GNLP2124

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.

Stoke Holy Cross has already had far too many new houses built. The original proposal was for 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 this is impacting adversely on 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 80 houses which will be a massive new burden on the local community and a generator of significant additional traffic. This traffic will inevitably discharge onto the inadequate local network between the congested A140 and A146. This will impact on the quality of life of local villagers as rat runs increasingly develop, 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 the local communities absorb the increase,

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!

The local infrastructure cannot support anymore housing in Stoke Holy Cross.
Housing has already increased by >30% in the last few years & is in danger of losing its rural village character.
There are problems with the increased traffic on narrow rural roads which give access to Norwich & A140, A47, A11 & A146.
Local schools & GP surgeries have already stated that they are at full capacity & would not be able to cope with any increase in the local population.
Surely there are more suitable "brown field" sites if yet more houses are needed in the GNLP area?

Stoke Holy Cross is at saturation point as far as new housing developments are concerned.
The local infrastructure cannot cope with any further increase in the population - especially in relation to the traffic density on narrow, rural roads, education & health services.
The local GP surgeries, who have difficulty in recruiting more medical staff, have said that they just cannot cope with any more patients.
Stoke Holy Cross, Framingham Earl, Poringland & Caistor St. Edmund are fast becoming one large, sprawling urban conurbation - no doubt soon to join up with Norwich, losing their rural village character forever.

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.

Regulation 18 sites being offered in and around Poringland:

Poringland needs time to consolidate and absorb anything up to 1400 homes and their inhabitants. That being my submission, I should maintain the development boundary for a significant time and then ensure that developments are integrated and permeable with the rest of the village - otherwise I end up with what are no more than atomised, gated communities with a consequent effect upon community resilience and cohesion.

Most of these sites tend to merge Poringland with surrounding villages. There are major governance issues associated with this trend and should be addressed by the Local authority with some urgency. If Poringland is to be treated to 'con-urbanisation' then there should be a public inquiry about it as the surrounding villages will be physically absorbed but not contributing to the overall precept, leaving Poringland residents to carry the fiscal burden alone.

GNLP2093 Land to the south of Caistor Lane
This land has no natural or planned connection with the settlement of Poringland except through a substandard junction on the B1332. It will be 'semidetached' with no planned or existing connection to either Caistor which offers no facilities or to Poringland serving only to expand the village area with no environmental or community gain. The drainage would be dependent upon system installed by David Wilson Homes and is part of the Poringland Sustainable Drainage scope. Therefore it would need to positively drained to seIr or it would otherwise pose a flooding risk to Highlands and other properties in the area. This site would certainly be exclusively dependent upon car for travel to work and school. It offers no planning or social opportunities to the village - it would be semi-detached from the village and be nothing more than a dormitory. It is UNSUSTAINABLE.

GNLP2094 land abutting 2093 to North of Stoke Road
A development on this site would follow that of David Wilson Homes to the east which has had to pile the footings of the homes nearest to this site due to the underlying failure of the land to support buildings. . As part of the Poringland Sustainable Drainage area, drainage of surface water would not be possible unless by drainage to surface water seIrs and it will add significantly to the flow rates of surface water to Boundary Way a known flood risk area. It is Ill off regular bus routes and would be car dependent for travel to work and school. It offers no planning or social opportunities to the village - it would be semi-detached from the village and be nothing more than a dormitory. It is UNSUSTAINABLE

GNLP2124 land to south of Poringland Road and Boundary Way
This area is detached for the urban area of Poringland and has a reducing bus service in the area. It will need to be drained according to the Poringland Sustainable Drainage Scheme and will add to the known flood risk area of Boundary Way. It will in no way be linked or provide a continuous flow from the existing - it will be only connected to the village by busy highways. It offers no planning or social opportunities to the village - it would be semi-detached from the village and be nothing more than a dormitory. NOT SUSTAINABLE

GNLP2127 Land off Burgate Lane towards Alpington
I have commented upon this sites neighbour GNLP 0003 and have noted its isolation from established settlements and its access along a severely substandard Burgate Lane and is therefore NOT SUSTAINABLE

GNLP2153 Land off Burgate Lane (Gladman's proposal) - being discussed under appeal:
Outside the development land boundary
Access along severely substandard lane
Severe effect on Gull Lane - substandard single track lane with springs emerging in the surface
Detached from village and so dependent upon car use
Limited safe access to schools
No drainage survey completed but subject to Poringland sustainable Drainage Scheme.
Drainage route highly likely to be into the headwaters of the Chet
UNSUSTAINABLE

Please see below feedback from Poringland Parish Council regarding both the site under discussion (GNLP2153) plus three other sites which have already been reviewed but which we'd like to comment on.

