GNLP2111

I object on the ground of increase in all ready manic traffic and schools at saturation point same as Doctors also thought this land is green belt.We are slowly being surrounded by more developments and Hamlet we moved into is quickly disappearing.Any new rads coming onto Poringland stoke is in my opinion dangerous.

GNLP2111. This proposal site is not suitable for yet more housing. It would be on the green belt policy which has been drawn up to protect the countryside from urban sprawl. It will damage the environment and disrupt this small community. Upper Stoke is invaluable to those who live here. We chose to live here because we love the countryside with the open spaces and wild birds and animals and this site provides habitat to the wildlife.We have been told, because of climate change, the need to grow more trees.If we keep building on agriculture land we will eventually have a shortage of food and with Brexit in mind where will this food come from.
At the moment this is a compact little hamlet. The roads will become a nightmare as they are not wide or straight enough with bends and dips. Traffic already has to maneuver with oncoming vehicle so with the influx
of more cars there will undoubtedly be accidents. The entrance to the site is on a bend which also dips. Should the entrance to the site be located in Brickle Road this would be more damaging as the road is not designed for traffic and pulling out at the crossroads has limited vision. There is no infrastructure, there are no shops, no street lights no pavements, no doctors and no school and the bus service is unreliable and may be stopped.There are doctors at Poringland but they are already well over subscribed and schools at Pringland and Stoke Hole Cross but they are not within walking distance for most people. The schools are already overflowing with pupils and are concerned about the next influx of children.

Stoke Holy Cross has already had far too many new houses built. The original proposal was for about 20 homes and this has been far exceeded by about 10 times. The character of the village is being destroyed. The roads are saturated and impacting adversely on local residents quality of life. The village is serving as a distributor Road for the appalling traffic congestion on the A140 and A146. This unacceptable state of affairs is ignored by NCC Highways and SNDC and there has been no investment in traffic calming measures. The CIL money intended to improve the infrastructure including roads and traffic management has not reached the village or indeed rural communities generally. This proposed development is for 50-60 houses which will inevitably discharge significant additional traffic onto the local network between the congested A140 and A146. This will impact on the quality of life of local villagers increasingly involving noise pollution and air quality concerns. Surely the house supply target has now been met in South Norfolk given the unprecedented amount of development that has already occurred. It is time to let local communities absorb the existing increase.

The land put forward for possible development is not suitable for any future development because:-
1. It is outside the development boundary
2. The proposed housing is not supported by any specific Development Management Policy, which allows for development outside the development boundary
3. It is prime agricultural land, with the consequential loss of national food production
4. Any future residential development would not be sustainable from the social, economic or environmental grounds, as set out in the NPPF by virtue of the harmful impact upon 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.
5. The proposal for development would be incompatible with the existing grain of development and would not make a positive contribution to the village in terms of integrating itself into the settlement form and character of its surroundings. The proposal would result in erosion of the rural undeveloped character of the site and lead to encroachment in the open countryside.
6. The proposal is for a maximum of 60 dwellings - the volume of the associated vehicular movements from a development of this size would give rise to a situation extremely detrimental to the already overcrowded narrow rural roads that give access to and from the city, the A140, A47, A11 & A146.
7. Currently there is no foot or cycle path that would link this development to either the village of Stoke Holy Cross (& the catchments area Primary School) or to Framingham Earl / Poringland (the catchments area High School, G.P. surgeries, pharmacy, Post Office, shop, dentist, optician, library & Community Centre)
8. The existing infrastructure, in relation to the local roads, health services, education facilities, drainage and sewage would be unable to cope with any further expansion of the population in Stoke Holy Cross, where housing has already increased by >30% in the last few years, with an increase way, way beyond what was originally planned and agreed.

The amount of development that has recently taken place in Stoke Holy Cross already way exceeds the proposed 20 additional residences. The volume of traffic in this area is already at saturation point ! Local services and amenities are also over stretched. There are many more suitable locations for building without taking up yet more green field sites and therefore is totally unnecessary .

