GNLP2061

I object to this proposed site on the grounds of the additional traffic that will need to pass through the village. All residents at this site would need to drive through the only road that leads through the centre of the village and out of the village to reach the A146 and Norwich. As this road is also the route many children in the village take to the local school take to walk to school and there is pavement on only one side of the road (which is narrow in places), additional traffic will make it even more dangerous for children walking to school. On these grounds I would only be in favour of new houses at the Bramerton end of the village, as these residents would have minimum impact on traffic levels through the village and keep our village safe for children and pedestrians.

I object to this proposed site on the grounds of the additional traffic that will need to pass through the village. All residents at this site would need to drive through the only road that leads through the centre of the village and out of the village to reach the A146 and Norwich. As this road is also the route many children in the village take to the local school take to walk to school and there is pavement on only one side of the road (which is narrow in places), additional traffic will make it even more dangerous for children walking to school. On these grounds I would only be in favour of new houses at the Bramerton end of the village, as these residents would have minimum impact on traffic levels through the village and keep our village safe for children and pedestrians.

* Reasons against 25 house development (GNLP2061)
* Proposed site is outside the current settlement boundary and is not in keeping with the linear character of the village.
* The access is too narrow for safe exit onto The Street. Insufficient room for roadway and pedestrian footpath for proposed volume of additional traffic.
* Visibility to west (Bramerton direction) at exit onto The Street is restricted by gentle bend in road within 50m; vehicles travelling from Bramerton cannot be seen in time. Current vehicle statistics indicate over 25% of vehicles exceed the 30mph speed by at least 5mph.
* Negative impact on wildlife in neighbouring woods and wildlife corridor to west of site.
* Negative impact on property values of neighbouring houses due to lost views.
* Current infrastructure unable to cope with proposed additional properties. Drainage pumping station at Hellington Beck already struggles to cope with current volumes.

Cars exiting onto the street have poor visibility and this site's access is so narrow it would be even more difficult. Access onto the main and increasingly busy street through the village would be hazardous.
The village is built largely on clay- so adequate drainage is a constant problem.

GNLP2007 - OBJECT

Over-development of the village. Rockland St. Mary is classed as a Service Village with limited facilities.
No safe vehicular access to the proposed area, being onto a narrow road and on the brow of a hill.
Substantial increase in traffic from residents' vehicles on a daily basis which would have to travel through The Street to access the main road to Norwich which itself is narrow, often floods and is
entirely unsuitable for more vehicles.
Danger to pedestrians from increase in traffic volume to and from the site.
Narrow pavement makes it unsafe for pedestrians with cars and lorries passing too close.
Limited public transport in Rockland St. Mary, no train line nearby, a day time bus service dependent on continued subsidies from Norfolk County Council.
Loss of enjoyment of the environment for existing residents, and the many walkers and tourists who enjoy the nearby river, footpaths and Rockland Broad.

GNLP2061 - OBJECT

Over-development of a linear village. This would be backfill.
Access directly onto The Street, which cannot cope with any extra traffic and would be a danger to pedestrians and cyclists. The Street has numerous cars parked along its length and any further hazard such as turning or exiting a backfill site would cause accidents. Only last week there was a car accident on The Street in School commuter time.
Substantial increase in traffic from residents' vehicles on a daily basis which would have to travel through The Street to access the main road to Norwich which itself is narrow, often floods and is
entirely unsuitable for more vehicles.
Danger to pedestrians from increase in traffic volume to and from the site. There is only a narrow pavement on one side of The Street.
Limited public transport in Rockland St. Mary, no train line nearby, a limited day time bus service dependent on continued subsidies from Norfolk County Council.
Impact on the environment and existing residents of the village.
We have 21 new homes under construction and until these are occupied it is impossible to assess the effect of this on residents and local services.

