GNLP2153

Appl. No : 2017/2652/O
Parish : PORINGLAND
Site Address : Land South of Burgate Lane Poringland Norfolk
Proposal : Outline application for the erection of up to 165 dwellings with
public open space, landscaping and sustainable drainage system
(SuDS) and vehicular access point from Burgate Lane. All matters
reserved except for means of access.
Decision : Members voted unanimously for Refusal
Refused
1 Not sustainable development contrary to DM1.1 and NPPF 14
2 No overriding benefit contrary to DM1.3
2 Landscape impact - rural character
3 Loss of important hedgerow
4 Insufficient ecological surveys

This land is prime agricultural land in the countryside, not for housing and hence why it was unanimously rejected by SNDC. The site is also outside the settlement boundary. Burgate Lane/Hall Road junction is already busy and dangerous. The development will worsen traffic conditions throughout Poringland which are already horrendous during peak hours. Development is too far for families to walk to schools therefore increased traffic at the worse times. The schools are already at maximum capacity anyway so will create further issues locally. The Doctors surgeries are also already oversubscribed. The scheme would be disastrous for ecology and wildlife.

I wish to reiterate my comments on Planning Application 2017/2652 - Development at Burgate Lane, Poringland which was unanimously refused by South Norfok Council earlier this year, following some 200 well-founded local objections:

The need for additional housing nationally, for which the arguments have already been well made, and the requirements for first-time buyers to have a reasonable chance of getting onto the housing ladder, and others including growing families to progress, are not in question. The huge expansion in housing development in Poringland over recent years, not to mention those yet to come, already attest to South Norfolk's clear willingness to contribute to the local housing supply. However this application is a prime example of the wrong development in the wrong place, with totally inadequate consideration of infrastructure needs and a complete disregard for existing communities in Poringland and Framingham Earl. I would urge the District Council to reject this application. In particular:
1. The land in question lies outside the agreed development boundary for Poringland and Framingham Earl, as approved in the South Norfolk Local Plan (Policy 14:Key Service Centres) which was formally adopted on 26 October 2015 and covers the period up to 2026. More than enough new housing land has already been allocated in Poringland and Framingham Earl within that document (in particular the Site Specific Allocations and Policies Document) which should meet housing demand in this locality for the foreseeable future. There is no need for additional development outside the development boundary on greenfield sites, especially as many of the approved sites are still in the course of building, or are already built but even so have vacant dwellings. Where is the demand for another 165 housing units? This seems to be a purely speculative development promoted by a company based far from Norfolk whose prime motive is profit, not responding to local housing demand.

2. Moreover, if development were to be allowed outside the development plan boundaries then the plan itself, and the extensive public consultation that has taken place on it, have absolutely no meaning or value. Surely the district council must uphold its own plan and reject any application that so blatantly fails to comply with it.

3. With the extent of new build recently (a) completed, (b) already in progress and (c) planned, the whole character of Poringland and Framingham Earl is changing from a small village to a semi-urban commuter area. Part of the attraction of the village is its rural environment, but the extent of new building is already leading to a permanent loss of agricultural land, environmental quality and visual amenity. The recent obliteration of open space on Norwich Road opposite Octagon Barn is a prime example, eroding the boundary between Poringland and Arminghall. Further unwanted expansion into our countryside will exacerbate this further. Once the process of snapping up farmers' fields to replace them with bricks and tarmac has been given the go-ahead, the floodgates will have opened for more destruction of our rural areas.

4. The density of housing on this site was originally proposed (in Gladman's recent 'public consultation' leaflet) as 150 new homes, which would clearly have been out of all proportion to the nature of its surroundings - a hitherto quiet and semi-rural area. Despite local concerns expressed prior to submission of the application, Gladman have now decided without explanation to increase this number from 150 to 165 dwellings. The impact of such a large number on the local environment, the increased traffic flows it would generate and the major demands it would place on local services have not been adequately considered.