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!

Stoke Holy Cross is already overdeveloped.
It has increased in size by >30% in the last few years & is losing its village identity & in danger of merging with Poringland & Framingham Earl into one big urban sprawl.
The local infrastructure cannot cope with more houses - the schools & GP surgeries have already stated that they are at full capacity.
This proposed development is outside the development boundary - it would encroach into the green belt & destroy the rural countryside, with loss of agricultural land & wildlife habitat.
The increased traffic - with an average of 2 cars per household, would put intolerable pressure onto the already overcrowded, narrow rural roads. Children from this development would have to be driven to the local primary school - there being no foot or cycle path to get there.
There are already surface water drainage problems in this area - these would be exacerbated by a development on this site.

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

The comments below apply equally to each of the proposed developments because they are all a matter of a few metres away from my house:

There have already been the following new developments within a couple of miles of Stoke Holy Cross in the last year or so
1. Salamanca, Long Lane - 24 dwellings
2. Watermill Gardens, Long Lane - 53 dwellings
3. The Ridings, Stoke Road - 263 dwellings
4. Mulberry Park, Caistor Lane - 150 dwellings
5. Rosebury Park, Shotesham Road - 57 dwellings
6. Clements Gate, Stoke Road (behind Old Mill surgery) - 270 dwellings
7. Chandler Road, opposite the Poringland Road bus shelter - 12 dwellings
8. Earlsmead, Pigot Lane - 100 dwellings
9. New building site opposite the Octagon Barn on the B1332 - 60 "plots" on the planning application
10. Land south of stoke Holy Cross primary School - 53 dwellings
This is 1,042 dwellings in total which, at 4 persons each and at least two cars per home, is 4,168 people and 2084 vehicles.
Add to these the proposed 80 houses behind Model Farm, the 60 houses along Brickle Road and the 110 houses along stoke Road and there will be 1,292 new dwellings, 5168 new residents and 2584 more vehicles.
There used to be a half hourly bus service that connecting Upper (and Lower) Stoke Holy Cross to Norwich which was reduced to just one journey per hour from 1st July this year (that is when it actually rans because, as those who live here know, since Konnect Bus took over the service from Anglian, the buses often run late or don't even turn up at all) and, at the time of writing this document, Konnectbus have announced that there will be no service whatsoever from the end of 2018.
How will the hundreds of new residents commute into and out of Norwich? They will have to use their cars down Long Lane, Poringland Road and Stoke Road thus increasing the already unacceptable volume of traffic down this narrow 30mph road (no street lights and only a footpath down one side in the built up areas).
Vehicles have been measured travelling at over 90mph down this road in recent traffic surveys.
The schools and healthcare facilities in Stoke Holy Cross are already running beyond designed capacity.

We recently had a planning application (Application 2017/2871 - Land to the rear of 16, Poringland Road, SHX) for 54 dwelling in the field behind our garden on Poringland Road (within metres of GNLP 2124 - Model Farm on the South side of Poringland Road and GNLP 2111 - Brickle Road and GNLP 2094 - Stoke Road) and I reproduce the reasons given by South Norfolk District Planning which, I submit, will also apply to the three proposals upon which I am commenting:

"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 am writing to you directly because my comments which will not fit in the allowable space in the comments box on the web-site, will apply equally to the following three sites:-

GNLP 2094, Stoke Road, Poringland 110 Proposed houses
GNLP 2111, Brickle Road, Stoke Holy Cross 60 Proposed houses
GNLP 2124, Model farm on the South Side of Poringland Road. 80 Proposed houses

Stoke Holy Cross/Poringland/The Framinghams/Caistor St. Edmund have seen a huge amount of housing developments over the last few years:-

