GNLP2091

The proposed development infringes on the environs of the church. The current views across the valley from the church and road side will be gone. There is enough development on the road to Upper Stoke - does the village need to extend in every direction? Surely we don't want to see a developing sprawling dormitory village for the City?

This site is not suitable 1) the site is outside the current village envelope. 2) The landscape is inside the SN character Map A1 Tas Valley Rural Area. It cuts across key sensitivities of the Tas Valley, which is its open character, wide flat floor and long valley view, plus the importance of its valley crests (See South Norfolk Rural policy Area document: Tas Valley SSSI 3) The site is within the impact zone of the Shotesham SSSI. 4) The site will be contributing the elongation of SHX towards other settlements. 5) The road on which this is being proposed is not close to the existing amenities. Access is along a narrow 1.2m width unlit footpath, and via a road which is 4.80 metres wide at the access point to the site, which then narrows further to 4.6m just north of the site which is below the accepted norm of 5.50m for such a road and significantly below 6.0m width for a bus route. The site 2091 is in between two significant bends in the road and near the brow of the church hill causing visibility issues.
6) Previous applications for the site have been submitted and rejected, and a similar attempt in the north part of the village has already been withdrawn.
7) Approval for this site would create a dangerous precedent for the rest of the Tas Valley from which the valley will not recover.

THIS PROPOSAL SHOULD BE DISMISSED OUT OF HAND FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS :
1. It is outside the South Norfolk DC development boundary drawn by the JCS to protect the rural character and wider river landscape of the historic Tas Valley.
2.The road is under width and with unsustainable traffic volume.
3.Devastating effect on Grade II listed Church and 'The Old House'
4.Negative impact on the Biodiversity and Geodiversity.
5.Is within the Impact risk zone of Shotesham Common SSSI.
6.It does not conform to the linear development along Norwich Road.
7. It is 1km from limited village services and amenities.

The development of this agricultural field would have a detrimental impact on the historical landscape of the Tas Valley, with long lasting damage to the delicate balance of Biodiversity and Geodiversity. The development boundary was drawn by the JCS to protect the rural character of this beautiful landscape for a reason and I appeal that this should be upheld at all cost. There is no requirement for additional development in SHX as the original call for sites far exceeds all future requirements, without the need for the extra 200 in Regulation 18 and the village has already suffered over expansion.

This is a site of natural beauty, and should be preserved so the view of the taz valley is seen by all from this spot, walking or even when passing on the bus. We need spaces to look and stare and feel healthier because of them. Once built on we have lost the opportunity to experience this. I want houses to be built on brown field sites, not green ones.

I would like to register my objection to any new building developments in the area.
I appreciate some have already been started, partially completed and infringed on a beautiful village
I would like to object against new building in Stoke Holy Cross. GNLP0197,GNLP2091 ,GNLP0524,GNLP0202.

The developments that have started have brought about a massive change in road traffic this directly affects me and my family on the Norwich Road at Stoke Holy Cross. The noise from traffic has increases tenfold. In the mornings and evenings at peak times it is difficult to get out of the drive of my home.

The Tas Valley is a beautiful area and should be preserved.

I am writing to voice my concern for the above sites that have been put forward for potential house building.
I purchased a property on Norwich Road in Stoke Holy Cross and I have been shocked at the amount of traffic that uses the Norwich Road. I recently objected to a building plan for 148 homes in Brooke based on the amount of additional traffic these homes will bring to the area. I am mostly concerned at the request to built on the land oppisite the church which is a listed building and the fact that the land adjacent to the church is in the Tas Valley. I appreciate that potential planning on this site is for 11 homes but I can not believe that anyone would even consider trying to rip up this beautiful peaceful space to build houses!. This has to be one of the most beautiful fields in our village and allowing this building to go ahead will set the most dangerous precedent which will leave so much more natural land being considered for building. I can not believe that a ugly piece of land can not be found for building of homes. I am sure there are brown filed sites that could benefit from development. You can not simply build homes where you like as this development ruins it for everyone else. Where is all this traffic meant to go? yes right past my home every hour of every day and some of the night! wake up before you destroy it all leaving nothing beautiful behind you!

