Long Road and Poringland surface water drainage system. Favoured by GNLP. The overall triangle site has already been intruded upon and there is no reason not to develop the whole Pigot Lane Spur Lane and Long Road area.

10. GNLP0391-A East of Hall Road - semi-detached from the village - contributing to the 'octopus' of development with drainage issues. Intrudes upon an an area of landscape value between Fram Earl and St Andrew's Church. Oppose

11. GNLP0391-B North of Burgate Lane Similar arguments to those against the site south of Burgate Lane Oppose

12. GNLP0003 Isolated site in open countryside, contrary to policy, detached from the conurbation should not even be considered as a valid site. Oppose

Poringland
13. GNLP0223 Significant access problems with no comfortable access through the Norfolk Homes development. Would alter significantly the 'shape' of the conurbation into an form of an 'octopus'. Would reduce the distinctions between Poringland and Stoke. Would have significant Governance issues between Stoke and Poringland. Would significantly negatively alter the drainage problems of Boundary Way - known surface water, flooding issues. Favoured by GNLP doc. Oppose

14. GNLP0169 Would contribute to the disjointed form of development of the conurbation. Extends beyond the comfortable walking/ cycling distance to schools, doctors and shopping. Makes the village an 'octopus' with its tentacles extending into open countryside. Dominant over the village approaches from Shotesham. Favoured by GNLP. Oppose

15. GNLP0316 Land North of Bungay Road, east of Rectory Lane and south of White House. This land has significant environmental assets, hedges ponds - it would require a significant environmental audit. Would contribute to the perceived linear vision of the conurbation. Site has significant landscape value as the headwaters of the Well Beck and is one of the few views of landscape available to the road traveller between Poringland and Brooke. Oppose

16. GNLP0280 Some problems over access, perhaps requiring the demolition of one house. Drainage problems. Disconnected from the built form of the conurbation. Would contribute to the linear form of the conurbation. Oppose

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 19743

Received: 13/12/2018

Respondent: Stoke Holy Cross Parish Council

Representation:

In summary, it is our strongly held view that the existing infrastructure within Stoke Holy Cross cannot handle any further significant development, and our experience of the provision of infrastructure in connection with the latest housing developments in the village does not give us confidence that the situation will improve in the foreseeable future. Parishioners currently experience substantial traffic issues and with further developments in Poringland and Framingham Earl still to be completed, this will increase in the future. All of the suggested sites will make a bad situation worse without the lack of local services and infrastructure issue being addressed, and also worsen the existing problems with sewerage and water pressure, in parts of the village. In short these proposed developments would not be sustainable in Stoke Holy Cross.

In conclusion we believe that Stoke Holy Cross has had more than its fair share of development in recent years, and that there should be no further allocation of any housing that is more than infill in scale in the next round of housing allocations, so that the village can adjust to the latest substantial developments currently taking place and the necessary infrastructure and services be allowed to catch up with the development in a sustainable manner in accordance with both national and local planning policy.

Full text:

RESPONSE BY STOKE HOLY CROSS PARISH COUNCIL TO GREATER NORWICH LOCAL PLAN REGULATION 18 CONSULTATION.
The Parish Council would wish to make the following comments about the proposed additional sites for development in Stoke Holy Cross Parish. This includes the following sites that are within, or partially within, the Parish boundary.
GNLP 2091 GNLP 0197 GNLP 0202, GNLP 0524, GNLP2111, GNLP0494, GNLP1047, GNLP2124, GNLP0223.
The Parish Council is very concerned about the prospect of yet further residential development in Stoke Holy Cross without the provision of sufficient supporting services and infrastructure. This has become increasingly apparent following the approval and subsequent development of approximately 150 dwellings in the village approved since 2013, under the polices of the existing core strategy and South Norfolk Local Plan. The Core Strategy actually proposed 20 dwellings for the village with the proviso that additional dwellings could be permitted if sufficient infrastructure existed or could be provided. In reality as stated below, the village has very limited local facilities, and the new housing is already putting considerable strain upon those that exist. Parishioners are also very concerned about the detrimental impact of some of these proposed sites on the picturesque and ecologically rich Valley landscape within which Stoke Holy Cross is situated. The potential impact of proposed site GLP2091 on the River Tas Valley and the encroachment into the rural gap between Upper and Lower Stoke Holy Cross by sites GNLP2111, GNLP0202, GNLP 0197 and GNLP 0524, are of particular concern in this respect.
We wish therefore wish to object to all of the above proposed sites for the following reasons:
There have not been any improvements to services or the essential infrastructure in the village to support recent housing developments, which has resulted in an approximate 30% increase in households.
The Village does not have a Shop, a Doctors Surgery, Post Office, or a regular style Public House meaning that parishioners have to travel to nearby local service centres, the nearest being Poringland some 3 miles away, to avail themselves of these services.
The nearest Doctors Surgery has become over capacity due to the extensive housing developments that have, and are still taking place in Stoke Holy Cross, and nearby Caistor St Edmund, Poringland, Framingham Earl and Framingham Pigot.
The Bus services through the Village have recently been reduced from a half-hourly to an hourly service, meaning that many parishioners are having to resort to other forms of transport, including the private car, to travel to work or to access local facilities.
The road network through Stoke is very vulnerable to rat running from Poringland and the Framinghams, to avoid the severe congestion elsewhere on the network, particularly on the B1332. This is already leading to significant increases in traffic through the village, which will be greatly exacerbated if development of the proposed sites mainly along this route, were to be allowed.
The pre-school and primary School are both approaching capacity, which is already causing concern for Parents, who are having difficulty finding places for their children. This will only worsen as the outstanding planning permissions in the village are built out.
There is no Footpath or cycleway between the two halves of the village meaning that pedestrians and cyclists have to negotiate a narrow, unlit, unrestricted speed, country road to travel between them. This is a problem because the shops, high school, and Medical Centres, are situated beyond Upper Stoke, whilst the primary school, Village Hall and church are within lower Stoke. The recent reduction in the frequency of the bus service connecting the two halves of the village means that persons travelling between the two halves of the village, including the School children attending Stoke Primary School or Framingham Earl School, who decide to walk or cycle, do not have a safe passage to School, apart from when being taken by private car!
In summary, it is our strongly held view that the existing infrastructure within Stoke Holy Cross cannot handle any further significant development, and our experience of the provision of infrastructure in connection with the latest housing developments in the village does not give us confidence that the situation will improve in the foreseeable future. Parishioners currently experience substantial traffic issues and with further developments in Poringland and Framingham Earl still to be completed, this will increase in the future. All of the suggested sites will make a bad situation worse without the lack of local services and infrastructure issue being addressed, and also worsen the existing problems with sewerage and water pressure, in parts of the village. In short these proposed developments would not be sustainable in Stoke Holy Cross.

In conclusion we believe that Stoke Holy Cross has had more than its fair share of development in recent years, and that there should be no further allocation of any housing that is more than infill in scale in the next round of housing allocations, so that the village can adjust to the latest substantial developments currently taking place and the necessary infrastructure and services be allowed to catch up with the development in a sustainable manner in accordance with both national and local planning policy.