1. Salamanca, Long Lane - 24 dwellings
2. Watermill Gardens, Long Lane - 53 dwellings
3. The Ridings, Stoke Road - 263 dwellings
4. Mulberry Park, Caistor Lane - 150 dwellings
5. Rosebury Park, Shotesham Road - 57 dwellings
6. Clements Gate, Stoke Road (behind Old Mill surgery) - 270 dwellings
7. Chandler Road, opposite the Poringland Road bus shelter - 12 dwellings
8. Earlsmead, Pigot Lane - 100 dwellings
9. New building site opposite the Octagon Barn on the B1332 - 60 "plots" on the planning application
10. Land South of stoke Holy Cross primary School - 53 dwellings
If the three sites(GNLP 2094/2111/2124) under consideration are given permission to be developed then that will be a total of 1292 new houses, and equates - at 4 persons per houses and 2 cars per house) to 5168 new residents and 2584 more cars.

The developments I have highlighted in red text will all access from and exit to Stoke Road, Poringland; Poringland Road, Stoke Holy Cross; and Long Lane, Stoke Holy Cross.
These developments in red text comprise 925 houses, which at the above occupancy and car use equates to 3,700 new residents and 1850 cars.

The reason I am highlighting the developments in red text is because I am a resident of Poringland Road, Stoke Holy Cross and am well aware of the current over use of this road. It has become a rat-run for vehicles trying to access Norwich by avoiding the already congested B1332. Stoke Road, Poringland; Poringland Road, Stoke Holy Cross; and Long Lane, Stoke Holy Cross is treated as if it's a race track. Stoke Road and Poringland Road are in a 30MPH zone, but cars regularly speed along here, and vehicles have been recorded during speed monitoring phases of grossly exceeding the 30 mph limit, with one vehicle reported as doing 95mph in the afternoon. Residents have to pull out of their drives to face this sort of excess speed and traffic. The traffic speed monitoring data is available on the SHX parish council web site.

Almost a year ago South Norfolk Council received an application to demolish a property at 16, Poringland Road - 2017/2871, on South Norfolk Council planning portal. -The Parish Council recommended refusal, which South Norfolk Council agreed with and consequently this application was refused.

NHS England, Midlands and East commented that:- There are 2 GP practices within a 2km radius of the proposed development, Heathgate Medical Practice and Old Mill Surgery. The practices do not have sufficient capacity for the additional growth resulting from this proposed development and cumulative development in the area. ..... The proposed development would have an impact on primary healthcare provision in the area and its implications, if unmitigated, would be unsustainable.

If the current GP practices would not be able to meet the demand 54 houses would produce, then surely the extra 250 houses proposed in the GNLP document would also not be able to access GP services!

South Norfolk Council refused planning for 2017/2871 on the grounds that:-

Conclusion and reasons for refusal

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.
The proposed housing is not supported by any specific Development Management Policy which allows for development outside of the development boundary and nor does it represent overriding benefits when having regard to the harm caused in relation to the impact on the form and character of the area and as such does not satisfy the requirements of either 2 c) or d) of Policy DM1.3 of the South Norfolk Local Plan.
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.

The development is for a maximum of 54 dwellings and it is considered that the volume of vehicular movements associated with the proposal, with the access situated in such close proximity to the two neighbouring bungalows would give rise to a situation detrimental to the amenities of the occupiers of the existing dwellings via noise and disturbance. As a result, the proposed development would be harmful to existing neighbouring property's amenity, contrary to policy DM 3.13 of the South Norfolk Local Plan 2015

I will also point out that the local bus service along Stoke Road, Poringland Road, and Long Lane through to Caistor St. Edmund and then Norwich is not relaible.
This bus service has had a chequered history and currently is only hourly through most of the day assuming the buses run. Evening services are poor. It is currently operated by Konnect Bus, route No. 87. Konnect are discontinuing this service as from the start of 2019 :-Due to continuing unsustainable losses we have made the difficult decision to withdraw route 87 (Bungay - Poringland - Upper Stoke - Stoke Holy Cross - Caistor St Edmund - Trowse - Norwich), except in the evenings and on Sundays & bank holidays. Copied from their Website. First bus are going to run the service that Konnect are discontinuing, but if Konnect make unsustainable loses, then how will First be able to make the service sustainable, and will they eventually withdraw, leaving these new proposed developments without a bus service.

