QUESTION 105: Do you agree

Object

Representation ID: 41

Received: 08/06/2021

Respondent: Mr Alex White

I think that the settlement boundary should be extended to include the proposed site 'SN2007 & SN0531' and also the cluster of houses that are close to the New Inn Pub and staithe.

Comment

Representation ID: 64

Received: 11/06/2021

Respondent: Mr Richard Sadd

Object because there are already far too many houses in this tiny village, we do not have the infrastructure to support more.
The resulting over crowding and road use would be unacceptable, besides all the noise and pollution from more dwellings not to mention crime & anti-social behaviour levels will increase.
We don't want even more destruction of village by upgrading road neither!

Object

Representation ID: 94

Received: 16/06/2021

Respondent: Miss Emma Galter

I do not feel building my housing is the correct thing for the village currently. I don’t believe the housing would be affordable and there is no guarantee it would bring families even to benefit schools. It’s a no from me.

Comment

Representation ID: 104

Received: 17/06/2021

Respondent: Mr Philip Green

The development on SN2064REV should not be seriously considered given the size of access, proximity of said access road to current housing . The road opposite the proposed development is home to the village shop as such regularly has cars parked on the road outside directly opposite the proposed access. This leaving one side blocked. You can see the obvious issues. So a development access would be totally unsuitable. However the proposal for SN2007 should be considered as long as the current access road was amended and utilised.

Object

Representation ID: 119

Received: 19/06/2021

Respondent: Mrs Janet Rogers

I strongly object to this planning application as it detracts from the linear design of the village and If agreed it will create a precident for further developments nearby. This development involves the removal of pasture and is detrimental to the rural nature of the village.
The increase in population, vehicle movements etc will add to the already busy road and impact on the infrastructure, GP surgery, school etc.
This development is a contradiction of the Prime Minister’s statement that there should not be developments on agricultural land, developing brownfield sites first.

Object

Representation ID: 121

Received: 19/06/2021

Respondent: Mrs Janet Rogers

I strongly object to increasing the settlement, I moved here becaused I love and appreciate everything that a small village and the surrounding countryside has to offer. These developments if agreed would open the door for more in the future Rockland St Mary would become a mini Poringland and unrecognisable as a rural, broadland village.

Object

Representation ID: 143

Received: 21/06/2021

Respondent: mr ingo wagenknecht

the character of a village is determined by its vital essential infrastructure as much as its past development

Object

Representation ID: 172

Received: 22/06/2021

Respondent: Mrs Karin Rundle

Area of beauty needs protecting. Any further settlement ruin the character. No roads. Development size out of proportion to sill age and outside existing boundaries

Object

Representation ID: 527

Received: 21/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Andrew Cullum

SN2007 proposes to build 25 houses to the south of New Inn Hill. I object to this as it requires the village Settlement Limit to be changed to allow development eastwards into land that has high landscape value. Other sites exist in the village that are just as suitable. A key reason for including this site is a planning precedent set when ten affordable houses (Eel Catchers Close) were built that did not need permission as they were outside the Limit and built as an exception. The Limit has been changed and will not stop development down New Inn Hill.

Object

Representation ID: 591

Received: 24/07/2021

Respondent: Miss Eleanor Perkin

• Development of the sites would cause harm to designated heritage assets by disrupting their setting and the ability to understand their historical significance.
• There is inadequate evidence that the council have given this issue the ‘considerable weight or importance’ national policy demands for decision making in the plan thus far.
• Legal precedent for rejecting such proposals citing Paragraph185 of the National Planning Policy Framework has been set.

Support

Representation ID: 681

Received: 27/07/2021

Respondent: Ms Joanne Norris

Hellington and Holverston consist of very few houses in a rural setting, with very minimal infrastructure and road access. Any proposed development would make a significant negative impact on this rural community. I therefore agree that a settlement limit hasn't been proposed.

Object

Representation ID: 685

Received: 27/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Roger Brooks

The Settlement Limit should not be changed unless any proposed changes can demonstrate:
1. good access/ingress given the narrow road with bends and a brow of the hill as well as (in some locations) parked cars
2. insignificant impact on nearby sensitive environment areas
3. adequate infrastructure will be available
4. no adverse highway considerations including impact on the cycle route
5.that the character of the village would not be significantly changed.

Object

Representation ID: 711

Received: 28/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Peter Armitage

I OBJECT to the proposed changes to allow more housing outside the limit and support the existing settlement limit.. My objections are;
-it would change the linear character of the village
- it would increase traffic, it is already dangerous with excessive street parking and speeding traffic ( we have had 4 cats killed on the road)
- pavements, already too narrow for wheelchairs, will be more hazardous with more traffic
-environmental impact, we would lose more countryside and valuable habitat
- it will impact the character of a Broadland village and will be seen from Broads Authority area

Object

Representation ID: 831

Received: 29/07/2021

Respondent: Mr peter longford

Any development that extends the settlement limit would be subject to a judicial review. Eel catcher close was granted special exception for social housing. Planning permission has been refused for houses outside this limit. The only open view, access to feilds and footpath for the village would dissapear. There is a protection order on barns at the rear of eel catcher close. The proposed development is over a kilometer from shops, post office and surgery. The access point is a dangerous stretch of road. 40 houses just built on bee orchard close. water and sewage already overloaded.