GNLP2063 - OBJECT

Over-development of a linear village. This would be backfill.
Access directly onto The Street, which cannot cope with any extra traffic and would be a danger to pedestrians and cyclists. The Street has numerous cars parked along its length and any further hazard such as turning or exiting a backfill site would cause accidents. Only last week there was a car accident on The Street in School commuter time.
Substantial increase in traffic from residents' vehicles on a daily basis which would have to travel through The Street to access the main road to Norwich which itself is narrow, often floods and is
entirely unsuitable for more vehicles.
Danger to pedestrians from increase in traffic volume to and from the site. We have a narrow pavement on one side of The Street.
Limited public transport in Rockland St. Mary, no train line nearby, a limited day time bus service dependent on continued subsidies from Norfolk County Council.
Impact on the environment and existing residents of the village.
We have 21 new homes under construction and until these are occupied it is impossible to assess the effect of this on residents and local services.

GNLP2064 - OBJECT

Over-development of a linear village. This would be backfill.
Access directly onto The Street, which cannot cope with any extra traffic. This area is heavily used with cars going to and from the GP Surgery and parked around The Shop/Post Office/Cafe. It would be completely unsuitable and a serious accident blackspot on The Street. Not to mention the hazard to pedestrians and/or cyclists accessing the Surgery or Shop.
Substantial increase in traffic from residents' vehicles together with service and delivery vehicles on a daily basis which would mainly access the road to Norwich which itself is narrow, often floods and is
entirely unsuitable for more vehicle
Limited public transport in Rockland St. Mary, no train line nearby, a limited day time bus service dependent on continued subsidies from Norfolk County Council.
Impact on the environment and existing residents of the village.
We have 21 new homes under construction and until these are occupied it is impossible to assess the effect of this on residents and local services.

GNLP - 2070

No comments.

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 Orchard yet.

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.

Site is outside of settlement boundary. Access is not suitable as too narrow and line of sight limited.
The road is unable to support further traffic from new developments. Unsafe for cyclists, pedestrians especially children and the elderly. Sewage is up to capacity and threatens the Staithe. Actively used farmland should not be given up for housing. Not in keeping with the character of the village. Strongly Object.

The site access is narrow with poor visibility making traffic movements to and from the development hazardous, particularly for any large vehicle, including emergency vehicles.

The Street is already under pressure from high traffic volumes which are increasing as the village is now used as a rat run by Loddon and Chedgrave to avoid congestion on the A146. Even more traffic will be generated from the 21 new houses currently being built at Bee Orchid Way. The hazard of traffic on The Street was demonstrated last week when there was a two car collision outside the entrance to Black Horse Dyke carpark which resulted in one of the vehicles crashing into and demolishing a large part of our 200 year old garden wall.

The road from Rockland St Mary to Kirby Bedon is unsuitable for any increased traffic movements. It frequently floods at the bottom of Rookery Hill and there are four tight bends and other dangerous blind spots. There is a pinch point on the road between The Oaks and Bramerton Street where it narrows significantly in one place so that any wide vehicle (lorry, bus, farm machinery) has to stop and pull over or reverse to allow any oncoming vehicle to pass (or vice versa).

The proposed site sticks out obtrusively onto open countryside. It's a 'backland' site, outside the existing linear development pattern of the village, and does not naturally blend in with the landscape or any existing housing or buildings The scale of the development is unsuitable for the village and will impair it's rural character.

The site will have an adverse ecological and environmental impact given it's close proximity to habitats in the Broads. The site is 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.

- proposal does not support the traditional image and character of a idyllic Norfolk village
- what population data supports the proposed increase in housing
- local doctors surgery could not support such an increase in the population of the village
- local schools have limited capacity and could not support increase in population
- public transport is in adequate
- applicants would appear to be profiteering and have no vested interest in the village

Inadequate access due to restricted vision splay/line of sight, cars often parked on the street and the entrance would not be wide enough. Road infrastructure not in place it is already under pressure and used as a rat run to avoid A146. Loss of farmland and wildlife habitats. Drainage/Sewage is up to capacity. This backfill development is out of character for a linear village and will encourage urban sprawl, it would be too easy to link this development with 2063! If one development gets approved they all will eventually. Object Strongly.

