GNLP2061

The development of this site would undermine the linear nature of the village and would set a dangerous precedent for the development of other similar sites which would further undermine the linear nature of the village.

The scale of the proposed development is inappropriate for the size of the village which has only very limited resources and public transport.

I've seen this village fill up with houses and has too many now to be honest.
Putting the distress it would cause myself and others I don't think the infrastructure would be sufficient, plus it'd put a greater burden on facilities and not wanting to bandy around words would probably increase risks of more crime.
These extra proposed sites would increase the problems I quoted in original site proposals

The scale of development proposed is out of proportion to the infrastructure - the local roads are single tracks, winding and unsafe at present - no further development should be permitted unless the roads are significantly improved. The road is used from Surlingham and other villages. often heavy lorries. it is outside the village boundary, insufficient resources to support. Environmental impact too great as open fields, farmland and the Broads area. Just crazy

I object to this site as it significantly expands the settlement envelope. Although the size as shown would be OK in a different location it has the feel of a development to open up an area of land that will lead to desecration of the character of a village that is essentially a ribbon development.

I have visited your web-site, and having registered it seems difficult to ascertain a way to make an online comment. I have previously written about the initial two areas proposed, and this now encompasses the additional sites that have been submitted.

Therefore I want this to be considered as a response to the GNLP consultation; Re GNLP0165, GNLP0531, GNLP2063, GNLP2064,GNLP2061, GNLP2007, & GNLP2070

One is not surprised that there is demand and reasonable expectation for additional housing provision in this area, but there are concerns about the placement, and what might be developed. The style of housing may determine if these new development meet the real demand and aspiration of new property owners in the area.

At present as an outline there is presumably no guide view on the types, quality and affordability of the housing proposals.

Does the village infrastructure cope with a 50% + population increase; water supply, drains, power& telecommunications. Road widths and fotpaths for safe pedestrian movement? Bus services hardly operate to satisfy communting needs.

Regarding the suitability of the sites put forward for this consulatation;

A) GNLP0165. This is a small area of uneven topography, and the existing road system may become more dangerous depending on the placement of any estate access.
The roadway is heavily curved, already liable to flooding and depending on the point of access decided upon may require more footpath access to provide safe pedestrian travel to village amenities.
Buses already run wide round this corner, and an access road may have limited view of traffic proceeding along the road. It is outside the current 30mph limit.
Given the limited area, what can be economically developed? Consider this an objection with present knowledge.

B) GNLP0531. At the Eastern end of the village, I have less knowledge but does this area lie in a "floodplain"? It certainly seems at a lower level, and close to the staithe.
It is quite some distance from the Surgery and Post Office/store, so is the footpath provision adequate for increased traffic and the fact the roadway is narrow for buses and agricultural tractors.
One is always concerned about the style of development and housing provision. Thinking of the other recent development proposal in RSM, the estate road seemed inadequate and partly "unadopted".

C) GNLP2063, 2064, 2061, 2007. These small developments closer to the village centre surely should be considered together. Will the roadways accessing these be adopted, concerns as to the property types likely to be developed, and the impact of increased housing upon servicves. "Unadopted" roads lead to hidden housing costs in leasehold arrangements, and I believe properties shoud be available "freehold" and without future charging options open to developers.

D) GNLP2070. Another piece of land without access to anywhere without road transport; footpaths, where? No Village amenities. Anglian Water always seem to have trouble in the Bramerton area. So do adequate infrastructure facilities exist. School access.

With all this supposed extra housing, what is the capacity of the school, not just the Primary School in Rockalnd St Mary, but whether with all the catchment area of secondary education Framingham, is that then overstretched?

Finally, If there is to be substantial development at any of the above locations, the road system from our outlying villages should be considered for an upgrade.

At present the roadway is narrow enough to be problematic with school buses and commercial vehicles at some pinch points (approach to Bramerton, is just one place). There is no footpath, and GNLP2070 definitely would deserve that sort of access.

As more people find the main Loddon road busier, there is already increased road traffic along our alternative road.

Consider this a comment, but with considerable scepticism, as to Norwich & Norfolk's planning capability to use this area effectively and without detriment to existing people.

Overall /Whole GNLP Plans. Surely housing alone is insufficient; the better way to ensure viability of this region is also to plan for new business parks, and employment areas. Most of Norfolk's road structure is grid-locked daily, and unsafe junctions abound on many radial roads. The infrastructure requirements need to be determined too.

surface water flood flow path to north of site spilling into NE corner of the site and some ponding on southern boundary

Our highway engineers have confirmed that the existing 8 metre wide field access to this land would be more than sufficient to provide an adoptable highway and pavement(s) to this new development. In addition, they believe that an appropriate visibility splay could be provided on to the Street. All of this land, including the existing field access, is within the same ownership. With regards to the surface water flood risk, this can be addressed by the proposed layout and drainage strategy for these proposals. The agricultural land to the north of this site is owned by the same landowner.

I'd be interested to learn why adding a few feet to the front of a house is normally rejected for being "beyond the building line" but an entire housing estate at the back is fine. Earlier proposal GNLP0531 will increase the village size by how much? 50%? Even more development will exacerbate the problems of limited facilities and infrastructure - narrow roads & pavements in particular. New settlements away from existing villages might be a better option, or better still development of derelict "brown field" sites - less commuting, less congestion and less pollution. Just a thought....

I am responding on behalf of Mrs R Collins, who has no access to the internet.

Specific Comments on Site GNLP 2061: Mrs Collins wishes to register her objection to the development of this site on the grounds of a narrow access which is not at all suitable for increased traffic to any new development, either for its actual construction/building or, if developed, leading to potentially 50 extra cars (based on 2 cars per household). Part of the site is low lying and might be subject to increased risk of flooding, as well as any development being bound to adversely affect the nearby Broadland habitats.

On a general basis, given that 21 dwellings are already being developed at Bee Orchid Drive and the village has also developed Eel Catchers Close, RSM has already made a contribution towards meeting Norfolk's housing need. With even more sites up for consideration, Mrs Collins is very concerned about increased traffic flows on the Street, which is often difficult to navigate with 'on street' parking narrowing the carriageway, especially at the shop; even more pressure on the limited local services - Doctors and Post Office/Stores; the change in the character of the village which would follow a large increase in population, tending to turn the village into a suburb and not a rural street village, as originally developed.

Rockland is a linear village and this site would not be in keeping. The street is already busy with traffic from neighbouring villages. Our sewerage system is at full capacity now. The access is not wide enough and would add more traffic onto our busy road.

The development of Rockland St Mary is extremely disappointing as a resident. It is about building the right homes, at the right places. These are not necessary, and would impact greatly on the village.

With this development, there would be:

Substantial loss of natural habitat for wildlife on the surrounding area. There are bats in and around this area would undoubtably be affected, along with other protected species.

Substantial loss of natural habitat for animals in and around the broads area

Massive increase in traffic on a national cycling route, which has already had death and injury on this road. It stands to reason that extra cars would cause an increase in injury/death.

Traffic increase in general - coming out onto 'The Street' when cars are all parked on the road already, will be blind spots all over the road, with the potential for serious accidents, particularly with cyclists. Many children walk to school too, which would have to 'cross' these new developments. Visibility of coming out onto this road is a major issue.

Surface water - would be huge drainage issues for a development on this size. This can impact on the existing properties.

Construction traffic - the roads in and around Rockland St Mary cannot take large trucks now! These large developments would cause all sorts of issues getting out of the village and onto the A146. The Street is not designed for large vehicles.

The proposed access point is also not big enough for large vehicles - which again would cause issues with them getting onto 'The Street'. If cars are parked already on 'The Street', they wouldn't be able to turn out.

The other concern is the fields do inter-connect. Like how the development has gone on Bee-orchid way, there is a danger of 'Urban Sprawl', that once one development is signed off, the next one will only be a matter of time. If one is signed off, that sets a precedent for the next one. As Bee-Orchid way has shown, another 20 houses have just been added. Does the village really want to become like Poringland and Brooke? The village boundary is designed to prevent urban sprawl, and all the negative costs effected with it.

General - site boundaries are there for a reason. Just because there is space, why does it need housing? Norfolk as a whole has many spaces to develop, but it's about choosing the correct spaces, like around the new Norwich bypass. These developments massively impact the village and local life, and should be objected at the highest level. It is fundamentally changing the village, and potentially doubling the size of it overnight. The village will become unsafe due to the volume of cars and traffic, more polluted, and have less wildlife in and around the broads. How can this be suitable for an area which is a stone's throw away from a national park?

The call for sites is that - a call for sites. This is simply a land grab for local developers, who see rightly an opportunity, but it is utterly inappropriate for this village.

