GNLP2091

Any development on this site would be detrimental to the unspoilt rural aspect and views of the Tas Valley - a special area in Norfolk of a river valley with rolling hills.
The site is outside the village envelope and would just encourage further ribbon development towards Saxlingham.
Also access to the site would be on a narrow road opposite what is already an awkward road junction on a hill with poor visibility.

I object to the proposed building of 11 houses on the Tas valley. The historic village church would be completely diminished by the development. The unique setting of the church would be destroyed and the irreplaceable beauty of the Tas Valley gone forever. Increased traffic and pollution would be detrimental to parish life and the local wildlife.

I strongly object to this proposal on the grounds of the detrimental impact on the Biodiversity and Geodiversity ,as it adjoins the Tas Valley wetlands that are home to many species including Water Voles, Hares , Otters and Barn Owls. This area has and still does receive funding for protecting the environment and is adjoined on the South and West sides by conservation areas including the Shotesham Common SSSI. This field is an important protective buffer to the East of the historic landscape that is the Tas Valley.
Developing here would destroy the most appreciated views of this significant landscape.

I am opposed to the development of this site, it is on a busy and narrow section of road, increased traffic to this point would be dangerous. The site would also impact the Tas Valley, an area that is currently peaceful and not overly developed. It is outside of the development area, perhaps for the reasons mentioned and to follow - that this is not land that should be built on. Villages should be protected and remain as villages, not to mention the SSSI and church nearby. This development being granted would be an atrocity and damage the peaceful countryside.

Ridiculous site for more 'affordable' dwellings. Dangerous access on a narrow road opposite a junction would be a cause for concern. The Tas Valley is one of a kind, if this site is built on it would change forever for not good enough reasons. There are surely more appropriate sites for development, if it is even really needed in the area.

This development will not provide affordable housing for local people, the only housing needed.
It is against planning policy and adds to the continued destruction of the rural character of Stoke Holy Cross.
It will increase the urbanised sprawl of unimaginative ribbon development which is gradually joining up all South Norfolk villages.
It will destroy a unique historical, environmental and visual part of the Tas valley.
It will endanger and destroy wildlife in this unique area.
It will endanger existing residents and road uses, adding more traffic to a dangerous corner and narrow roads that are inadequate for current traffic.

This development will ruin the beautiful aspect of the Tas valley. Their is a continuous line of unspoilt rural land in this area which would be seriously impacted by this development.
The shotesham valley nextdoor is a conservation area and this will have a negative impact on this as well as putting pressure on the wildlife on adjacent shotesham common.
It will increase traffic through shotesham village, already overloaded with speeding cars.
The road is narrow and dangerous where the turning would have to be placed for the housing
There is a lack of local infrastructure to support it.

The sensitivity of the historic Tas Valley river landscape would be destroyed by such a development , with a permanent loss of a widely appreciated vista.The 30 mph zone is widely ignored at this southern extremity of the village creating danger and volume of traffic unsustainable. The linear nature of existing development on the Norwich Road means an estate of this kind would be completely out of place and too far from other services .The aspect of both the Grade II listed Church and 'Old House' would be severely compromised. This proposal is outside the JCS development boundary. Please decline.

The proposal is not in agreement with planning policy and is located outside the SHC development area. The requirement to protect the rural character of the village is being ignored.

If development is granted this will set a building precedent which will lead to destruction of the peaceful character of the Tas Valley.

The proposed development is not far from Shotesham Common SSSI and will have an adverse effect on this precious site. There will be environmental and biodiversity damage as a consequence. There are 2 grade 2 listed buildings in the vicinity which add to the visual impact of the area. The proposed development would permanently destroy this.

The unavoidable increase in traffic would add to the already dangerously busy road. The road and footpath are too narrow at present and may not meet required standards as it is.

The development is totally inappropriate for the proposed site in a village which does not need more houses.

The Tas Valley is a precious area and it is the duty of present residents to protect its value for the enjoyment of future generations.

GNLP2091 - This site is very scenic and full of wildlife habitat. It should not be destroyed. The traffic would enter-exit onto a narrow country road and there is already too much traffic In stoke,
GNLP2111 - The resident of Brickle Rd have such lovely views over the fields of barn owls etc. It is not right to destroy every available field to the detriment of the natural world.

