GNLP2091

The development is likely to have an adverse effect on the visual amenity of the area, together with reducing the amount of light and air reaching nearby properties. A development such as this would therefore appear better placed to make use of nearby brownfield sites.

Moreover, there is likely to be a significant increase in the number of large vehicles using Norwich Road during construction. The road does not have the capacity or safety requirements to deal with this for a protracted period.

The proposal also seeks to increase the biodiversity within the area - but this claim remains unsubstantiated.

This proposal is outside the village boundary. In the last few months the area has flooded extensively. There is plenty of existing development within the village envelope currently underway with unsold properties having been built.

1. Access to and from the proposed site on the brow of a hill and blind bend would be dangerous for vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians, the road is already too narrow.
2. Outside the village envelope area ie the village is at present defined and the destruction of this last remaining glimpse of the Tas valley could never be regained.
3. This proposal would set a precedent for further ribbon development.
4. Recent housing has already outstripped facilities.
5. How would the proposed development increase biodiversity as stated in the
proposal?
6. The area floods easily and frequently.

Proposal is outside of the village planning envelope.
It is a very sensitive site given proximity of church an SSI site and the river Tas
The road is narrow at this point. It is impossible for two large vehicles to pass without one stopping or pulling on to the pavement.
Coming from Shotesham the junction is already difficult with the brow of a hill and an difficult camber,I have skidded there myself in the winter.
The proposal could set a precedent for further ribbon development along the Tas Valley

Road access to this proposed development is onto an already busy, narrow road with a junction close by and poor visibility. This site is outside the village boundary, will marr the rural aspect by removing the views over the Tas valley.

This site is not suitable for development, the entrance/exit to the properties will be hazardous to traffic coming into the village over a blind brow and there will be a loss of the lovely views across the Tas valley.

We are contacting you to express our grave concern about the above for the following reasons
1) It will spoil the entrance to the village which currently is a beautiful unspoilt rural view across the Tas valley
2) The loss of yet more agricultural land which is anyway outside the settlement boundary
3) The potential effect on wildlife
4) The impact on the flood plain
5) The impact of additional traffic on Norwich Road which is a busy road and which at this end of the village is narrow creating problems when large vehicles have to mount the pavement to pass cars let alone other large vehicles. Accessing Norwich Road from the proposed development would be both difficult and dangerous.
6) Lack of amenities in the village (no shop)
7) The village has already had two new developments off Long Lane with plans to extend these further. We do not need or want any more development in this village.
8) To allow this development would set a precedent for further future development on this proposed site.
Why should our idyllic landscape be ruined for the financial benefit of a landowner who has no connection with this village and who will not have to live with the consequences?