Negative impact of backfill development on a linear village.
Loss of agricultural land and habitats for wildlife
Access point onto The Street would be a serious hazard to cars, cyclists and pedestrians alike
Substantial increase in traffic volume onto and through The Street. Volume increase is supported by evidence from the Speed Awareness Monitor.
The roads towards Norwich are too narrow and dangerous to accommodate more traffic. Only limited daytime public transport.
Detrimental impact on a well used National Cycling route.
Impact of over-development on the environment given proximity to the Broads Area.

Insufficient access off The Street. Back fill development is not consistent with existing ribbon village character and gives rise to a risk of unconstrained future development. Negative effect on ecology and wildlife. Land of this type and location is not required given the vast number of sites put forward that are far better suited to serve a Norwich Local Plan.

When considering the 7 sites in Rockland St Mary, although marginally interested in one, I have tried to forecast the effect the total developments will have on the village. The authorities will say that all the developments are over a number of years and will not give details of the likely order.
So I have made a number of assumptions, namely that - Water, Gas, Electricity, Telephones, Drainage, Schooling, Medical Care, Internet Availability, Rubbish Collections have all been consulted and they have said they can provide guaranteed service.
This leaves probably the biggest problem, the Roads. Again assumptions, that each 10 new houses will probably have at least 10 cars, if not 15 to 20 and more when families grow up to driving age. I have seen Pages 97 and 345 of some report and if sites GNLP 2007, 2061, 2063, 2064 add up to some 90 dwellings plus the 200 houses at the New Inn Hill site then I forecast that there will be an additional 450 cars using The Street twice a day at least. This does not take into account the number of vans, lorries and and delivery vans from Supermarkets. The site " South of the Street Conclusions " does not, in my view, give an objective view as it makes no reference to the problem likely to arise when GNLP 2063 goes ahead and some 50 cars are wanting on to The Street in the morning peak time mainly going into Norwich and there are cars and Delivery vans parked in The Street at the Shop and Post Office. I am not forgetting the vehicles coming up the road from the New Inn site direction. I do not see how the "Impacts Analysis" can give a Green for Transport and Roads unless alterations to our roads are planned but have not been made Public yet.
There was an Opinion article in the EDP on Monday 19th November 2018 that our " Roads must be able to cope with more and more vehicles " - copy enclosed. The road problem is not only a Rockland St Mary problem but the large developments in Poringland, Framlingham Earl , Loddon and in many other villages it will only get worse. Road congestion is already here but access to Norwich is bound to get worse with all the Developments proposed unless some are delayed until the major roads are improved.
I am far from confident that the current facilities will be able to cope with the possible expansion envisaged in the next few years.

My objections to the allocation of the site are supported by national planning policy, existing and emerging local planning policy and other material considerations such as the impact on the character and appearance of the village and the impact on amenity of existing residents.

1 The proposed site is outside the village boundary.

2 It is completed our of character with the existing village profile. The village is linear in nature with the exception of the development already prepared for the Bee Orchid Way.

3 The transport infrastructure cannot accommodate further traffic of this magnitude.

4 Inadequate utilities infrastructure for this development.

5 This site is not suitable as would impact on the character of the village, would involve loss of countryside and would impact on the natural environment.

6 There is no access for the proposed site to the road through the village. Access routes would for safety reasons have inadequate visibility due to the bend in the road. Visibility particularly important as this stretch of road is part of the National Cycle Network and heavily used by cyclists.

7 Rockland St Mary is a service village and therefore this site is totally inadequate due to its size.

8 Site would result in overlooking issues for many existing houses, which would result in loss of privacy and being located in a rural location.

A. Local Development Scheme for South Norfolk 2017-18 Revised December 2017 https://www.south-norfolk.gov.uk/sites/default/files/downloads/lds_december_2017_update_adopted_december_2017.pdf
B. Development Management Policies Document https://www.south-norfolk.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Development_Management_Policies_Document_0.pdf
C. Norfolk County Council: Safe, Sustainable Development Aims and Guidance notes for Local Highway Authority requirements in Development Management (revised November 2015) https://www.norfolk.gov.uk/rubbish-recycling-and-planning/planning-applications/highway-guidance-for-development/publications
D. Greater Norwich Plan - Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA) Addendum October 2018 http://www.gnlp.org.uk/assets/Uploads/HELAA-addendum-2018-final.pdf
E. South Norfolk Place-Making Guide Supplementary Planning Document September 2012 - https://www.south-norfolk.gov.uk/sites/default/files/South_Norfolk_Place-Making_Guide_SPD_0.pdf
F. South Norfolk District Council Site Specific Allocations and Policies Document (effective 26 October 2015 and covers the period up to 2026) https://www.south-norfolk.gov.uk/residents/planning/planning-policy/adopted-south-norfolk-local-plan/site-specific-allocations-and
G. Human Rights Act 19998, Article 8 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedule/1/part/I/chapter/7

Comments and Objection to Greater Norwich Local Plan (GNLP) Regulation 18 - New, revised and small sites (2018): GNLP Ref; 2061

Dear Sir or Madam,

We wish to make you aware of a number of strong objections that we have with regard to the proposed development of additional properties beyond the settlement boundaries of Rockland St Mary as set out in the subject Regulation (Call for sites), in particular the proposed site GNLP 2061 and in general the other 4 sites at GNLPs; 2007, 2063, 2064 & 2070. As residents of Rockland St Mary we are of the view that the proposed development will have a serious impact on residents standard of living and wellbeing. Our specific objections are as follows:

1. NON-COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL PLAN POLICIES. We strongly feel that the proposed access route to/from the site at GNLP2061 will present a significant safety hazard to road users. In particular with regard to the guidelines laid out in Reference C, "Development must have safe vehicular and (where appropriate), pedestrian, cycle, equestrian links to a public highway. New accesses and junctions, (or existing accesses and junctions subject to a material change in traffic or use) must (in terms of geometric layout, visibility and construction) be safe. Importance is placed not only on those using the access, but also on the safety of road users passing the site". Further detail to highlight this point as follows:

a. The proposed access road to GNLP 2061 directly abuts the property at XXX The Street. This property was built circa 1850 (prior to the invention of the motor vehicle) and access to the highway is dangerous due to the very restricted lines of sight to the highway.

b. As defined in Reference C, "New accesses and junctions, (or existing accesses and junctions subject to a material change in traffic or use) must (in terms of geometric layout, visibility and construction) be safe. Importance is placed not only on those using the access, but also on the safety of road users passing the site." A new access point adjacent to XXX The Street would not be safe and it would significantly increase the danger to all road users using that particular section of The Street.

c. The difficulty currently experienced in exiting our property at XXX The Street is such that, because of the very restricted lines of sight we cannot physically see any oncoming traffic going from right to left until the front of our vehicle is almost on the centre line of the highway. We have to rely on winding down both windows to listen for any oncoming motor traffic (the situation with non-motor traffic such as pedestrians, cyclists etc heightens the danger even further) and then exit at a very slow pace.

d. Numerous times we have experienced near misses or irate reactions from other road users who travel through the village at speed. We tried to improve the line of sight to the right about 6 years ago when we landscaped the front of the property by replacing a section of fencing beside the exit and "kicking-back" the new fence at an angle but the line of sight benefit has been negligible.

e. It should also be noted by the planners that when considering this access point that consideration is given to section G 2.2 of Reference C in that "The eye line of drivers can vary from 1.05m above the carriageway in a standard car to approximately 2m in commercial vehicles. For drivers to see and be seen by pedestrians and wheel chair users, unobstructed visibility is required to a point 0.6m above ground level. To enable drivers to see other drivers and road users across summits; around bends; and at junctions; unobstructed visibility is required between the height range 0.6m to 2m". The line of sight from the proposed access to GNLP 2061 is blocked by a solid brick wall that borders the property at XXX The Street which is 1.4m high and runs directly up to and meets the footpath thereby affording road users wishing to exit the new access point even more limited visibility to the highway due to non-existent splay to the highway and extremely poor line of sight visibility making it extremely dangerous to all road users.

f. Further to this when two road users are trying to exit both the property at XXX The Street and another road user from the access to GNLP 2061, then inevitably this will result in a further increase in danger and chance of a collision.

g. Please note the following photographs that illustrates the difficulty in exiting the entrance of XXX The Street adjacent to the entrance to proposed site at GNLP 2061:

Figure 1: Drivers line of sight view when front of vehicle is right up to the edge of the footpath (facing West). N.B. The close proximity of the entrance to XX The Street opposite and, to the left of the wooden fence, the driveway to XX The Street (partially obscured).

Figure 2. Minimum distance the vehicle has to move on to the highway to obtain a safe line of sight when exiting XXX The Street (almost to the centre line of the highway).