In short then, the proposals, GNLP 2094;GNLP2111;GNLP2124 are unsustainable and should be rejected.

the proposal Item 4b says no to previous developments.The family have benefited financially as all chalets on Brickle Road were built on land by his father and grandfather.There is inconsistency of plot size. 2.89 hectares are on the suitability assessment plan and A Kings plan shows 3.3ha. Brickle Road is already a rat run due to the already saturated infrastructure of Poringland. The Community Centre mentioned is actually a very modest small village Hall.This site infringes the rights of residents standard of living see Article 8 of the Human Rights Act. We would be overlooked and overshadowed by an estate compared to linear building lines. It is outside the development boundary.A housing estate would devalue existing properties,threaten safety on the road, threaten wildlife,impact on already overloaded schools and doctors with no safe walk or cycle route to either and exacerbate surface drainage problems at the bottom of Brickle Road. There would also likely be increased crime rate with an affordable/social housing scheme such as this.It would cause loss of village character and become merged with Poringland which would further devalue our lifestyle and property values. Poringland's infrastructure is already severely saturated and Stoke Holy Cross has been overdeveloped beyond the agreed amount.

We object to the development of this beautiful farm land simply because the Lane's which serve this area not big enough to take a increase in traffic, with the recent development the lanes have become extremely busy to the point of becoming dangerous Upper Stole Holy Cross is a small village with this increased development it's in danger of becoming a town Thanks

This land is outside the development boundary and if allowed would lead to development where the 2 stokes would eventually merge. The whole beauty of south norfolk lies in the individual villages dotted amongst farmland.
Another 100+ cars would overwhelm the narrow stoke rd (cyclists already determine car speed now).
The AW sewage pump would be overloaded and even more smelly in the summer months with an increased chance of overflowing.
This site would increase the frequency of existing flooding at the lower end of Brickle Rd.
The gp surgeries and schools are already working at their limits.

7a. Site Access;is via a dangerous bend in the road. 7g Heritage Issues; a Roman Road NHER30288 which originates from The Roman town of Venta Icenorum runs the entire length of the proposed development.The site, which is owned by the Norfolk Archaeological Trust, is currently the subject of a long-term research project by the University of Nottingham (Map and link sent via email).There is potential, that significant heritage assets may be present.In accordance with National Planning Policy Framework 2012, further investigation is required. GNLP2111 is important arable land, that should not be used for housing but the production of food.

GNLP2111 appears to be within the CPRE Norfolk's initial Green Belt proposals 21.02.18 (http://www.cprenorfolk.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/CPRE-Norfolk-Green-Belt-proposals-27-Feb-2018.jpg.pdf) which 1800 local people have signed. They believe that areas of Norfolk are worth preserving. GMLP2111 is not walking distance to any amenities so more cars and increased pollution. No cycle path, not even a footpath to draw a white line on and write the words cycle-path. Country lanes which do not allow for safe access to the site. Ground that Boudicca and the Iceni could have trod on(The Archaeology of Norwich'Growth Point' and Environs ).Woefully inadequate sewerage provision. Loss of arable land and precious wildlife.

i back this 100%.

This is a terrible intrusion into open countryside, outside the local plan which is just another example of developers not caring about boundaries put there to protect our green spaces.
I strongly object to this proposal on the following grounds:
1) There are nothing but narrow roads around there. Which are increasingly being used as rat runs, since approval has been given for HUGE developments in Poringland itself. The roads simply cannot support another increase in traffic as things stand. You only have to go down Brickle Road or Chandler Road, and look at the way vehicles have carved muddy passing places every 50 yds or so, to see how bad the problem is.
2)There are no cycle or footpaths connecting the proposed development with the 2 local schools in Lower Stoke and Framingham Earl. A big pedestrian/cyclist hazzard
3) Hasn't the area suffered enough? The housing has increased by nearly 30% in nearby Poringland and Lower Stoke.
4) The impact on GP Surgeries, sewage, drainage etc is not sustainable.
5) There are serious surface drainage problems already experienced at the bottom of Brickle Road, which will only be exacerbated by more tarmacked or paved areas.
6) The prime agricultural land which has always backed onto Brickle Wood has acted as a natural protection for wildlife in the Wood. There are still cuckoos, nuthatches and green woodpeckers in there, not to mention the occasional deer. All this and more would most likely be lost with a further urban encroachment.

