GNLP2064

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

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. In addition this site may be of significant geodiversity interest.

The proposed site would be an inappropriate choice and position in the village . The access point (if agreed with the health centre) is at the most congested point in the village, being positioned directly opposite the village shop and post office . There are always parked cars outside the shop and further along the street . Large delivery vehicles park at that very point (opposite the proposed access road ) . It is also the main bus stop point in the village . There are frequent collisions along this point of the street and there have been two serious accidents outside 40 and 42 The Street in the past probably due to the parked cars and congestion . There is no capacity for widening the road due to existing residential properties. I believe such a development would significantly increase traffic safety is risks . Furthermore the proposed access road is exactly at the point where elderly people and patients walk from the bus stop to the Health Centre .
The increased number of residents would be put too much pressure on local resources.

the access from and to this site onto the main street will be difficult to manage. the volume of traffic using the main street is already excessive during peak times due to residents of Chedgrave and Loddon using this road as a 'rat run' to avoid slow movement on A146. futhermore there are already garages facing onto the proposed access. Rockland is basically a 'ribbon' developed village and should remain so.

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.

Our highway engineers have confirmed that the 10 metre wide proposed accessway 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 access arrangements will be agreed with the GP Surgery in due course in exchange for the provision of more car parking for the medical practice. The proposed alignment of the new access can help to mitigate any issues in relation to the two existing garages.

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....

This area is already congested due to the post office and surgery being used regularly. The traffic from neighbouring villages comes through Rockland which means it is already a busy road. It is also a linear village and this would not be in keeping. The sewerage system is at full capacity.

I object on the following grounds

Access from The Street to this development site is constrained by existing properties.

The access road proposed would contribute to what is already known to be a dangerous stretch of a busy highway. It's location alongside the established doctors surgery and opposite the village shop and post office would increase conjestion and traffic at an already dangerous junction.

Three significant accidents have already happened at this location resulting in cars crashing into gardens, trees and park vehicles so as to avoid more life threatening collisions. There is no safe access to this proposed site.

With this development, there would be:

Substantial loss of natural habitat for wildlife on the surrounding area.

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.

Access to this site would only exacerbate the already congested area around the Shop/Post Office and GP Surgery. Numerous vehiclesare parked opposite this entrance, as the Post Office has limited parking.
Traffic volume through The Street is increasing all the while. Residents have to negotiate the many cars already parked either side of The Street. Road infrastructure onwards to Norwich does not support further development in this village. There is limited public transport, few employment opportunities locally so people need to travel by car to work.
This site would destroy the linear form of the village and surrounding environment.

GNLP 2063 and GNLP64

Access to this site would significantly impact what is already a congested zone in the village and an accident black spot. Customers and patients accessing the post office, shop and doctors surgery park on the street as there is insufficient off road parking to serve these important destinations. The busses serving Rockland and schools stop at the proposed entry points for both of these sites particularly supporting young people and the elderly being able to access transport close to the surgery and shop.
A number of road accidents have happened in this congested zone already resulting in cars crashing into gardens and tress to avoid pedestrians. Access to these two sites is insufficient and would add risk to an already busy and co tested zone.

GNLP 2064

This site boundaries an area of natural beauty and eco.ogical importance, building on this sloped site may result in increased flooding-down to Hellington beck and could adversely impact and important ecological site.

I strongly oppose the development of both of these sites on the basis of safety and in the latter the negative ecological impact development on GNLP 2064 would result in.

The local plan map additionally suggests through its shading that land to the east of GNLP 2064 has already been developed. This is not the case, the land is wooded and is not built up.

GNLP 2063 and GNLP64

Access to this site would significantly impact what is already a congested zone in the village and an accident black spot. Customers and patients accessing the post office, shop and doctors surgery park on the street as there is insufficient off road parking to serve these important destinations. The busses serving Rockland and schools stop at the proposed entry points for both of these sites particularly supporting young people and the elderly being able to access transport close to the surgery and shop.
A number of road accidents have happened in this congested zone already resulting in cars crashing into gardens and tress to avoid pedestrians. Access to these two sites is insufficient and would add risk to an already busy and co tested zone.

GNLP 2064

This site boundaries an area of natural beauty and eco.ogical importance, building on this sloped site may result in increased flooding-down to Hellington beck and could adversely impact and important ecological site.

I strongly oppose the development of both of these sites on the basis of safety and in the latter the negative ecological impact development on GNLP 2064 would result in.

The local plan map additionally suggests through its shading that land to the east of GNLP 2064 has already been developed. This is not the case, the land is wooded and is not built up.