RESPONSE BY STOKE HOLY CROSS PARISH COUNCIL TO GREATER NORWICH LOCAL PLAN REGULATION 18 CONSULTATION.
The Parish Council would wish to make the following comments about the proposed additional sites for development in Stoke Holy Cross Parish. This includes the following sites that are within, or partially within, the Parish boundary.
GNLP 2091 GNLP 0197 GNLP 0202, GNLP 0524, GNLP2111, GNLP0494, GNLP1047, GNLP2124, GNLP0223.
The Parish Council is very concerned about the prospect of yet further residential development in Stoke Holy Cross without the provision of sufficient supporting services and infrastructure. This has become increasingly apparent following the approval and subsequent development of approximately 150 dwellings in the village approved since 2013, under the polices of the existing core strategy and South Norfolk Local Plan. The Core Strategy actually proposed 20 dwellings for the village with the proviso that additional dwellings could be permitted if sufficient infrastructure existed or could be provided. In reality as stated below, the village has very limited local facilities, and the new housing is already putting considerable strain upon those that exist. Parishioners are also very concerned about the detrimental impact of some of these proposed sites on the picturesque and ecologically rich Valley landscape within which Stoke Holy Cross is situated. The potential impact of proposed site GLP2091 on the River Tas Valley and the encroachment into the rural gap between Upper and Lower Stoke Holy Cross by sites GNLP2111, GNLP0202, GNLP 0197 and GNLP 0524, are of particular concern in this respect.
We wish therefore wish to object to all of the above proposed sites for the following reasons:
There have not been any improvements to services or the essential infrastructure in the village to support recent housing developments, which has resulted in an approximate 30% increase in households.
The Village does not have a Shop, a Doctors Surgery, Post Office, or a regular style Public House meaning that parishioners have to travel to nearby local service centres, the nearest being Poringland some 3 miles away, to avail themselves of these services.
The nearest Doctors Surgery has become over capacity due to the extensive housing developments that have, and are still taking place in Stoke Holy Cross, and nearby Caistor St Edmund, Poringland, Framingham Earl and Framingham Pigot.
The Bus services through the Village have recently been reduced from a half-hourly to an hourly service, meaning that many parishioners are having to resort to other forms of transport, including the private car, to travel to work or to access local facilities.
The road network through Stoke is very vulnerable to rat running from Poringland and the Framinghams, to avoid the severe congestion elsewhere on the network, particularly on the B1332. This is already leading to significant increases in traffic through the village, which will be greatly exacerbated if development of the proposed sites mainly along this route, were to be allowed.
The pre-school and primary School are both approaching capacity, which is already causing concern for Parents, who are having difficulty finding places for their children. This will only worsen as the outstanding planning permissions in the village are built out.
There is no Footpath or cycleway between the two halves of the village meaning that pedestrians and cyclists have to negotiate a narrow, unlit, unrestricted speed, country road to travel between them. This is a problem because the shops, high school, and Medical Centres, are situated beyond Upper Stoke, whilst the primary school, Village Hall and church are within lower Stoke. The recent reduction in the frequency of the bus service connecting the two halves of the village means that persons travelling between the two halves of the village, including the School children attending Stoke Primary School or Framingham Earl School, who decide to walk or cycle, do not have a safe passage to School, apart from when being taken by private car!
In summary, it is our strongly held view that the existing infrastructure within Stoke Holy Cross cannot handle any further significant development, and our experience of the provision of infrastructure in connection with the latest housing developments in the village does not give us confidence that the situation will improve in the foreseeable future. Parishioners currently experience substantial traffic issues and with further developments in Poringland and Framingham Earl still to be completed, this will increase in the future. All of the suggested sites will make a bad situation worse without the lack of local services and infrastructure issue being addressed, and also worsen the existing problems with sewerage and water pressure, in parts of the village. In short these proposed developments would not be sustainable in Stoke Holy Cross.

In conclusion we believe that Stoke Holy Cross has had more than its fair share of development in recent years, and that there should be no further allocation of any housing that is more than infill in scale in the next round of housing allocations, so that the village can adjust to the latest substantial developments currently taking place and the necessary infrastructure and services be allowed to catch up with the development in a sustainable manner in accordance with both national and local planning policy.

We would like to object in the strongest terms to the building of houses on this site for the following reasons.
1) The access road is already congested and dangerous.
2) This view of the Tas Valley is currently unspoilt.
3) As landowners in close proximity to the site we have recently replanted a native broadleaf wood with the aim of improving the diversity of the flora and fauna in this area. Future emphasis should be on biodiversity and protecting the Tas Valley.

GNLP0524

The vast majority of the Lower Stoke residents objected to this site which is situated on either side of the Long Lane road. This is because it involves the expansion of the village boundaries into greenfield areas, most of which is good arable agricultural land. Also the infrastructure cannot support this, having already had large developments over the last 30 years!

Anglian Water Stated many years ago that the water and sewage resources were at maximum limits. The roads are only minor 'C' narrow roads and the traffic using them has increased by factors of 3 or 4 times over the last few years.

The residents stated at the time that this development would lead to further sites being put forward towards Upper Stoke along the Long Lane road and this is now happening!


GNLP0197 & GNLP0202

These sites have been put forward by opportunistic land owners, agents and developers who see a chance to make a killing involving huge amounts of money at the expense of the village and surrounding countryside. These sites are outside the village boundaries and involve building on greenfield sites regardless of the infrastructure, water resources and roads to support them! Also if these sites are accepted will create a precedent and will lead to the march of development, field by adjoining field along the Long Lane road to join up with Upper Stoke Village! This would also again involve a huge loss of prime agricultural land, overcrowd the whole area and result in a massive housing sprawl!