Figure 3. Drivers view (west) from vehicle at position shown in Figure 2.
h. Given that the exit from XXX The Street has poor lines of sight particularly to the right where it exits directly in to oncoming traffic, it can be strongly argued that by adding in an additional access to the highway directly adjacent to, it would greatly exacerbate the problem and be unsafe for all road users.

i. Notwithstanding the additional entrance to the proposed site at GNLP 2061 the existing problem is compounded by the close proximity of the two entrances to the properties opposite (XX & XX) and the low-setting sun in the winter months that shines directly down the street which causes even greater reduction in ability to see oncoming traffic which in turn, makes this an extremely dangerous place to position an access point let alone one that would service 25 properties and all the additional traffic that would use the new access. The proposed developments are out of scale with the character of the settlement and are unacceptable and will create conflicts between pedestrians, cyclists and vehicular movements thereby creating a safety hazard.

j. It should be noted that on page 341 of Reference D - The site suitability conclusions for Rockland St Mary GNLP 2061 of the Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA) Addendum October 2018 were that "Access to the site, via what is a narrow field access, from the Street is likely to be difficult. The access is approximately eight metres wide and continues for at least 40 metres before widening to what is a 'backland' site. Initial Highways Authority evidence has indicated concerns about whether an access could be achieved, but as mitigations may be possible it is not categorically ruled out for the purposes of the HELAA". It is not apparently evident at all that any mitigation whatsoever could be effected to physically improve the line of site in such a manner as to make access safe for all road users. This therefore would be a dangerous access point, which would not comply with the specific detailed guidelines namely; G2.1, G2.2 and G2.3 laid out in Reference C concerning Norfolk County Council's Highway Access Standards.

2. DETRIMENTAL AFFECT ON THE TOWNSCAPE. The Rockland St Mary Settlement Policy Document Contained in Reference F clearly states as follows: "The village is set on the Yare Valley, and consequently in close proximity to the Broads, with a smaller tributary valley to the south, which together with good views from within the built-up area of the surrounding landscape and the good tree and hedge planting throughout, give the village a pleasant rural character". We feel strongly that the development GLNP 2061 will be detrimental to this and will not "enhance the pleasant rural character".

a. Development of the village is concentrated along The Street with a small detached cluster of development at Rockland Staithe to the east of the village, and an isolated group of houses to the west at The Oaks, Bramerton Lane. A small number of individual dwellings and farmsteads are widely dispersed throughout the remainder of the parish. The village has developed a linear settlement form based along Rookery Hill and The Street. It has experienced some limited estate development, particularly at the eastern end of the village adjacent to Surlingham Lane together with some infill development.

b. The siting of developments behind the land along the street to the North and South would drastically negatively affect the character of the village and set a precedent for future potential developments, which would further erode the character and charm from the village that has seen very little substantial change over the years.

c. Further non-linear development would be to the detriment of the majority of residents and would lead to "town-cramming" through an increase in residences but scant improvement in local amenities due to the constraints of poor public transport links and the existing transport infrastructure not being conducive to sustainable transport. This would have a detrimental effect of the wellbeing of both the immediate and the wider surrounding communities.

3. LOSS OF PRIVACY AND OVERLOOKING. It is stated at in Reference E, The South Norfolk Place Making Guide that "Where a block of development is proposed to include new housing and other uses, for instance in a new local centre, then careful design is required to provide residents with privacy and security". The proposed site of development at GNLP 2061 is at such that the primary amenity area of our garden containing a summer house and a raised terrace seating area, would be severely overlooked from the top rooms of the new development, resulting in a serious invasion of our privacy and we would ask that the planners consider the following.

a. The location of the proposed development GNLP 2061 does not afford adequate privacy for the occupants of the building or of adjacent existing residential properties, particularly with regard to their right to the quiet enjoyment of garden amenities and would impact severely on the existing privacy that existing residents have. We would urge you to consider the responsibilities of the council under the Human Rights Act as defined in Reference G, in particular Protocol 1, Article 1 which states that 'a person has the right to peaceful enjoyment of all their possessions which includes the home and other land".

b. We believe that the proposed development would have a dominating impact on existing residents and our right to the quiet enjoyment of our property. Article 8 of the Human Rights Act states that a person has the substantive right to respect for their private and family life.

c. In the case of Britton vs SOS, the courts reappraised the purpose of the law and concluded that the protection of the countryside falls within the interests of Article 8. Private and family life therefore encompasses not only the home but also the surroundings.

4. GROUND STABILITY AND TREE PRESERVATION. We have serious concerns about the impact the proposed works could have on the stability of our property. The farm track adjacent to XXX the street is a brick built construction and is approximately 150 years old and the property and boundary wall will run along the new access road. Given the age of the building the foundations, if indeed there are any, will be such that the construction of a new access road will have a detrimental affect on the fabric of the property. Any excavation work could have a serious adverse impact upon the stability of the existing structure. We also have concerns over the impact any construction would have on a large mature Walnut Tree that is on the edge of our property beside the farm track. Furthermore, we would ask that the following points be taken into consideration.

a. Major construction work would be necessary directly next to our home to convert the farm track adjoining our circa-1850s property and construct an access road. We have serious concerns about the impact that such works, including excavations directly next to our home, would have on the stability of the property.

b. Further to this, there is a large (approx. 30m) mature Walnut Tree that stands close to the proposed access approximately 20 metres down the Farm Track. The base of this tree is sited less than 2 metres from where the proposed access road would be constructed. Owls use this tree every year for nesting and it also sustains squirrels and other wildlife. A Tree Preservation Order has been submitted to Norfolk County Council.

c. Excavations and ground works that heavy excavation equipment would cause and the extent of excavation for the development would have on the root system of the tree could lead to the loss of the tree. Notwithstanding this, if any roots survived the excavation, or a new root system regenerated, they would reach beneath the proposed access road, therefore we also have concerns about the effect that the roots could have on the foundations of the access road in the future and requests to remove the tree that might stem from this. One of the council's broad aims set out in the Local Plan is to protect or enhance the local environment including wildlife habitats, trees and woodland. The area concerned is also a wildlife haven for many birds and animals and adds significantly to the amenity of the area.

5. DETRIMENTAL IMPACT UPON THE LOCAL ENVIRONMENT. Rockland St Mary is a linear village that is characterised in the main by detached and semi detached properties that run along either side of the main street which look out onto open fields, marshes and woodlands in an area that directly borders the Broads Authority Area that has similar status to the national parks in England and Wales and the areas of land to the North and South of "The Street" in Rockland St Mary both serve as vital "Wildlife Corridors" that are used by all manner of wildlife which mitigates the harm to the environment caused by Eutrophication from Farming and Sewage. The Broads are Britain's largest protected wetland and are home to a wealth of birdlife. Amongst the species seen are mallard, coot, moorhen, great crested grebe, greylag goose, Canada goose, Egyptian goose, grey heron, marsh harrier, cormorant, kestrel, sparrow hawk and bittern. The habitat surrounding the settlement area of Rockland St Mary is home as well to numerous deer that would be impacted by this development. Ecological constraints relate to the GNLP 2061 site's proximity to habitats in the Broads. The site is 200 metres from the Broads Authority administrative area and within the 3,000 metre buffer distance to SAC (Special Area of Conservation), SPA (Special Protection Area), SSSI (Sites of Special Scientific Importance), Ramsar and National Nature Reserve designations. Any new development of such scale would also negatively impact the environment with regard to increases in noise and light pollution, which would have a detrimental effect on the wellbeing of the existing community

6. IMPACT UPON RESIDENTIAL AMENITIES. The impact of an increase in population would have positive and negative effects on the amenities that serve the settlement. There would be benefits in greater footfall to private businesses that currently serve the village, which would potentially improve the life of residents through small gains in employment and other associated benefits such as enhanced provisions of service.

a. The amenities are limited however, for example the existing medical practice (part of the Heathgate Surgery Practice) operates on a restricted part-time basis (3 days a week) with the provision for cover outside of these times being served by practices located in Poringland, Loddon and beyond.

b. An increase in population would therefore serve to an increase in travel to and from the village, largely in motor vehicles. The nearest supermarkets are 6 miles distant so an increase in population would lead to an increase in motor vehicle traffic through the village either by residents or delivery vans.

c. The settlement has a range of social and community facilities including a primary school, post office, shop, doctors surgery and village hall. Other amenities such as secondary/further education are located in Framingham Earl or Norwich in the main as well as other amenities needed by the village such as dental practices, pharmacies, supermarkets etc. Again this would lead to a marked increase in motor vehicle traffic through the village.

d. Employment opportunities within the settlement are relatively scarce and most residents of working age predominantly work away from the village in the city of Norwich and surrounding service towns, again adding increased load to the traffic flow.

