GNLP2104

We note the proximity of this site to Brewers Green CWS and are concerned at the potential ecological impacts of housing in this location. Should this site be progressed to the next consultation stage, then we would expect it to be accompanied by further details demonstrating how it would be deliverable without resulting in damage to adjoining areas of ecological value, for example through providing sufficient stand-off between development and priority habitats, and where proportional the provision of green infrastructure to ensure that the site has a net benefit for biodiversity.

As residents who have lived in this area for over 40 years (in Diss for 68 years) there have been 5 new housing estates this side of Roydon and Diss boundary with far too much traffic on small lanes, back and forth to Roydon Junior and Diss High schools apart from all the other traffic. Wildlife corridors will be lost from Roydon Fen to Shelfanger as well as wooded areas for shelter.
The market town of Diss can be gridlocked now with through traffic,local access and getting into the centre of town a nightmare. Cars parked for workers, and visitors to Gazes Auction Rooms on residential roads is already dangerous so more traffic on these roads is not needed.
It is virtually impossible to register with a Dentist or get an appointment at the Doctors - our infrastructure is overstretched already !!

The site proposed is very big. There is pressure on the local infrastructure. For a long time now the schools in the immediate area have been under pressure from increased numbers and the Doctor's surgery in Diss struggles to cope with the greater demands.
The area would not cope with the large scale development proposed . There is a need to maintain open spaces from the point of view of nature.

I object to the use of land West of Shelfanger Rd being used for substantial housing development.

The land has been listed as Diss when it actually falls within the village of Roydon, the proposed 1250 homes would be far too many to add to a small village without having an enormous, negative impact on village life.

The roads around this piece of land would not be able to cope with the large increase in traffic brought about through such development - for example Factory Lane and Louis Lane - particularly Factory Lane, which in places is only wide enough for a single vehicle. A considerable stretch of Factory Lane does not have a pavement so pedestrians would be put in greater danger with more vehicles on this small lane. This road is well used by pedestrians - many children take this route on foot from Roydon to get to the High School. It is also well used recreationally by joggers, dog walkers and cyclists. Living on Factory Lane I see everyday how busy it already is and that the volume of traffic already causes difficulties with cars trying to pass where it is too narrow. Increasing the number of vehicles would put pedestrians and cyclists in danger.

Visibility at the junction Factory Lane/Brewers Green Lane is already very poor, increased traffic in the area will increase the likelihood of a collision at this junction.

Shelfhanger Rd/Factory Lane junction is also a very tricky junction for both drivers and pedestrians, increasing traffic will make this an even harder place for children heading to the High School to cross and make the likelihood of an accident greater.

The people of Roydon wish to remain a village with a separate identity to Diss, developing this piece of land which is in Roydon, but close to the boundary with Diss will create a greater merging of the village with the town. We would like to see a local development plan that has taken into account how the people of Roydon wish to see their village develop.

This plot of land is far too big to be in Roydon, and places significant strain on all local infrastructure. It is not appropriate.

The size of the development for the village of Roydon is wholly disproportionate. The application is incorrect regarding "good access" from Factory lane and Shelfhanger Road when this is in fact a single track lane on Factory Lane with poor access and onto a national speed limit road on Shelfhanger with limited visibility. The local road infrastructure is poor with only one main road through Diss and limited options due to pinch points on Shelfhanger road and the railway line. This proposal would require a bypass to be built north of Diss to link to the A140.

I believe that GNLP2104 (And it's quoted number of new properties for the site of over 1,200) is far too large/many for a village of Roydon's size to increase by. Neither Roydon's nor Diss' community facilities could cope by an increase of that magnitude. The doctors and dentists are not adequate enough at present, to cope with the current residents of Diss, Roydon and the surrounding villages, let alone following the increase in demand if this and other sites are allowed go proceed.

It is understood that Roydon Primary School is currently increasing in size, to cope with the demands of those wishing to attend the School both from Roydon and Diss residents (who prefer to send their children elsewhere to the Diss schools) But now with these GNLP proposals having come to light, locals are wondering if the proposals are already a 'done deal' and increasing the School's size was done in preparation of these impending developments in the village of Roydon. It would be a shame if it was and the School would again not be able to cope with the demands of any new developments of such large size.

The site of this proposal (GNLP2104) is also not the most suitable for several reasons; it is beside both Quaker Wood and established allotments, therefore any developments would disturb the tranquillity of the wildlife of Quaker Wood and make the current community green space no longer the peaceful haven that it is today. (These reasons are also why previously submitted site of GNLP0362 would also not be supported).