5. Burgate Lane, as its name implies, is a narrow country lane which is hardly wide enough for two cars to pass, has dangerous, unsighted bends and has no pavements (except the stretch nearest to Hall Road/Upgate where there are already a few houses). As such it is totally unsuitable for the major increase in traffic movements that a new 165-home development would generate. Anyone with local knowledge would clearly understand this. It is quite unacceptable that this would in practice constitute the main commuter route from the new estate, through Alpington (and directly past its primary school), to the very busy A146 to Beccles and Lowestoft road.

6. Hall Road and Upgate would also see a huge increase in traffic flow, most probably via Long Road. These formerly quiet residential roads are already used as a 'rat run' for through traffic on the B1332 from Bungay to Norwich, despite being unique in Poringland and Framingham Earl as the only residential roads with neither pavements nor street lights. This means that pedestrians and cyclists including children walking to school , families with infants in buggies, elderly residents, dog walkers and horse riders already share the road space with cars (often speeding despite the 30mph limit), buses and HGVs such as delivery vehicles and refuse trucks. The danger that this already poses to local residents should not be under-estimated, particularly at the blind right angle bend leading from Upgate to Rectory Lane. At night, pedestrians can only safely navigate the road with the aid of hand torches. I fear that the extra traffic and additional dangers which would result from a further 165 homes at Burgate Lane could before long lead to a serious injury or even a fatality. For this reason, on safety grounds alone the application should be refused.

7. The application shows some pedestrian improvements (drawing 1568/07), to be funded by the developer, including a new footway on the east side of Hall Lane/Upgate in place of the existing grass verges. While this is a welcome recognition of the dangers explained above, it does not go far enough. Firstly, a footway on the eastern side of the road may help residents of the new Burgate Lane development but fails to recognise that most pedestrians use the western side of the road - partly because the bus stop is on that side (all buses come from Rectory Lane direction) and partly because the western side is the most obvious pedestrian route for school children and others from Upgate into Rectory Lane - using the existing short stretch of tarmac surface on that corner. Any new pedestrian footway therefore needs to be on both sides of the road.

8. Moreover, the plan for a new pedestrian crossing point (with tactile paving for blind or partially sighted people?) so close to the blind bend with Rectory Lane is sheer madness. As it is, some cars come around this bend so fast they could not stop in time, while buses have to swing right out, taking up both sides of the carriageway. Unsurprisingly the proposals in the application display a complete lack of local knowledge.

9. The impact on local schools, both primary and secondary is a major factor to consider. While Gladman's consultation document offers to pay a "contribution" to the local education authority for the provision of new classrooms, there is nothing in the planning application to back this promise up. In any event, this statement assumes that local schools will physically have the space to build more classrooms. Poringland Primary School has only recently built additional classrooms to cope with existing demand in the village. The Chair of governors has pointed out that Poringland Primary School physically has "no further room for expansion" (which would be obvious anyway from the briefest of walks past the school) and "cannot accommodate children from a further development". So where would children from the new development go?

10. The next nearest primary school is at Alpington, occupying a very small site at the crossroads at the eastern end of Burgate Lane. In the unlikely scenario of it having spare places, or the ability to expand, one must ask exactly how children aged 5 to 11 would get there. Walking (or cycling) down Burgate Lane with its narrow carriageway and blind bends is hazardous for adults, never mind young children. So in practice every child would need to be driven daily to school and back - increasing the traffic hazards yet further and utterly contradicting the contention that this development would encourage more sustainable non-car travel. It is quite possible therefore that an additional 165 homes would require not just new classrooms, but a whole new school on the development site, paid for by the developers.

11. Moreover the impact goes well beyond just the capital cost of building new education infrastructure. Who would pay for the additional teaching staff required, at a time when local authority budgets are already stretched to breaking point? Clearly Norfolk County Council, as local education authority, must be consulted in depth on these matters, and on the extent of the financial contribution the developer would be required to make.