For the sake of the local community, and the local wildlife and countryside, please just stop this application going ahead NOW.

I would like to register my views on the potential development on the land off of Long Lane, Stoke Holy Cross. I strongly object to this. Being a resident on Brickle Road, Stoke Holy Cross for 25 years I have enjoyed living in the property which I do, with the lovely rural green land surrounding the property.

The land which is going to potentially be built on is prime agricultural land, which currently has a very active growth on yearly. Yet again it will be a healthy piece of land destroyed to accommodate housing which will no doubt not fit in with the surrounding properties and their characteristics. The properties which are currently being built are large houses with small gardens and insufficient parking spaces allocated. The properties which are already here have lovely gardens and sufficient parking. Where is the local produce going to come from now? Our village and surrounding villages do not have the facilities to accommodate more housing. We have two primary schools and one high school to accommodate 5+ close villages and I, along with a lot of other villagers, feel there are more priorities other than housing that need to be considered first. Another key aspect is the drainage.... there will be considerable disruption to install sufficient drainage for the new properties, which in turn will reduce the pressure supply to the existing properties. The roads will suffer greatly due to the added traffic, street lights will be added, paths will be put in which will take away the rural aspect of the village currently. Recently we have also had a reduce in the bus service through the village, so by adding more people to the village will mean having to restore this service. Local services, GP's, Chemists, Schools and Playgroups have already raised their concerns about not being able to cope with the current level of residents, and by adding more residents to the village, these services will suffer even more. I personally would not have any problem if a school were to be built on the land, as this would only be used during school hours, which would mean the residents who have gardens backing on to the land would still have the privacy they have had for the last 20+ years, and this would take the pressure of of the existing schools which are currently overloaded, which in turn could potentially affect the learning of the pupils due to them not being able to spend sufficient time being able to ask questions in the lesson time provided.

I would like to be made aware of any meetings which are due to take place regarding this land. I don't doubt that I am the only one who is objecting to these plans, and as residents of this road, we would like to hope that our views are taken in to consideration. There are plenty more areas of land which could be used which are not prime agricultural land, and would be more suitable for building on.

Having looked into the surrounding land, I would like to ask if the land at the bottom of Brickle Road, to the right of the Broadland Park has been considered as this would not obscure any ones views to the rural village that we currently live it.

Regards
Mr Greenfield.

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- Within the documents number 7b states no significant drop in levels, there is a drop from North to South and the lane drops away to the west, there are alreday surface drainage problems at the bottom of Stoke road
(the road to the west) this would be potentially increased by this developement.

4- 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.

5- This developement would encroach into the "rural Greenbelt" countryside

6- There would be a significant increase in the traffic within the area, there potentially would be at least a further 90 cars (with 1.5 cars per house) or event 120 cars (2 cars per houshold). 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.

7- 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.

8- 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.

9- there is the effect on the the local infrastructure to cope with a further 60 houses, roads, sewage, drainage, education and healt services

10- The land is outside the developement boundary.

11- Public transport is very low and also there is the potentila that the service is being suspended again resulting in further road traffic.

REGULATION 18 CONSULTATION

REF GNLP2111

A J King & Son have offered for consideration a potential site for development under Regulation 18 of the Greater Norwich Local Plan and is listed as GNLP2111.

The proposed rectangular site lies outside of the existing established settlement boundary formed by the properties along the western side of Brickle Road which are part of a previous development by the same landowner and will now become overlooked with the reduction in privacy, The site adjoins the highway at Long Lane at its northern end where there are established trees that will obscure the view but which should be retained although the access may threaten the roots.

