Comment

Representation ID: 1826

Received: 16/07/2021

Respondent: Broads Authority

• Site: SN2007, Land south of New Inn Hill, Rockland St Mary &(Part of) SN0531, Land west of Lower Road, Rockland St Mary
The site extends beyond the eastern extent of the main village and is fairly prominent being on a ridge, and is only approx. 150m from BA boundary. Also close by are RSPB Rockland Marshes, Rockland Staithe and visitor car park. Wherrymans Way runs close to the site (closest point 10- 20m). National Cycle Route 1 follows New Inn Hill Rd and Green lane close to the site, and a footpath runs through the field to the east. There is a possibility the development could break the skyline in views from the Broads area - the skylines in views out of the area are remarkably free of development of any form adding to the sense of isolation. Much of the land within this area is subject to many nature conservation designations covering most of the area.
Comments on this site:
o Taking these factors together suggests that this site has some potential to adversely affect the local landscape character and the setting of the Broads. Therefore we ask that the allocation policy includes a requirement for Landscape & Visual Impact Assessment and that the Broads Authority are consulted on the selection of viewpoints.
o SN2007 says ‘Whilst the site extends beyond the eastern extent of the main village and is fairly prominent as it is on a ridge, the precedent for development has been established by the adjoining Eel Catcher Close development’. I don’t think that conclusion can be reached. You could say that about any settlement fringe site – that because there is development there already, and a site may be adding onto that, development is ok. The proposed site is further east and further south that the existing development.
o The policy is called SN2007, but the text refers to SN0531 and the map shows the sites joined. This could do with being a bit clearer. Either call the policy both site numbers or delineate the two sites and say that they will be considered as one.
o Says ‘appears to offer the potential for an additional footway access back to the main village’ – so will it or won’t it? Will that requirement be part of the policy wording?