Object

Representation ID: 926

Received: 30/07/2021

Respondent: Rockland St Mary With Hellington Parish Council

This is outside the revised settlement limit. If granted planning permission it may set a precedent for further development on agricultural land, destroying the rural village charm. The Parish Council supports brownfield sites being developed before greenfield. Parishioners are against large commuter-type executive housing. The Orchids is not a precedent to accept more linear or back development. Parishioners feel strongly that Rockland St Mary has had its fair share of growth in Eel Catcher Close and the completion of The Orchids as part of Bee Orchid Way. The Parish Council does not accept any further revision to adopt site SN2064REV.

Object

Representation ID: 1028

Received: 31/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Jayme Forbes

Lack of existing infrastructure - poor water supply, stretched electrical supply, poor road, cycle and public transport links to and from nearest employment areas & amenities.
Increased pressure on local infrastructure - sewage & water run-off.
Development too dense - increases urbanisation of existing developments and reduces rural 'feel' of village.
Personally I frequently bicycle into and out of the village and find the traffic situation increasingly risky with already increasing vehicular traffic volumes. I'm also concerned about demand for existing residents let alone new residents to charge things like electric vehicles to meet government climate targets.

Object

Representation ID: 1139

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Mrs Julie Church

The proposed sites (SN2007 and SN0531) are unsuitable, at every level, for development. They would be contravening the National Planning Policy Framework as well as the South Norfolk Place-Making Guide. The developments would have a total and unnecessary catastrophic impact on adjacent significant listed buildings and heritage assets, integral to the history of the village, as well as on the landscape, utilities, highways, ecology and biodiversity of the area.

The sites are outside the historic settlement boundary and there is nothing to be gained, and all to be lost, by their development.

Object

Representation ID: 1149

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Ms Naomi Bowen

Three listed buildings have protected area status which the proposed building plan contravenes. The line of houses at Eel Catcher Close are a special exeption of the designated village area as they are social housing. This means there is no precedent for housing in this area. Permission has already been refused for buildings here, outside the designated area. Dangerous hill, bend and fast traffic make access dangerous. Destruction of only open land with footpath. Utilities at breaking point. Almost a mile from village centre..

Object

Representation ID: 1312

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Debbie Roberts

1. There is not sufficient long term planning and investment for infrastructure needs for dwelling numbers of this amount in Rockland St Mary; school, medical, transport, access.

2. There is also insufficient weighting given to social housing in the development making this primarily a profit driven development and not considering the full needs of the social fabric of what creates a robust thriving village with diverse socioeconomic mix.

3. The proposed housing development is on current agriculture fields - without showing any plans for greening offset /development to compliment any build.

Object

Representation ID: 1336

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Mr David Fairbourn

While some additional children would be beneficial for Rockland St. Mary village school, it does not have the capacity to absorb the children from an additional 50 houses, nor does it have the space, or design to support additional building extensions. Consequently, these proposed housing developments would create additional car journeys to primary schools further afield, at a time when we are trying to tackle climate change.

Object

Representation ID: 1371

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Miss J C Richardson

Settlement limit cannot be extended. Eel catcher close a special exception for social housing. Plans have been denied for other buildings outside the plan so there is no precedent. The land behind eel catcher close is close to protected grade 1 listed barns. The access point on the road is at a dangerous bend, hill and junction. The proposed development is over a kilometer from the shop, school and post office. 30 buildings have just been put up in Bee Orchard Way. The only open access to footpath and feilds in the village would vanish.

Object

Representation ID: 1459

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Jason Davey

The Settlement Limit as it stands should remain I do not agree to any of the proposed changes especially those to include backland development which will intrude into the open countryside outside of the unique liner settlement of the village leading to townscaping. Eel Catcher Close was an exception site for social housing only so was not a precedent for further development and the much larger site would be totally out of character and dominate the village. Any changes should mirror Eel Catcher Close.

Object

Representation ID: 1556

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Miss Rebecca Cook

I object because Rockland St Mary is a small rural village therefore should not be opened up to such development possibilities.

Object

Representation ID: 1573

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Ms Jeni Barnacle

I disagree with the proposed changes to the current Settlement Limit for the following reasons
1)The changes proposed would have an adverse impact on the landscape and settlement line of a linear village. Both sites are situated on a ridge c15-16m above sea level and encroach into the valley changing the village line at the highest point.
2) Endangers environment of wildlife nesting of ancient trees and long distances path borders
3) Current infrastructure hasn't the capacity
4) Additional local housing needs were met by recent Bee Orchid Way and Eel Catcher Close developments

Object

Representation ID: 1574

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Mrs Nicola Davey

I object to the proposed changes to the settlement limit. Eel Catcher was an exception site so not a precedent, the larger site would be out of character and proportion to the existing village. Any development along the liner line of the village will be backland development and intrude to open countryside allowing a precedent for a future threat of townscaping. There has already been recent additions to the village via Bee Orchid. The current settlement limit protects this small rural Broadland village to ignore this would not protect the countryside, landscapes, plants and wildlife or benefit this village.

Object

Representation ID: 1594

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: mr russell gregory

I don’t think the settlement limits should change, happy with the size and proportion the village is currently

Object

Representation ID: 1598

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Mr John Stone

The settlement limit should remain as it is nothing should be added along the liner line to create backland development and thereby change the shape and feel of this village. I object to large development not in proportion to the village.