As an immediate neighbour to the site of the proposed development I contend that the proposed development will have a serious impact upon our standard of living and as stated in Article 8 of the Human Rights Act we are entitled to substantive rights to respect for private and family life. Such a development would jeopardize the primary amenity of our property, a fully glazed gable end which would be severely overlooked at both ground and particularly first floor levels with an undisputed invasion of our privacy as well as a loss of the unspoilt scenic amenity that we enjoy.

The site measures approximately 3.3 Hectares and is therefore a site of some significance in its size and is very dominantly located.

The site is located beyond the established settlement boundary on the defined area of the Strategic Planning Policy for the development of either Stoke Holy Cross or Poringland. Upper Stoke inevitably struggles to retain its definition and is now fighting not to become engulfed and absorbed by Poringland.

Looking at the mass of sites being offered it would appear that planning policy is geared to squeezing in as many houses onto any available site. It should consider the development and impact on the community and not just the formation of poorly considered satellite housing schemes that introduce little or no social interaction.

There has always been a demarcation point between Poringland and Upper Stoke Holy Cross located at the low point of Long Lane by a field plot, and an opposing housing gap which is an important although rather indistinct division point between the two villages which would otherwise totally lose their individual identity. However even these have now been ear marked for infill development and so Upper Stoke Holy Cross just becomes absorbed and annexed to Poringland, which is not a desired situation by the residents and would be a tragic loss of identity. GNLP2111 would appear to represent a significant departure from the spirit of the defined policy pertaining to either village as it reduces the rural hinterland between Stoke Holy Cross and Upper Stoke Holy Cross and further threatens the desired coalesence between the two villages.

This suggested development site would require an access road no doubt roughly central to the rectangular site, with access off either Long Lane on a blind bend, or off Brickle Road. This would be an Estate Road Development which is not in keeping with the surrounding established ribbon deveopment. Neither locations offer good vision splays and are both rural in their width and unsuited to the addition of a busy junction or be capable of providing a safe access and egress route for a large development of 50 - 60 houses of this disposition. The Government is trying to encourage the reduction of cars and we should not be promoting schemes that will result in an additional 100 - 120 additional cars from this one site alone.

The vision sight lines at a junction on Long Lane is one which is not good now, but will additionally be frequently obscured by stationary buses at the bus stop which is located on the corner of a cross roads which is an historical location. The addition of a new junction for this site will cause enhanced dangers to both road users and pedestrians.

Upper Stoke Holy Cross does not have a Community Centre as stated. It has St Georges Village Hall which is quite modest in its size and facility capabilities. While the area generally will be seen to have good facilities, they being Framingham Earl High School, Poringland Primary School and Stoke Holy Cross Primary School, these educational facilities are already stretched to capacity and beyond, as a result of recent and current ubiquitous local developments, most of which have yet to be fully occupied and their full impact experienced. None of these Schools have significant scope for enlargement.

The two Doctors Surgeries are overloaded with the present population as demonstrated by the long waiting periods for appointments. There is one Dentists Practice which is over subscribed, one small Library, two pubs which again are undersized for the custom they receive. There is a small but modest Supermarket (Bugdens) and two even smaller Convenience Stores. The one in Stoke Holy Cross recently closed, They may serve a purpose, but collectively these Stores are going to prove woefully inadequate for a conurbation that is being expanded with this rapidly and seemingly endless growing rate of population. There are fast food outlets and a hairdressers but these struggle to provide a reliable service and can be often found overwhelmed with demand.

These three villages are now being extensively exploited by land owners keen to take advantage of the relaxations offered by the Planners to make quick financial gains from developers who have no compunction in overwhelming the existing infrastructure to which they rarely make a significant or worthwhile contribution, as long as they can make a good return from their developments.

I do not see that this offered estate road development site will make a worthy contribution to this village located where it is which will inevitably raise the highway hazards near the Long Lane and Chandler / Brickle Road cross road junction.