12. Likewise, the additional pressure on the two GP surgeries in the village and the single chemist (which already suffers from very limited parking and dangerous vehicle access from The Street) has not been adequately addressed. It is just not good enough merely to say in the application that local health and education facilities exist, without setting out how the additional demands on the basic infrastructure of the village will be met.

13. Gladman's promise to provide new publicly accessible greenspace hardly mitigates the loss of agricultural land and open space. Even so, their consultation plan showing a new footpath around the housing estate and a small play area clearly says "For Illustrative Purposes Only". This suggests that these proposals, although minimal, could be withdrawn again at any stage of the planning application process. On the contrary, such features must be integral to any permission for any new development of this kind.

14. Assertions that "the proposed development could lead to ... a potential reduction in commuter levels to surrounding employment areas" seem to be without any foundation. There is very little employment in Poringland/Framingham Earl itself and what exists is mainly in the retail sector. Inevitably most residents in a new 165-home development would commute to Norwich or further afield every day of the week. Rush hour traffic in The Street, especially at the Fiveways roundabout (taking through traffic from The Street, Stoke Road, Norwich Road, Pigot Lane and Long Road) is already severely congested on a regular basis and additional commutes to Norwich and beyond (e.g. A47, A11) can only worsen this.

15. Finally, the application envisages a construction period of up to 5 years, which in itself would cause chaos in the locality. Were any development ever to be approved, access for construction traffic would need to be strictly controlled. Approaches from Rectory Lane, Gull Lane and Burgate Lane (from Alpington direction) are all totally unsuitable, owing to the winding and residential nature of Rectory Lane; the narrowness of Burgate Lane with blind right angle bends; and the fact that Gull Lane is only single track with passing places (and of course no pavements), also with blind bends and specifically marked 'Not Suitable for Heavy Vehicles'. All these roads are currently used regularly by pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders as well as vehicles. This leaves only Long Road, which at least is straight and has a pavement on one side, but is not wide enough to accommodate a car and a large truck coming from the opposite direction without one slowing or stopping to give way. The horrific alternative, as witnessed at first hand in the last week, is that a lorry merely maintains its speed (40mph) while mounting the pavement to avoid slowing down. For these very obvious safety reasons, the speed limits on Long Road would have to be reduced from 40 to 30 mph and on Hall Lane/Upgate from 30 to 20 mph.

16. For all these reasons, but particularly the impact on local traffic and education infrastructure, this application must be refused.

I am very surprised that as this proposed development was comprehensively and unanimously rejected by South Norfolk development committee and the three local parish councils together with local schools, doctor surgeries etc, it is still even in the plan.
Does our local democratic process count for nothing?
Consistent with the SNDC decision we strongly object on all 3 NPPF aspects of environmental (damaging), economic (no benefit) and infrastructure (local infrastructure cannot cope)

Please remove this site from the plan.
David and Alison Rimmer

1 Not sustainable development contrary to DM1.1 and NPPF 14
2 No overriding benefit contrary to DM1.3
2 Landscape impact - rural character
3 Loss of important hedgerow
4 road infrastructure/ junctions unsafe for the increase in vehicular traffic
5 Poringland has sustainable housing supply for the next 8 years

This site as per the attached PDF document has already been through the planning application process in early 2018 and was unanimously refused, the submission of the same to the GNLP subsequently smacks of non-local and unscrupulous developers Gladman attempting to have two bites of the cherry. I therefore strongly object on the same grounds that it was ultimately refused by SNDC:
1 Not sustainable development contrary to DM1.1 and NPPF 14
2 No overriding benefit contrary to DM1.3
3 Landscape impact - rural character
4 Loss of important hedgerow
5 Insufficient ecological surveys

I object to the planning proposal reference 2017/2652 for the following reasons:

