QUESTION 106: Do you support

Object

Representation ID: 1333

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Mr David Fairbourn

Threatenis Broads National Park and the environment. Changes character of the village. Poor and unsafe road access and poor infrastructure to support development.

Comment

Representation ID: 1369

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Philip Ellis

Part of SN0531 adversely affects the linear and rural nature of RSM, the landscape and townscape, its context to The Broads and heritage assets.

It is readily visible on a high ridge, is backland development, not sustainably located having a negative environmental impact.

Reducing the units due to heritage assets and landscaping set-back from NIH, the combined sites do not meet "viability assessment" profitability tests increasing pressure for larger developments or reduced Affordable Housing, becoming a "Trojan Horse" for further backland development.

The footpath proposed is unnecessary being distant from amenities adding an unnecessary crossing to one existing at ECC.

Object

Representation ID: 1374

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Miss J C Richardson

Settlement limit cannot be extended. Eel catcher close was a special exception as for social housing. Planning has been refused for houses outside this limit, so there is no precedent. The development would be over a kilometer from post office, school and shop. There is no pavement on this side of the village. The land behind eel catcher close is next to grade 1 listed barns and can't be built on. The access point is very dangerous being on a hill, bend and fast road. The only open access to footpath and feilds in the village would go.

Comment

Representation ID: 1412

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Norfolk Wildlife Trust

Notwithstanding concerns raised by other respondents regarding wildlife present on the site, given the site's proximity to the Broads Special Area for Conservation and Broadland Special Protection Area, the Village Cluster Plan will need to demonstrate that adverse effects on these sites (for example due to increased water demand and demand on waste water disposal capacity at the nearest waste water treatment works) can be avoided in order to ensure compliance with the Habitats Regulations.

Object

Representation ID: 1415

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Ms paula norris

Settlement plan can't be extended, as houses already refused outside the limit. Eel catcher close given a special exception as social housing. This site is nearly a mile from the shop, school and post office. The land behind eel catcher close is protected as next to a grade 1 listed set of ancient barns. The access point is on a dangerous bend, hill and blind junction. The nearby development at bee orchard way has been built since this consultation was started, so already we have 40 new houses. The sewage, water pressure and utilities are at breaking point.

Object

Representation ID: 1460

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Jason Davey

Site SN2007/SNP0531 is outside the revised settlement limit. Eel Catcher Close was an exception site for social housing only so was not a precedent for further development of adding land. There are safety issues regarding access to the site. There are environmental concerns regarding wildlife, conservation land and there are sewage capacity issues already in the village. This development would not help support and benefit this village or help improve it, especially the large development which would destroy the charm and nature of this very rural village.

Please see full concerns attached.

Object

Representation ID: 1470

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Mr jason francis

site outside village boundry. eel catcher close only allowed as social housing. access very dangerous and difficult. almost a mile to shops and school, land behind eel catcher close protected via preservation order on listed barns. housing applications already denied in this area. last open access to fields and public footpath in the village. many buildings already build on bee orchard way since initial consultation started

Object

Representation ID: 1503

Received: 02/08/2021

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: 1513

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Steve 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: 1526

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Frederick Greengrass

The proposed sites would be detrimental to the setting of the adjacent listed buildings, which have a direct link with the surrounding land, and would ruin the views from and towards them.

The access road would be unsafe on the crest of a hill and the development would significantly adversely affect wildlife as well as local footpaths. Traffic through the village would increase significantly which the village is unsuited to.

Object

Representation ID: 1551

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Stuart Ellison

The site SN2007 and SN0531 are too large and 25 houses too many for the local infrastructure to support. The Heathgate Medical Practice is in crisis (please read their open letter https://www.heathgatemedicalpractice.co.uk/website/D82078/files/newsletter.pdf ) which makes clear that the practice is not coping with the current number of residents. The road from Rockland to Norwich is National Cycle Route 1, supposedly a quieter, safer route on which to travel. The current traffic level is too high for safe cycling and increasing traffic through this increased build will be disastrous. Tourism will suffer from the build; the local economy will suffer.

Object

Representation ID: 1565

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Miss Rebecca Cook

I object to SN2007 & SN0531 due to the fact that it is a beautiful piece of green land. Secondly because when Eel Catcher Close was built it was promised to the village that under no circumstance would the development of Eel Catcher Close allow further development in that area.

Object

Representation ID: 1570

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: mr russell gregory

Eel catchers close was approved will a promise to the village that it did not set a precedent. 25houses wouldn’t be linear development. By including part of SN0531 as a preferred site are we not opening up a larger scale of development.

Object

Representation ID: 1572

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Mrs Nicola Davey

Site SN2007/SNP0531 - the larger of the sites is completely disproportionate to the size of this small village. Safety concerns regarding access at the top of a steep hill. Conservation, environmental and sewage issues, water run off and loss of agricultural land. Increased traffic through the village as amenities the other end and increased parking outside the shop which is already a congested area and will have a knock on effect for the other proposed site! 25 or more houses is still too many for this size village. Mirror Eel Catcher close and provide affordable housing only if you must.