7. IMPACT FROM OVERFLOW TRAFFIC FROM A146 CONGESTION. The village of Rockland St Mary is becoming increasingly impacted by the overflow traffic that re-routes to and from Norwich along the A146 in order to avoid lengthy delays caused both by difficulties in access the highway due to sheer volumes of traffic at peak periods to delays in journey time due to the slow average moving speed of traffic at peak periods. Drivers are increasingly using the route through the surrounding villages including; Langley, Claxton, Rockland St Mary, Bramerton and Kirby Bedon to gain easier access to and from Norwich. The change in routing for a large number of Mini Buses from using the A146 to cutting through Rockland St Mary and the surrounding villages is testament to this. Further to this, the Street in Rockland St Mary has become "dominated" by the motor vehicle and has ceased to become a shared space for the community for all to use safely. Consideration should be given with regard to the following:

a. As the road has become more dominated by motor vehicles, we see fewer children cycling/walking from their homes to the local Primary School with many parents driving to a point near the junction at School Lane where they can safely and easily walk their children to school. Congestion at this junction and inconsiderate parking are commonplace. The addition of a proposed 25 further homes at GNLP 2061 will exacerbate the problem to the detriment of the community, which will be compounded yet further by granting planning permission to the other additional proposed sites at GNLPs; 2007, 2063, 2064 & 2070.

9. IMPACT ON SUSTRANS NATIONAL CYCLE ROUTE 1. Rockland St Mary forms part of Sustrans National Route which enters the village along Surlingham Lane and routes along The Street and through past the New Inn out of the village through the neighbouring villages of Claxton, Langley, Chedgrave, Loddon and beyond. Siting more residential developments in Rockland St Mary will inevitably lead to an increase in Motor Vehicle use which will deter people from using sustainable forms of transport such as the bicycle due to the increase in perceived danger people have as they see our roads get busier. The existing road infrastructure is not suited to creating cycle paths that are physically separated from motor vehicle traffic so this will only deter people from getting out of motor vehicle transport and on to sustainable forms of transport such as the bicycle. This has wider reaching negative effects on people's mental and physical health as well as their wellbeing and also has a negative impact on the environment.

10. SUMMARY. In summary, Rockland St Mary is a settlement of some approximately 325 homes (2001 census) which has seen the addition of the development at Eel Catcher close and a further development of 21 homes currently being constructed behind Bee Orchid Way. Together these two developments will provide an increase of approximately 10% of dwellings in the settlement which I believe is wholly appropriate. Any further increase will drastically alter the character of the village and over-burden the few existing amenities it has. We would be grateful if the council would take our objections into consideration when deciding this application. We would welcome the opportunity to meet with a representative of the planning department at our home to illustrate our objections at first hand. In closing, we object to the five proposed applications in the GNLP call for sites for Rockland St Mary as follows:

a. GNLP 2061. We STRONGLY OBJECT to the proposed application for backfield site for development located at GNLP 2061 for all of the aforementioned reasons cited in paragraphs 1-9 (incl) of this letter.
b. GNLPs 2063 & 2064. We OBJECT to the proposed applications for backfield sites for reasons cited in Paragraphs: 2, 3, 5, 7 & 9 above.
c. GNLPs 2007 & 2071 We OBJECT to the to the proposed application for site for development for the reasons cited in Paragraphs: 2, 5, 6, 7 above.

As a resident of Rockland St Mary, at xxxxxxxxx, and as part of the Public Consultation, I would like to make clear the reasons for my opposition to all 7 of the sites put forward.

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

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

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

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

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

I strongly OBJECT to this proposed site for the following reasons:

NON-COMPLIANCE WITH NATIONAL PLANNING GUIDANCE/NORFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL PLANNING POLICIES

As defined in Section 5 of the South Norfolk Site Specific Allocations and Policies Document, Policy 15 of the Joint Core Strategy (JCS) identifies Rockland St Mary as "a Service Village in which land will be allocated for small-scale housing growth in the period 1 April 2008 to 31 March 2026, within the range of 10-20 dwellings, subject to form, character and servicing constraints".

Rockland St Mary has already experienced an increase in dwellings within the village since 1 April 2008 that have increased the number of dwellings in the village in excess of 10% (of the 2001 census figure of 325 homes) on Eel Catcher close and a current development of 21 dwellings in Bee-Orchid Way.

Backfill developments behind The Street will be intrusive and significantly alter the linear character of the village and will not be in keeping with what are in the main single dwellings on large clearly individual or shared distinct plots that give the village it's charm and character.

Any development at the proposed site GNLP 2061 will lead to a loss of privacy and overlooking to the existing properties along The Street that are located within the Settlement Boundary. It is likely that like most other modern developments these homes would be large properties situated on relatively small plots and would no be in keeping with the vernacular dwellings.

The Government's current planning policies on different aspects of land use planning in England are set out in the National Planning Policy Framework13 (NPPF). The NPPF came into effect on 27th March 2012, replacing previously published planning policy statements and guidance in England. This included PPS7 Planning for Sustainable Development in Rural Areas, which included specific policies on LLDs.

2.1.4 The importance of landscape character is acknowledged in the NPPF's core planning principles:

Section '11. 'Planning should take account of the different roles and character of different areas, promoting the vitality of our main urban areas, protecting the Green Belts around them, recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and supporting thriving rural communities within it'.

2.1.5 Section 11 of the NPPF sets out the Government's planning policies on conserving and enhancing the natural environment, including the landscape: The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, geological conservation interests and soils '

Any development at GNLP 2061 would be to the detriment of the intrinsic character and the beauty of the countryside that surrounds the village and therefore this application should be REFUSED as it would not meet the spirit of the NPPF or Norfolk County Council's planning guidelines and would be outside of the settlement boundary.

FAILURE TO MEET KEY DESIGN PRINCIPLES

Among the Key design principles of South Norfolk District Council's Place Making Guide https://www.southnorfolk.gov.uk/sites/default/files/South_Norfolk_Place-Making_Guide_SPD_0.pdf are the following Key Principles:

"Respect the existing characteristic pattern of linear settlements at The Broads fringe with settlements
dispersed across the landscape elsewhere". The proposed development at GNLP 2061 does NOT respect this principle as it will be an uncharacteristic "back-fill development".

"Ensure that the rural quality is maintained including the rural lane network". Development at GNLP 2061 will inevitably lead to an increase in Motor Vehicle traffic that will deteriorate the rural quality of the village.

"Consider the impact of development on the skyline of open areas". The proposed development at GNLP 2061 does NOT respect this principle as it will be an uncharacteristic "back-fill development" and will have detrimental impacts on the privacy to existing residents and it will drastically alter the skyline of this open area.

INCREASED RISK IN TRAFFIC CONFLICT

This application should be REFUSED as any development will further increase the risk of traffic conflict. The villages of Langley, Chedgrave, Claxton, Rockland St Mary, Bramerton and Kirby Bedon have all suffered from a considerable increase in volume of motor traffic due to the intense load on the A146 that runs from Lowestoft to Norwich.

Drivers are increasingly using the route through these villages to get around the difficulties and dangers of joining the A146 from the many access points along the A146. This can be readily witnessed by the change in route that a large number of mini-buses from Langley School take now to get to and from the city of Norwich and it's environs. In recent times it is noticeable that these vehicles (and others) use the small country roads that wind through the aforementioned villages to avoid lengthy delays and dangerous accesses to the A146.

DISTANCE FROM ROAD JUNCTIONS

The access to the highway from the proposed site at GNLP 2061 would be DANGEROUS and a severe risk to PUBLIC SAFETY. This proposed access point is too narrow and too close to the existing access point to 101 The Street. Norfolk County Council's Publication "Vehicle Access Crossing: - Guidance - April 2010" clearly states the following:

"Distance from road junctions If the location of the proposed crossing is closer than 10m to a road junction it would create a serious hazard and the application will be refused. This dimension may be increased to 15m on major roads or near to busy junctions".

This publication while a guideline for property owners and it can be strongly argued that they would naturally apply to the proposed access road to this development. Furthermore the existing farm track is of insufficient width to accommodate a road that linked the development to the existing highway.

VISIBILITY REQUIREMENTS

The same document states that "Adequate visibility enables road users to see a potential hazard in time to slow down or stop comfortably before reaching it. The application will be refused if the crossing does not meet visibility requirements set within published industry standards. Consideration will be given to the driver's line of vision in both the vertical and horizontal planes".

Further guidelines concerning Highway Access Standards are enshrined in Norfolk County Council Publication "Safe, Sustainable Development Aims and Guidance notes for Local Highway Authority requirements in Development Management" under Guidance Note 2 "Highway Access Standards" as follows:

G2.1 Development must have safe vehicular and (where appropriate), pedestrian, cycle, equestrian links to a public highway.

Due to the physical limitations to visibility splays and lines of sight caused by the existing structures and buildings the lack of sufficient Stopping Sight Distances then this proposal should be REFUSED due to SAFE vehicular and (where appropriate), pedestrian, cycle, equestrian links to the public highway not being achievable from GNLP 2061 to The Street. This problem is compounded yet further by the close proximity of entrances to two existing properties directly opposite and to the right of the proposed site access road and to the left of the proposed access road. All within 10 metres.


ROAD SAFETY - EXISTING SURFACE WATER FLOODING OF THE HIGHWAY

It should be noted that this narrow road that makes it's way through these settlements is prone to FLOODING at certain times of the year. Notable road sections that frequently experience partial or complete repeat flooding are:

1. The bend leading into Rockland St Mary that regularly floods and becomes a single passing place on a blind bend as drivers habitually drive on the wrong side of the road heading into the village. Flood water often extends beyond the centre line of the road from the inside verge of the bend.