1. Safety - Possibly up to an extra 200+ car journeys per day on unsuitable roads. Long Road is the main connection to Norwich has a poor surface with no street lighting. The exit from Burgate Lane to Hall Road also has poor visibility and street lighting.
2. Access - Main access onto country lane where pedestrian footways may not be adequate? Plus there is no pedestrian solution for those walking towards Alpington.
3. Ancient Hedgerows being destroyed which provides irreplaceable habitat for the wildlife in and around the site
4. Site is outside defined boundary of village.
5. Consultation process - No public consultation, only 380 leaflets to selected households while the development will have major impact on whole of Poringland and Framingham Earl.
6. Density -Level of density approx. 2.5 times more than nearby properties. Approx. 12+ per acre so will not integrate into surrounding area. This is the density level of an urban area development but in a rural environment.
7. Local Services - Many other planned dwellings in the area are yet to be completed. The Local Primary School cannot expand further children may need to be driven to Alpington (is Burgate Lane beyond the site suitable for increased traffic?).
8. Drainage (surface) - Is current ditch system adequate for known local drainage problems? Subsoil is heavy and flooding has occurred in parts of the current ditches in the past who takes responsibility for this in future? Part of this ditch further down is a noted flood risk area by the Environment Agency.

This application has previously been refused by SNDC. Do I understand that due process is not being observed in this case? My concerns are environmental, ecological and concern the impact of traffic and pollution locally. I am under no illusion that this development would cause demonstrable harm to the village as it is not sustainable. The surrounding infrastructure is insufficient to deal with the increase in population and traffic, not to mention the environmental loss or damage.

This proposed site is in a rural area with poor drainage, accessed via an already busy and narrow country lane. The proposal jeopardises an ancient hedgerow and doesn't take into account the rural nature of the surrounding area. The existing village infrastructure cannot cope with another development, especially as the local primary school is full and the doctors surgeries are at bursting point. Insufficient ecological and traffic surveys have been carried out to see the impact of such a development. The proposal was refused at all local Parish meetings and at the South Norfolk Council Planning meeting.

Objection based upon the findings of the original planning submission, 2017/2652, which determined the proposal was to be rejected.

The adjacent PDF provided does not address any of the points of rejection and merely expands on the subjective "positives" any development would make to any generic area; £28,000 per household spend in the local economy being a wildly subjective statement. There is no mention of the historic hedgerow which was a key point of the original rejection, nor the contrary findings of DM1.1, NPPF14 and DM1.3.

The capacity of local infrastructure has not been thoroughly explored; ranging from nursery and pre-school provision (all local sites over-subscribed), education (primary and secondary), healthcare and local amenities through to road size and capacity (being that Burgate Lane is extremely narrow and single lane) and non-existing pedestrian access to Burgate Lane. Nor has the negative impact on local ecological systems and wildlife been thoroughly explored.

In addition, the proposed land, and subsequent development proposal, make strong assumptions on the growth of both the local and national housing supply and positive performance of the economy. No downsides have been explored; an impending no-deal Brexit, economic slowdown with either a deal or no-deal scenario along with limited local employment opportunities, lower than national average salaries, slow wage growth and an ageing population have been ignored.

The proposal of the land, and the proposed development itself, is unashamedly designed to capitalise on a perceived crisis in new housing supplies. If the land is suitable for development, which the evidence and previous findings suggest is not, would it not be more prudent and beneficial for the whole community to look at supplies of bungalows, single story and retirement homes to accommodate the existing local population. Thus freeing up exiting housing supply for local and new residents in houses which otherwise would not be released to the market.

Thank you,

This is a totally inappropriate development. Access onto Burgate Lane is dangerous and inadequate and would add to the local already established rat-run; the distance from schools, shops and surgeries etc would mean that cars would be relied upon. The site proposal is not in the village plan and was unanimously rejected by SNDC in April 2018. Furthermore it would take away a beautiful rural aspect and an ancient hedgerow, all much loved by local residents. There are no redeeming features at all.

