Policy VC ROC2: South of The Street
Object
South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 19 Pre-submission Draft)
Representation ID: 2283
Received: 28/01/2023
Respondent: Mrs Jacqueline Robinson
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
The access proposed is not sufficient for the amount of development proposed, in reality houses are likely to be a 'two car households'. Turning right out of the development will mean a hard right turn made more difficult with the existing on road parking for those attending the local shop and post office. The proposed access point will not allow for two way traffic and pedestrian access therefore making it an accident risk.
The access arrangement to the proposed dwellings to be made more robust and safer, given the existing flow of traffic in this area.
Support
South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 19 Pre-submission Draft)
Representation ID: 2337
Received: 16/02/2023
Respondent: FW Properties
We consider VC ROC2 to be a suitable and deliverable location for new homes within the village. Development in this location, close to an established community, represents sustainable development as defined within the National Planning Policy Framework. FW Properties, who developed 23 houses in the village in 2020, consider the development of VC ROC2 for 25 new homes to be viable and deliverable. The site is not subject to any constraints which would prevent its development for housing and the specific requirements attached to this draft allocation can all be fulfilled. VC ROC2 should therefore be taken forward for allocation.
Object
South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 19 Pre-submission Draft)
Representation ID: 2395
Received: 22/02/2023
Respondent: Mr Stuart Ellison
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
Resultant increased traffic joining/using the Street is detrimental to safe crossing for school-children, the elderly and disabled. Traffic-flow at school entry and exit times is already beyond safe and environmentally-friendly limits due to the Langley School 8 vehicle-long minibus train twice daily, local commuter traffic from Claxton/Hardley/Loddon and cut-through usage avoiding the A146. This site encourages further site SN5039 the exit road from which constitutes direct danger to life and limb for school-children, the elderly and disabled crossing at the blind junction to School Lane. Secondly, if northern sites rejected then southern sites must too since long-view also impaired.
Change the plan to reject all the sites to the south of The Street and New Inn Hill since they constitute a danger to school-children, the elderly and disabled, and environmental pollution through increased traffic, joining and using the Street, whilst irrevocably destroying a far more beautiful long-view than any of the northern sites, which have been rejected on such grounds. Southern sites will destroy natural habitats which promote biodiversity, including the Common Spotted Orchid which grows wild in this southern valley but not on land adjoining northern sites. If northern sites have been rejected on panoramic/environmental grounds, then the plan must be changed to reject all proposed and revised southern sites too.
Object
South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 19 Pre-submission Draft)
Representation ID: 2399
Received: 22/02/2023
Respondent: Mr Stuart Ellison
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
Additional to my previous Objection ID 2395 evidence of Common Spotted Orchid in valley directly adjoining Sites south of the Street https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/50984746
Additional to my previous Objection ID 2395 evidence of Common Spotted Orchid in valley directly adjoining Sites south of the Street https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/50984746
Object
South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 19 Pre-submission Draft)
Representation ID: 2597
Received: 02/03/2023
Respondent: Mr Michael Hayward
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
Narrow road, parking, traffic, HGVs road is narrow to the point that two large vehicles cannot pass safely.
The single footpath that runs through the village is narrow less than the guidance in The Highways Act 1980 which states the min 1m, Disability Act (DDA) recommends that a minimum of 1.2m is provided, outside the revised settlement limit The central area of the village is linear and creating a site in this location would destroy this historic feature and (regardless of assurances) would set a precedent. negative impact on Climate and wildlife (lots more than you allow, why).
Refuse them, village highway infrastructure unsuitable size of vehicles and volume of traffic, public transport inadequate for commuters to Business parks and only for 09:00 to 17:00 workers, negatively impacting on pollution as would increase car usage. Our Hospital and Doctors surgery's cannot cope with our local population now.
Object
South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 19 Pre-submission Draft)
Representation ID: 2639
Received: 03/03/2023
Respondent: Mrs Caroline Pritchard
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
1. The Street and footway infrastructure is incapable of safely accommodating the increased volume of traffic and footway volume created by 25 dwellings. Street layout (e.g pond in front of No 26) unlikely to accommodate safe new footway proposed by promoter.
2. Village character adversely affected due to the size and dwelling density of plan
3. The proposed access points (currently in private ownership) on to The Street will be dangerous to road users and pedestrians, including school children walking to and from the village school.
