QUESTION 106: Do you support

Object

Representation ID: 549

Received: 09/07/2021

Respondent: Ms Mary Ramsay

Number of people: 2

We should not be building on the farmland in Norfolk and Suffolk. This land is prime farmland and usually provides us with two crops a year.
Where do we grow our food when this important land is gone? It worries me that greed and careless decisions could destroy our potential to feed ourselves in the future.
Wildlife will also disappear as a result of this development, including adders, blue holly butterflies, dragonflies, damselflies. Field mice and honey bees are getting very scarce, although there are many types of bird (including red kites). These and many more are all at risk due to their habitats potentially being destroyed.

Object

Representation ID: 569

Received: 22/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Keith Godley

Impact on Listed Heritage Assets

The Old Hall, c1650, and associated farm buildings are a cluster of Grade II Listed Heritage Assets.
Sites SN2007 and SN0531 comprise land previously owned by farmstead.
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.

Object

Representation ID: 574

Received: 23/07/2021

Respondent: Mrs Natasha Hardisty

Please see my comments above as I strongly object to the proposed developments

Object

Representation ID: 622

Received: 25/07/2021

Respondent: James MacKay

The Old Hall, c1650, and associated farm buildings are a cluster of Grade II Listed Heritage Assets.
Sites SN2007 and SN0531 comprise land previously owned by farmstead.
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.

Object

Representation ID: 650

Received: 27/07/2021

Respondent: Mr joshua findlater

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 a building outside the designated area. Dangerous hill, bend and fast traffic make access dangerous. Destruction of only open land with footpath. Utilities at breaking point. Miles from school, shop and post office.

Object

Representation ID: 652

Received: 27/07/2021

Respondent: mr johnny fincham

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 a 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: 678

Received: 27/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Antony Page

Rockland St Mary already has a big enough population for the available facilities. My wife and I own and cultivate a small plot of land immediate over the road from SN2007. The proposal would make this delightfully quiet spot significantly noisier and more busy. You have already turned down our application for a single dwelling on that site.

Object

Representation ID: 682

Received: 27/07/2021

Respondent: Ms Joanne Norris

Re Sites SN2007 and SN0531.
The location is unsuitable for a proposal of 25 new houses for the following reasons:
- poor access near a blind hill and bend on New Inn Hill. Dangerous junction already exists opposite the site on exiting Green Lane.
- Spoil the beauty/views of the Broads landscape, treasured by many villagers/holidaymakers.
- is habitat for Red listed Bird species (e.g. Sky lark, starling and cuckoo). Observed this year.
- is detrimental for the wildlife conservation activities of Hellington & RSM Community Reserve (nearby) due to vandalism and destruction of habitat.
- Increased traffic levels.

Object

Representation ID: 686

Received: 27/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Roger Brooks

1. Outside the settlement limit
2.Dangerous access/ingress near a bend and the brow of a hill. NB Consent for a dwelling opposite refused on access grounds - 2017/0638/0
3. Site near an environmentally sensitive area e.g. effect on wildlife
4. Inadequate infrastructure to support 25 houses - pumping station cannot cope with sewage and water pressure is often not satisfactory
5. Would adversely affect the character of the village
6. Any development would lead to more commuting as employment opportunities within or near the village are limited.
7. Additional traffic movements and impact on National Cycling route

Object

Representation ID: 694

Received: 27/07/2021

Respondent: Fordley Hall Farm

An unacceptable proposal; this development will harm this peaceful and charming country environment and drastically affect the Old Hall, a delightful Grade 2 listed property with Jacobean origins and extended views over the proposed development area.
Stated within the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), the ‘significance’ of a heritage asset is derived both from its physical presence but also its setting.
All local infrastructure facilities are already over-stretched; further development in this area will considerably worsen the situation.

Object

Representation ID: 712

Received: 28/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Peter Armitage

I object to this site as it would impact on wildlife habitat and biodiversity
This field is one of the few places left in the village where you can be guaranteed to hear skylarks singing. They were common when I moved here over 30 years ago but now I fear they may vanish; like turtle doves . I used to visit this site with my son to watch wild geese. It is very close to the Broads Authority boundary and will diminish the natural beauty of Rockland. The access road is already dangerous and more traffic will increase this danger.

Object

Representation ID: 721

Received: 28/07/2021

Respondent: Ms lydia symmonds

The precedent for this development has NOT been established as adjoining Eel Catcher Close was a special exception granted for social housing for residents of the village.
NO access can be achieved as site is amost a mile to the services and facilities in the village and on a dangerous hill, bend and fast approach. SN0531 is protected land as adjacent to ancient barns with grade 1 status. A footway would end on an area with no pavement a kilometer from the facilities. Sewage and water pressure at breaking point. 30 buildings added in bee orchard way last year.

Comment

Representation ID: 733

Received: 28/07/2021

Respondent: Mrs. emily ireson

I have heard that there are serious drainage concerns and there has already been overflowing drains.
The development of Eel Catcher was done very well and welcome more affordable housing for the village. It would seem to make more sense to continue the line from Eel Catcher but not the preposed 25.

Comment

Representation ID: 807

Received: 29/07/2021

Respondent: Mr James Wretham

a) Location is potentially hazardous for crossing the road particularly for the elderly and children;
b) Distance from main village amenities;
c) outride development boundary.

