GNLP2093

Regulation 18 sites being offered in and around Poringland:

Poringland needs time to consolidate and absorb anything up to 1400 homes and their inhabitants. That being my submission, I should maintain the development boundary for a significant time and then ensure that developments are integrated and permeable with the rest of the village - otherwise I end up with what are no more than atomised, gated communities with a consequent effect upon community resilience and cohesion.

Most of these sites tend to merge Poringland with surrounding villages. There are major governance issues associated with this trend and should be addressed by the Local authority with some urgency. If Poringland is to be treated to 'con-urbanisation' then there should be a public inquiry about it as the surrounding villages will be physically absorbed but not contributing to the overall precept, leaving Poringland residents to carry the fiscal burden alone.

GNLP2093 Land to the south of Caistor Lane
This land has no natural or planned connection with the settlement of Poringland except through a substandard junction on the B1332. It will be 'semidetached' with no planned or existing connection to either Caistor which offers no facilities or to Poringland serving only to expand the village area with no environmental or community gain. The drainage would be dependent upon system installed by David Wilson Homes and is part of the Poringland Sustainable Drainage scope. Therefore it would need to positively drained to seIr or it would otherwise pose a flooding risk to Highlands and other properties in the area. This site would certainly be exclusively dependent upon car for travel to work and school. It offers no planning or social opportunities to the village - it would be semi-detached from the village and be nothing more than a dormitory. It is UNSUSTAINABLE.

GNLP2094 land abutting 2093 to North of Stoke Road
A development on this site would follow that of David Wilson Homes to the east which has had to pile the footings of the homes nearest to this site due to the underlying failure of the land to support buildings. . As part of the Poringland Sustainable Drainage area, drainage of surface water would not be possible unless by drainage to surface water seIrs and it will add significantly to the flow rates of surface water to Boundary Way a known flood risk area. It is Ill off regular bus routes and would be car dependent for travel to work and school. It offers no planning or social opportunities to the village - it would be semi-detached from the village and be nothing more than a dormitory. It is UNSUSTAINABLE

GNLP2124 land to south of Poringland Road and Boundary Way
This area is detached for the urban area of Poringland and has a reducing bus service in the area. It will need to be drained according to the Poringland Sustainable Drainage Scheme and will add to the known flood risk area of Boundary Way. It will in no way be linked or provide a continuous flow from the existing - it will be only connected to the village by busy highways. It offers no planning or social opportunities to the village - it would be semi-detached from the village and be nothing more than a dormitory. NOT SUSTAINABLE

GNLP2127 Land off Burgate Lane towards Alpington
I have commented upon this sites neighbour GNLP 0003 and have noted its isolation from established settlements and its access along a severely substandard Burgate Lane and is therefore NOT SUSTAINABLE

GNLP2153 Land off Burgate Lane (Gladman's proposal) - being discussed under appeal:
Outside the development land boundary
Access along severely substandard lane
Severe effect on Gull Lane - substandard single track lane with springs emerging in the surface
Detached from village and so dependent upon car use
Limited safe access to schools
No drainage survey completed but subject to Poringland sustainable Drainage Scheme.
Drainage route highly likely to be into the headwaters of the Chet
UNSUSTAINABLE

Please see below feedback from Poringland Parish Council regarding both the site under discussion (GNLP2153) plus three other sites which have already been reviewed but which we'd like to comment on.

GNLP2153: Land off Burgate Lane (Gladman Proposal, under appeal)
This site is, in the opinion of the Poringland Parish Council, unsustainable due to the following constraints:
* it is outside the development land boundary
* access is along a severely substandard country land
* There would be a severe effect on Gull Lane - this is a substandard single track lane with springs emerging on the surface
* the site is detached from the village, and so would leave residents heavily relient on car use
* there is limited safe access to schools
* no drainage survey has been completed, but it would be subject to Poringland's sustainable drainage scheme
* the Drainage route is highly likely to be into the headwaters of the Chet


GNLP 2093: Land to the South of Caistor Lane
This site is, in the opinion of the Poringland Parish Council, unsustainable due to the following constraints:
* this land has no natural or planned connection with the settlement of Poringland except through a substandard junction on the B1332.
* It will be 'semi detached' with no planned or existing connection to either Caistor (which offers no facilities) or to Poringland, thereby serving only to expand the village area with no environmental or community gain
* the drainage would be dependent upon systems installed by David Wilson Homes, and is part of the Poringland Sustainable Drainage scope. Therefore, it would need to positively drain to sewer or it would otherwise pose a flooding risk to Highlands and other properties in the area
* This site would certainly be exclusively dependent upon car travel to work and school
* it offers no planning or social opportunities to the village