4. Agricultural Machinery access. How would this be arranged safely should the plan proceed?
1. Find alternative safe access points before plan can proceed.
2. Reduce significantly the number of proposed dwellings.
3. Village infrastructure not capable of accommodating additional traffic, parking and footfall thus damaging the character of the historic village.
Support
South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 19 Pre-submission Draft)
Representation ID: 2650
Received: 03/03/2023
Respondent: Norfolk Wildlife Trust
We welcome the policy wording for hedgerows/trees in Policy VC ROC. We recommend that similar policy wording is applied to the policies listed below to ensure this approach is applied consistently across the Local Plan. Where removal of a tree or any part of a hedgerow is unavoidable, we recommend that policy wording includes reference to mitigation measures, reflecting the updated biodiversity duty required in the 2021 Environment Act to have regard to the enhancement of biodiversity.
VC BB1, VC BRE1, VC HAL2, VC SWA2, VC NEE1, VC WOR2, VC NEW2, VC SPO3, VC TAS1, VC BUR1, VC WIN1.
Object
South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 19 Pre-submission Draft)
Representation ID: 2668
Received: 03/03/2023
Respondent: Debbie Roberts
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
My biggest concern is for the increase in traffic in the 200 meter zone from the new junction to the village shop and GP surgery turning and thus the increase in traffic at peak times, cars turning etc and thus an accident blackspot risk increasing.
Access to this site needs significantly rethinking - I have no idea what the residents themselves think of access from the currently proposed route it sounds pretty odd?
I wish I had an easy answer?
Object
South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 19 Pre-submission Draft)
Representation ID: 2687
Received: 04/03/2023
Respondent: Mrs Tamlyn Francis
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
To protect the character of the village. 25 Dwellings on this site is too high a number for such a small village, surely a smaller number would be more appropriate for the village of this size.
Affordable/social housing must be the most important addition to the village, not large expensive houses.
Fewer houses would be acceptable for this site more than 10 would be disproportionate
Object
South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 19 Pre-submission Draft)
Representation ID: 2710
Received: 05/03/2023
Respondent: Mrs Susan Plaw
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
Access to the proposed site would cause even more congestion around this area of The Street already over-used with people parking for the shop/post office located nearby. Pavements are narrow and unsafe. You can only walk in single file. Pedestrians whether young or elderly will be at more risk of accident.
How will the existing pond be retained, it is located in the proposed access splay.
It will destroy the linear development of the Village and have a detrimental impact on the exsiting footpaths and rural landscape to the rear.
I do not believe this is a suitable site for development.
Object
South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 19 Pre-submission Draft)
Representation ID: 2727
Received: 05/03/2023
Respondent: Ms Joanne Norris
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Yes
The site would be outside the current settlement limits, take up prime agricultural land, put increased pressure on road safety (blind bends, accident hot spot), and impact on the natural beauty of the landscape from the public rights of way (SNVC Objective 3 - Protect the character of villages and their settings), as well as loss of prime hedgerows, green space and habitat.
The proposed density of housing is likely to increase surface water flood risk and increase flows into Hellington Beck. Changes to groundwater and surface water flows could adversely affect downstream ecosystems and designated sites.
The scale of development and impact on the landscape needs to be reconsidered to meet Objective 3.
Object
South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 19 Pre-submission Draft)
Representation ID: 2847
Received: 06/03/2023
Respondent: Mr Ashley Reynolds
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Yes
My main concern is the substantial increase in traffic through the village as a result of the building of 25 new homes.
The village simply cannot cope with this increase and the risk to life or serious injury should not be overlooked.
The negative impact of raised fume and noise pollution is equally concerning.
The entrance to the new housing development looks far from safe and thoroughly thought through and this will impact pedestrians using the shop and surgery too.
25 new homes in this development is far too many.
Please reconsider your plans here.
Best regards.
Certainly far fewer houses.
Better consideration with regards traffic in and out of the development and the increased volume of traffic in the village as a whole.
Support
South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 19 Pre-submission Draft)
Representation ID: 2855
Received: 06/03/2023
Respondent: Mr Richard Crabb
The proposed dwellings are desperatly required in the village due to the shortage of affordable housing stock buyers (such as myself), are facing at present.