The village of Poringland and its neighbouring villages of Upper Stoke and Stoke Holy Cross are now being grossly overdeveloped and this further suggested housing development is socially unacceptable and a technically inappropriate proposal that will detract from the generally bungalow / chalet residences that are dominant in this area and the scheme should be rejected as a site technically ill-suited for development.

I conclude by requesting these points are taken into consideration when deciding the submitted application.

I object to this development on the grounds that Stoke Holy Cross is still struggling to adapt to the increase in residents and traffic which has resulted from recent residential building in the village. The increase in traffic on narrow country lanes has been chaotic and dangerous. Bus services to the village have been cut causing further issues. Community facilities has very limited and the village cannot assimilate further residents without losing it's village character. It seems that Stoke Holy Cross will ultimately be merged with Poringland should the pace of development continue.

The devt will encroach on rural green belt countryside.
There is already a huge demand on the local roads WITHOUT any prospect of improvement of them.Ave 2 cars/hh = 60 more cars on the roads.
The local schools & GPs and utility services cannot already cope with the current demand.
The area already suffers surface water drainage problems, this devt will exacerbate this problem.

The increased traffic on already crowded narrow roads will be dangerous.
There is no footpath or cycle path between this development and local schools making it dangerous for children.Also, local schools are already over subscribed.
The local infrastructure ...roads,surgeries etc will be unable to cope.There are already drainage and sewage problems at the bottom of Brickle Road. 60 more houses here plus the development on Heath farm will overload the already overloaded system.
The original planned development of the local area has been exceeded by 30%The area is losing its rural status, morphing with Norwich to create a large conurbation.

This land is outside the development boundary and would encroach into rural green belt.

Neighbouring housing would be impacted in a negative way.

Risk of traffic accidents with vehicles entering and leaving the development onto the main Stoke road.

I strongly object to this proposed development
Its outside of the development boundary and is open "green belt" countryside
Stoke Holy cross has seen a huge increase in developments over the recent years with a massive effect with increased traffic
No additional infrastructure or services has been put in place
, especially footpaths, cycleways, local services

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.

The land is outside the development boundary. It would encroach on the rural open green belt countryside. The effect the extra traffic would have on our small already damaged roads, not to mention the already oversubscribed gps, dentists, chemists, local shops - we have recently been at risk of losing the local buses, this would mean more cars on the rural roads and even more children having to find other means or getting to schools and further education - more stress on these already overstretched - the stress of already overloaded sewers, drainage - brickle road has never been free from drain issues in the 33 years of living here - we moved here to a lovely rural location of peace and tranquility this is being spoilt by builders so am shocked that the local farmer feels he can even consider adding to this major problem - our houses will lose value, our children won't be safe on the roads, or will our elderly - we cannot stress what a major impact this will have on many of us, the beautiful views of those in the chalets will be damage beyond repair and I know many neighbours are heartbroken at this ever being considered.

The proposed site is outside the planned development boundary on green
belt farmland and should not be allowed.
The nearby roads are already struggling to cope with the increase traffic from near by new developments.
There are no footpaths or cycle paths which would make it even more dangerous for walkers and cyclists.
Local schools and doctors are already over subscribed

The building of 50-60 houses behind the existing strip of houses is totally inappropriate. Stoke has already been the subject of several new estates, and has more than 'done its bit' providing Norfolk with new housing. The government's housing targets are based on 2014 (out of date) figures according to Campaign for Rural England. Green belt must be respected and Councils have a duty not to allow one village to blend into another. Biodiversity and Geodiversity have to be nurtured, not bulldozed! Existing habitats (for humans too) must be respected. Traffic levels and pressure on all services would become excessive.

This proposal is outside the development area and will put more stress on an already full infrastructure . Too many cars too many people in an area that is reaching capacity all too quickly .
Biodiversity , drainage sewage ...on a green site ...productive farm land lost .
Inappropriate and un necessary site .