I am adverse to the proposed development from both the safety and environmental aspects.
The proposed entrance is on a very narrow road with hidden bends, often needing vehicles to the mount the kerb to get past. This will only exacerbate the position with accidents becoming more likely.
The Tas Valley is home to a wide range of flora and fauna which would suffer from such an inappropriate and inconsiderate development.
In addition the fact that certain properties would be within, what insurance companies would deem flood plain, would make them impossible or extremely expensive to insure.

I object to this site being included in GNLP because the area is recorded as being of historical significance. The Norfolk Historic Environment Service (NHER) has recorded listed buildings including Holy Cross Church (NHER 5091), an 18th-century timber building (NHER 34199), and a Gothic-Revival gate lodge (NHER 41848). The site itself contains prehistoric archaeology (NHER 9728), whilst the neighbouring fields record Anglo-Saxon and medieval archaeology (NHER 9739, 51984, 51987, and 52006). There are also additional connections to the Roman town of Venta Icenorum (NHER 9786), which was accessible via the river Tas that lies close to the site in question.

This proposed site is completely inappropriate for the 'special & sensitive' area of the Tas River Valley.
POLICY DM4.5 Refers to Landscape character and River Valleys - and it states - All development should respect, observe and enhance the landscape character of its immediate and wider environment. This proposed application would cause significant adverse impact on the distinctive open river valley landscape, natural environment and wildlife. What is proposed goes completely against all the planning policy considerations and guidelines which must be given to rural river valleys and must not be permitted. It completely falls outside the current, designated 'building line' and if allowed it will set an unwanted, unnecessary building precedent for this peaceful natural character of the Tas Valley. The sacrifice of this important agricultural land for a small number of homes cannot be justified or worth the sacrifice.
The proposals would have a significant and negative impact on the environment and biodiversity of the area being very close to significant historical and listed buildings. Access to and from the site from the very narrow village road will be very dangerous and the inevitable increased traffic has major safety implications for road users and pedestrians. Any development on this site is at flooding risk due to its proximity of the river and has serious implications for the closer neighbours and village as a whole. Any future development of the village is better suited to 'higher' ground on the East of the existing village boarder.

We have lived in stoke holy cross for over 40years. During this time nearly 300 properties were built. We have objected only twice (ref-2018-1779) and this recent application (ref-GNLP2091) we and many other owe it to future generations not to allow any part of the Tas Valley to be developed, just to satisfy the privileged few, plenty of land to the east away from the Tas Valley. As the population of this country increases, so will the need for us to enjoy open spaces, vistas and wildlife. Visitor numbers to the area approximately 20,000 annually.

This proposal is outrageous! To contemplate building any number of houses on this field would have a long lasting and devastating effect on the historic landscape of the beautiful Tas Valley. We have enjoyed visiting this area for many years to appreciate the fantastic vista and observe the natural abundance of wildlife it has to offer, it should be preserved for future generations. This proposal sets a dangerous precedent for other areas of natural beauty to be spoilt. This will not provide the affordable housing needed, and SHX has already been overdeveloped. Enough is enough !

This proposed development would not only encroach on the beautiful Tas Valley enjoyed by all residents and visitors from and to the surrounding villages, but the access to this site would be dangerous on an already problematic spot. The exit from the Shotesham road on to the Norwich Road , near the brow of a hill and at an awkward angle, therefore creating limited visibility in both directions, especially in fog. The addition of another road emerging onto the Norwich road near the brow of the hill would create yet another hazard, especially for drivers approaching from the south side of the proposed development. There is already extensive development in Stoke Holy Cross, Brooke, and Poringland, so there is no real need to develop this small but important piece of countryside.

This is a SSSI site and as such should be preserved
Building on more green field land.
The site impacts on two listed buildings
The view of the Tas valley will be lost forever to public
If this land is built on then the rest of the field will be too in due course - do they think local people are stupid....!!
More vehicles using the back roads into Norwich as the A140 is already ridiculously busy before all the extra traffic from Long Stratton.

Norfolk FA are supportive of residential development in Stoke Holy Cross, associated to the proposed S106 agreement which could provide an offsite contribution to support local football provision. Stoke United FC are a growing football club and have plans to try to redevelop their existing facility in association with the Parish Council.

I have been a regular visitor to Stoke Holy Cross for over 50 years. Although it has evolved and grown over this period it has retained the charm of a quintessential Norfolk village. If this proposal is approved it will undo what centuries of thoughtful and sensitive planning have achieved. I urge anyone involved in the decision making to look at the view from Stoke church across the beautiful undulating landscape of the Tas valley, including the listed Old House, and it would be obvious that this proposal is completely inappropriate and shouldn't be given the go-ahead.