The villige lacks homes up to the £300K mark which prices local people out of the area, who have grown up in the village and looking for a 1st time property.
The council need to ensure the development contains a mixture of affordable housing (not shared owenerhip), allongside the higher priced homes to help combat this issue.
Object
South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 19 Pre-submission Draft)
Representation ID: 2864
Received: 07/03/2023
Respondent: Dr Juliette Harkin
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Yes
Rural landscapes are undermined. Site assessment focuses unduly on landscape from ‘The Street’ but not from other vantage points in the village, fields and valley.
Highways compliance: unworkable and recommended Type 6 for compliance not achievable; also relies on third party land to provide new, safe pathways.
Inclusivity: disabled mobility access unachievable.
Climate change: depart from stated NPPF re working to transitioning to a low carbon future.
Utilities - at capacity in terms of drainage; and questions re sewerage. health hazards, ncreased flooding
Affordability, housing need – no evidence re affordable, social housing.
Sites size exceeds 1 ha (NPPF)
Landscape and heritage concerns should consider not just the primary linear development - The Street and housing along it - but the pathways, walks, views and enjoyment for residents and visitors of vistas from the valley and paths up to the proposed sites.
Concrete information about requirements vis Highways and vehicle access and safety still need to be addressed (as raised in Reg 18 and watered down for Reg 19 without resolution)
The plan should address NPPF Annex 2 requirements on affordable housing - directly and clearly. Will there be affordable housing, what is the ratio to housing?
The sites encourage car centric and reliance living; planning in a climate crisis MUST be designed to ensure transition to carbon neutral and lowering carbon footprints - this plan shows problems in walking and footpath connectivity that cannot be resolved. It is vital residents can walk to key services and can cycle safely. Extra cars on these roads will discourage cycling for those who can and would if felt safe.
There is no information about low impact energy provision and eco building credentials - again a must as per NPPF undertaking on Climate mitigation
Developers should set out plans for green infrastructure and landscaping mitigation at this early stage - planting of trees, cycle and walking friendly infrastructure, drought tolerant planting, local community food growing allocations for localism plans and food security
Developers should be obliged to set out specifically how they will engage with third parties for access, pathways, disabled access etc.
The NPPF guidance suggests 1 hectare maximum for a site for small scale rural housing development. The sites should not exceed this guide amount.
Object
South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 19 Pre-submission Draft)
Representation ID: 2886
Received: 07/03/2023
Respondent: Paddy Hann
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Yes
1) The proposed development of the site would intrude into open landscape to the south of The Street and is not in keeping with the historical linear pattern.
2) Access to the proposed site is opposite the local shop and the only access to the Doctors Surgery, a congested area with cars parked on or around the entrance to the shop car.
It also sits just passed a sharp bend when entering the village from the direction of Norwich.
The increase in traffic needing access to the site coupled with existing congestion in the area exasperates the existing safety issues,
Development not to proceed
Object
South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 19 Pre-submission Draft)
Representation ID: 2901
Received: 07/03/2023
Respondent: Mrs CAROLINE RINGWOOD
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
Proposed site is too large for Rockland St Mary & degrading good arable farm land.
Outside development of the existing linear village.
Access is insufficient being not wide enough & developer does not own the access.
Parking around shop & street would become even more dangerous.
Footpaths are not wide enough & footpaths only on 1 side of the street around the shop area.
Negative impact on existing homes .
A different location not on prime arable farm land in keeping with linear village.
Object
South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 19 Pre-submission Draft)
Representation ID: 2907
Received: 07/03/2023
Respondent: Mrs Nicola Davey
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
This access is unworkable for this size development as it is a single track with no footpaths and restricted vision splay and so is unsafe. The volume of extra cars this size of development will bring will also make the current highway infrastructure unsafe due to the increase of traffic which is often impacted by diversions from surrounding villages or problems on the A146 which makes the Street a rat run. The footpath currently servicing this village is narrow at some points and is mainly on one side of the street only so requires crossing for many.
Reduction in dwellings.
Unfortunately I cannot see a solution for the access to this site.
Object
South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 19 Pre-submission Draft)
Representation ID: 2908
Received: 07/03/2023
Respondent: Mrs Rosanna Indge
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
Extra traffic & parking would be unsafe.
Access is insufficient , footpaths too narrow.