Site 2061
This site has a narrow, very restricted access which would make entering and exiting a major difficulty both during any possible construction period or afterwards. Years ago, what may once have been a suitable access point for smaller tractors is no longer viable as an entry or exit. It is closely bordered by private properties with no possibility of achieving any change to the layout to increase access width.
With this constraint in mind, the site is also very close to the corner of Surlingham Lane, from which cars turn into the village increasing the volume of traffic close to the entry of the site. A 'difficult entry/exit 'would constitute a serious hazard. Data from our SAM2 monitor shows that between 1,700 and 2,000 vehicles pass through the village daily. Any problem on the A146 results in a massive increase on those numbers as drivers use it as an alternative. Although this section of road is not listed as part of the national cycle highway, nevertheless, being flat, it is a popular stretch of road for cyclists and heavily used as such.
One of the key features of Rockland St Mary is that it is a linear village. Creating a 'backland' site here at the centre of the village would destroy this historic feature and possibly create a precedence for further such developments and 'infill'
The Parish Council considers that, along with the 1in 30 surface water flood risk, the access constraints make the site entirely unsuitable for development.

Access is not adequate out onto a road that is now far more used as a rat run. You have to physically pull into the road to see especially if cars parked on the street. Road has become unsafe and is too small. We have not felt the effects from the 21 homes being built at Bee Orchid yet which will see a further increase of traffic and pedestrians through the village. All 3 sites are unsafe due to access and lack of road infrastructure. It is out of character for this type of village.

To build here would mean putting in access that would be dangerous to come onto The Street. The property next to the access road's garden is up to the pavement making it difficult to see if coming out. I live opposite this and the thought of cheaply built, ascetically displeasing houses spoiling the countryside fills me with despair. Lorries turning into a road if the development takes place ( as I have children and I know very young children live opposite me) worries me. Pollution,disruption, danger, noise, spoiling my families quality of life make this planning application a poor choice.

Road will not cope it is used as a rat run from A146 by surrounding villages which are also expanding. We have not seen the effect from the 21 homes being built at Bee Orchid Way which will mean more traffic through The Street. The one path in the village will be unsafe with these access points. The 3 sites access points on the street are all unsafe with limited vision splay/line of sight. Drainage/Sewage is up to capacity which threatens The Staithe. Backfill developments which will be disjointed from the linear village and not enhance but blight its character.

The 1980's culture of 'garden plot' development has already created a through traffic problem within the village, causing an inordinate amount of vehicles to park on the road, before you factor in visiting vehicles; and this problem gets bigger as the number of drivers per household in the village rapidly increases. There are primary school aged children who are negotiating narrow pavements twice daily: others collected by parents face a dangerous crossing to emerge onto The Street. This proposal is an accident waiting to happen. The impact on wildlife (cranes, owls, bats, foxes, deer etc) would be criminal. PLEASE LISTEN

I would like to object to the housing proposal GNLP2061 in Rockland St Mary for the following reasons:
The Road that runs through Rockland St Mary, The Street, is already very busy due to the increase in traffic from other villages, and was not built to withstand this volume. This increase would create further potholes and disintegration of the quality of the road.
The parking along the street at the present is causing congestion to traffic and has recently contributed towards an RTA. An increase in population would make this worse.
Increased traffic would increase air pollution and noise pollution.
Houses, purchased with a "view" will be devalued.
I disagree with the statement of: "Additional residential development in Rockland St Mary would help to support and sustain the local services and facilities within the village."
I believe this is contradictory to what the housing proposals do.
The infrastructure of the village is not in place to serve an increase in population.
This village is currently undergoing new houses being built at the back of Bee Orchid Way. The heavy Lorries going through have been disruptive and further building would extend this disruption.
Further houses would spoil the feel of Rockland St Mary making it become more like Poringland or the Suburbs.

Does not follow the linear development of the village. This is suitable for a farm track, the highway access is inadequate and would have to compromise on double carriageway and footpath widths possibly including passing places for its considerable length. Closest OS benchmark height of land is indicated as 21.6 metres above sea level which would affect impact on the landscape, add to light pollution and affect wildlife. Extent of any backland development should be controlled. There are better sites in the GNLP proposals.