The proposed development site is one of the most scenic and tranquil countryside scenes in south Norfolk. The view across the river valley from the church brings peace and inspiration to many. The need for additional local housing can be better met from sites which have better access to local infrastructure including schools, shops, GP surgeries and transport links

- outside settlement boundary.
- will have negative impact on the landscape and wildlife of the historic Tas Valley
- s.h.x has already made a sufficient allocation of new housing..
- impact on existing new development has meant that roads and services in area are stretched to limit.
- this site is also close to dangerous junction on a hill
- this and after proposed sites do very little to provide affordable, low cost housing

S.H.X has already made sufficient allocation of new housing
will have a very damaging impact on the landscape and wildlife of the Tas Valley
Development is outside the Settlement boundary

This site access is too close to a dangerous junction on the hill near church.
It does very little to provide affordable low cost housing
Existing new developments have already impacted heavily on existing roads and services.
It would close off yet another wildlife corridor to and from the Tas Valley

I wish to object to this site being included as it is one of the few places where one gets a view of the Tass valley and its marshes.Any house built here would obstruct that view and encroach, on an area of considerable wildlife and natural interest as well as an amenity for the local community.
The closeness to the the road junction to Shotesham and the Church car park are other difficulties which make this site unacceptable for development.

This is a particularly sensitive site given its proximity to the church, an SSI and the River Tas. Any development would further extend the village envelop and the publicly accessible views of the Tas valley (accessible to all by footpath from the centre of the village).Although this is a small development proposal, it would have a significant adverse impact on the unique character of Stoke Holy Cross. The potential social benefits of additional housing are small in relation to the adverse impact on the landscape and the river environment.

Firstly I wish to comment on the following proposals:
GNLP 2124 - Model Farm on the South side of Poringland Road
GNLP 2111 - Brickle Road
GNLP 2094 - Stoke Road
According to the plans that will be 80 dwellings behind Model Farm; 60 dwellings along Brickle Road and 110 houses along Stoke Road,
This is in addition to the 1,042 dwellings in the process of being built or completed around our house and near vicinity
Total 1292 dwellings which, at 4 persons to each dwelling and at least two cars per home, is 5168 people and 2584 vehicles.
Stoke Holy Cross is a village.
The proposals of turning it into a concrete, congested, polluted town are unforgivable.
The rolling hills and arable farmland will be gone. So will the birds, trees and deer and all things precious to us villagers who moved to this area many years ago for the unpolluted, uncongested way of life.
The roads cannot be widened; and they are B and C roads anyway. Down which the lorries thunder at speed already, bringing building materials to the sites still to be completed.
I do not understand the proposal of 250 dwellings when the planning was refused for 54 dwellings recently at the bottom of our garden. I would like to remind you the reasons for the refusal of this build which is a follows.
"The proposed development does not represent a sustainable development, having regard to the three tests (social, economic and environmental) set out in the NPPF, by virtue of the harmful impact to the character and visual appearance of the area and encroachment into the open countryside, together with the detrimental impact on the amenities of the existing neighbouring properties which significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefit of housing in the Norwich Policy Area where there is not an up to date 5 year housing land supply, which is diminished by virtue of the evidence contained in the SHMA. Accordingly, the proposal fails to comply with policy DM1.1 of the South Norfolk Local Plan and Paragraph 14 of the NPPF.
It is considered that the proposal would be harmful to the character and visual appearance of the area; is incompatible with the existing grain of development and would not make a positive contribution to the village, in terms of integrating itself appropriately into the settlement form and character and its surroundings. Consequently, the proposal would result in the erosion of the rural undeveloped character of the site and lead to an encroachment on the open countryside. The proposal in view of the above is therefore contrary to policies DM 3.8, DM4.5, Policy 2 of the JCS, together with Section 7 of the NPPF and the design principle 3.4.1 of the South Norfolk Place-Making Guide requires new development to relate well to the character of the local area which this proposal does not do."

I write to document my objection to the proposed development GNLP 2091. The proposal is outside the development boundary of the village. It will spoil the gateway to the village, no doubt will be the 'thin edge of the wedge' regarding further development along the Tas valley. Road traffic increases in the village following other developments have reached what must be capacity. There is no shop in the village, no Dr.s, no post office, and now little in the way of a bus service meaning that each new house will bring at least two additional cars into the village.