Factory Lane behind Diss Football Club is also a narrow road, effectively a single track road with passing places and this road and nearby roads leading to that site, are not adequate for the increase in traffic the development would generate.
The previous proposal GNLP1038 also borders Factory Lane and Brewers Green Lane and for the above reasons, I don't feel that is a suitable location for development either.

In relation to GNLP2104 (And the previous proposal of GNLP0606) these both straddle the boundary of Roydon and Diss, such a development only causes confusion and problems that the Long Meadow Estate has thrown up with cross boundaries.

It was only this year that Roydon residents campaigned against Diss' proposals to change the Diss and Roydon boundary and now another two proposed developments again propose to cross these Parish boundaries which will only cause issues and pave the future for Diss to yet again try and increase it's size further by trying to move the boundaries beyond the new proposed developments and increase the size of Diss by taking Roydon up to Roydon School as Diss.
Even the GNLP proposals were confused by the boundary as initially the Roydon proposals were incorrectly labelled as Diss.

By proposing GNLP2104 it changes the heart of the village of Roydon. With its peaceful area of Brewers Green.
The size of the development obviously will have environmental impacts, since the wildlife and habitat of those fields in question and the neighbouring Quaker Wood and Roydon Allotments will be jeopardised by building works. Building on these fields (and in the size proposed) will also have a knock on effect for those neighbouring properties with the fear of flooding since the natural fields and current drainage systems will be destroyed by the increase of concrete and tarmac the proposed developments will produce on those sites once constructed.


I appreciate that new developments and more affordable properties are needed for future generations but not at the detriment of the current community green spaces and eco systems that will be disturbed in the creation. Other proposed sites do not appear to be surrounded by single track roads or neighbouring natural community woodlands/allotments like GNLP2104 is. The local infrastructure and even the surrounding roads would struggle with the increase in traffic this development would produce both in its construction and once created.

I would appreciate for my above concerns and objections to be considered especially in relation to GNLP2104, within Roydon, South Norfolk.

Whilst it is important that Diss Town Council should take the opportunity to respond to this consultation, any comments made about specific sites are without prejudice to land allocations that may come forward as part of the Diss and District Neighbourhood Plan. The timing of this consultation is premature to the Neighbourhood Plan.
The Town Council remains very concerned about the impact of any future developments in the town irrespective of size, without appropriate investment in infrastructure, which is a significant on-going concern. In the last eight years we have seen a 15% population growth with little or no investment in infrastructure.
The Town Council also fully supports the concerns expressed by the Campaign to Protect Rural England
(CPRE Norfolk) who have urged the Greater Norwich Local Plan to look again at:
* The real level of demand in the housing market, which is much lower than all government predictions.
* That housing delivery tests should be less stringently enforced and that the use of phasing and a reserve list should be made.
* That ''cherry picking'' of new sites in the Greater Norwich Local Plan could occur if land banking is allowed to happen rather than phasing of allocated sites and also the use of reserve sites.
* Campaign for Rural England considers windfall sites should count as contributing. At the moment they are not.

The call for sites in the Diss Town Ward area have illustrated some of the Campaign to Protect Rural England concerns as if all the sites which have been put forward were developed then there would be capacity for over 3,000 dwellings. Even the Joint Core Strategy only calls for 300 dwellings for the Diss area, which is the figure the Diss and District Neighbourhood Plan is considering.
Reference the new sites
1. GNLP2104 - mainly located in Roydon but with a substantial part of the plot in Heywood. 50.51 hectares for housing, which would have capacity for in excess of 1500 dwellings. This is unacceptable as it would need significant infrastructure changes in Diss and is outside the requirements of the Joint Core Strategy that Diss and District Neighbourhood Plan is working with.
2. GNLP2067 - located off Victoria Road. Area 0.42 hectares on flood zone 2. May be suitable for the proposed repair and retail warehouse, business and offices.

Diss Town Council does not wish to prejudice the work of the emerging Diss and District Neighbourhood Plan but equally felt it should take the opportunity to comment on the additional sites.

We strongly object to the site 2104 because the development is far too large for our serviced village to cope with. We do not have the facilities, amenities, road networks, healthcare or educational provision to support such an increase in population and neither can Diss, especially with the current massive housing development already taking place near Frenze road.
As a serviced village we are expected to build an additional 14 properties approximately, and Diss are expected to build around 300 by 2035.
The site we a are objecting to could see an additional 1200 properties on Roydon land, that was incorrectly labelled as a Diss site, thus meaning less people of Roydon were notified of this proposed site and so less objections are likely to be registered, making a mockery of this consultation.
We haven't just spent all this time preserving our village boundary, just so Diss' allocation of properties can be built on Roydon land.
I am disgusted that after alerting you to your error of naming the site as Diss and not Roydon at the start of this consultation period it still has not been altered correctly. This makes you question whether this was done deliberately to keep objection numbers down.