Land adjacent to the west of this site contains 2 disused clay pits that abut the site.One on high ground the other on low ground.Both pits sometimes flood.Where would the excess water go?
Also where would all the diverse wildlife that live in and around the pits go if houses are built in "their territory"

I would like to object to the additional provisional proposal for planning applications in Rockland St. Mary All of the proposed sites will feed into a sewerage system designed for a single road linear development as stands, one would not want to copy the problems experienced in Poringland and Stoke Holy Cross, where frequent backing up of sewage has decreased peoples quality of life. The infrastructure for all proposed housing is not adequate.

Water supply is via an old mains that frequently breaks up and gets patched, a whole new supply pipe would have to be added at the most adequate point.

Traffic: Bramertopn Lane/Rockland Road is used as a DAILY congestion bypass for rush hour traffic, during frequent accidents on the A146 and by Langley college's 12 school buses as it is not convenient for them to use the A146 as they cannot access it fast enough. Our road is already used by far too many vehicles and some of the proposals pose dangerous access to this well used road.

Provision of services: Rockland has one very small shop, one pub and a surgery who's provision in future is not guaranteed. Opening times for the surgery has been cut down from 5 to 3 days already.

GNLP 2070

This additional proposal is set in an arable grade2 quality farmland, the wildlife consists of twop barn owls hunting the fields, bats that roost in trees surrounding the site and underneath roofs at the Oaks.
Additionally there is a wildlife corridor that is used regularly by Muntjacks, foxes and deer, crossing the road from Hellington Beck without disturbance bypassing Rockland on its northern end and connecting to the Broads just past the last houses on Surlingham Lane.
There are also marsh harriers regularly hunting on the fields surrounding the Oaks and Applebee. There are no adequate footpath into Rockland from anywhere on Bramerton road, an issue that has been campaigned on by various Oaks residents for 60 years, it is dangerous to walk children to school/pushchairs etc. on this road.

GNLP2064

This additional proposal skirts past Rockland Surgery, taking out an
established wildlife pond, leading into a valley that has Peregrine
Falcons, Barn owls and a variety of other bird species that inhabit the
area. There are deer muntjacks and foxes, as well as newts and rare
fauna such as a variety of Orchids at its southern end. There is no
sewerage or any other infrastructure services in this field. Access for
vehicles is dangerous as the only shop is almost opposite the proposed
entry on to Rockland Street. There are no services into this site

GNLP2063

This additional site, although outwardly an adequate proposal, has two
of Rockland's oldest houses in its entrance, both of them as yet
unlisted, forming some of Rockland's historic fabric that should not be
changed. The wildlife behind Rockland's linear structure is similar to
that everywhere else. No services beyond the second house.

GNLP 2061

This additional land proposal once again is rich in wildlife, foxes
muntjacks, marsh harriers and various surviving bird species, it skirts
past one of Rockland's few oldest houses and its access to the main road
at rush hour is not easily accessible. Again no services here.

GNLP2007
'
This site proposal cuts off another wildlife corridor between Hellington
Beck valley and the Braods crossing the road at Eelcatcher's close. The
traffic access to Rockland Street is at the Brow of New Inn Hill and the
vegetation alongside it makes for a dangerous access. For it to work the
access should be connected to the Eelcatchers access.

GNLP0531

This additional proposal is on a downward slope into a Hellington Beck
valley, a wildlife haven, for all other species previously mentioned, it
also incorporates two well used footpath that have been walked for
longer than thirty years. The evidence for that with statements are
available and ready for submission. Hellington Beck valley incorporates
marshland with rare orchids and a proposal on its northern end would
increase pollution and contamination with wastes of all kinds.
There are no services, again, and both of the accesses shown are in
dangerous places, i.e. either at the brow of New Inn hill or some 50
yards past a bend in Rockland Road.

GNLP 0165

This sloping triangle at the entrance to Rockland has serious
hydrological issues which are currently affecting the bends in front of
the spinney, an old water mains under the road adding to the calamities.
The proposal has no access to the road except via Cross Lane a single
lane farm access to fields and t5o Surlingham. Ideally the road into
Rockland would have to be re-designed to allow access. The wildlife
passing by this site is as diverse as the other additional proposals
experience. There are no service to this site.