The entrance to the proposed area is sat at the base of a hill with poor visibility along a busy road. The road is already inadequate for traffic going in both directions without the additional demand and requirements from the development. The proposal is relatively piecemeal in its approach, compared to other available sites which are better for proper design and development of Stoke Holy Cross. Approval of this site would also set a precedent for other similar proposals to go through, which therefore makes it harder to object to similarly unsuitable developments in future.

Why destroy something that is a joy for all to behold and gaze upon by building homes on this spot. Homes should be built where they could improve a site and provide homes closer to transport and work
The village is on what was the quiet route south from Norwich out across the little old bridge over the river and on past the meadows which flood during heavy rain and become lakes covered by birds
In winter the lakes become ice rinks for the birds
Cyclists love the route and increasing traffic endangers them
This spot is very dangerous because of poor visibility as any new road would be at the top of the hill
It is already difficult to get onto the road with present traffic levels and more houses would make this worse

This is an objection to the proposed site reference GNLP2091 - Land West of Norwich Road, Stoke Holy Cross, in response to the Stage B Regulation 18 Consultation.

Introduction
This is a speculative proposal for a residential housing development of 11 dwellings, located on a prominent site at the edge of the village and within the boundary of the Tas rural river valley.

Planning and policy context

The site is significantly outside the village development boundary identified on map 019 of the adopted Joint Core Strategy.

The "Joint Core Strategy (JCS) identifies Stoke Holy Cross as a Service Village in which land will be allocated for small-scale housing growth in the period 1 April 2008 to 31 March 2026, within the range of 10-20 dwellings, subject to form, character and servicing constraints". 130 houses have been built or are currently underway on two sites on Long lane in the village of only 670 households. We believe that a 20% increase in the number of houses is significant and that no more should be built.
Under form and character it identifies that "the village has traditionally had a strongly linear form and has developed along the eastern banks of the River Tas away from the older historic part of the settlement around the mill". At the southern end of the village all houses are on large single plots accessed direct from the highway. The only exceptions to the very clear linear form are historic properties 'The Old House' and 'Lime Kiln Farm', which were built lower on the valley floor. Lime Kiln Farm has been converted into a group of houses and 'The Old House remains a single dwelling. Due to the limited width of frontage to the Norwich Road it would not be possible to continue the strong linear form. This would result in a modern estate type of approach with two or even 3 rows of houses accessed from a single estate road. This is clearly against the linear form of the village and against policy.

The Development Boundary and Constraints section identifies that "The boundary allows for additional infill development on Long Lane and elsewhere in the village but has been drawn to protect the more rural character of the village in the southern and northern extremities of development along Norwich Road".

A housing estate at the southern end of the village clearly goes against the policy to protect the more rural and open character of the village. The proposed development would significantly harm the natural and undisturbed beauty of the protected Tas Valley. The existing open landscape character of the southern end of the village, with its far-reaching views of the valley and river, would be lost. The proposed development would neither contribute to nor enhance the natural environment. Again, clearly against both national NPPF and local (JCS) policies.

Planning and appeal decisions on other sites in the vicinity are also relevant. The most recent being 14 Norwich Road - Proposed new dwelling- Outline (2017/1766). This was refused in October 2017 and dismissed at appeal 18/00026/AGREFUon 28th November 2018 for the following reasons:
- "The dwelling would be located outside the settlement boundary for the village where new housing would normally be restricted by LP policy DM1.3".
- The "development would be contrary to South Norfolk Local Plan (LP) policy DM4.5 which requires all development to respect and where possible enhance the landscape character of its immediate and wider setting".
- "Built development also including a substantial area of new access and driveway would harm the rural undeveloped character of the area which has an important aesthetic role in integrating the settlement within the countryside".

Access
The 'Constraints Analysis' section on the GNLP Suitability Assessment scores access 'green' with no apparent constraint. The site is located within the 30mph village speed limit but the approach from the south is restricted by the brow of the hill adjacent to the church. This results in access to the site limited to the centre of the frontage where the width of road is only 4.8m. A minimum of 5.5m is required for two cars to pass in safety at low speed. The land adjoining the road at the midpoint is approximately 2.5 m below road level so the 'access gradient' onto the highway is of great concern. It is clear that access has not been considered in line with the Norfolk County Council's 'Safe, Sustainable Development' (Revised Nov 2015). I am concerned that access to the site is dangerous and does not comply with recognised highway standards.