I am writing to object to the proposal of building on the above listed sites. Stoke Holy Cross is a small but beautiful village and can not take more traffic on either Long Lane or Norwich Road. If building is allowed it will dramatically increase the traffic in the village to an intolerable level. With all the development in Poringland the village is being used as a Rat Run to Norwich and with a primary school in the area this can not be a good thing!.I object to building on farmland but mostly object to the proposal to build on the Tas Valley opposite the church. How can this even be a consideration? The natural land is stunning and makes a lovely entrance to our village so building on this space will be a disaster for us. The open aspect of the village has such an appeal and destroying natural habitats to build homes is not acceptable to me. This proposal sets a dangerous precedent for other areas of natural beauty to be spoilt. I have recently objected to the building of 148 homes in the neighbouring village of Brooke, based on the inadequate infrastructure to cope with even more traffic. 148 homes could generate 300 cars in the area using the roads at least twice a day so we are looking at 600 more cars passing our homes on Norwich Road on a daily basis just from that site alone! This can not happen to our village!

This is a very beautiful and historic landscape forming part of the Tas Valley & the far reaching views are enjoyed by all who live in SHC & walkers visiting from further afield.

The land is outside of the village envelope;

The roads are not adequate to cope with increase in traffic.

Local schools are already over-subscribed as is GP surgery due to over-development already in area;

This would open the flood gate for further development in the surrounding area outside of the village envelope;

The entrance to the proposed site is too close to hill leading into village and extremely dangerous to oncoming traffic.

Stoke Holy Cross has already been subjected to an enormous supply of new housing;

The houses are of an executive type and do not help the current housing needs of affordable homes for younger generation.

As a very frequent visitor to SHX, I am horrified to learn about the proposal of a housing estate at the Southern extremity of the village. It would be completely out of character for this area of natural historic beauty and would be a blot on the landscape. The varied wildlife and fabulous views over the Tas Valley, would be lost for future generations. There are plenty of brown field sites available for affordable housing, this will clearly NOT fall into that category and will only hinder the over congested and undersized Norwich Road.
This proposal is unthinkable !

Stoke Holy Cross is already at saturation point for new housing.
The local infrastructure cannot support any further increase in the village population - especially as far as the roads, schools & GP services are concerned. A >30% increase in housing in the village in the last few years has led to an unacceptable increase in road traffic on already narrow, congested local roads.
This site is totally unacceptable for development - The Tas Valley - with its inherent flood risks - outside the village development boundary, opposite a historic church site, at a dangerous road junction - madness!

This is a totally inappropriate site for development.
It is in the Tas Valley - outside the village settlement boundary, with a proposed exit onto the main road at a dangerous junction on a hill, opposite the historic local village church - & would destroy the rural aspect of the area.
Being in the Tas Valley, it is an area liable to flooding.
The local infrastructure is already bursting its capacity as far as roads, sewage & drainage, schools & GP services are concerned.
Stoke Holy Cross has already increased its housing by >30% in the last few years.

The outlook and aspect of the Grade II listed Church and even more beautiful Grade II listed 'Old House' would be destroyed forever . The abundance of varied wildlife and birds and the views right across this historic River Landscape (Tas Valley) would also be adversely affected . The proposal is outside the development boundary , unnecessary and detrimental to the entire area . The Norwich Road is saturated already and too narrow and dangerous and all services stretched to their limits . This does nothing for low to medium cost housing .
STOP development on this farmland !

This development will destroy the view of the Tas Valley from the Stoke side. This beautiful view is very limited already due to previous developments but this small piece remains and should remain. From the Swainsthorpe side the development will be an eyesore. It is clear that if this development happens then the rest of that field will also be developed, making the objections above even more critical.

I was born in Stoke Holy Cross and brought up here. My Mum still lives here 47 years later. I am a regular visitor to the village and have noted the extension of the village off long lane. The shop has gone, the red lion 'locals' pub long gone. I was speachless when i saw the playing field had been nibbled into to make way for a carpark to cope with the school numbers.
Anyway the meadow in question i have walked along hundreds of times, enjoying a rare village peek into the hidden river Tas. I have seen this meadow flooded on a number of occasions over the years. Why on earth in this day and age of flooding and rising water levels would new housing be built here? Crazy. I wouldn't buy one and i can only imagine that i wouldn't be able to afford one anyway unless affordable housing is being considered.
The path from this area to the village centre is really poor,very narrow and overgrown and i am also concerned about the speed cars race down the hill from the church. I do think there are better places to build.

