Site Proposals document

We note that the site would be used for mixed commercial uses, on a previously agricultural site and appreciate this would reuse redundant, non-residential elements of the site.

The location is, however, remote from the highway and access to the site from the B1332 is at a point where visibility for vehicles approaching from Norwich is particularly poor. This could cause a hazard for Poringland bound traffic, traffic turning into the site from Poringland or that leaving the site. We are of the view that this would represent a serious hazard and for this reason we consider that it would be an unsuitable access point for a venture of this nature if regular usage of the access point was required.

From an archaeological perspective, the site encroaches onto the site of Bixley medieval village, which is listed as a scheduled monument.

We are concerned that development of this site would have a negative environmental impact, both in terms of the loss of habitat on the site itself but also on the surrounding area. The site is adjacent to woodland and the field forming the northern part of the site is fallow/grassland, providing a habitat for wildlife. The development would also interrupt the transit of species between the woodland and Poringland woods. There is also a watercourse running from the rear of Octagon Farm, along the southern and eastern side of the site. The fall of the land is in the region of 5 metres, south to north, and drainage from the site would therefore tend to flow through these onward to the woodland at Osier Carr and beyond. Surface water run-off from any development would extenuate drainage into this watercourse, carrying with it pollutants from the site. Overall, we consider this site to be in reasonable quality natural environment where it may not be possible to mitigate the impact of growth with the resultant negative impact of the site on the character of the area.

The site is also on Grade II agricultural land which would therefore be lost from production if the site were developed.

The Framingham Earl/Poringland area is known for surface water flooding problems and this site would fall within this water catchment area and likely to be at some risk of surface water flooding. There are several low-lying areas across the site, which experiences standing water during the winter due to the high water table and the nature of the sub-soil type which contributes to poor drainage. The Land slopes down to the North and surface water would therefore drain across the site in this direction with a greater risk of flooding in the Northern part.

The site is also some distance from the local services, recreation and community facilities. There is access to public transport via the bus route on the B1332 which runs adjacent to the site, and to Framingham Earl High School, but it is more remote from the hub of services at the southern end of Poringland.

In terms of traffic management, we consider that access to and from the site could be an issue with regards to traffic turning into or out of the site, across the lane of approaching traffic, particularly at peak times. Traffic-related issues are significant local concern and the development would contribute to this, placing additional pressure on the existing roads. This would not only affect the B1332 but also Arminghall Lane which is increasingly used by commuter traffic to circumvent the congestion on the Trowse bypass/A146.

The immediate area has also experienced problems in the capacity of the waste water treatment network to cope with effluent during periods of heavy rainfall and we would have concerns whether the waste water disposal from this site could be effectively managed. We also understand that there is a gas main running through this site.

We also consider that this site is not appropriate development on the basis that it would extend the linear form of Poringland village and promote further linear growth to the north of the existing urbanized area. The site is not contiguous to the existing built-up area but would compound the ribbon development of the settlement, rather than compact development. This tendency will also contribute to the existing traffic issues referred to above. To allow this site to proceed would not assist in establishing a development boundary for the Poringland urban area and encourage a blurring of the demarcation between the urban and rural landscape.

This site has only a small area within the parish of Bixley but runs adjacent to it for a distance. Our primary concern with this proposal is that it would remove the spatial division between Poringland/Caistor St Edmund and Arminghall, effectively joining Arminghall to the Poringland urban area.

We believe that this separation is important in retaining the identity of Arminghall and the strong sense of place that the settlement has. The proposed urbanisation of the intervening land would also dramatically change the character of the landscape of the area, removing the existing urban to rural transition and interrupting the key views across this stretch of land and the setting of the rural hinterland between these settlements.

In the context of the overall shape of the development in and around Poringland, this site would not contribute to the compact development of the urban area and instead would extend the linear form of the village.

Traffic issues are significant local concern and it would seem that the most probable point of access for this site would be on Caistor Lane, with traffic flow onto the B1332, which would contribute to congestion on this route at peak times.

In terms of access to services, the site is some distance from local schools, shops, recreation areas and public transport, the nearest bus routes being the B1332 and Arminghall Lane.

We are concerned that development of this site would have a negative environmental impact, both in terms of the loss of habitat on the site itself but also on the surrounding area.The site is adjacent to Poringland Wood and there is a pond within the site, providing a habitat for wildlife.

There is also a watercourse running along part of the eastern side of the site. The fall of the land is in the region of 5 metres across the site, south to north and some water draining from the site would therefore tend to flow through this onward to the woodland at Osier Carr and beyond. Surface water run-off from any development would extenuate draining into this watercourse, carrying with it pollutants from the site. Overall, we consider this site to be in reasonable quality natural environment where it may not be possible to mitigate the impact of development with the resultant negative impact of the site on the character of the area.

The Framingham Earl/Poringland area is known for surface water flooding problems and this site would fall within this water catchment area and likely to be at some risk of surface water flooding. There are several ponds on the site, evidence of the high water table and the nature of the sub-soil type, which contributes to poor drainage. The Land slopes down to the North and surface water would therefore drain across the site in this direction with a greater risk of flooding in the Northern part.

The site is also some distance from the local services, recreation and community facilities. There is access to public transport via the bus route on the B1332 which runs adjacent to the site, and to Framingham Earl High School, but it is more remote from the hub of services at the southern end of Poringland.

In terms of traffic management, we consider that access to and from the site could be an issue with regards to traffic turning into or out of the site, across the lane of approaching traffic, particularly at peak times and given the proximity to the school. Traffic-related issues are significant local concern and the development would contribute to this, placing additional pressure on the existing roads. This would not only affect the B1332 but also Arminghall Lane which is increasingly used by commuter traffic to circumvent congestion on the Trowse bypass/A146.

The immediate area has also experienced problems in the capacity of the waste water treatment network to cope with effluent during periods of heavy rainfall and we would have concerns whether the waste water disposal from this site could be effectively managed.

The site is not contiguous to the existing built-up area but would compound the ribbon development of the settlement, rather than compact development. This tendency will also contribute to the existing traffic issues referred to above. To allow this site to proceed would not assist in establishing a development boundary for the Poringland urban area and encourage a blurring of the demarcation between the urban and rural landscape.