Accessibility To Services
The 'Constraints Analysis' section on the GNLP Suitability Assessment scores utilities capacity 'green', with no apparent constraint. Due to the east west fall across the site existing properties north of the site run into an unadopted foul sewer. It is highly unlikely that this would have spare capacity for a new housing estate.

Significant Landscape
The site is clearly very sensitive in landscape terms as it is entirely located within 'Character Area A1 Tas Rural River Valley' in the South Norfolk Landscape Assessment dated June 2012 and current specific policy, DM 4.5 ('Landscape Character and River Valleys', South Norfolk Local Plan) as contained within the Development Management Policies Document (October 2015).

SNLA Section 4.10 Sensitivities and Vulnerabilities states that "The principal sensitivities and vulnerabilities of the Tas Valley Rural River Valley Character Area include: visual sensitivities of the Tas Valley to new development/ landscape change as a result of its open character, wide flat floor and long valley views; small scale development pressures (infill, residential extensions) within the valley which could, over time, erode the local rural vernacular and the sense that buildings are well-integrated within the landscape context; "

The undisturbed site currently exhibits a distinctive character; an openness and tranquillity as clearly described in the policy documents, to protect the unique characteristics of the Tas Valley. A development of this site for housing will significantly harm the 'intrinsic character' of the valley, long valley views and beauty of this part of the Tas Valley.

Historic Environment, Listed Buildings and Archaeology
Both Stoke Holy Cross Parish Church (Grade II*) and 'The Old House' (Grade II) immediately adjacent to the site to the rear of properties fronting Norwich Road are located in close proximity to the site. The scale and siting of any development would affect the setting of both listed building by removing the special open landscape character and obscuring the important views of 'The Old House' from the Norwich Road.

The site is of archaeological significance. On the Norfolk Heritage Explorer (www.heritage.norfolk.gov.uk) the site and immediate land surrounding the site are defined as Archaeology areas. Recorded archaeological finds have been found to the south and east of the site.

Biodiversity and Geodiversity
A nationally designated Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) lies to the immediate south east of the site.
In addition, Natural England https://designatedsites.naturalengland.org.uk designates land immediately surrounding the site as Habitat Inventory- Coastal and Floodplain Grazing Marsh, Priority Habitat Inventory - Good quality semi-improved grassland (Non Priority) (England) and Priority Habitat Inventory.

This is an area where animals, birds and butterflies including raptors (buzzards, harriers, every native owl, sparrow hawks and goshawk), bats, swans and many other species thrive. Wild and other rare plant species have been documented in the surrounding area. Any development would damage these natural habitats.

Public Objection and Localism
There is little local support for the allocation of this proposed site for housing and most residents are opposed to any development which impacts on the Tas Valley. On the GNLP website for comments there are, as of today, over 60 objections/comments for this site.

Unintended Consequences and Opening to Other Local Sites
If the site were approved, then this could lead to other sites within the Tas Valley being put forward for development. This would generate further promotion and applications for planning and infill development on neighbouring sites that SNDC would not be able to oppose. This would lead to an oversupply of housing land in the village, inappropriate and unsustainable development, and further pressure on infrastructure.

Summary
At every level the proposed site is unsuitable for allocation of a new housing development of any size. It has many potential adverse impacts, risks and uncertainties as follows;

1. Against planning policy - sited outside the village development boundary, contrary to the South Norfolk Local Plan Development Management Policies and national planning policy.
2. Located in the protected 'Character Area A1 Tas Rural River Valley'.
3. Adjacent to a SSSI and other important wildlife habitats, which would be affected by the development.
4. No need for further development in the village. 130 dwelling have been or are currently under construction in the village.
5. Highway and access issues.
6. Inadequate services and capacity of existing utilities.
7. It is not sustainable development - no economic, social or environmental benefits.
8. The impact on views of listed buildings, archaeology, ecology and biodiversity of the area.
9. Lacking local support.
10. This site goes against the precedent of previous planning and appeal decisions.

T Powter-Robinson 5 Norwich Road, Stoke Holy Cross, Norwich, NR14 8AB
12th December 2018

1. The proposed area is outside the village planning envelope
2. The road into Stoke Holy Cross from Shotesham comes over the brow of a hill which is effectively 'blind'. This would make the proposed access potentially very difficult and possibly dangerous. Traffic coming into the village frequently exceeds the 30mph limit.
3. The road through the village is narrow and the additional traffic generated will have a negative impact on the village.
4. The river landscape at this point is a beautiful and unique feature which would be destroyed by this development.