Too many houses proposed for the Rockland St Mary village .
Outside of the development of existing linear village.
Plan needs to be rejected . Wrong location for the village
Object
South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 19 Pre-submission Draft)
Representation ID: 2913
Received: 07/03/2023
Respondent: Mr Jason Davey
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
Access is unsafe, it does not have the vision splay and is on the most congested part of the street due to Post Office, Drs Surgery and Bus Stop. No footpaths on site side of the road and no access to create any. It is not in keeping with the linear shape of the village and protrudes out behind existing properties. It will create a precedent for backland areas and open up access to continue to build behind properties creating townscape concerns. Highway infrastructure not there for extra 50 plus vehicles. Sewage and surface water concerns
Not to proceed at all due to fears of turning our landscape to townscape!
Object
South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 19 Pre-submission Draft)
Representation ID: 2926
Received: 07/03/2023
Respondent: Mr John Stone
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
No suitable access from The Street. Too tight to turn into and out of especially at peak times when cars are Aparked opposite for the Shop/Post Office. The road on that corner is tight and is difficult to pass farm vehicles and the bus. The increase of traffic of anywhere of 25 to over 50 vehicles will impact our straight road through the village which can be difficult to negotiate with cars parked on the street. It is not in keeping with the linear character which Rockland is known for. It will create a precedent for development of backland areas.
Not to build there at all as there is not a suitable access.
Object
South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 19 Pre-submission Draft)
Representation ID: 2994
Received: 08/03/2023
Respondent: Rockland St Mary With Hellington Parish Council
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
This site is felt unsuitable and unachievable for 25 dwellings. There will be a detrimental effect on traffic flow and road safety with the unsatisfactory proposed vehicular access. There are already safety concerns for residents and accidents have occurred.
The Street is a major thoroughfare with a regular local private bus service to Norwich city which adds to traffic flows at peak times. Traffic mitigation could be achieved by reducing number of housing units to 8-10 but highway access and new footpath requirements remain unachievable as they cross significant third party private property and road signage, telegraph poles.
Rockland St Mary’s current location density average is 0.0, this would increase to an average of 0.3/0.4 just purely based on this proposed site.
Object
South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 19 Pre-submission Draft)
Representation ID: 2995
Received: 08/03/2023
Respondent: One Planning
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
This objection has been prepared by One Planning Consultant on behalf of No.10, 12, 18, 19, 20, 22, 24, 26, 38, 42 and 43 The Street and 3 School Lane in response to the VCHAP Reg 19 Pre-submission draft consultation. This representation considers the proposed site allocation reference VC ROC2 for up to 25 dwellings. This representation evidences significant harm that would arise as part of the proposed allocation and demonstrates it would have a significant effect on the local environment, highway safety, biodiversity, flood risk and amenity and therefore should be rejected as a proposed allocation.
Given the harm identified and the fundamental access constraints it is clear this proposed allocation is unsound and alternative sites should be considered in place of this site, which respect the existing character of development within Rockland St Mary.
Object
South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 19 Pre-submission Draft)
Representation ID: 3014
Received: 08/03/2023
Respondent: Mrs Liz Barradell-Pither
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
It is considered the harm identified within this representation demonstrates that the proposed allocation would have a significant effect on the local environment, highway safety, biodiversity, flood risk and amenity and therefore should be rejected as a proposed allocation. With this evidence, I hope you can see that the proposed allocation is not deliverable nor developable for the reasons highlighted and therefore is clearly unsound and should be rejected as a proposed allocation.
Given the harm identified and the fundamental access constraints it is clear this proposed allocation is unsound and alternative sites should be considered in place of this site, which respect the existing character of development within Rockland St Mary.
Object
South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 19 Pre-submission Draft)
Representation ID: 3019
Received: 08/03/2023
Respondent: mr Christopher Tusting
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
1. Site does not maintain linear pattern, compromising character and rural quality of village.
2. Proposed access is unsafe, unsuitable and unviable.
3. Increase in vehicles will increase parking congestion between the shop and School Lane. Already congested, this will increase the dangers and compromise both the village character the residents amenities.