Support

Representation ID: 1593

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Durrants

We support the preferred site SN2007 and agree that this site should be considered suitable for allocation. suitable access can be achieved and the site is well related to the services and facilities in the village. The landowners of site SN2007 and SN0531 have agreed to work in collaboration to allow the development of the allocated site to take place as preferred.

Object

Representation ID: 1599

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Ms Jeni Barnacle

The site is on a ridge affecting the skyline.

The houses at 1-3 New Inn Hill are built on lower ground so there may be overlooking and sun shadowing issues to these properties.

A site opposite the proposed site was rejected for a single dwelling May 2017 by SNDC (reference 2017/0638/O) “where a 39.6 year housing supply exists”

Any development at New Inn Hill would increase traffic movements /congestion

Utilities are under pressure eg Anglian Water main which has burst numerous times on New Inn Hill.

The site has significant local wildlife, flora/fauna and light pollution would permeate natural habitats

Object

Representation ID: 1600

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Mr John Stone

I object to both of these sites as the larger of the two will completely change the character and size of the village and create far too much through traffic. There is limited infrastructure to support the larger of the two sites and the access way is dangerous. These sites are too close to the broads and conservation areas and will damage plants and wildlife.

Object

Representation ID: 1702

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Mrs Julie Church

Summary

At every level the proposed site is unsuitable for allocation of a new housing development of any size. It has many potential adverse impacts, risks and uncertainties as follows;

1. Against planning policy – sited outside the village development boundary, contrary to the South Norfolk Local Plan Development Management Policies and national planning policy.
2. Situated in a rural area and isolated from the existing village.
3. The site height of 15 metres is the highest on the eastern side of the village having a detrimental impact on the skyline, rural landscape and views of SSSI/AONB.
4. No need for a development of this scale, out of context with the form and character and with existing planning permissions in the village.
5. Risks of pollution to local water courses and adjacent flooding risks from diversion of surface water.
6. Severely limited existing highway infrastructure, access, footpath and National Cycle Network issues.
7. Inadequate services and existing utilities location, capacity and cost of upgrade.
8. There are alternative brownfield and infill sites in the local area.
9. It is not sustainable development - no economic, social or environmental benefits.
10. The impact on views of listed buildings, archaeology, ecology and biodiversity of the area.
11. Loss of local amenity and public footpaths
12. Lacking local support.
13. Site would have the unintended consequence of leading to additional adjacent development
14. This site goes against the precedent of previous planning decisions.

Object

Representation ID: 1749

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Sheila Axworthy

As we are a small village I feel that the proposed 50 houses is too many. I personally feel that 10 houses in total could be absorbed into the community more easily and wouldn't have such a dramatic impact on the local environment. Also the impact of the construction traffic would be reduced. The impact of the Bee orchid way traffic was massive and often their choice of parking wasn't safe.
10 houses would also mean a much smaller increase in cars on the road. The street in Rockland is often a 'rat run' for traffic going to Langley school, especially the school buses, and to Loddon with no speed calming measures and very narrow parts to the road. 50 houses would mean a massive increase in the number of cars, which would exacerbate the problem. A recent newsletter from Heathgate surgery highlighted how they are really struggling to provide an adequate service in the area and a massive increase in patients would be much harder to cope with.
With regard to whom the houses were for I also feel that affordable housing is tacked on to proposals and then abandoned. I strongly feel that any housing has to be for people trying to buy their first home, and REALLY affordable.

Comment

Representation ID: 1811

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Sheila Axworthy

As we are a small village I feel that the proposed 50 houses is too many. I personally feel that 10 houses in total could be absorbed into the community more easily and wouldn't have such a dramatic impact on the local environment. Impact of the construction traffic would be reduced. The impact of the Bee orchid way traffic was massive and often their choice of parking wasn't safe.
10 houses would also mean a much smaller increase in cars on the road. The street in Rockland is often a 'rat run' for traffic going to Langley school, especially the school buses, and to Loddon with no speed calming measures and very narrow parts to the road. 50 houses would mean a massive increase in the number of cars, which would exacerbate the problem.
Heathgate surgery struggling to provide an adequate service
With regard to whom the houses were for I also feel that affordable housing is tacked on to proposals and then abandoned. I strongly feel that any housing has to be for people trying to buy their first home, and REALLY affordable. I'm privileged to own my own home, but but it is something I would really struggle to afford today.
Also any new environmental legislation not yet inforced should be applied to any new builds. It is so short sighted not to insist on anything that might reduce our future global impact not to be done now.
To headline, FEWER HOUSES, REALLY AFFORDABLE, ENVIRONMENTALLY SUSTAINABLE.

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?

Comment

Representation ID: 1914

Received: 22/07/2021

Respondent: South Norfolk Council

The Environmental Protection Team are not aware of any significant land quality issue with this site or adjacent land. However, having regard to the size of the site and sensitivity of the proposed development it is considered that a Phase One Land Contamination Report (Desk Study) should be required as part of any planning application.