2 In Bramerton, close to the Christadelphinians meeting room, this road habitually experiences flood from agricultural land surface water run-off. Often this flooding covers the entire carriageway and can get quite deep. This flood point is very close to a junction on a bend that leads to Surlingham.

3. Partial flooding often occurs along a section just outside of Rockland St Mary leading into Bramerton.

4. Other problem areas can be regularly experienced in the same road through Claxton past the Village Hall again partially flooding the road to the centre line.

5. The section of road leading from Rockalnd St Mary toward Norwich in front of the property adjacent to Sallow Lane often floods to the centre line of the road.

Any increase in residential developments in these villages wold inevitably lead to an increase in volume of motor traffic which will work against Norfolk County Councils stated aim the increase the use of sustainable transport as it will make cycling an even less attractive option to to the heightened risk of Traffic Conflict. Numerous areas that are prone to significant flooding will only add to the increased chance of a traffic conflict and this problem can be worsened further still should there be a significant drop in temperature below zero degrees celsius which would likely freeze any standing surface water on the carriageway.

As defined clearly in the Norfolk County Council Highway Guidance - Advice for Developers: "The development must be served by approach roads with the capacity to cater for the type and level of traffic likely to be generated, without prejudice to highway safety, particularly focusing on the most vulnerable road users"

Development at GNLP 2061 will be in direct conflict to this guideline and therefore it should be REFUSED on account of PUBLIC SAFETY, in particular with regard to the most vulnerable road users given the existence of Sustrans National Cycle Route Number 1 that traverses through the aforementioned villages in this objection.

This development along with the other proposed development in Rockland will all inevitably have a detrimental impact on ROAD SAFETY. Furthermore, the effects would be cumulative should any development be agreed and will have a hugely negative impact on all these communities that would far outweigh any perceived benefits for the reasons stated above. The planners are respectfully asked to take into account the mental and physical wellbeing and health of the existing community as well as the safety of VULNERABLE ROAD USERS and REFUSE this application outright.

In summary the proposed site at GNLP should also be REFUSED as it clearly would not meet the Joint Core Strategy (JCS) for Broadland, Norwich and South Norfolk

The JCS vision states that 'there will be excellent public open space, sport and recreational facilities and community centres'. Objective 9 states that 'Development must provide environmental gains through green infrastructure...' and Objective 11 states that 'the accessibility of open space, the countryside, sports and recreational facilities will be improved'. JCS Policy 1 requires the development of a multi-functional green network - which provides opportunities for formal and informal recreation, walking and cycling, as well as encouraging and promoting biodiversity and acting to mitigate flood risk and combat the effects of climate change'.


The danger to PUBLIC SAFETY from an increased risk in TRAFFIC CONFLICT on both Sustrans National Cycle Route Number 1 and on the road that leads from Loddon to Bixley to VULNERABLE ROAD USERS caused by any development in Rockland St Mary and it's neighbouring villages would result in a notable increase motor vehicle traffic that would be neither SUSTAINABLE nor SAFE and therefore planning permission should be REFUSED.

I OBJECT to the proposed site GNLP 2061 for the following reasons:

1.0 NON-COMPLIANCE WITH NATIONAL PLANNING GUIDANCE/NORFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL PLANNING POLICIES. As defined in Section 5 of the South Norfolk Site Specific Allocations and Policies Document, Policy 15 of the Joint Core Strategy (JCS) identifies Rockland St Mary as "a Service Village in which land will be allocated for small-scale housing growth in the period 1 April 2008 to 31 March 2026, within the range of 10-20 dwellings, subject to form, character and servicing constraints".

1.1 Rockland St Mary has already experienced an increase in dwellings within the village, since 1 April 2008 that have increased the number of dwellings in the village of circa 10% (of the last census figure of 324 homes) on both Eel Catcher close and a current development of 21 dwellings in Bee-Orchid Way.

1.2 Backfill developments behind The Street will be intrusive and significantly alter the linear character of the village and will not be in keeping with what are in the main, single dwellings on relatively large clearly defined individual or shared plots that give the village much of it's charm and character. Any development at the proposed site GNLP 2061 will lead to a loss of privacy and cause overlooking to the existing properties along The Street that are located within the Settlement Boundary. It is likely that like most other modern developments these homes would be large properties situated on relatively small plots and would not be in keeping with the vernacular dwellings.

1.3 The Government's current planning policies on different aspects of land use planning in England are set out in the National Planning Policy Framework13 (NPPF). The NPPF came into effect on 27th March 2012, replacing previously published planning policy statements and guidance in England. This included PPS7 Planning for Sustainable Development in Rural Areas, which included specific policies on LLDs:

a. The importance of landscape character is acknowledged in the NPPF's core planning principles: Section '11. 'Planning should take account of the different roles and character of different areas, promoting the vitality of our main urban areas, protecting the Green Belts around them, recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and supporting thriving rural communities within it'.

b. Section 11 of the NPPF sets out the Government's
planning policies on conserving and enhancing the natural environment, including the landscape.

c. '109. The planning system should contribute to and
enhance the natural and local environment by protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, geological conservation interests and soils '

1.4 Any development at GNLP 2061 would be to the detriment of the intrinsic character and the beauty of the countryside that surrounds the village and therefore this application should be REFUSED as it would not meet the spirit of the NPPF or Norfolk County Council's planning guidelines and would be outside of the settlement boundary.

1.5 OBJECTION: This application should be REFUSED because of non-compliance with National Planning Guidance/Norfolk County Council Planning Policies due to this site:

a. Not being located within the existing settlement boundary and the intrusive nature of back-field sites leading to loss of privacy and overlooking of existing dwellings and any development would not be in keeping with the linear nature of the village.

b. The detrimental impact such a development would cause to the natural local natural environment and the NPPF core planning principle of "protecting the Green Belts around them, recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and supporting thriving rural communities within it.

c. Not positively contribute to nor enhance the natural valued green field landscape.


2.0 FAILURE TO MEET NORFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL'S SAFE, SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES FOR LOCAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY REQUIREMENTS - UNSAFE ACCESS TO THE HIGHWAY. The proposed access to the highway for GNLP 2061 utilising the existing farm track would not meet the guidelines set out by Norfolk County Council for safe sustainable development. The farm track is NOT approximately 8 meters wide despite the assertions of the Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA) Addendum October 2018 "The access is approximately eight metres wide and continues for at least 40 metres before widening to what is a 'backland' site. Initial Highways Authority evidence has indicated concerns about whether an access could be achieved, but as mitigations may be possible it is not categorically ruled out for the purposes of the HELAA." and also, the comment to the GNLP in support of GNLP 2061 by Mr Julian Wells (FW Properties) the developer who states: "Our highway engineers have confirmed that the existing 8 metre wide field access to this land would be more than sufficient to provide an adoptable highway and pavement(s) to this new development. In addition, they believe that an appropriate visibility splay could be provided on to the Street". The width of the farm track actually approx. 6.5 metres. This access would not be conducive to a safe access to the public highway with adequate provision of pavements due to width constraints.

2.1 The proposed access route to/from the site at GNLP2061 will present a significant safety hazard to road users. In particular with regard to the guidelines laid out in Norfolk County Council's Safe, Sustainable Development Guidelines for Local Highway Authority Requirements: "Development must have safe vehicular and (where appropriate), pedestrian, cycle, equestrian links to a public highway. New accesses and junctions, (or existing accesses and junctions subject to a material change in traffic or use) must (in terms of geometric layout, visibility and construction) be safe. Importance is placed not only on those using the access, but also on the safety of road users passing the site".

2.2 The proposed access to GNLP 2061 directly abuts the property at 101 The Street. This property was built circa 1850 (prior to the invention of the motor vehicle) and access to the highway is dangerous due to the very restricted lines of sight to the highway and lack of adequate visibility splay contravening the council's stopping sight distance (SSD) guidelines.

2.3 As defined in Norfolk County Council's Safe, Sustainable Development Guidelines for Local Highway Authority Requirements: , "New accesses and junctions, (or existing accesses and junctions subject to a material change in traffic or use) must (in terms of geometric layout, visibility and construction) be safe. Importance is placed not only on those using the access, but also on the safety of road users passing the site." A new access point adjacent to 101 The Street would not be safe and it would significantly increase the danger to all road users using that particular section of The Street.

2.4 The difficulty currently experienced in exiting the property at 101 The Street is such that, because of the very restricted lines of sight it is not possible to physically see any oncoming traffic going from right to left until the front of the vehicle is almost on the centre line of the highway. We have to rely on winding down both windows to listen for any oncoming motor traffic (the situation with non-motor traffic and vulnerable road users such as disabled people, pedestrians, cyclists etc heightens the danger even further) and then exit at a very slow pace.