4. Impact the habitats of the field, boundaries, Hellington Common and beck.
5. Requires loss of Grade 2 agricultural land.
6. Sewers and water supply already stretched.
7. Negative impact on residents of The Street and School Lane who have always enjoyed an open landscape to the south.
Reject this Proposal
Object
South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 19 Pre-submission Draft)
Representation ID: 3023
Received: 08/03/2023
Respondent: Mrs Pamela Stone
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
Access unsafe and unsuitable for that part of The Street as it is on a bend with current congestion from the Shop/Post Office, Drs Surgery and Bus Stop. There are often cars parked on that part of the street. There are no current footpaths or way to connect to any. It is out of character for the linear village and is not the same as School Lane or St Margarets Way as these are not behind properties on the front of The Street. Road infrastructure could not cope with 50 plus vehicles making it unsafe for the popular cycle routes.
Unable to see where a suitable access can be achieved on The Street.
Object
South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 19 Pre-submission Draft)
Representation ID: 3046
Received: 08/03/2023
Respondent: Mrs Rosanna Stone
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
Access is unsafe with no other suitable options available.
The site would set a precedent and create access for backland area to be used further along The Street which would change the landscape and character of the linear village. This would cause a townscape concern. There has already been additional housing recently built at Eel Catcher Close and Bee Orchid Way. Both of these have seen further development or potential for development.
Extra vehicles on an already busy road is a worry for children and elderly in the village. Current footpaths are insufficient and more parking on the street unsafe.
The middle of the village where all the amenities are located is no place for a development like this in a linear village which is why there are no suitable access ways for it.
Object
South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 19 Pre-submission Draft)
Representation ID: 3047
Received: 08/03/2023
Respondent: N/a
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
The site is not in keeping with the linear nature of the village.
The access is unsafe and will add to the congestion around the shop, surgery etc and relies on 3rd party land for splay!
The number of vehicles linked to and servicing the new development will result in a huge increase in congestion, pollution and danger to residents - contrary to SNDC policy of reducing car use this will surely fuel it! The road is already at a dangerous capacity.
The land is good for agriculture with a great level of diversity, it should remain so
decline the proposal
Object
South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 19 Pre-submission Draft)
Representation ID: 3048
Received: 08/03/2023
Respondent: Mr Richard Ewles
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
The revised plans for SN5039 provide a more accessible and appropriately positioned alternative to VC ROC2.
• SN5039 neatly forms a natural, complementary extension, to the east and south respectively, of existing development on School Lane and The Street. This means the site has less impact on open countryside than VC ROC2, which would also introduce an additional third clustered area to the village, spoiling its historical linear characteristic.
• SN5039 will have road frontage of 46 metres to provide excellent access and visibility.
• SN5039 will provide direct pedestrian access from the site onto School Lane.
SN5039 was identified as a reasonable alternative for allocation, subject to achieving satisfactory access with sufficient visibility.
These comments have been noted and the original proposal has been amended to address the issues highlighted regarding scale, access and visibility, so it can be revaluated and allocated as an alternative preferred site to VC ROC2 (SN2064REV).
Object
South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 19 Pre-submission Draft)
Representation ID: 3109
Received: 07/03/2023
Respondent: Ms Mary Ramsay
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
I wish to protest against planning permission to build on this PRIME farmland in Rockland St Mary, It produces TWO crops per year. There are other concerns about wildlife as well. Running alongside this field there is an owl sanctuary, new houses built in its vicinity won’t help owls or the wildlife and birds, which are already at risk from other causes. We are not seeing any hedgehogs, butterflies even cabbage whites, honey bees and very few bumble bees. These all used to be plentiful.
Teresa Coffey Secretary for state and environment, food and rural affairs. Said this week that we should eat food grown and produced in Britain. How do you think this can do this if you insist on building on prime land, or any farmland for that matter. There are lots of brown fill sites.
Object
South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 19 Pre-submission Draft)
Representation ID: 3114
Received: 08/03/2023
Respondent: Edward Gosling
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
As the RSM is one of the smallest villages with double the average housing allocation it cannot be seen as reflecting the pattern and scale of the overall plan and so does not comply with the policy of the National Planning Policy Framework in this case.
In its present form, and particularly in view access problems VCR0C2 with the requirements to deliver a Type6 Road, the application seems tentative at best. However, this application should be refused, in doing so the authority would be taking account of the various concerns and issues raised by residents and also bring the situation more in line with NPPF policy.