Introduction: This is written in response to the Owner's application for Site 2091 ('the field') to be included in the GNLP. This site comprises 1.24ha of arable land situated to the west of Norwich Road, Stoke Holy Cross, Norwich NR14, opposite Stoke Holy Cross Church and adjacent to 1, Norwich Road. The Owner wants to build '11 Executive Houses' with, or without, prior inclusion of the site in the GNLP, according to their Planning Consultants. The Owner intends to 'jump the gun' by apply for planning permission before Christmas 2018, rather than go through the correct GNLP procedure for making suitable sites available for inclusion in GNLP.

Planning Permission for this site, and an additional strip of land, was rejected in 2011. Although the Owner's Planning Consultants and Architects may think that his current application has been adapted to make allowance for criticisms made in 2011, many (perhaps all?) of these criticisms still stand, and there may, in fact, be new criticisms that are also valid.

In GNLP we are told that:
* 'The vision for Greater Norwich to 2036 is 'To grow vibrant, healthy communities supported by a strong economy and the delivery of homes, jobs, infrastructure and an enhanced environment'.
* On the 'Home' page, Councils choosing such sites must 'protect and enhance the built and natural environment, make the best use of natural resources, mitigate against and adapt to climate change'.
* Any site to be included in GNLP must be 'Sustainably located', so the Council has to do a 'Sustainability Appraisal' i.e. it must look at the social, environmental and economic impact if a site is developed. (N.B. 'Sustainability' means 'the avoidance of the depletion of natural resources in order to maintain an ecological balance'. 'Ecology' means living creatures, including humans, living in a balanced environment.' It should not be forgotten that natural landscapes are essential to the overall wellbeing of humans, as well as other creatures/plants, and the Council, therefore, has a duty to help preserve them, to avoid their 'depletion'.

The Council has completed a Suitability Assessment regarding Site 2091, though the rather simplistic green, amber and red Flags may belie the reality of things (see later).

Page 1 of Suitability Assessment of Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA) Addendum 2018 says 'Important: The inclusion of a site as potentially suitable for development within the HELAA DOES NOT confer any planning status on that site, or any commitment that it will be brought forward for development'. The owner's wish to make money out of any site could, therefore, be challenged, provided the Council can be persuaded that other factors are more important.

In the case of Site 2091 there are several 'amber flags' against GNLP2091 i.e. 'Significant Landscapes', 'Townscapes', 'Biodiversity and Geodiversity' and 'Historic Environment', (of which more later) and there are also several green flags. These green and amber flags must still be explored further by residents and planners, and not be accepted as being conclusive. They should not be rubber stamps. For example, the people awarding them have, probably, never really used the road in question. The occupants of houses adjacent to Site 2091 have better direct knowledge of the area, as we try to get out of our drives in the morning. Remember, we use Norwich Road during the current rush hour traffic, even before is has been swelled by any new inhabitants of 11 new 'Executive' houses (remember these houses might have 2, or more, cars!) 'Flags' will be discussed in further detail, in due course.

Also, does the 'need' for housing outweigh other factors? Housing targets are exaggerated and out of date, according to the Campaign for Rural England. It says that the 2014 figures for housing targets, that the government insists upon using, are higher than the more recent figures, which should be adopted. As things, stand, the Council needs to find another 7200 houses across Norfolk, whether this target is fair or not. However, there are many existing/already accepted development sites, which could be brought to fruition, within a reasonable time scale, without interfering with precious green field sites, such as Site 2091.

1. Development Boundary: Site 2091 has been put forward by the Owner for inclusion in GNLP and, specifically, for the development of '11 Executive Homes' ('at least', they say). This field is situated to the south of the 'development boundary' for Stoke Holy Cross, after the village sign, and is outside the 'envelope' for the village. This is contrary to the Joint Core Strategy, which is emphatic in its requirements about maintaining the individual character of villages and not allowing creeping infill. Also the edges of the village are supposed to taper, to minimise the impact of its buildings on the landscape. The building of 11 Executive homes on a field at the edge of the village goes against such principles.