Impact of development in remainder of linked villages not yet known.
Sizable developments within Poringland and on the entry to
Poringland/Framingham Earl and developments in Framingham Earl/Framingham
Pigot. All development information only considers current structure of
villages, and says it can support more residents - however does not include
those in progress at present.
Also documentation shows access to bus routes, which has now been cancelled
and easy distance to schools, which are already over subscribed. Roads are
narrow country lanes, not suitable for heavy traffic and already under
considerable more traffic than a few years ago.

This should NOT be included in the plan - the application for this land has already been rejected by SNDC. The land is off a rural lane, with an ancient hedge, it is not suitable by it's nature and location. It's far from the village centre, property would be isolated - travel would be by car along a country lane . Our Community infrastructure cannot presently cope, the Dr's and Schools are full. Gladmans traffic survey was flawed it didn't record the local peak times especially school travel as our school has different start / finish times to the normal.

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 have very strong objections on the proposal for the land on the west side of Brickle Road, which is the land my house backs on to.

This is an outrageous proposal and would totally ruin this perfectly peaceful and rural location. This is the main reason I live here because it's countryside, free of light pollution, has an abundance of incredible wildlife which is a sheer joy to observe and enjoy. We cannot afford to loose more of our wildlife, its already surviving on a knife edge as it is. What does it take before we realise it's lost forever and cannot be brought back.

The road network cannot support more traffic, we are on overload as it is. With the ongoing development in Poringland this route along Brickle Road has been a rat run. On normal days it's lethal, traffic not observing the 30mph speed limit as it approaches the road from shotesham and poringland direction travelling towards the cross roads at the top of Brickle Road and Chandler Road. Huge lorries blunder their way towards shotesham without any care to pedestrians, this applies to 98% of all vehicles that use this road traveling in either direction. I have walked this road with and without my dog for over 21 years and you take your life in your own hands. reporting the speeding to the police asking for some presence in relation to this has gone unattended. Nobody has ever patrolled this road and observed the traffic as far as I am aware.

When the road is less busy, which is more infrequent than before, it's a sheer joy to walk or cycle and to enjoy the surrounding views. To open up a housing estate for 50 plus houses would be a disaster, from a pollution perspective both fumes and lighting. The wildlife gets disorientated by unnatural lighting. We are fortunate to have, bats tawny owls, barn owls, hedgehogs, swans,. geese deer, foxes, herons, toads, frogs all using this as their pathway in their natural habitat. Develop this and you loose this wonder. As we know hedgehogs are in massive decline.

The local infrastructure is unable to cope with more people, schools, GP surgery's shops, facilities are already overstretched. The reason people and myself came to live here was because it was a village. It will turn into a town and eventually join up with Norwich and be some awful sprawling mass of nothingness. The agriculture will also suffer as land for crops will be lost.

I had believed this be a green belt and could not be developed. What happens when the green belt is lost. Will we look like the rain forests? barren apart from homes and cars, instead of tress for palm oil production?

There would be more telegraph poles and wires blotting the landscape, sewage and drainage to be added. We can not cope with more people here. Its not feasible and wont work. The reasons to stop development far outweigh the ones to provide more.

I have to reiterate my strongest of objections to this proposal on so many levels.
the residents of this road will not want to look out onto houses from our back gardens and bedrooms, all privacy will be lost and will create such a dark and dreadful blot on the beautiful landscape we currently have. If you've not been here to see the fields glowing with rapeseed in May you should take a look. The scent is gorgeous. The views here are stunning and I feel so lucky to be here. This development would ruin it all and devalue my home.

This is for Brickle Road. I hope this is the right one, as couldn't see 5.72 and GNLP 2111.

K. Mackie

This development has already been rejected by SNDC. It extends Poringland into unsuitable country roads that are already used as rat runs. Poringland is being over developed and the schools and doctors are already over subscribed.

This site has already had a planning application turned down. The location is unsuitable for development due to access onto a small country lane.

This is prime agricultural land outside of the development boundary and it has important hedgerow and wildlife.