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 completely out 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 The 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 The site would interfere with the pre-existing footpath across the field.

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

9 Site would result in overlooking issues for many existing houses, which would result in loss of privacy & bring located in a rural location.

10 The land is on the northern slope of the shallow river valley which is close to a designated site of special scientific interest.

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.

Access to the site is at the busiest point in the village with a high volume of vehicle movements to and from the shop car park and the surgery. Cars visiting the shop and surgery also park on the road opposite the site entrance, narrowing The Street to a single carriageway. This would make access to the site hazardous and difficult, 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.

Inadequate amenities (limited healthcare, no secondary/further education facilities) in local area will inevitably lead to rise on motor vehicle use on an already country road that has seen increased use by drivers wishing to avoid A140. This road is also subject to partial or complete flooding at numerous points between Loddon and Bixley presenting additional hazards to road users. Increase in dwellings would lead to greater danger to vulnerable road users and is on Sustrans National Cycling Route 1 Development outside of the settlement boundary and not in keeping with character of linear village so should be REFUSED.

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.

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.

1. Access inadequate
2. Outside development boundary
3. Infrastructure cannot support any further development.
4. Road network inadequate and poorly maintained already

I OBJECT to this development because it is OUTSIDE the Village settlement boundary and is sited within 200 metres from the Broads Authority administrative area and within the 3000-meter buffer-zone that protects the fringes of the SAC, SPA, SSSI, Ramsar and National Nature Reserve designations.

Further development here will dramatically affect the townscape and do NOTHING to PROTECT the fragile environment, nor recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and support the thriving rural community within Rockland St Mary.

The road is already unsafe for vulnerable road users; the last thing needed is more motor vehicle traffic. This development is a back-field site that is not in keeping with the linear nature of the village and should not be permitted and it is not in the village settlement boundary.

Further entrances onto the street would further add to the already chaotic and dangerous street scene. There are very limited amenities in the village, for example, the Doctors Surgery is only open part time, so any further load would likely still be covered by the larger practice in Poringland as it is already on the days that the surgery is closed. This already adds more motor vehicle traffic to the road system as people travel to Poringland for appointments when the local surgery is closed. Poringland also could do without the extra burden of additional traffic and the pollution this brings. There is no public transport service direct to Poringland.

It should also be noted that not all of the community use Rockland St Mary Surgery and travel further afield to the practice in Loddon and beyond so any additional houses built in the village will just add to extra traffic on these minor roads.


The burden of more traffic on the roads making their way through Bramerton, Kirby Bedon, Bixley and across the A146 to Poringland will be to the detriment of those communities as well. A representative from the organisation "Tour de Broads", the region's biggest not-for-profit cycling event, stated that some people responsible for delivering "Bikeability" (the old Cycling Proficiency Scheme) classes to local Primary Schools were actively saying to children that the safest way to avoid danger cycling was simply "not to Cycle".

IF we are serious about promoting sustainable transport and getting the population more active and reduce motor vehicle usage and the associated pollution and harm to our environment and making our communities safer for vulnerable road users, then these developments in Rockland St Mary should not be permitted.

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.

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.

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

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. Extra traffic would change the character of the village. This site would also spoil the walking area commonly used by many who live in the village. 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.

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.

As for site 2063 this is at the centre of the village where people and cars merge to access the few facilities- shop/PO, GP swimming pool ( private but rented out for hire). Bus stops here. Many mobility scooters and elderly people in vicinity who cross the road to get to the shop or GP on other side. Parking is already a problem but contained with current level of residents.
Village poorly served by infrequent bus service making car ownership a necessity. People on low incomes cannot afford to commute to work development would be suitable only for high income.

The site would be a blot on a beautiful landscape, outside the historical linear pattern of the village. It would set a precedent for building on backland sites, threatening a lovely countryside village from overdevelopment, depriving future generations of the joy of living in a peaceful rural environment. The area is a precious wildlife habitat which includes owls, bats, hares, etc which would be threatened by this unnecessary and unwanted development.
The village infrastructure is already at breaking point with the main sewerage often overflowing into, and, polluting The Beck.
The site access, opposite the shop, is totally unsuitable as on street parking there is already a hazard. The additional traffic generated by the development would make this point on The Street even more dangerous for vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians.
Traffic through the village has increased significantly in the last few years as it's used as a rat run from Loddon and Chedgrave to avoid congestion on the A146. The Street is narrow and the level of traffic is already dangerous and this will become even worse when the 21 houses being built at Bee Orchid Way are completed.
The village has already made an adequate contribution to the local housing stock with the addition in 2010 of social housing at Eel Catcher Close and the current Bee Orchid Way development.