2. Significant Landscapes (Amber Flag): Site 2091 ('the field') is situated on the western side of Norwich Road, below the level of Norwich Road itself and below the elevated church car park, both of which are cut into the slope. 'Landscape' means 'all the visible features of an area of land, often considered in terms of their aesthetic appeal'. In this case, the Site in question comprises the following features:
* The site is adjacent to, and arguably, forms part of water meadows (photos of flooding of the two fields below the Site have already been sent to the Council and the Environment Agency). The photographs also show the beginnings of flooding in the field itself. The risk of flooding has to be projected over the next 100 years, and the problems attendant upon global warming and climate change are only likely to increase, if our behaviours do not change.
* There are slopes, several hills (further to the west of the site), the brow of hill by church car park and the hill, upon which, as tradition requires, the Church itself stands. The churchyard and the church car park provide vantage points from which to view the Tas Valley.
* The field itself is arable/grazing land, but it has not been cultivated for several years. Consequently wildlife is flourishing here, as, too is the flora!
* There are various groups of trees surrounding the site or in the distant landscape (see the mention of DEFRA later) and there is also an ancient Oak that must be preserved
* Existing buildings include the Grade II Listed Church. The other oldest building in Stoke Holy Cross is a Grade II Listed Cottage (which dates from 1540). This cottage overlooks Site 2091, looks towards the church car park, across the water meadows and down the valley towards the River Tas. It holds its own place within the landscape. The outlook from this cottage, across the field, should be protected.
* Beyond the field, further to the west, across two more (sometimes flooded fields), flows the ribbon of the River Tas. This river is visible from the road and many houses, and helps to create a magical entrance to the village.
* The village of Stoke Holy Cross and the Caistor Roman Site, (in the nearby village of Caistor St Edmund), are linked by the River Tas, as it flows through, this unspoilt, historic landscape
* Site 2091 is adjacent to the Shotesham SSSI (see later)
* Drivers, pedestrians, inhabitants and photographers alike, benefit from the blood-orange sunsets, as the sun sets over the valley. A series of houses built in front of these sunsets, will prevent everyone from enjoying this dramatic feature within the landscape.
* The site is said to be within the 'River Valley Landscape' designation area. The South Norfolk Landscape Assessment para 5.10 emphasises the 'Visual sensitivities of the Tas Valley to new development...as a result of its open character, wide flat floor...long valley views....valley crests'.
Would the proposed '11 Executive Houses' help to enhance this landscape? It should be remembered, that, once destroyed, landscapes such as GNLP2091, will be gone forever. The Suitability Assessment gaily says that 'the constraints identified would need addressing, but are likely to be within the bounds of mitigation'. How easy it would be for the Council to allow such 'mitigation' and wipe out this 'significant landscape'!

3. Townscapes (Amber Flag): There are many other developments already being built/have been proposed in Stoke Holy Cross:
* It is the general view in the village, that 'Stoke Holy Cross has already 'done its bit' in providing sites for the GNLP.
* The Local Plan p. 30 para 5.6 says 'Throughout the district there are a number of areas of locally significant landscape value. Many of these follow the route of important river valleys, predominantly along the River Wensum and the rivers Waveney, Tiffey,Yare, Tas, Tud and Chet. Additional areas of landscape value also include areas of open land that maintain a separation between certain settlements, and a large landscape protection area around the A47 south of Norwich, which is considered important for preserving the historic setting of the city of Norwich.'
* Over time, will Stoke Holy Cross 'village' just become a suburb of Norwich, as site after site is developed? This would be contrary to the Joint Core Strategy.
* In the 'end' will we any longer be able to call Stoke Holy Cross a 'village' or will it just be linked to other 'villages' by a series of roundabouts, like any other modern estate or small town?
* We must avoid careless and unnecessary infill of precious sites like Site 2091. This proposed development is the 'thin end of the wedge'. It will open the floodgates to development and establish a precedent for building closer to, and along the edge, of the River Tas.
If building on Site 2091 is to be permitted, we begin to lose the character of this this lovely village - a character, which comes from its being set in an unspoilt, historic, natural landscape.