2.5 Experience of numerous near misses or irate reactions from other road users who travel through the village at speed already show the potential for even greater problems and increased risk of a traffic conflict. In an effort to improve the line of sight to the right about 6 years ago when landscaping the front of the 101The Street by replacing a section of fencing beside the exit and "kicking-back" the new fence at an angle but the line of sight benefit has been negligible.

2.6 It should also be noted by the planners that when considering this access point that consideration is given to section G 2.2 of Norfolk County Council's Safe, Sustainable Development Guidelines for Local Highway Authority Requirements that: "The eye line of drivers can vary from 1.05m above the carriageway in a standard car to approximately 2m in commercial vehicles. For drivers to see and be seen by pedestrians and wheel chair users, unobstructed visibility is required to a point 0.6m above ground level. To enable drivers to see other drivers and road users across summits; around bends; and at junctions; unobstructed visibility is required between the height range 0.6m to 2m".

2.7 The line of sight from the proposed access to GNLP 2061 is blocked by a solid brick wall that borders the property at 101 The Street which is 1.4m high and runs directly up to and meets the footpath thereby affording road users wishing to exit the new access point even more limited visibility to the highway due to non-existent splay to the highway and extremely poor line of sight visibility due to lack of visibility splay making it extremely dangerous to all road users.

2.8 Further to this, when two road users are trying to exit both the property at 101 The Street and another road user from the access to GNLP 2061, then inevitably this will result in a further increase in danger and chance of a collision. This risk is heightened by the very close proximity of other neighbouring properties with access point to the highway.

2.9 OBJECTION: Due to the unsafe access because of poor lines of sight and inadequate visibility splays leading to increased risk of traffic conflict creating unacceptable risk to all road users particularly vulnerable people it is recommended that this proposed site application should be REFUSED.


3.0 GROUND STABILITY AND TREE PRESERVATION. There are serious concerns about the impact the proposed works could have on the stability of our property. The farm track adjacent to 101 the street is a brick built construction and is approximately 150 years old and the property and boundary wall will run along the new access road. Given the age of the building the foundations, if indeed there are any, will be such that the construction of a new access road will have a detrimental affect on the fabric of the property. Any excavation work could have a serious adverse impact upon the stability of the existing structure. We also have concerns over the impact any construction would have on a large mature Walnut Tree that is on the edge of our property beside the farm track. Furthermore, we would ask that the following points be taken into consideration:

a Major construction work would be necessary directly next to our home to convert the farm track adjoining our circa-1850s property and construct an access road. We have serious concerns about the impact that such works, including excavations directly next to our home, would have on the stability of the property.

b. Further to this, there is a large (approx. 30m) mature Walnut Tree that stands close to the proposed access approximately 20 metres down the Farm Track. The base of this tree is sited less than 2 metres from where the proposed access road would be constructed. Owls use this tree every year for nesting and it also sustains squirrels and other wildlife. A Tree Preservation Order has been submitted to Norfolk County Council.

c. Excavations and ground works that heavy excavation equipment would cause and the extent of excavation for the development would have on the root system of the tree could lead to the loss of the tree. Notwithstanding this, if any roots survived the excavation, or a new root system regenerated, they would reach beneath the proposed access road, therefore we also have concerns about the effect that the roots could have on the foundations of the access road in the future and requests to remove the tree that might stem from this. One of the council's broad aims set out in the Local Plan is to protect or enhance the local environment including wildlife habitats, trees and woodland. The area concerned is also a wildlife haven for many birds and animals and adds significantly to the amenity of the area.

3.1 OBJECTION: Due to the detrimental affect on the existing structure at 101 The Street and the potential for harm to well established mature Walnut Tree it is recommended that this application is REFUSED


4.0 FAILURE TO MEET KEY DESIGN PRINCIPLES. Among the Key design principles of South Norfolk District Council's Place Making Guide https://www.southnorfolk.gov.uk/sites/default/files/South_Norfolk_Place-Making_Guide_SPD_0.pdf are the following Key Principles:

a. "Respect the existing characteristic pattern of linear settlements at The Broads fringe with settlements
dispersed across the landscape elsewhere". The proposed development at GNLP 2061 does NOT respect this principle as it will be an uncharacteristic "back-fill development".

b. "Ensure that the rural quality is maintained including the rural lane network". Development at GNLP 2061 will inevitably lead to an increase in Motor Vehicle traffic that will deteriorate the rural quality of the village.

c. "Consider the impact of development on the skyline of open areas". The proposed development at GNLP 2061 does NOT respect this principle as it will be an uncharacteristic "back-fill development" and will have detrimental impacts on the privacy to existing residents and it will drastically alter the skyline of this open area.

4.1 OBJECTION: As the proposed site does not respect existing characteristic pattern of linear settlements, will not go toward assisting the rural quality of the rural lane network and will impact the skyline of open areas this application should be REFUSED because it FAILS to meet Key Design Principles.

5.0 ROAD SAFETY - INCREASED RISK IN TRAFFIC CONFLICT FROM HIGHER MOTOR VEHICLE USE ON UNSUITABLE ROADS. The villages of Langley, Chedgrave, Claxton, Rockland St Mary, Bramerton and Kirby Bedon have all suffered from a considerable increase in volume of motor traffic due to the intense load on the A146 that runs from Lowestoft to Norwich.

5.1 Drivers are increasingly using the route through these villages to get around the difficulties and dangers of joining the A146 from the many access points along the A146. This can be readily witnessed by the change in route that a large number of mini-buses from Langley School take now to get to and from the city of Norwich and it's environs. In recent times it is noticeable that these vehicles (and others) use the small country roads that wind through the aforementioned villages to avoid lengthy delays and dangerous accesses to the A146.

5.2 OBJECTION: This application should be REFUSED as any development will further increase the risk of traffic conflict from greater motor vehicle traffic on unsuitable roads which will impact vulnerable road users deterring greater use of sustainable transport and increase risks to public safety.


6.0 ROAD SAFETY - EXISTING PERIODICAL HIGHWAY SURFACE WATER FLOOD HAZARDS TO ROAD USERS. It should be noted that this narrow road that makes it's way through these settlements is prone to FLOODING at certain times of the year. Notable road sections that frequently experience partial or complete repeat flooding hazardous to road users that are:

a. The bend leading into Rockland St Mary that regularly floods and becomes a single passing place on a blind bend as drivers habitually drive on the wrong side of the road heading into the village. Flood water often extends beyond the centre line of the road from the inside verge of the bend.

b. In Bramerton, close to the Christadelphinians meeting room, this road habitually experiences flood from agricultural land surface water run-off. Often this flooding covers the entire carriageway and can get quite deep. This flood point is very close to a junction on a bend that leads to Surlingham.

c. Partial flooding often occurs along a section just outside of Rockland St Mary leading into Bramerton.

d. Other problem areas can be regularly experienced in the same road through Claxton past the Village Hall again partially flooding the road to the centre line.

e. The section of road leading from Rockland St Mary toward Norwich in front of the property adjacent to Sallow Lane often floods up to the centre line of the road.

6.1 Any increase in residential developments in these villages would inevitably lead to an increase in volume of motor traffic which will work against Norfolk County Councils stated aim to increase the use of sustainable transport as it will make cycling an even less attractive option to to the heightened risk of Traffic Conflict. Numerous areas that are prone to significant flooding will only add to the increased chance of a traffic conflict and this problem can be worsened further still should there be a significant drop in temperature below zero degrees Celsius, which would likely freeze any standing surface water on the carriageway.

6.2 As defined clearly in the Norfolk County Council Highway Guidance - Advice for Developers: "The development must be served by approach roads with the capacity to cater for the type and level of traffic likely to be generated, without prejudice to highway safety, particularly focusing on the most vulnerable road users"

6.3 Development at GNLP 2061 will be in direct conflict to this guideline and therefore it should be REFUSED on account of PUBLIC SAFETY, in particular with regard to the most vulnerable road users given the existence of Sustrans National Cycle Route Number 1 that traverses through the aforementioned villages in this objection.

6.4 This development along with the other proposed development in Rockland St Mary will all inevitably have a detrimental impact on ROAD SAFETY. Furthermore, the effects would be cumulative should any development be agreed and will have a hugely negative impact on all these communities that would far outweigh any perceived benefits for the reasons stated above. The planners are respectfully asked to take into account the mental and physical wellbeing and health of the existing community as well as the safety of VULNERABLE ROAD USERS and REFUSE this application outright.

6.5 The JCS vision states that 'there will be excellent public open space, sport and recreational facilities and community centres'. Objective 9 states that 'Development must provide environmental gains through green infrastructure...' and Objective 11 states that 'the accessibility of open space, the countryside, sports and recreational facilities will be improved'. JCS Policy 1 requires the development of a multi-functional green network - which provides opportunities for formal and informal recreation, walking and cycling, as well as encouraging and promoting biodiversity and acting to mitigate flood risk and combat the effects of climate change'.