GNLP2094: land abutting 2093 to North of Stoke Road
This site is, in the opinion of the Poringland Parish Council, unsustainable due to the following constraints:
* a development on this site would follow that of David Wilson Homes to the west which has had to pile the footings of the homes nearest to this site, due to the underlying failure of the land to support buildings.
* As part of the Poringland Sustainable Drainage area, drainage of surface water would not be possible unless by drainage to surface water sewers and it will add significantly to the flow rates of surface water to Boundary Way - a known flood risk area
* It is well off regular bus routes and would be car dependent for travel to work and school
* it offers no planning or social opportunities to the village, it would be a semi-detached dormitory development


GNLP2124: Land to south of Poringland Road and Boundary Way
This site is, in the opinion of the Poringland Parish Council, unsustainable due to the following constraints:
* This area is detached from the urban area of Poringland and has a reducing bus service in the area.
* It will need to be drained according to the Poringland Sustainable Drainage Scheme and will add to the known flood risk area of Boundary Way
* It will not be linked or provide continuous flow from the existing developments, it will only be connect to the village by busy highways
* It offers no planning or social opportunities to the village


In closing, Poringland needs time to consolidate and absorb anything up to 1400 homes and their inhabitants. It is the Parish Council's belief that we should maintain the development boundary for a significant time and then ensure that developments are integrated and permeable with the rest of the village. We may consider land to the North of the village, around Octagon Barn, as an alternative option.

I strongly object to the proposed developement of the site for the following reasons:-

1- significant recent developements in Stoke Holy Cross, Framingham Earl and Poringland have grown these individual vilages and so they are losing their rural identities, slowly they are being merged into one large village which will eventually just be part of Norwich.
2- Stoke Holy Cross has already seen a large number of houses built which has grown the village size by over 30% a huge increase in what was origionally planned and agreed,
3- There would be a large loss of prime agricultural land, there would be loss of food production along with further loss to local wildlife which habitat the field currently.
4- This developement would encroach into the "rural Greenbelt" countryside
5- There would be a significant increase in the traffic within the area, The roads are alreday narrow and have multple bends, the potential developement would have an entrance on a potentially dangerous curve as the road bends round.
6- There are no footpaths or cycle paths linking this proposed developement with the schools in Lower Stoke or Framingham Earl High school, this would mean there would be potential additional school traffic for the school children within the devlopement.
7- The local services are already at saturation point, local primary and secondary schools are already full and over subscribed, the GP surgeries have already stated that they cannot cope with a further increase in the local population.
8- there is the effect on the the local infrastructure to cope with a further developement houses, roads, sewage, drainage, education and health services

There is already over development in Poringland and the local services (schools, doctors) are struggling to cope. Realistically it is too far from this development to walk to the primary school, which will further increase traffic in the village. The surrounding minor rodas are already suffering from rat running for commuters getting into Norwich.

I am writing to express my opposition to recent applications to further development in the Yare Valley Corridor.
The following sites, 5.17 Caistor St Edmunds
5.21 Colney
Both sites fall within the Yare Valley corridor and are also covered by the NSBLPZ to give protection for a wildlife corridor.
Both sites should be rejected.
I also strongly object to any more development by UEA . GNLP 2123 is yet another attempt by the University to encroach further into the valley and the application is very vague and would give yet another opportunity for building on the green corridor.
The Yare Valley is an important recreational area for the general public to enjoy. The pressures to develop this space are limitless.
A strong message should go out from the Planning Authority that this special landscape is not "up for grabs"and actively seek to conserve it for future generations.

I am opposed to any future major development leading onto/off Caistor Lane.

The development by DWHomes off Caistor Lane has added substantial traffic to what is a very busy lane and in places between the Bungay Road and Caistor Hall junctions the lane is wholly inadequate to accommodate more regular traffic. A lane may be defined as a narrow way and historically as just a row of houses, not an estate of houses.

In my opinion, the proposed development would place a further burden on limited existing public and commercial services rather than provide additional support for them.

CouldAddMoreButOneHundredWordLimit.

See attachment