Finally

I very much hope that some of the Brownfield sites/ex ww2 airfields and
past industrial sites in South Norfolk will be prioritised by GNLP as
past policies demand, rather than burying good grade 2 farmland, needed
for future farming needs on higher grounds, under houses. Lastly, local
young people can't afford housing, so unless we start building some
apartment developments they can afford, South Norfolk's housing will
cater for elderly incomers mainly, our young people who want to stay in
the local vicinity will have nowhere to turn, stay at their parents home
or forced to move away against their wishes.

Rockland St Mary with Hellington Parish Council response to GNLP call for sites ref: 2070; 2007, 2061, 2064, 2063

Site ref 2070 (The Oaks)

This site lies outside the development boundary and is remote from any of the services in Rockland St Mary. The road lies between the villages of Rockland St Mary and Bramerton and being a 'through-route' is not subject to a 30mph speed restriction. This would make exiting (or entering) the site hazardous. Parts of the road along this stretch are so narrow that when the number 85 bus makes its pick-up or drop off, any car coming from the opposite direction has to stop. Equally, large lorries or farm vehicles using this stretch of road require vehicles travelling towards them to stop to one side to let them pass. There is no footpath which makes the long walk dangerous to access the few services available such as the GP, primary school and shop. These services are accessible realistically only by using a car or a bicycle. Public transport is extremely limited, and the number 85 bus makes just one single journey to Norwich between the peak morning time of 7am to 9am. This severely limits employment opportunities as a car is almost essential to be able to access employment. There is no suitable access to the site.
The Parish Council does not consider this site suitable for development.

Site ref 2007 (next to Eel Catcher Close)

The site lies outside the development boundary and to the edge of the eastern side of the village. The site is at the brow of a hill where site lines are restricted. A request for planning permission to erect a house on the land opposite was refused in 2017 due to the dangers of entry onto the road. The road is part of a national cycle route, heavily used by cyclists each day. It is also much used by ramblers and local walkers who access the public right of way next to the site. Data from the Parish Council's SAM2 monitor shows a high volume of traffic passes the site particularly between 6 am and 9.30am and 3.30 and 7pm each day, with speeding an additional problem as drivers leave or enter the village at this point.

Residents have expressed the view that the ongoing housing development at Bee Orchid Way should be sufficient to provide a 'share' towards the extra housing required by the GNLP.

The Parish Council's other major concern with this site is its proximity to the Staithe and Broad. At present the site and the neighbouring field act as a 'buffer' between the small exceptions site at Eel Catcher Close and the existing properties set back from the road on New Inn Hill. The site is very close to a tourist attraction for bird watchers, boat users, ramblers and fishing. The popularity for both villagers and visitors to this end of the village lie in its very unspoilt, natural and tranquil qualities.

The Parish Council remains very concerned about the capacity of drains and sewerage to take additional waste from further housing. For example, the ongoing development being undertaken at Bee Orchid Way has provided evidence of overflows from that site's drain into the Staithe. This has happened a number of times and was reported both to the Environment Agency and Anglian Water. Householders in Lower Road at the bottom of New Inn Hill have also reported that the nearby pumping station is not always able to deal with current levels of waste disposal and thus on occasion sewage leaks into the nearby beck and into the Staithe.

The extra weight on the road at New Inn Hill caused by the recent increase in lorries needed by the various housing developments caused the road opposite the public house to collapse and fracture the water main. If heavy plant vehicles put a major strain on the road and the utilities' infrastructure beneath then any further increase in traffic following development will have a similar effect over time.

The Parish Council does not consider this site suitable for development.

Site 2061

This site has a narrow, very restricted access which would make entering and exiting a major difficulty both during any possible construction period or afterwards. Years ago, what may once have been a suitable access point for smaller tractors is no longer viable as an entry or exit. It is closely bordered by private properties with no possibility of achieving any change to the layout to increase access width.

With this constraint in mind, the site is also very close to the corner of Surlingham Lane, from which cars turn into the village increasing the volume of traffic close to the entry of the site. A 'difficult entry/exit 'would constitute a serious hazard. Data from our SAM2 monitor shows that between 1,700 and 2,000 vehicles pass through the village daily. Any problem on the A146 results in a massive increase on those numbers as drivers use it as an alternative. Although this section of road is not listed as part of the national cycle highway, nevertheless, being flat, it is a popular stretch of road for cyclists and heavily used as such.