Object

Representation ID: 827

Received: 29/07/2021

Respondent: Mrs CAROLINE RINGWOOD

Number of people: 2

My objection is based on character and appearance, in terms of landscape impact, and the impact on the amenity of current and future residents of the village
Local character must be respected
Preservation of the long views south
Retention and enhancement of the trees that exist in the landscape
Pattern of settlement - small linear village
Highways safety issue

Object

Representation ID: 837

Received: 29/07/2021

Respondent: Mrs Rosanna Indge

My objection is based on character, appearance, in terms of landscape impact, and the impact on the amenity of current and future residents of the village
Local and National policy provides that local character must be respected- both landscapes and townscapes
Preservation of the long view south
Retention and enhancement of the trees that exist in landscapes
Respect for the pattern of settlement - small linear village

Object

Representation ID: 877

Received: 29/07/2021

Respondent: Mrs Louisa Godley

Development would be detrimental to the understanding of the historical significance of the listed Old Hall and farmstead.
Access – dangerous from its geography and human activity
Objection to ‘Reasoned Justification’ – Eel Catcher Close was an Exception Site - By definition an exception site cannot form a precedent for development outside the settlement boundaries.
Precedent for refusal was set in May 2017, when an application for a single dwelling directly opposite site SN2007 was refused on the grounds more salient for a 25 house proposal
Distance from hub of village would promote more vehicle traffic posing danger to residents.

Object

Representation ID: 930

Received: 30/07/2021

Respondent: Rockland St Mary With Hellington Parish Council

Eel Catcher Close was (is) an exception site. A public assurance was given of no further development here. There are multiple traffic safety issues related to the site. It is extremely close to many sensitive environmental designations and within an area of rural tranquillity, natural beauty and importance to wildlife preservation. Development would effectively destroy a holiday business, obscure listed buildings, and be visible for miles around. There are significant ongoing issues with the sewage system at this end of the village. Being at the outer end of the village the use of cars to access key facilities would increase.

Object

Representation ID: 993

Received: 30/07/2021

Respondent: Mrs Rosemary Cranna

On balance, and in the public interest, the cumulative negative impact of the proposed development far outweighs the benefits
Too much pressure on infrastructure, causing congestion, pollution, environmental, wellbeing and road safety issues
Potentially ill designed development that does not foster community will bring adverse consequences and unacceptable social, infrastructure and environmental costs.

Object

Representation ID: 1131

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Mrs Laura LeFevre-Gregory

I object, unacceptable proposal. Eel Catcher Close was an ‘exception’ development, proposed development shouldn’t be promoted as a precedent to it.
It’s outside village development boundary with listed buildings on these outskirts. This land is possibly the only wildlife corridor left in the village through to the surrounding area which includes Rockland Broad and marshes, a SSSI site, Ted Ellis nature reserve, impacting on its ecology and biodiversity.
SN0531 sets a dangerous precedent to allow further backfill developments.
Infrastructure facilities overstretched, local amenities other end of village.
Increase in traffic would add increased risk to this already dangerous access road.

Object

Representation ID: 1135

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: 1234

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Miss Beth Colbeck

I moved to Rockland St Mary 12 years ago when was 9. I like that it is semi-rural but not too far from Norwich. I am worried that if these houses are built in the village it will not only change the way the village looks but the pollution more houses and cars will cause will affect the wildlife and the fields will be lost forever. I worry that if 25 houses are allowed to be built then in the future there will be more built and our lovely peaceful village will be ruined.

Object

Representation ID: 1235

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Mrs Sarah Hunter

I am concerned about the impact of the proposed development (and the increased traffic it would bring) on the safety of The Street, particularly for pedestrians and cyclists, many of whom are children or elderly.

Object

Representation ID: 1237

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Jenny Medler

I object.

Object

Representation ID: 1251

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Will Colbeck

I object to the houses being built. The access to the site is dangerous because it is on a hill and a bend. The road is narrow and there are often parked parked along both side of The Street making it difficult for cars to pass and hazardous for cyclists. The extra houses will ruin the countryside views and take away the habitat of the wildlife that lives there now. The noise and light pollution etc from more house will affect the nearby Rockland Staithe.

Object

Representation ID: 1260

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Mrs Francesca Underhill

Aside from the additional traffic (which already causes us anxiety coming out of our driveway, with cars whizzing around the blind bend), our main concern relates to the erosion of the agricultural, rural setting of our Grade 2 listed building (and that of our immediate neighbours at 132, 134a and 134b).

A cluster of new builds would be detrimental to the desirability and historical significance of our properties - and goes against sustaining and enhancing our heritage assets (and therefore goes against section 66 of the Planning Act, which must give 'considerable importance and weight' to listed buildings).

Object

Representation ID: 1265

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Mrs Deborah Sayles

This is outside the historic settlement boundary of the village and building would set a precedent for more sites on village fields.

Object

Representation ID: 1266

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: James Colbeck-Rowe

Many villages in South Norfolk like Mulbarton, Poringland, Loddon and Trowse have become over developed and lost their village charm. Most of the residents in Rockland choose to live here because we like living in a small rural village. I am extremely concerned about the impact additional housing in Rockland St Mary will have on Rockland Broad which forms part of local nature reserves. I question if the access hasn’t been considered to be safe when the properties are built due to the proximity of the hill and bends approaching from The Street and New Inn Hill making visibility poor.

Object

Representation ID: 1292

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Mr John Sayles

This site would extend the small modern development of Eel Catcher Close destroying farmland that is outside the development boundary creating a modern estate environment that could not be disguised from the road into the village. Any development here would erode the nature and ambiance of the village. Again this creates an unreversable precedent which only opens more opportunities to destroy farmland. Again there are similar opportunities in local villages that have been turned down. I question the integrity of the site selection process and criteria and would urgently ask for independent scrutiny and audit of this scheme.

Object

Representation ID: 1298

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Debbie Roberts

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

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.