4. Biodiversity and Geodiversity (Amber Flag): Site 2091 is within the 'impact zone' for the Shotesham Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and is within a DEFRA designated area of 'High Spatial Priority Woodland':
* The site is currently frequented by buzzards, kestrels, barn owls, deer and pheasants (and, no doubt, many other creatures) and the church car park overlooks the field and is frequented by bird watchers
* We should be careful how we play with such areas of our countryside. Humans have wiped out 60% of animals since 1970 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/30/humanity-wiped-out-animals-since-1970-major-report-finds We must conserve precious wild environments, like Site 2091 and its surroundings
* 'Ecology' is 'the study of the relationships between plants, animals, people, and their environment, and the balances between these relationships'. We must be very careful how we manage our habitats/biodiversity/geodiversity, so that a variety of creatures and flora can all thrive and a balance be created.
* We should also respect the need for humans to be able to enjoy unspoilt, quiet spaces (particularly as there is so much building in South Norfolk, at the moment). Quiet, natural spaces are known to be good for our mental and physical well-being, and architects, now, have to take this into consideration in designing their plans. The current habitats of the residents of Stoke Holy Cross should, therefore, also be respected and conserved.

5. Historic Landscape (Amber Flag): Site 2091 forms part of what is undoubtedly a 'historic landscape. 'History' can be interpreted in many ways:
* The landscape contains two lovely, old buildings Stoke Holy Cross Church (Grade II Listed) and the Grade II Listed Cottage across the field. These are situated close to, or are adjacent to, Site 2091.
* The Caistor St Edmund Roman Site, is situated a few miles away, and, like Stoke Holy Cross, stands on the edge of the River Tas. These two villages must have seen much to-ing and fro-ing between them over time. The river would have been a trade link, and many feet would have walked across the fields between Stoke Holy Cross Church, the River Tas and the Roman Site, through the ages.
* Our place in history should not be forgotten. We should be careful not to wipe away our heritage. 'Heritage' means 'a property that is, or may be, inherited'. It also means 'valued objects and qualities such as historic buildings and cultural traditions that have been passed down from previous generations'. Our heritage comes from the past, but also stretches into the future. It is not only what we have inherited, but what we should leave for future generations.
* The current residents of Stoke Holy Cross walk up Norwich Road, towards the church, to visit the church, to walk in the churchyard, to put flowers on the graves or to walk their dogs, as generations have done before them. As they walk, they look across the unspoilt fields towards the River Tas. The sometimes-flooded fields are filled with white, water birds, giving joy to many people. Buzzards cry overhead, reminding us that this is a wild landscape. People park in the church car park, having driven there especially, to photograph the sun setting over the Tas Valley. Some people go there just for a moment's quiet reflection. These are 'cultural traditions', as much as any. They would be destroyed by the intrusion of further building in the landscape.
* If building works were permitted on Site 2091, this would disrupt the visual amenity of this historic landscape. If people look down from the car park, across the field towards the River Tas, they will see the pretty Grade Ii Listed Cottage nestling in the landscape, as it has done for over 500 years. Drivers and walkers can look across the flooded, water meadows towards the distant river, as they enter and leave the village. Such sights are precious and should be conserved. The interruption of 11 buildings between the road and the river should not be permitted.