One of the key features of Rockland St Mary is that it is a linear village. Creating a
'backland' site here at the centre of the village would destroy this historic feature and possibly create a precedence for further such developments and 'infill'

The Parish Council considers that, along with the 1in 30 surface water flood risk, the access constraints make the site entirely unsuitable for development.

Site 2064

This site is at the centre of the village and has all the key facilities in close proximity- the GP surgery, the shop/Post Office, a private swimming pool open for public use, the primary school, the Parish Room and the village hall for recreational use. Consequently this small area is heavily used and so forms another hazardous spot in this single road village for pedestrians and road users due to the numbers of people of all ages using these facilities, parking, and crossing the road. The site access is where the number 85 bus stops.

Although this section of road is not listed as part of the national cycle highway, nevertheless, being flat, it is a popular stretch of road for cyclists and heavily used as such.

Consequently, even if access could be achieved for this site, it would be too dangerous to put a housing development at this point without creating safer pedestrian-only areas and limiting car parking- both of which are probably unviable in a narrow street. The Parish Council is aware that there is a covenant on the private drive.

One of the key features of Rockland St Mary is that it is a linear village. Creating a
'backland' site here at the centre of the village would destroy this historic feature and may set a precedence for similar developments or infills.

Residents have expressed the view that the ongoing housing development at Bee Orchid Way should be sufficient to provide a 'share' towards the extra housing required by the GNLP.

Villagers have voiced concern to the Parish Council about the use of prime agricultural land that has always been used to grow crops year round being lost to housing. People are mindful that, with the very real threats caused through climate change as well as possible consequences of leaving the European Union, that all County Councils should regard good quality agricultural land as having prime importance.

The Parish Council therefore does not consider this site suitable for development.

Site 2063

Residents whose properties back onto this proposed site have expressed concern about drainage issues as the site slopes towards their properties. Much of the land sub-structure is clay based ( there were former brick works in the village) and close to marsh land so drainage is an ongoing issue wherever there is the slightest slope.

This site is at the centre of the village and has all the key facilities in close proximity- the GP surgery, the shop/Post Office, a private swimming pool open for public use, the primary school, as well as the Parish Room and the village hall which are used in the day and evening for recreational purposes. Because this small area is heavily used it forms another dangerous spot in this single road village for pedestrians and road users due to the numbers of people of all ages using these facilities, parking, and crossing the road.

Consequently, even if access could be achieved for this site, it would be too dangerous to put a housing development at this point because it is so close to where cars pull in to park at the shop or to the GP surgery opposite. There would be a necessity to create safer pedestrian-only areas and limit car parking- both of which are unviable in a narrow street which serves as the main road in the village. Limiting car parking would have a detrimental effect on the shop/Post Office and cause parking problems for residents further along the street. The site access is very close to where the number 85 bus stops.

There are very limited employment opportunities in Rockland St Mary. New people moving into the village are almost always commuters to employment elsewhere. Residents are concerned that even modestly-sized housing developments add to the ever-increasing traffic in the village.

The volume of traffic into the village from the large Loddon housing expansion by drivers who wish to avoid the difficulties of turning right, onto the A146, has added to pressure on the single road through the village. If the A146 is blocked, the village is used as a backway.

Although this section of road is not listed as part of the national cycle highway, nevertheless, being flat, it is a popular stretch of road for cyclists and heavily used as such.

One of the key features of Rockland St Mary is that it is a linear village; creating a
'backland' site here at the centre of the village would destroy this historic feature.

Residents have expressed the view that the ongoing housing development at Bee Orchid Way, along with various infill building over the years should be sufficient to provide a 'share' towards the extra housing required by the GNLP.

Villagers have voiced concern to the Parish Council about the use of prime agricultural land that has always been used to grow crops being lost to housing. People are mindful that, with the very real threats caused through climate change as well as possible consequences of leaving the European Union, that all County Councils should regard good quality agricultural land as having prime importance.

The Parish Council therefore does not consider this site suitable for development.