There is insufficient local infrastructure (doctor surgeries and schools at full capacity) due to the other developments which have been built.

The closest bus service has already been reduced (one service withdrawn) since the planning application was made. If the remaining service was withdrawn it would be a 20 minutes walk to catch a bus from the main road.

We object on the following grounds

Privacy, Overlooking and Over Shadowing.
The development plan shows the main street houses, of up to 2.5 floors, overlooking our boundary. At the proposed height this will allow full views of our back garden, living and dining room windows and view into our east most bedroom. The existing trees will not provide shielding. I also believe that with buildings of this height, there will be significant over shadowing of our property and the significant effects that this will have on our garden and rear grass.
The proposed entry footpath is also likely to give some view, if not access to our boundary and garden, with consequent risks of intrusion, particularly with the likelihood of congregation.

Not in keeping with existing local characteristics.
From the draft design statement, the majority of building will be different in density and type from all the existing development in the neighbourhood, which is primarily bungalow and family housing. It's also interesting to notice the comment from the local housing officer that the development does not have the desired ratio of affordable homes.

Road Transport & Safety
Burgate Lane is a narrow country road with significant blind spots, east of the development and no scope for widening, due to the placement of drainage disks and hedgerows. The plan has no provision to address the safety concerns on the road, both at the existing junctions, and given the restricted visibility on the road to Alpington just below the proposed new entry point.

Local Facilities
The existing facilities are all fully subscribed, as per the already submitted objections from schools and NHS, and this application has no mitigations of these capacity issues. I note the issues,that were ignored by foul water report with capacity, in terms of connection. I also note that drainage assumes the existing natural facilities have capacity.

Disruption
There is no attempt to address any disruption that we will experience from the building work, over an extended period, and the acknowledged long term increase in environmental noise.
Summary
This proposal seems to bypass all significant issues raised, in the objections, and looks cursory
Poringland has a need for more housing, but arguably an equally pressing need for more community facilities, given the existing acknowledged capacity issues. This site could be used for low density housing and an increase in community facilities

