GNLP2070

Showing comments and forms 1 to 25 of 25

Comment

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 16830

Received: 29/10/2018

Respondent: Mr Neil Scarborough

Representation:

Of all the sites proposed for Rockland St Mary this site appears to be most appropriate in terms of scale, would seem to have the least adverse impact on the linear nature of the village and vehicles should be able to leave and join the highway with relative safety.

Full text:

Of all the sites proposed for Rockland St Mary this site appears to be most appropriate in terms of scale, would seem to have the least adverse impact on the linear nature of the village and vehicles should be able to leave and join the highway with relative safety.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 16837

Received: 29/10/2018

Respondent: Mr Richard Sadd

Representation:

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

Full text:

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

Support

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 16880

Received: 01/11/2018

Respondent: Mr Martyn Bumstead

Representation:

This site is of the correct size for the village. I do however have reservations over the connectivity with the village amenities. A safe footpath (either surfaced or formal trod should be established to allow safe passage round the bends.

Full text:

This site is of the correct size for the village. I do however have reservations over the connectivity with the village amenities. A safe footpath (either surfaced or formal trod should be established to allow safe passage round the bends.

Comment

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 17315

Received: 30/10/2018

Respondent: Mr Philip Clarke

Representation:

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.

Full text:

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.

Comment

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 17326

Received: 22/11/2018

Respondent: South Norfolk Council

Representation:

Foul sewer is available in The Oaks

Full text:

Foul sewer is available in The Oaks

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 17460

Received: 28/11/2018

Respondent: jayne regan

Representation:

There is no footpath to the village which would put the residents in danger. Access is difficult onto this busy road.

Full text:

There is no footpath to the village which would put the residents in danger. Access is difficult onto this busy road.

Support

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 17484

Received: 29/11/2018

Respondent: Mr Steve Jones

Representation:

This is the only site proposed which makes sense. It keeps it's 'linear' design, and is of limited expansion (5 houses). Pathways should be provided to collect the proposal to 'The Street'.

Full text:

This is the only site proposed which makes sense. It keeps it's 'linear' design, and is of limited expansion (5 houses). Pathways should be provided to collect the proposal to 'The Street'.

Support

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 17727

Received: 04/12/2018

Respondent: E&EJ Andre James Andrews

Representation:

Sensible infill site for the development of approximately 5 dwellings.
Minimal impact on the surrounding area and existing properties.
Adjacent to the existing houses at The Oaks where all utilities are available for the new development.
Bus stop immediately in front of The Oaks.
Short distance from both Bramerton and Rockland St Mary.
Good road links to Norwich.
The development could be arranged on the basis of one accessway on to Bramerton Lane.
The land to the south of this site is owned by the same landowner.
Few development constraints ie a deliverable site for new homes in the village.

Full text:

Sensible infill site for the development of approximately 5 dwellings.
Minimal impact on the surrounding area and existing properties.
Adjacent to the existing houses at The Oaks where all utilities are available for the new development.
Bus stop immediately in front of The Oaks.
Short distance from both Bramerton and Rockland St Mary.
Good road links to Norwich.
The development could be arranged on the basis of one accessway on to Bramerton Lane.
The land to the south of this site is owned by the same landowner.
Few development constraints ie a deliverable site for new homes in the village.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 17940

Received: 29/11/2018

Respondent: T Ross Wylie

Representation:

The biggest problem, the Roads. 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.

Full text:

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.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 18014

Received: 05/12/2018

Respondent: Brenda Packman

Representation:

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. 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.

See Full Text

Full text:

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.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 18314

Received: 10/12/2018

Respondent: mr graham cowell

Representation:

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 has poor access to village (no footpaths) so should be REFUSED.

Full text:

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 has poor access to village (no footpaths) so should be REFUSED.

Support

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 18362

Received: 10/12/2018

Respondent: Mr Alex White

Representation:

I support this site as I feel that it is an appropriate size for the village and it has great public transport links with the bus stop at The Oaks. Access onto the main road from this site would not be a problem as there is a clear line of sight both up and down the main road.

The only downside that I can see is that there is not pedestrian access to the main part of the village. I think that footpath should be established if this site is developed on.

Full text:

I support this site as I feel that it is an appropriate size for the village and it has great public transport links with the bus stop at The Oaks. Access onto the main road from this site would not be a problem as there is a clear line of sight both up and down the main road.