I am objecting because I have had experience of living with overbuilding without the necessary infrastructure. I moved here from Maidstone earlier this year, and although my reason for moving was that I had wanted to live in this area for more than 10 years (when I first worked here), it was a massive relief to move away from Maidstone and the problems caused by rampant house building
Kent planning also decided to build hundreds of houses in one go and the result was truly chaos: all roads leading to the town centre became gridlocked after 6 am (as people left for work earlier and earlier to escape traffic). The situation did not improve during the day , only worsening at peak times and local residents became virtual prisoners in their homes only taking to the roads in their cars between 10.30 and 2.30. We lived in a small village 3 miles off the M20, and it was 'normal' for our journey to reach the motorway to take 40 minutes.
I fear that Roydon and Diss will see a similar situation: it is quite obvious that there will be nowhere for the extra traffic to go since all spokes of the wheel lead to Diss town centre. In the few months we have lived here we have realised that we need to leave for work at a much earlier hour than is needed, we start our shopping at 7.30am etc. We had to wait 5 weeks for a doctor's appointment simply to register with a practice. Unable to find space with any local dentists we will have to register several miles away - and our first appointment will not take place for several more weeks
What will happen when the population swells with the massive number of houses proposed? These current problems will be exacerbated. The roads will become gridlocked in a similar fashion as motorists develop a 'rat run' route through our quiet areas with their narrow roads.
I suspect that most objections you have received will be on the same lines: we accept that there is a need for more housing, but fear that the roads, services and facilities are not able to cope at the moment, never mind with all the extra residents.

The proposal would more than double the number of houses in Roydon.

The infrastructure, already overloaded, would be completely inadequate to cope with such an influx of people. Currently it is difficult to get an appointment to see a doctor, similarly a dentist. Roydon school would have to be enlarged again.

Vehicles from the development will create a rat run through Louie's Lane and Croft Lane, adding to the traffic chaos in Park Road and Victoria Road.

Whoever thought up this proposal must be mad. There is no way that Roydon can absorb such an increase in its population.

I would like to comment on the proposed new sites suggested in Roydon GNLP2104. GNLP0606 and have had trouble trying to do this on your website.

I would like to object to the development of these sites as they are far too large alongside what is already proposed for Roydon.

I understand that some development is needed but the infrastructure is not there to support the additional houses already in the plan and this proposed development is enormous.

The road network in Roydon would not support a development of this size. Traffic from a development of this size trying to use Diss will cause many difficulties as roads into town are narrow and already used by large lorries traveling to Attleborough. The road network simply would not support this size of development. The density of development is too great in such a small area. The GP surgery is already struggling and will be under more pressure when the agreed houses are completed.

Further to my e-mail dated 22nd March 2018 (copy below) I am writing to voice my concerns about the size of plan GNLP2104 - which incorporates GNLP0606. Which will see an increase of over
1200 homes into 49 hectares. The proposed building area runs from Shelfanger Road, (actually this part of Shelfanger Road is in Roydon) to Factory Lane Roydon and up to Brewers Green Roydon.
Westbrook Green and Boundary Farm.

* 1200 homes means a minimum of 2400 people (if you average each household as having two inhabitants) plus 2400 cars.
* The impact on the environment would be detrimental as this area is close to the Brewers Green Country Wildlife area - there is also a risk of flooding.
* Pollution from cars detrimental to people's health and wildlife.
* Road infrastructure around this area and especially through Diss could not cope with this additional amount of traffic. The area is already gridlocked and roads
in a poor state of repair.
* Louis Lane is already a danger zone at rush hour with cars using this cut through, but not slowing down through a residential area.
* Schools are already overcrowded, both in Roydon and Diss.
* Doctors it is difficult to get an appointment - these would need expanding and modernising.
* Hospitals of Norwich/Ipswich/Bury St Edmunds already over stretched.
* Communities would be detrimentally effected.
* Police forces in Norfolk are being reduced - more people means more crime.

Therefore I strongly object to the following plans
GNLP2104
GNLP0606
GNLP0362
GNLP0526
GNLP1038.

Developers should not be allowed to cram in houses - space needs to be given otherwise it just causes anti-social behaviour. Let's be realistic the majority of households have at least two cars - supply driveways that can cater for this.
In Roydon developments like Appletree, Millway, Hose Avenue, have roads that are wider - visiting guests can park their cars on the roads without having to park on pavements. People need space and if they have space then there is less
Anti-social behaviour.