GNLP2091, GNLP2111 & GNLP2124

These sites are situated in countryside overlooking the Tas Valley and would be an environmental catastrophe to allow any development in these sites. They are again in greenfield areas and outside the settlement boundaries. The GNLP2091 site, which is in the Tas Valley, is owned by an absentee landowner who has no interest in the village and is trying to maximise his dormant investment from his home in Scandinavia via La Ronde Wright, Development & Planning Agents in Norwich.



In conclusion, the sites submitted during REG 18 and call for sites in 2016 have resulted from the statement made by the GNLP that 36,000 homes are required to satisfy the local needs by 2026! Nobody knows how the GNLP has arrived at these figures or how they have been calculated, it seems to be an arbitrary figure snatched out of thin air! This has resulted in a huge amount of speculative building site applications arriving at local district councils planning departments. The ridiculous ruling by the government that local planning departments of the district councils must have a 5 year bank of approved sites has caused mayhem in our village communities. The building developers have taken full advantage of the situation and especially here in Stoke Holy Cross! Our local Parish magazine is called 'Free For All' and that is what is happening by a huge land grab of potential building sites in the middle of the countryside!

The sites submitted during REG 18 and call for sites in 2016 also are all outside the current settlement boundaries and will result in a massive expansion of the village, which has endured constant development over the past few years. Also the arable land lost questions the future of producing food for the next generations of this country.

I have to question further the remit of the Greater Norwich Local Plan department, how it is made up, how decisions are made and who benefits from the outcomes and results. As I see it the Land Owners get a huge cash windfall, Christmas has definitely come early for them together with the land agents and developers. The councils involved in the GNLP, Norfolk County Council and the utilities derive a fantastic stream of income in council taxes and charges per property built!

The sad state of affairs is that until the Planning Laws are reformed the applicants (developers) will have all the advantages against the objectors. The developers have the resources in lawyers, finances and staff in mounting constant appeals on planning refusals until they get their way. The objectors should at least have the same rights of appeal against planning decisions, similar to the applicants, without the huge costs of a judicial review.

The GNLP states there is a local need for all these thousands of homes to be built but most of these properties are being purchased by investors, second home owners and retirees from outside the county. Our local young couples are priced out of the market with prices starting over £300,000 and very few can afford to buy them. There should be an independent lawful body or organisation looking out for the interests of the villages, residents, farming resources and the countryside involved in decisions taken by the GNLP! Instead we have a situation where any field or piece of land in the countryside can have a development planning application put on it because of the relaxing of the planning laws by the government! This happens even if the land has a special interest or order on it, look what has happened in the Tud Valley in Costessey. This is now happening in the Tas Valley where it is being attacked on all sides by planning applications!

We are now concreting over valued food producing arable land in an area supposed to be the bread basket of the UK.

I myself have had constant disruption over the last 20 years due to construction traffic, noise, dust and damage caused to roads and landmarks. I think I should get a council tax rebate to compensate for all the sites approved by the District Council.

I have lived for the majority of my life in Stoke Holy Cross. I now have a 5 year old daughter and would love her to see the Tas Valley in its current state (as opposed to built on by houses) there has already been a great deal od development in Stoke Holy Cross and feel that the Tas Valley needs to remain untouched.

It is distressing and very disappointing to learn of yet another proposed development in the village of Stoke Holy Cross. So many have been built and are being built on green field sites in the parish and immediate area. The currently proposed site is a particularly sensitive position as it is really the only remaining open visual access from within the village to the precious asset afforded by Tas Valley. In recent memory and currently it has been possible to witness the meandering growth of the built environment as it fills in any remaining spaces on Long Lane to eventually meet and merge with the still expanding and increasingly urban conurbation of Poringland. Another major concern are the pressures that yet another development within the village will put upon the existing services. The sewage system has been functioning at full capacity for many years and local pumping stations certainly do not appear to receive the maintenance care and attention that they used to benefit from. The local primary school would appear to be functioning at very high capacity and the road to and from the school, which is already crowded and hazardous at peak times, would be further congested by the suggested development. In addition, a grave concern regarding the potential nature of this particular development is the lack of overall design that would be a major feature of the proposed scheme. Surely such a scheme exposes itself to "spec" building and inappropriate design.

We are agents for the landowner of the above site.

I write on behalf of my clients to inform you that a planning application will be submitted to South Norfolk Council for 5 dwellings on part of this site in December. The proposed development is for an identified need for custom build homes.