6. Green Flags: This may not be the place to challenge, in detail, the Green Flags, but it is important to put on record some of the implications of the proposed access point from the proposed development of '11 Executive Homes' onto Norwich Road:
* Although there is a brow of a hill between the village sign (near 1, Norwich Road) and Stoke Holy Cross Church, this appears to have been brushed aside in the allocation of a 'green flag'.
* There is a steep gradient on Norwich Road, leading up to the church, as well as from Site 2091 itself, up onto Norwich Road.
* It is stated by the Owner's representatives that there is a 90m visual splay either way along Norwich Road, from the proposed new access point, but this may not allow for the actual speed with which cars actually pass the church, despite the 30 mph sign. The Council could check this more thoroughly. Inhabitants often hear people speeding through the village.
* Also there are already 2 blind bends for the inhabitants of this section of Norwich Road to deal with, as they drive from their steep drives onto the road.
* Any additional building/fences/hedges along the Norwich Road frontage would further inhibit the visibility of existing inhabitants, when entering onto the road.
* There would be many more cars (perhaps 20 or more) flowing from the new development (or, more likely, trying to get out onto the road in the morning).
* Norwich Road is already too narrow for the existing types of transport that it is currently supposed to cope with. It should be 6m wide, if buses are to travel along it. Without buses, a road should be 5.5m wide. In reality, Norwich Road is only 4.6-4.8m in various places, so is already considerably narrower than it should be.
* Pavements in the village, from the site, are also inadequate. They should be at least 1.5m wide and are in reality 1.2m wide. Our daughter was hit by the wing mirror of a passing vehicle, while walking 2 abreast, on the pavement, with a friend.

I would ask the Council to give careful thought to these arguments. I can provide more, if you would like some, but time is limited for everyone!

i wish to object to planning no GNLP2091 in stoke holy cross . not only is this on an agricultural site it offers no starter homes for young first time buyers . on top of this the extra traffic that will use the already overstretched road structureis not acceptable . please take this as a firm objection to the application

I strongly object to the proposed development for the following reasons:
 It will destroy one of the most beautiful views of the Tas Valley (of which there are already precious few) - loved by locals and visitors alike for countless years. Why should this be stolen from the village for the benefit of the few who can afford it?
 This development will add further traffic to an already busy and increasingly congested area.
 The proposed site is outside the current Settlement Boundary.
 Flooding in this area is increasingly likely.
 Will not address the issue of truly affordable housing for those who were born or grew up in this area.

I believe that the proposed access to the site is far too close to a blind approach to the village which itself is close to an existing dangerous road junction. I am aware that this is within a 30mph zone but I am also very aware that the average speed of vehicles entering the village from the south is well in excess of this speed limit.
The road infrastructure within the village of Stoke Holy Cross and from there through to Norwich is very limited and I feel would not be able to cope with further developments of this type. This together with the unsuitable site entrance location would lead to an increase in traffic related incidents.
The proposal is for a development of properties that falls outside the village envelope and is also a significant distance from the existing village facilities. These facilities are becoming far too limited for the size of the village as the village has been over developed in the recent past.
I am concerned about the potential for the flood risk increasing within this area. I have lived in the area for many years and I am very well aware that on numerous occasions the meadows in that area have been under water. Whilst I can see that according to the flood map this development is in Flood zone 1 I believe that it has flooded in the past and will flood in the future. The situation regarding global warming and more developments of this kind close to main water courses will only increase this possibility making the situation worse for the existing inhabitants and potentially very problematic to the proposed homeowners on this site.
This area of the village is an amazing landscape that is enjoyed by current residents and visitors alike. The area of the Tas Valley is renowned in the region as an area of impressive natural beauty and any development that encroaches upon this will only be to its detriment. Existing and future wildlife will be severely impacted by this potential development.
The impact of just 11 houses is immense and its not worth it for the environmental and cost to the natural resources of the area.

I live opposite the proposed site for development and have done for 14 years. It is a totally inappropriate area for developing in my opinion for a number of reasons.
In that time there have been several nasty road traffic accidents just passed the proposed new entrance
The area just below proposed site is waterlogged for most of the winter months
The road is too narrow Therefore dangerous for cars to be joining
There are no village amenities and the bus service is going to be reduced
The school is already oversubscribed
It is an area of natural beauty

This planned development is on a site that is outside the village development, and puts the very special landscape of the Tas valley at severe risk. It is also an area that is highly prone to local flooding, and would put undue pressure on an already difficult junction with the road to Shotesham.
I would like to express my strong objections to this proposed development.

Would spoil the best view of the Tas Valley in the village and the peaceful character and environment of the ancient listed village church.If this development is allowed a precedent could be set for further building in the Tas valley.

