QUESTION 106: Do you support

Object

Representation ID: 5

Received: 07/06/2021

Respondent: Mr Nigel Kippin

Development would negative impact on:
1) Endangers environment of wildlife nesting in ancient trees and long distances path borders at eastern boundary (bats, owls and small animals use the area)
2) Access to any development from the road is on a bend and brow of the hill and would be dangerous for vehicles.
3) Aesthetic impact on the edge of the Broads Park. A development would be prominent over a big area.
4) Current water supply
5) Outside current village development boundary
6) Any additional local housing needs were met by recent Bee Orchid Way and Eel Catcher Close developments

Support

Representation ID: 42

Received: 08/06/2021

Respondent: Mr Alex White

I fully support the inclusion of this site in the site allocation. I think that it is the logical location to build more homes in Rockland St Mary.
I think that the site should be larger and include more of 'SN0531', I think that by building more homes in Rockland St Mary we will increase the viability of our local shop and post office as well as our primary school.

Object

Representation ID: 53

Received: 09/06/2021

Respondent: Miss Charlotte Hilton

Access to this site SN2007 would be dangerous as it is at the top of a hill and on a bend. There will be an increased risk to public safety. Also it would be detrimental to the character of the area being on a public footpath and adjacent to a beautiful marshland and conservation area

Object

Representation ID: 54

Received: 09/06/2021

Respondent: Miss Shayne Smith

Too much traffic. Little concern for wildlife. Changing the village to more of a town. No infrastructure.

Comment

Representation ID: 63

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: 70

Received: 13/06/2021

Respondent: Individual Jane Armitage

I object because it is adjacent to a Broads Authority area with high conservation value, S.S.S.I. it will be detrimental to wildlife, and impact tourism negatively.
Dangerous access a bend on the brow of a hill, a narrow road. The road will become more hazardous because of the increase in traffic. This stretch of road is already dangerous, our neighbour was knocked down in this vicinity.
This development will put pressure on the existing village amenities including the schools. and Doctors who already have long waiting lists.
There has been significant building in this village, detrimental to the village.

Object

Representation ID: 88

Received: 15/06/2021

Respondent: Paddy Hann

1) The proposed development of the site would intrude into open landscape to the east of the village and is not in keeping with the historical linear pattern of development of the settlement.

2) It sits at the brow of New Inn Hill, which will cause limited visibility in both directions. The entrance and exit from Green Lane opposite the proposed site currently presents safety issues, with visibility restricted in both directions


3) Appointments at the local Doctors Surgery are difficult make with delays of weeks not uncommon.
Any increase in the see this situation deteriorate further

Comment

Representation ID: 92

Received: 16/06/2021

Respondent: Mrs Natalie Liversidge

As a potential site for further development, site SN2007 would be slightly better than proposed SN2064REV. However, I OBJECT to this site as the access is not suitable either. The road is on a bend, at the top of a hill and at the end of the village where majority of passing vehicles do not adhere to the speed limit and it could create potential accidents.
I also OBJECT with SN0531, as a huge development will create a precedent to bung hundreds of houses in to our village which we do not have facilites or infrastracture for.

Object

Representation ID: 126

Received: 19/06/2021

Respondent: Mr and Mrs David Richardson

More dwellings not needed in a rural village, recently expanded by Eel Catcher Close, Bee Orchid Way. Would lead to landowner pursuing further development to south. Site on top of 18 metre hill above Broads national park, RSPB etc, visible for miles, adverse effect on open farmland , footpaths and loss of biodiversity.. Dangerous road, too many junctions. Utilities cannot cope, water often off or low pressure. 1.5km from school, so parents will drive causing congestion, traffic. Very adverse effect on Old Hall and adjoining Listed Buildings. inc. Plot opposite refused ( 2017/0638/0 ) due to advers effect on landscape

Object

Representation ID: 135

Received: 20/06/2021

Respondent: Jill Wakefield

The addition of 50 new properties will burden the local services, increase noise, and increase traffic flow to/from the village.

Comment

Representation ID: 144

Received: 21/06/2021

Respondent: Miss Serena Scott

I formally object to the proposal
• Rockland Marshes – National Park Status
• Increased Traffic
• Loss of Privacy
• Outside of the village envelope for development.
• Sewage Infrastructure
• Highway Safety
• Overlooks Grade 2 Building
• Local Amenities
The areas highlighted above are all genuine reason for this proposal to be declined a more detailed response has been sent to the parish for comments for attention of Vic Thomson.