6.6 OBJECTION: The proposed site at GNLP 2061 should be REFUSED as it would not meet the Joint Core Strategy (JCS) for Broadland, Norwich and South Norfolk because of the detrimental impact upon the existing community from increased use of inadequate roads by motor vehicles and the inherent dangers caused by surface water flooding to many areas of the highway and the lack of a creditable sustainable transport plan to protect vulnerable road users and encourage less reliance on motor vehicle transport.


7.0 Ecological Constraints to Site and Detrimental Impact on Biodiversity. Rockland St Mary is classified as a Service Village in the Joint Core Strategy. The village has developed as a linear settlement form based along Rookery Hill and The Street. It has experienced some limited estate development, particularly at the eastern end of the village adjacent to Surlingham Lane together with some infill development. The village is set in the Yare Valley, close to the Broads Authority area and ecological constraints relate to the site's proximity to habitats in the Broads. The site is 200 metres from the Broads Authority administrative area and within the Joint Nature Conservation Council's 3,000 metre buffer distance to SAC (Special Area of Conservation), SPA (Special Protection Area), SSSI (Sites of Special Scientific Importance), Ramsar and National Nature Reserve designations.

7.1 2016 State of Nature Report. The UK is now one of the "most nature-depleted countries in the world" with more than one in seven species facing extinction and more than half in decline, according to the State of Nature 2016 report. The report, which was produced by more than 50 different organisations including the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB), the National Trust, the Marine Conservation Society and the Natural History Museum. Broadcaster and naturalist Sir David Attenborough, who wrote the foreword to the report, said there was a pressing need to take action to help Britain's wildlife. "The natural world is in serious trouble and it needs our help as never before," he said. "The future of nature is under threat and we must work together; Governments, conservationists, businesses and individuals, to help it. "Millions of people in the UK care very passionately about nature and the environment and I believe that we can work together to turn around the fortunes of wildlife". Development of greenfield sites such as GNLP 2061 will be to the detriment of our natural environment.

7.2 Species at risk of extinction include one of the icons of the British countryside: the kingfisher. Other animals in decline include the water vole, curlew, hedgehog, turtle dove and willow tit. The State of Nature report painted a bleak picture. "Between 1970 and 2013, 56 per cent of species declined, with 40 per cent showing strong or moderate declines," it said.
"Of the nearly 8,000 species assessed using modern Red List criteria, 15 per cent are threatened with extinction from Great Britain. "A new measure that assesses how intact a country's biodiversity is, suggests that the UK has lost significantly more nature over the long-term than the global average. The index suggests that we are among the most nature-depleted countries in the world".

7.3 OBJECTION: As this proposed site is situated inside the 3,000-meter buffer distance to SAC (Special Area of Conservation), SPA (Special Protection Area), SSSI (Sites of Special Scientific Importance), Ramsar and National Nature Reserve designations then the application should be REFUSED as it is not within the settlement boundary of the village and would cause harm to the biodiversity of the area by taking up green field sites and greatly impact negatively upon the fragile ecological balance of the location within the buffer-zone.


8.0 SUMMARY: In summary the application for a site at GNLP 2061 should be REFUSED because of the following Objections:

8.1 OBJECTION: This application should be REFUSED because of non-compliance with National Planning Guidance/Norfolk County Council Planning Policies due to this site:

a. Not being located within the existing settlement boundary and the intrusive nature of back-field sites leading to loss of privacy and overlooking of existing dwellings and any development would not be in keeping with the linear nature of the village.

b. The detrimental impact such a development would cause to the natural local natural environment and the NPPF core planning principle of "protecting the Green Belts around them, recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and supporting thriving rural communities within it.

c. Any development in back-field sites will have a negative impact on the skyline of open areas and will contravene the NPPF and NCC Planning Guidelines. The proposed development at GNLP 2061 does NOT respect this principle as it will be an uncharacteristic "back-fill development" and will have detrimental impacts on the privacy to existing residents and it will drastically alter the skyline of this open area.


8.2 OBJECTION: Due to the unsafe access because of poor lines of sight and inadequate visibility splays at the proposed access to GNLP 2061 leading to increased risk of traffic conflict creating unacceptable risk of harm to all road users, particularly vulnerable people, it is recommended that this proposed site application should be REFUSED.

8.3 OBJECTION: Due to the detrimental affect on the existing structure at 101 The Street and the potential for harm to well established mature Walnut Tree it is recommended that this application is REFUSED.

8.4 OBJECTION: As the proposed site does not respect existing characteristic pattern of linear settlements, will not go toward assisting the rural quality of the rural lane network and will impact the skyline of open areas this application should be REFUSED because it FAILS to meet Key Design Principles.

8.5 OBJECTION: This application should be REFUSED as any development will further increase the risk of traffic conflict from greater motor vehicle traffic on unsuitable roads which will impact vulnerable road users deterring greater sue of sustainable transport and increase risks to public safety. The danger to PUBLIC SAFETY from an increased risk in TRAFFIC CONFLICT on both Sustrans National Cycle Route Number 1 and on the road that leads from Loddon to Bixley to VULNERABLE ROAD USERS caused by any development in Rockland St Mary and neighbouring villages would result in a notable increase motor vehicle traffic that would be neither SUSTAINABLE nor SAFE.

8.6 OBJECTION: The proposed site at GNLP 2061 should be REFUSED as it would not meet the Joint Core Strategy (JCS) for Broadland, Norwich and South Norfolk because of the detrimental impact upon the existing community from increased use of inadequate roads by motor vehicles and the inherent dangers caused by surface water flooding to many areas of the highway and the lack of a creditable sustainable transport plan to protect vulnerable road users and encourage less reliance on motor vehicle transport.

8.7 OBJECTION: As this proposed site is situated inside the 3,000-meter buffer distance to SAC (Special Area of Conservation), SPA (Special Protection Area), SSSI (Sites of Special Scientific Importance), Ramsar and National Nature Reserve designations then the application should be REFUSED as it is not within the settlement boundary of the village and would cause harm to the biodiversity of the area by taking up green field sites and greatly impact negatively upon the fragile ecological balance of the location within the buffer-zone.

Apart from being a completely unnecessary developement, there are a number of issues here.
1) wildlife - many birds, bats, and other protected species all live on this area. Why destroy that for housing, when much more suitable locations exist!
2) access - 'The Street' can't cope now with traffic, let alone another 50 odd cars tuning in and out of a tight area. So unsafe, with such a danger to pedestrians walking along. There are a lot of older people in the village, which do have poor eyesight. Crossing extra roads is an unnecessary risk.
3) Pollution - completely unnecessary, especially so close to the Broads.

How can increasing the village using sites GNLP2061 / 2063 / 2064 be in the interest of anyone else, but the developers?

These 3 sites can increase housing in the village by 50%! The whole village would increase by 50% overnight. This is a massive jump for such a small village.

These 3 sites are unsafe due to the access onto 'The Street'. It is a small road, with already 1000 cars coming through daily (1000 cars come through daily according to the Rockland St Mary speed camera, added to the village recently). If you add another 250 houses, that is easily 500 extra cars on the road. Another 500 cars coming through the village. Again, a 50% increase in traffic. That causes pollution, loss of wildlife, and most importantly, the added risk of injury. Only last week, a car crashed into a wall on the Street, causing large damage to the car and wall. This would increase the chances of this happening again and again.

2 of the 3 sites are over the only pathway in the village. The children walk to school along this path. The village is made up of many pensioners, which, respectively, some have poor eyesight. Walking to the post office would become even more troublesome with extra cars coming out of 2 extra junctions.

Local Resources would be stretched to the max., when no additional funding will be added. This has been confirmed by a local councillor.

Local wildlife - there are bats in the back of our garden. I'm sure there are many more in the area. Destroying their own habitat cannot be a good thing. All these sites are close to the Broads National Park. It can't be good for any creature to have large scale development on their doorstep.

Access onto the street is tight enough already with cars parked on the road. Adding another 3 access points along it will cause injury, and possibly worse. It's a shame they have even been proposed.

This proposed site application should be REFUSED.

The proposed road from site would not be a safe access as poor lines of sight and lack of effective visibility splays onto main road making the prospect of a collision with pedestrians (including elderly using mobility scooters, young children walking to/from school) highly likely. Road is also used regularly by recreational cycling clubs. This exit would impact the properties immediately next to and opposite with gaining access and traffic conflict with other road users particularly vulnerable people.

This proposed site is outside of the village settlement boundary and so should be REFUSED.

As one example; When exiting my property yesterday there were vehicles approaching from each direction as well as a cyclist on the street which meant that I had to quickly reverse back into my property to avoid a traffic conflict as the front of my car was on the highway. How would this be possible should a queue of traffic be exiting GNLP2061 at the same time that could well be nose to tail at peak periods (it would be utter chaos) particularly with multiple exits from other properties in such a short space of road!

This development is not in keeping with a linear village and is outside of the settlement boundary.