GNLP2153: Land off Burgate Lane (Gladman Proposal, under appeal)
This site is, in the opinion of the Poringland Parish Council, unsustainable due to the following constraints:
* it is outside the development land boundary
* access is along a severely substandard country land
* There would be a severe effect on Gull Lane - this is a substandard single track lane with springs emerging on the surface
* the site is detached from the village, and so would leave residents heavily relient on car use
* there is limited safe access to schools
* no drainage survey has been completed, but it would be subject to Poringland's sustainable drainage scheme
* the Drainage route is highly likely to be into the headwaters of the Chet


GNLP 2093: Land to the South of Caistor Lane
This site is, in the opinion of the Poringland Parish Council, unsustainable due to the following constraints:
* this land has no natural or planned connection with the settlement of Poringland except through a substandard junction on the B1332.
* It will be 'semi detached' with no planned or existing connection to either Caistor (which offers no facilities) or to Poringland, thereby serving only to expand the village area with no environmental or community gain
* the drainage would be dependent upon systems installed by David Wilson Homes, and is part of the Poringland Sustainable Drainage scope. Therefore, it would need to positively drain to sewer or it would otherwise pose a flooding risk to Highlands and other properties in the area
* This site would certainly be exclusively dependent upon car travel to work and school
* it offers no planning or social opportunities to the village

GNLP2094: land abutting 2093 to North of Stoke Road
This site is, in the opinion of the Poringland Parish Council, unsustainable due to the following constraints:
* a development on this site would follow that of David Wilson Homes to the west which has had to pile the footings of the homes nearest to this site, due to the underlying failure of the land to support buildings.
* As part of the Poringland Sustainable Drainage area, drainage of surface water would not be possible unless by drainage to surface water sewers and it will add significantly to the flow rates of surface water to Boundary Way - a known flood risk area
* It is well off regular bus routes and would be car dependent for travel to work and school
* it offers no planning or social opportunities to the village, it would be a semi-detached dormitory development


GNLP2124: Land to south of Poringland Road and Boundary Way
This site is, in the opinion of the Poringland Parish Council, unsustainable due to the following constraints:
* This area is detached from the urban area of Poringland and has a reducing bus service in the area.
* It will need to be drained according to the Poringland Sustainable Drainage Scheme and will add to the known flood risk area of Boundary Way
* It will not be linked or provide continuous flow from the existing developments, it will only be connect to the village by busy highways
* It offers no planning or social opportunities to the village


In closing, Poringland needs time to consolidate and absorb anything up to 1400 homes and their inhabitants. It is the Parish Council's belief that we should maintain the development boundary for a significant time and then ensure that developments are integrated and permeable with the rest of the village. We may consider land to the North of the village, around Octagon Barn, as an alternative option.

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

1- significant recent developements in Stoke Holy Cross, Framingham Earl, Caistor 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- 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.
7- there is the effect on the the local infrastructure to cope with a further 80 houses, roads, sewage, drainage, education and health services

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.

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 strongly object to further development outside the present parish boundaries. In particular GLP2111, GLP0494, GLP0202,GLP0197 and GLP2091. our local area has had many new properties, all of which are putting a huge impact on local services. The local schools and health provision, are at capacity, and our lanes are dangerous rat runs. Chandler road, formerly a single track lane has been overwhelmed with traffic and is now two way , with the verges destroyed. Children, horse riders, cyclists and walkers ( it is on Boudicca's Way) are in constant danger from traffic trying to maintain the national speed limit of 60 mph! We have a much reduced bus service, again adding to the need for car usage, and there is no safe footway or cycle way from Stoke Holy Cross to Upper Stoke and Poringland resulting in many children having to be taken to school by car. We are at capacity.

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.

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.

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.

Please find attached additional supporting information in relation to GNLP2124 - Model Farm, Stoke Holy Cross.