Object

Representation ID: 145

Received: 21/06/2021

Respondent: mr ingo wagenknecht

this site represents a wildlife corridor to the Broads frequented by deer, foxes and other small mammals. It is a dangerous access and no sewage infrastructure exists. It accesses a second row development and changes the character of the village which is not designed for it. Sewage infrastructure is inadequate at present. Valley wildlife has barn owls, Peregrines falcons, deer and foxes, an SSSi at valley floor many are flowers and orchids. It is over and above agreed allocations. The access at a top of a hill in a bend is dangerous at present and can't cope with more traffic.

Object

Representation ID: 173

Received: 22/06/2021

Respondent: Mrs Karin Rundle

The road is a country lane. Extreme risk to life with scale of development. No services. Flood area and mature impact. Small infill if anything. Empty properties in the area need sorting first

Comment

Representation ID: 219

Received: 24/06/2021

Respondent: Mr Philip Clarke

Another access point to our long ribbon street and at a point of higher pedestrian activity as the local store/Post Office, and Doctors’ surgery are close here. Also this is a destination point in the village for vehicles which park and turn in this area; surely problems arising if this is developed. If two developments have to be assigned in the village, I suggest this is much less satisfactory than something on the northern side of the village, and where linkage to the main ribbon street would not be at such a busy point.
Road capacity: the road narrows at Bramerton, and it is an awkward place for buses to pass any oncoming traffic. More cyclists and there’s no provision for pedestrians either leaving the village.
Does this development proposal overload village amenities? Water, sewerage, electricity, broadband, schooling. Mobile phone signal remains poor in this area. Extending the length of the village would not be satisfactory; drivers already ignore the long 30mph speed limit stretches, and race through.

Comment

Representation ID: 232

Received: 29/06/2021

Respondent: Mrs Jacqueline Robinson

The Eel Catcher Close development is a neat development that has not been detrimental to the look and feel of the village, despite much opposition when it was proposed. If the propsal was for incremental growth of the development, another 25 houses then this would link the Close to the Staithe but a large scale development would not be in keeping with the village.

Object

Representation ID: 236

Received: 29/06/2021

Respondent: Mrs Pia Saunders

Objections:
1. Elevated position on open farmland outside village settlement limit would dominate landscape
2. Guarantees were provided by SNC that The development of Eel Catcher Close would never be used as a precedent.
3. Further extension to the village, and outside the boundary.
4. Poor visibility for site without removing mature trees and hedgerows
5. Close to sensitive environmental areas
6. Poor access to village from Norwich
7. Recent application across the road was refused due to concerns over access onto New Inn Hill

Object

Representation ID: 278

Received: 04/07/2021

Respondent: Mrs Nicola Colbeck-Rowe

I strongly object to the allocation of these (SN2007, SN0531) preferred sites. I am extremely concerned about the impact additional housing in Rockland will have on Rockland Broad, Ted Ellis Nature Reserve etc. It will have an unacceptable and irreversible impact on the landscape. I question the safety of the access due to the proximity of the hill and bends. I disagree that these sites are ‘well related to services and facilities in the village’, no children walk to the school from this end of the village, few people walk to the doctors or shop, they drive instead.

Object

Representation ID: 300

Received: 05/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Sam Bence

The road bends significantly in advance of where access would be gained. The road here is narrow and the pavement dangerous. There is a risk that a junction would be near to a blind corner causing a very dangerous area in the village.

The landscape leading down from Eel Catcher close is attractive. Houses on the road would change the beauty of this landscape. This has been outlined in the application but is not deemed an issue.

The development plan already states that further lineal development is not efficient.

Development risks the currently rejected SN0531 would be open for development.

Comment

Representation ID: 315

Received: 06/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Neil Scarborough

The two preferred developments (SN0531/SN2007 & SN2064) seem to be the worst of all options, undermining the linear nature of the village in one location and extending the boundary of the village in another, whilst still failing to offer any long term plan that would avoid future small scale developments that would further damage the nature of the village in the future.

Comment

Representation ID: 371

Received: 12/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Steven Pyne

Need to stop this destruction of the environment outdated and dangerous. Future generations wont be able to make submissions if we carry on like this. Countryside needs to be protected. Farmers should be able to sell sites to government for rewilding. How many species will be lost? What is the precise environmental impact of these new houses? The village infrastructure is inadequate -this is secondary. Take a lead against this madness. There is housingstock in this country, brownfield and commercial sites vacant following the pandemic. Cannot pretend to be concerned about the environment, future generations,biodiversity and proceed. Short term thinking.

Object

Representation ID: 389

Received: 13/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Richard Bailey

1. The development is not in keeping with the general local environment and specifically the north west perimeter will adjoin older heritage style farming properties (some are listed) thus forever changing the local vista and village environment
2. The area is popular with ramblers and a corridor for wildlife, there are currently attractive farmland views which link to farming heritage.
3. The site is too far away from the main village facilities (school, doctors, shop, post office, church) therefore new housing will add further car usage into the narrow street.
4. Vehicle access to site is at a dangerous bend.