The back field site is out of keeping with the character and will lead to overlooking and loss of privacy to the existing dwellings that run along The Street and set a dangerous precedent for the future that would lead to the loss of the character and nature of Rockland St Mary.

We have breeding Owls that nest in a large walnut tree adjacent to proposed access road. The walnut tree roots will be endangered due to the road excavation and damage to root structure, which would lead to the loss of the Owl's and other wildlife habitat. Also, large numbers of Bats can be witnessed at dusk in the warmer months as they come out of hibernation and become more active. Additional development would inevitably lead to an increase in noise and light pollution which would negatively affect the Bat colonies feeding habits and thus impact the eco-system.

The roads that run through the villages from Loddon to Norwich are quite narrow in places, prone to flooding and have many blind summits, dips and bends. The inevitable increase in motor traffic from this and other developments will lead to an increase in air pollution, noise pollution and the potential risk of accidents due to road conflict on a poorly maintained highway which should not be allowed to happen for those reasons and furthermore SUSTRANS National Cycle Route 1 passes through much of it.

This development should also not be allowed to take place as it is too close to many sensitive sites in and around Rockland Broad and would have a negative impact of the ecosystem through pollution and adverse impact on wildlife habitats and would be dangerous to all road users particularly vulnerable ones. It would increase use of motor vehicles and detract people from utilising sustainable modes of transport such as walking/cycling. There are very limited facilities in the village so residents would need to travel to secondary further educational establishments and other amenities. There are very limited employment opportunities in the immediate area so it would just add to the net influx of commuters into an already overcrowded city road system adding to the poor air qualities in Norwich. It is simply NOT in the interests of the majority.

Very poor choice of attempted development. Terrible, terrible access points, unsafe coming onto the road like that. Many people will have to cross that road, as only 1 path. The road is very small, so could cause a lot of problems.

Concerned about the wildlife in the area. Lots of protected species nearby. These will have adverse effects onto them.

Rockland St Mary is a lineal village too - this is not suitable for this road at all. Plenty better places to develop either end of the village, so it keeps linear.

Strongly object to this development.

All three sites of GNLP2063, GNLP2061, and GNLP2064 are OUTSIDE the village boundary. They are not in keeping with the village at all! Terrible choices. Very dangerous.

The village is linear! This would make the village unsafe due to these access points!

Not enough utilities space available for all 3 sites.

Rockland is a service village! So a massive jump is not suitable anyway, regardless of location.

Many better sites proposed than these three on the Norwich plan. Where do you draw the line? Building on such rural land is a travesty to nature. Object strongly.

Rockland St Mary is a linear village and this proposed development is outside the development boundary which has historically been fiercely protected by SNDC. The road infrastructure is unable to support the extra traffic which would be placed upon it and the road use has already significantly increased due to the large development in Loddon resulting in the jamming of the A146 at peak times which means that this road is being used as a rat run.
As the owner of 107 The Street I have to object at my loss of open views at the back of my family home of more than 50 years and the subsequent devaluation of said property.
Storm drains and infrastructure of the village is inadequate to support further development. I have already suffered flooding to my property due to said drains being blocked and poorly maintained resulting in a large insurance claim.
I could carry on with objections but this boils down to greed from a landowner who has no desire to stay in the village and just wishes to make as much money as possible before he and his family cuts and runs!
These views equally apply to all the proposed sites really.

This proposal (in fact all three - GNLP2061 / 2063 / 2064) is a disgrace. Rockland St Mary is a linear village, and should not be attempted to gain housing on land outside the linear boundary.

Drainage WOULD be a massive issue. Current drainage cannot cope.

The effect on local wildlife would be severe - bats and owls are regulars in my back garden. These would no long be there due to 50+ houses in one development alone!! These areas should be protected, not built upon.

Safety - the road is narrow, and a national cycle route - it would be so unsafe having just 1 entrance, let alone 3 - 2 of which would be over existing pavements, where that is the only way to the school, the post office, and doctors surgery.

There is a lot of poorly sighted people in Rockland - extra road entrances are a massive problem for partially sighted people.

Reject this proposal very strongly.

Access - which is narrow with a poor vision splay and line of sight especially with parked vehicles on the street and with regard to GNLP 2063 and GNLP 2061 the congestion on the street is not good at present and the increase cars would make this road even more unsafe.

Road - Most people agree the road is busier than ever with vehicles some quite large for such a small main road, constantly used as a rat run and we have not felt the effects from the 21 homes being built at Bee Orchid Way only the large Lorries and building works which are not helping the traffic.

Utilities - Sewerage is a main concern and it has been brought to our attention at the last Parish Council Meeting that we are up to capacity which poses a real risk to The Staithe

There are many pieces of wildlife that live and hunt in these fields which will be endangered within the village due to the increased tarmac and housing and loss of hunting areas.

Increase in houses will almost double the size of the village if all go ahead which is unacceptable with the current services and facilities which would require a major investment from the council to make the village viable for all the new residents and their transport needs - potentially every house will have 2 cars therefore each proposed site will bring 50 plus cars thus making it more dangerous for the parents and children trying to cross the road to School lane with no official school crossing. The increased traffic along a commonly used cycle route will be dangerous for cyclists and will increase chances of accidents and fatalities.
The bus service is inadequate for the links of the village and doesn't go to Loddon for a more widespread route. The increase cars due to the poor access to the A146 at Loddon means that the road is used as a "rat run".

Fully reject this proposal. This type of proposal is completely wrong for a village of this size, and linear shape.

The idea of a service linear village to add 200+ houses over 3 rural entrances (2061 / 2063 / 2064) is simply a land grab by a developer. There are so many issues with such a development like this, it's amazing it's got this far.

1) Access - all 3 access points are dangerous. The main road 'The Street' is small, and already has too many traffic. It is a national cycling route. Adding another 400 cars plus on those 3 developments alone would cause an increase in road accidents. There has already been fatalities on this very road with cyclists.

2) Rockland St Mary is a linear service village - it should not have building outside of the linear line, and boundary line.

3) Wildlife - numerous protected species live in and around these sites. We have over 20 bats live in and around GNLP2061's proposals. They are legally protected already. Owls also live around all the surrounding farmland. Highly likely other species would be destroyed in adding 200+ houses.

4) Pollution - extra pollution, next to the National Broads park is unacceptable, for a world renowned site. Will cause issues with the natural wildlife. This goes for all additional sites, other than GNLP2070. Also - light pollution will affect the nocturnal animals, in and around the broads from the new sites, driving the local wildlife away.

5) Access - the access of these roads will be tight. The space next to 101 and 103 The Street is very tight. You then will have 100 cars + coming out of this small gap, turning out onto The Street. This is so unsafe. Many cars park on the road, causing blind spots. Not to mention the increased traffic coming from the A146. It is not needed.

6) Pavement - GNLP2061 and GNLP2063 are both on the side of the only pavement in the village. Many elderly with poor sight, and school children will now have 2 extra crossings. This is completely unnecessary, and will cause issues.

7) Drainage - there are already mains drainage issues. Many of The Street properties were flooded only recently. 107 The Street had major damage, as did many others. How can adding another 50 / 100 / 150 + houses to the main line drain be a positive outcome? This will only add more pressure on the main drain system, causing further property flooding for the current residents.

8) residential amenities - the local surgery is already working 3 days, where many Rockland St Mary residents have to drive to Poringland for doctor appointments. As many residents in Rockland are elderly, having them drive / get the bus over to Poringland when less and less appointments will be available has to be considered. These developments do have a direct impact on residents in many ways.

To conclude, GNLP2061, along with GNLP2064 and GNLP2063 are such poor area to develop. The impact on so many people, wildlife, main roads, cycle routes, drainage to name a few, means these proposals have to be strongly rejected.

This potential site should be rejected!

This is an unsafe potential access road which would enter onto an already very busy village street with just one pavement shared with cars, children, cyclists, the elderly = TOTAL MADNESS!

There are no big industries in the area to support a substantial increase in population that all these developments will place upon an already creaking infrastructure. The narrow country road that links these villages to Norwich is poorly maintained and prone to flooding, nor is there any scope for widening along the route due to numerous physical restrictions. It is already very heavily used by extremely large agricultural vehicles and their machinery and the large tankers that frequent the sewage works and I would say that it is just too dangerous and to add yet even more cars and vans etc that will come from all these developments just beggars belief.

Greater consideration needs to be given to the cumulative impact of developments on all the communities. Farmland is needed for food production and development should be focused from within Norwich and along the Norwich Cambridge tech corridor. Farmland is needed for food production both now and in the future Development should be focused into Norwich and areas with better access and infrastructure.

It is incorrect to say that access is good - it isn't. Visibility turning onto the Street would be poor. The Street is getting ever busier with parked cars which will often block the view leaving the access road. I welcome development in the village but not here. Development would be best located at the Bramerton end of the village so that extra traffic from the Norwich direction does not reach the Street.