Due to the size of this development and its proximity to existing dwellings, an application to develop this site is likely to attract the recommendation that standard planning condition AM05 Construction Management Plan be attached to any approval. It may be worth highlighting to applicants that to avoid any delay in discharging this condition, they may wish to include a Construction Management Plan with their application. If the submitted Construction Management Plan is adequate, then an alternative condition could be attached to any approval requiring its implementation.

Comment

Representation ID: 1966

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Water Management Alliance

See attachment for full response.
SN2007 – Land south of New Inn Hill, Rockland St Mary & (Part of) SN0531, Land west of Lower Road, Rockland St Mary
Outside the IDD boundary, within the Waveney, Lower Yare and Lothingland IDB watershed catchment.
Major development - If surface water discharges within the watershed catchment of the Board's IDD, we request that this discharge is facilitated in line with the Non-statutory technical standards for sustainable drainage systems (SuDS).

Comment

Representation ID: 2051

Received: 21/07/2021

Respondent: Historic England

Please see attachments for full response.
Site: SN2007, Land south of New Inn Hill, Rockland St Mary & (Part of) SN0531, Land west of Lower Road, Rockland St Mary
Whilst there are no designated heritage assets within the site boundary, three grade II listed buildings (Old Hall and two barns) lie around the western end of the site. We therefore have concerns about built development of the western end of the site.
A heritage impact assessment of the site should be undertaken to assess the impact of the proposed development on the listed buildings and determine if allocation of this site is appropriate, and if it is what mitigation may be required. The findings of the HIA should inform whether the site is allocated and if it is, the policy criterion including any mitigation and enhancement.
Complete an HIA to inform the allocation of the site including any mitigation, enhancement and policy wording.

Comment

Representation ID: 2154

Received: 14/07/2021

Respondent: Norfolk County Council - LLFA

SN2007 & SN0531
See attachment for full comments
Few or no constraints. Standard information required at a planning stage. "1.] At risk of surface water flooding?: No
* 3.33% AEP Event [Extent]: No flooding present
* 3.33% AEP Event [Depth]: No flooding present.
* 1.0% AEP Event [Extent]: No flooding present
* 1.0% AEP Event [Depth]: No flooding present.
* 0.1% AEP Event [Extent]: No flooding present
* 0.1% AEP Event [Depth]: No flooding present.
2.] Internal & external flooding?:
* On-site: No
* Within proximity to site (~500.00m): Yes - Internal Flooding|Yes - External Flooding
3.] Watercourses [Online ordinary watercourses or mains rivers]?:
* On-site: No
* Within proximity to site (~100.00m): No
4.] Surface water sewer systems?:
* On-site: No
* Within proximity to site (~100.00m): No
5.] Source Protection Zone?: No
6.] Internal Drainage Board?: No IDB referenced
7.] The site predominantly has superficial deposits of DIAMICTON. Comments on infiltration potential are dependent on a complete geotechnical investigation, including BRE365 Soakaway Testing. Where possible, surface water infiltration should be utilised."

Assessment: Green

Comment

Representation ID: 2210

Received: 28/09/2021

Respondent: Norfolk County Council - Senior Ecologist

Green no major ecological constraints identified from desk-top search. Surveys, and biodiversity enhancement in accordance with policy required.
Site comprises field east of the village. Hedges are a priority habitat so losses should be avoided, minimised and as a last resort, compensated for. No other priority habitats are identified (see MAGIC). Site within green (edge of amber) habitat zones for great crested newts. Site within a SSSI IRZ 0 allocation of 25 dwellings would fall below the trigger for consultation with Natural England if allocated (trigger is 50 units plus). Applications for planning consent should be accompanied by a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal/Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) which, together with the mitigation hierarchy, should inform the design. Consideration should be given to delivering Biodiversity Net Gain.

Comment

Representation ID: 2271

Received: 14/07/2021

Respondent: Norfolk County Council - LLFA

1.] At risk of surface water flooding?: No
* 3.33% AEP Event [Extent]: No flooding present
* 3.33% AEP Event [Depth]: No flooding present.
* 1.0% AEP Event [Extent]: No flooding present
* 1.0% AEP Event [Depth]: No flooding present.
* 0.1% AEP Event [Extent]: No flooding present
* 0.1% AEP Event [Depth]: No flooding present.
2.] Internal & external flooding?:
* On-site: No
* Within proximity to site (~500.00m): Yes - Internal Flooding|Yes - External Flooding
3.] Watercourses [Online ordinary watercourses or mains rivers]?:
* On-site: No
* Within proximity to site (~100.00m): No
4.] Surface water sewer systems?:
* On-site: No
* Within proximity to site (~100.00m): No
5.] Source Protection Zone?: No
6.] Internal Drainage Board?: No IDB referenced
7.] The site predominantly has superficial deposits of DIAMICTON. Comments on infiltration potential are dependent on a complete.