Object

Representation ID: 392

Received: 14/07/2021

Respondent: Mrs Sharon Black

Proposed size of development is not in keeping with the nature of the village geographically and physically. It will put pressure on the support services and utilities. Access is dangerous, close to a bend with on street parking and it will increase traffic flow through the village which currently speeds through despite restrictions.

Object

Representation ID: 417

Received: 07/07/2021

Respondent: Muriel Wylie

With reference to your letter of 2nd June 2021, I wish to register an objection against the proposed development of houses at sites SN 2007 and SN 2064REV in Rockland St Mary.

I am particularly concerned about the increased volume of traffic which will be created if these houses are built. The Street is already dangerous and crowded and a possible 50 to 70 additional cars at peak periods at the Post Office Shop and entrance to site SN2046REV will increase the chaos. There are, of course, the cyclists to consider whose number is also increasing.
I am also concerned that the additional number of houses and people will mean additional pressure on the existing services, in particular, the Surgery and the Rubbish Collections which I hope will not become once every 3 weeks for each colour bin.

Object

Representation ID: 428

Received: 16/07/2021

Respondent: Mrs Jane Henry

Objection is due to loss of habitat for wildlife in this sensitive area. Also loss of dark skies. The roads at this point are totally inadequate already notably when used as a rat run following accidents on A146 which are more frequent. Pavements are dangerous to for the elderly who resort to walking in the road

Object

Representation ID: 443

Received: 16/07/2021

Respondent: Mrs Susan Plaw

Outside development boundary.
Proposed site borders The Old Hall. Grade II listed. Detrimental impact on listed buildings.
Access to site not sufficient to support development due to the risk of accident to car driver, cyclist or walkers from increase in traffic and the dire state of narrow pavements on New Inn Hill and The Street.
Majority of facilities not located at this end of village.
Limited daytime bus service.
Few employment opportunities locally. People reliant on cars for work and access to services.
Road through village and onwards to Norwich is over-used and too narrow.
Negative impact on environment.

Object

Representation ID: 471

Received: 19/07/2021

Respondent: Mr david fornby

No easy access, almost a mile from school shop and surgery, destruction of only open access point and view of open feilds. Anything behind eel catcher close would mean this would be the only houses with no open access and view of feilds in the village. The barns behind and close to eel catcher close are protected. We have just had forty houses build on the north side of the road. There are much better plots on the other end of the village which are much closer to the shop, school and surgery.

Object

Representation ID: 476

Received: 20/07/2021

Respondent: David Gregory

Historic SNC assurance that Eel Catcher Close would never be claimed as a precedent for development to the east. A claimed benefit of joining site SN2007 with SN0531 is a pedestrian access route onto The Street, not suitable for several reasons. Wildlife found in abundance at the east end of the village is too precious to disperse with ill-conceived development. 25 houses too many for site/ exceeds local need. Access would be hazardous and cause nuisance. Undermines linear nature of village. Back land development sets dangerous precedent. Damages the areas high tourist value. Inadequate transport infrastructure. Loss of tributary farmland.

Object

Representation ID: 481

Received: 20/07/2021

Respondent: Mr mark jeffries

Area nearly a mile from shops , school and ameneties. Only open land, foot path and access to open land. Suicidal access from road and no pavement on that side of the road. Land behind eel catcher close protected as next to grade one listed buildings. View from other side of valley destroyed as eel catcher close just over brow of hill. Destruction of habitat of skylarks and doormice.

Object

Representation ID: 509

Received: 21/07/2021

Respondent: Ms jessica phillips

The land behind Eel Catcher Close is protected by being close to LIsted buildings. The area is rich in wildlife and we have already just had 40 new houses built on the opposite side of the road. This area is the only access to feilds and open land in the village on this side. It is nearly a mile from the shops, school and post office. Any pedestrian way would lead to a road to nowhere with no pavement , so no one would use it.

Object

Representation ID: 528

Received: 21/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Andrew Cullum

- Development of SN2007 detrimental to the high landscape value of the area that is noted for gentle hills, mature trees and hedgerows and marks the end of a ridge that drops away with views across the Yare valley marshes
- Further development, if placed close to road could create "overlooking" issues for existing properties on New Inn Hill.
- Local infrastructure good but most it 3/4 mile at least from site; will create more car movements raising sustainability/environmental issues
- Road access to site has poor visibility, bends, a marked drop and many access points that raises safety issues.