The only downside that I can see is that there is not pedestrian access to the main part of the village. I think that footpath should be established if this site is developed on.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 18622

Received: 12/12/2018

Respondent: Mrs Jude Cowell

Agent: Mrs Jude Cowell

Representation:

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.

Full text:

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. Also there is no footpath from this proposed site into village centre which is hazardous for vulnerable road users.

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.

Support

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 18733

Received: 12/12/2018

Respondent: Paul Sanford

Representation:

This is a small development that would not adversely affect the village. It should ideally be accompanied with a better footpath linking The Oaks to the village.

Full text:

This is a small development that would not adversely affect the village. It should ideally be accompanied with a better footpath linking The Oaks to the village.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 18801

Received: 13/12/2018

Respondent: Mr David Fairbourn

Representation:

Access onto the road at this location would not be safe with current road conditions.

Full text:

Access onto the road at this location would not be safe with current road conditions.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 18875

Received: 13/12/2018

Respondent: Ms Catherine Bevington

Representation:

The site is too remote from the village and the exit and entrance point to the site come onto a through-route on which cars travel fast between villages. No pedestrian footpath so a long walk to facilities along a dangerous stretch of road. Site inadequately served by public transport so would increase car use.

Full text:

The site is too remote from the village and the exit and entrance point to the site come onto a through-route on which cars travel fast between villages. No pedestrian footpath so a long walk to facilities along a dangerous stretch of road. Site inadequately served by public transport so would increase car use.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 18982

Received: 13/12/2018

Respondent: Paddy Hann

Representation:

- 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

Full text:

- 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

Comment

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 19028

Received: 13/12/2018

Respondent: Rockland St Mary Parish Council

Representation:

A copy of the response from the Parish Council in connection with all the call for sites can be viewed on the Parish website at www.rocklandstmary.org.uk. It is also displayed on the two notice boards at the Post Office and Hellington.

Full text:

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.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 19047

Received: 13/12/2018

Respondent: Mr Jason Davey

Representation:

Dangerous access onto a narrow fast road. No footpath at all to the services so more traffic to enter village.

Full text:

Dangerous access onto a narrow fast road. No footpath at all to the services so more traffic to enter village.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 19051

Received: 13/12/2018

Respondent: Mrs Nicola Davey

Representation:

It is outside village settlement, access is dangerous onto a fast moving road. It has no footpath linking it to the village which makes it unsafe to walk.

Full text:

It is outside village settlement, access is dangerous onto a fast moving road. It has no footpath linking it to the village which makes it unsafe to walk.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 19058

Received: 13/12/2018

Respondent: Mrs. ANITA MANGANARO

Representation:

I object due to:
Poor Access
Current Services not suitable
Current Amenities not suitable
Loss of Village appeal
Devaluation of property

Full text:

I would like to object to the housing proposal GNLP2070 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.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 19081

Received: 13/12/2018

Respondent: Mr Philip Ellis

Representation:

Completely unsustainable site for any development. Not in vicinity of any amenities or services. Highway access may be a challenge. No footpaths on either side of the road. No benefits to local area. Much better alternative sites in GNLP proposals.

Full text:

Completely unsustainable site for any development. Not in vicinity of any amenities or services. Highway access may be a challenge. No footpaths on either side of the road. No benefits to local area. Much better alternative sites in GNLP proposals.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 19217

Received: 14/12/2018

Respondent: Derrick King

Representation:

I OBJECT to this development because it is OUTSIDE the Village settlement boundary.

There is no pathway for pedestrians to walk to and from the centre of the village ie for school, shop or doctors.
They would either have to run the risk of walking with children on the road (high risk), or it would just force even more people into their cars and further traffic into the village thus causing traffic conflict and pollution.

The 'main' road into Norwich is poor. It is prone to flooding in several areas, has bends and dips and is used by many cyclists.

Full text:

I OBJECT to this development because it is OUTSIDE the Village settlement boundary.

There is no pathway for pedestrians to walk to and from the centre of the village ie for school, shop or doctors.
They would either have to run the risk of walking with children on the road (high risk), or it would just force even more people into their cars and further traffic into the village thus causing traffic conflict and pollution.

The 'main' road into Norwich is poor. It is prone to flooding in several areas, has bends and dips and is used by many cyclists.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 19369

Received: 13/12/2018

Respondent: mr ingo wagenknecht

Representation:

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.

Full text:

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.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 19504

Received: 13/12/2018

Respondent: Rockland St Mary Parish Council

Representation:

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.

Full text:

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.