To build on this site will be totally inappropriate . It will mean loosing an important( there are several landscape assessment documents that recommend the valley should remain un developed) visual amenity for now and the future.Negatively impacting on landscape , biodiversity and listed buildings . Traffic increase on an already dangerous and full road will be unacceptable. There will be no benefits to the community .
A precedent will be set by building outside the village envelope and it is not necessary or recommended to extend housing to the southern end of Stoke .

The Tas Valley is an area that several landscape assessments recommend should remain undeveloped and preserved . To build on this field would have a negative impact on the village ,the traffic , the landscape, biodiversity, the listed buildings .An important visual amenity would be lost forever ...for now and the future.
Building outside the village envelope would set a dangerous and inappropriate precedent and is not necessary..it benefits no one in the village and its surroundings.

1)
It's against policy and sited outside the village development area.
Page 132 Development Boundary Constraints

2)
Significant Landscape
A precedent will be set if this development is granted, and the Tas valley outlook will be lost forever.

3)
Negative impact on the environment.

4)
Historic Environment
Development will have an impact on the 2 grade 2 listed buildings.

5)
Traffic/Footpath
The increased traffic is unacceptable on a road and footpath that is narrow. It is possible that they do not meet the recommended widths.

6)
The bottom of the site is close to the marshland that is frequently flooded.

The land is outside the village development area.
The road is already hazardous.There are 2 bends in the road ,a blind summit and the road is too narrow.Traffic on this road is already increasing rapidly due to development in Brooke and Framingham Earl.
It is close to Shotesham SSI and the grade 2 listed church of Stoke Holy Cross.The view down the Tas valley is particularly lovely and enjoyed by many.
It is situated just above the flood line in the river valley.
It will have a detrimental effect on the biodiversity and environment of the area

I live in Shotesham and cycle to work via Stoke Holy Cross
This site is would be an extremely dangerous place for traffic to access the Stoke Road and make the route even more dangerous for cyclists than its
I question the need for more houses in Stoke as the Hopkins homes site has not sold all of the properties and as I understand it work has ceased until there is more demand
This site has a wonderful view of the Tas Valley that would be lost by the development which is outside of the boundaries of the village
The view from the church and its surroundings would also be ruined
Norfolk must be in a desperate need for housing before a special site such as this is developed
I work at the hospital and it cannot cope with more patients. We need new cities with new hospitals, schools, roads and all other facilities.

TheTas Valley needs to be protected .
Against planning policy and sited outside village development area. The need to "protect rural character of village " is being ignored .

A building precedent will be set if development granted and the peaceful character of Tas Valley would be in peril

It would have a negative impact on the environment and biodiversity of the area, the site being close to Shotesham SSSI and 2 grade 2 listed buildings A visual amenity would be lost forever

At least another 20 cars would access an already busy road. Path and road to narrow.

I strongly object to the proposed developement of the site for the following reasons:-

1- significant recent developements in Stoke Holy Cross, Framingham Earl and Poringland have grown these individual vilages and so they are losing their rural identities, slowly they are being merged into one large village which will eventually just be part of Norwich.
2- Stoke Holy Cross has already seen a large number of houses built which has grown the village size by over 30% a huge increase in what was origionally planned and agreed,
3- There would be a large loss of prime agricultural land, there would be loss of food production along with further loss to local wildlife which habitat the field currently.
4- This developement would encroach into the "rural Greenbelt" countryside
5- There would be a significant increase in the traffic within the area, The roads are alreday narrow and have multple bends, the potential developement would have an entrance on a potentially dangerous curve as the road bends round.
6- There are no footpaths or cycle paths linking this proposed developement with the schools in Lower Stoke or Framingham Earl High school, this would mean there would be potential additional school traffic for the school children within the devlopement.
7- The local services are already at saturation point, local primary and secondary schools are already full and over subscribed, the GP surgeries have already stated that they cannot cope with a further increase in the local population.
8- there is the effect on the the local infrastructure to cope with a further 60 houses, roads, sewage, drainage, education and healt services

I object to further development on this site as it will further compromise what is already a busy and moderately dangerous road junction with many concealed entrances, not least the car park for Stoke Church. Further traffic movements on a narrow roads with poor visibility is not appropriate.
Most importantly further development outside the existing village development envelope wil create a dangerous precedent in a sensitive environmental area, The Tas Valley.