These representations are made by Gladman Developments Ltd in reference to site GNLPR2153 detailed in the ongoing consultation. Gladman specialise in the promotion of strategic land for residential development with associated community infrastructure.
Gladman has considerable experience in the development industry across a number of sectors, including residential and employment development. From that experience, we understand the need for the planning system to provide local communities with the homes and jobs that are needed to ensure residents have access to the homes and employment opportunities that are required to meet future development needs of the area and contribute towards sustainable economic development.
Gladman has been involved in contributing to the plan preparation process across England through the submission of written representations and participation at local plan public examinations. It is on the basis of that experience that these representations have been prepared.
In accordance with Section 19 of the 2004 Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act, policies set out in local plans must be subject to Sustainability Appraisal (SA). Incorporating the requirements of the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004 (SEA Regulations), SA is a systematic process that should be undertaken at each stage of the Plan's preparation, assessing the effects of the Local Plan's proposals on sustainable development when judged against reasonable alternatives.
The GNLPR should ensure that the results of the SA process clearly justify its policy choices, including the proposed site allocations and the approach taken to new growth when judged against 'all reasonable alternatives'. In meeting the development needs of the area, it should be clear from the results of the assessment why some policy options have been progressed and others have been rejected. The Councils' decision making, and scoring should be robust, justified and transparent and should be undertaken through a comparative and equal assessment of each reasonable alternative. Too often the SA process flags up the negative aspects of development whilst not fully considering the positive aspects which can be brought about through new opportunities for housing development and how these can influence landscape issues, social concerns and the economy.
As the Council are aware Gladman are promoting land off Burgate Lane, Poringland for residential development and associated community infrastructure. The site is subject to a live planning appeal relating to the refusal of an outline planning application for the erection of up to 165 dwellings with public open space, landscaping and sustainable drainage systems (APP/L2630/W/18/3214238).
A development brief will be submitted alongside this representation. Gladman believe that the site offers a real opportunity to the residents of the local community and the wider area to assist in meeting the identified housing needs and deliver significant improvements to the public realm, including the provision of land for community uses.
The site is free from significant constraints. It is not subject to, nor especially sensitive in terms of, any built or natural protection designations and the proposed housing development will not result in significant harm in terms of acknowledged amenity, community, heritage, landscape, traffic, environmental, technical or other acknowledged public interests.
The site extends approximately 8.12 hectares and can be directly accessed off Burgate Lane which forms the sites northern boundary. The site is contained to the west by existing residential development. The eastern field boundary is bordered by interspersed hedgerows.
The development of this site represents a logical expansion of Poringland. The development of this site provides the following community benefits:
- Improvements to the local economy and increased footfall to the existing businesses of Poringland. The development of this site will help to maintain a thriving and vibrant community and will ensure the longevity of local services such as shops, community facilities and schools.
- Deliver a mix of housing types and sizes to meet strategic needs of the local housing market, including market and affordable housing. This will demonstrably support and secure the current and future vitality of the local area. New homes will enable people to access the housing market locally rather than being forced to move away due to a lack of available housing.
- The delivery of the site will provide new areas of Green Infrastructure.
- The site is located in Flood Zone 1 in its entirety. The developable area is therefore in Flood Zone 1 - Very Low Risk - with an annual probability of flooding less than 0.1% (1 in 1000).
- Enhanced permeability with the local area.
We note that the site has been assessed as part of the HELAA Addendum, published in October 2018. Within the report, the site (GNLP2153) is recognised as being sustainably located, with access to bus services, employment, retail and Poringland Primary School. It is noted that development on the site would not impact on any designated ecological sites, sensitive landscapes or townscapes and that the site is considered suitable as part of the land availability assessment.
Gladman note that within the HELAA Addendum, the site assessment indicated that the Highways Authority consider the local road network to be constrained. As part of the planning application submitted by Gladman, Norfolk County Council were consulted on the development proposals and raised no objections regarding the capacity of the road network. Further, as part of the application process a full transport assessment was produced and submitted and found that the proposal does not have a detrimental impact on the operational performance of the TA highway network. We therefore query the assessment's conclusion that the proposed development of the site would result in highway capacity issues.
Gladman submit that the site is available and suitable for residential development and request that the Council consider the benefits listed above and note the ability of the site to assist in meeting the objectively assessed need across the Greater Norwich plan area. We consider that the site should be allocated for residential development and would welcome the opportunity to discuss our proposals with the Council in more detail.
Gladman welcome the opportunity to comment on the GNLPR sites and hope that the Council find these submissions constructive. Gladman request to be added to the consultation database and look forward to reviewing future versions of the GNLPR in due course.

This site has already been the subject to a South Norfolk planning application 2017/2652 which was unanimously refused in April 2018.
It is outside the development land boundary and is an encroachment into an area of settled plateau farmland situated between 3 villages. This is further urbanisation of a rural area previously described by SN planners as one of outstanding natural beauty.
Any development would only be accessible from a narrow winding lane which would cause considerable practical problems over a prolonged building period as well as adding long term safety issues to pedestrians, cyclists and other road users. Peak time traffic on the A146 and B1332 will worsen. Drivers will be tempted to exit the area down the equally narrow and hazardous Gull Lane which is frequently running with water.
We have lived close to the site for 33 years and assure you that wildlife abounds. Particular delights include ground nesting skylarks, an RSPB endangered species, hares, woodpeckers, owls, bats and flocks of partridges and Canada geese. Such wildlife will be threatened by any development. Light pollution and noise disturbance will be inevitable.
Infiltration tests have indicated that ground water is found at very shallow depths so surface water drainage would be a major consideration with the prospect of local flooding.
This site is detached from village services and future residents would be dependent on car use, leading to the necessity of more than one car per household.

See attachment