QUESTION 107: Do you support

Object

Representation ID: 43

Received: 08/06/2021

Respondent: Mr Alex White

I object to the inclusion of this site in the site allocation. I think that this site takes away from the linear nature of the village and that its inclusion in the allocation could set a precedent of building more properties behind the existing row of houses along the street.
I also have concerns about the vehicle access from the street.

Object

Representation ID: 48

Received: 09/06/2021

Respondent: Mrs Caroline Pritchard

We wish to comment on the unsuitability of the site SN2064 REV South of the Street in Rockland St Mary .
The position of the proposed site in the village is highly unsuitable. The proposed access through the Doctors surgery is at the most congested part of The Street with the Post office and shop directly opposite . Cars ,trucks and delivery vans are always parked along the road in front of the shop. The bus stop is at the same juncture. Residential houses are close to the road and a bend just beyond the shop makes visibility difficult as cars are parked on the road. The increase of possibly 50 more vehicles turning out from the proposed site would cause even more chaos and accidents. There have already been accidents at this stretch of the Street , and village speed cameras have regularly recorded high speeds of vehicles through the village.

Object

Representation ID: 52

Received: 09/06/2021

Respondent: Miss Charlotte Hilton

Putting housing on plot SN2064REV will intrude on open landscape, have an impact on local wildlife which freely roam the fields there. I also have big concerns about the proposed access as it is narrow and opposite the very busy post office which often has cars parked on the road and adjacent to the doctors surgery so at some times of the day the traffic is heavy in this area and often traffic is backed up in both directions. There will be an increase in risk to public safety if an access road to a housing estate is put there

Object

Representation ID: 56

Received: 09/06/2021

Respondent: Mrs Sarah Wyatt

We object due to:
- impact on road safety at the entrance to the site which is already congested due to the village shop/surgery
- increased traffic and impact on safety of pedestrians (particularly children walking to school) due to only one narrow pavement along The Street
- setting a precedent for more homes to be built which would detract from the tranquillity and close knit community in the village
- impact on the already stretched sewage infrastructure

Object

Representation ID: 60

Received: 10/06/2021

Respondent: Mr Conner Mckie

Access to the planned site isn't exactly good.
It interputs the doctors surgery as well as the views from residents of which are mostly elderly.
The houses will also not be affordable in the slightest and as such cater to the highest paid amongst us meaning that it'll only bring in congestion as well as pressure on local businesses.

Object

Representation ID: 61

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.

Object

Representation ID: 71

Received: 13/06/2021

Respondent: Individual Jane Armitage

This scheme would be detrimental to the village as there is already too much traffic going in and out of the Doctors surgery and it is already a hazard with lots of near accidents.
The Hellington valley is unspoilt, this would be a blot on the landscape it would seriously affect the character of the village.

Object

Representation ID: 89

Received: 15/06/2021

Respondent: Paddy Hann

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 of development of the settlement.

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 exasperates the existing safety issues,

Object

Representation ID: 90

Received: 16/06/2021

Respondent: Mrs Natalie Liversidge

- insufficient access
- poor visibility
- already a busy and dangerous junction
- incorrect measurements taken by developer
- unsuitable site allocation

Object

Representation ID: 100

Received: 16/06/2021

Respondent: Mr Anthony Wright

1) The development is not within the ribbon development of the village and will significantly affect the landscape of the Hellington valley
2) The entrance will be restricted in and be opposite the busiest part of the street with cars parked to attend the post office. Pedestrians will have to cross the road to reach the pavements to get to the village amenities.
3) No guarantee of social housing which is desperately required

Object

Representation ID: 122

Received: 19/06/2021

Respondent: Mrs Janet Rogers

I strongly object to this planning application which detracts from the linear design of the village and involves the removal of pasture.
It is amazing the site is even being considered when the proposed access, currently a cul-de-sac used for parking by surgery staff, is in the most congested part of the village. Roadside parking by customers at the shop opposite will make entering and exiting the site dangerous.
This is a small, rural, broadland village and should remain so. We live here because we love and appreciate everything that this village and surrounding countryside has to offer.

Object

Representation ID: 136

Received: 20/06/2021

Respondent: Jill Wakefield

I do not believe that there would be suitable safe access to/from this development.

Object

Representation ID: 147

Received: 21/06/2021

Respondent: mr ingo wagenknecht

This site is worse than SN2007+ Sn0531 as it does access second row developments and future expansion on a one road village character with limited sewage and drainage infrastructure. It is agricultural land home to deer foxes, peregrine falcons, barn owls rare orchids and other rare plants with their protection not unaddressed. The congestion caused during school drop of on our C road, shopping and surgery clients is daily and our traffic is inundated as a rat run every time the A146 is held up by slow process maintenance, Langley school traffic avoiding bad access to the A 146 at Chedgrave, accidents and emergencies. All these make for a dangerous access to the Street. This site allocation is a foot in the door for second row development attempting to create something that is damaging the character of our village and presenting new risks and dangers that should be avoided.

Object

Representation ID: 174

Received: 22/06/2021

Respondent: Mrs Karin Rundle

The roads just not able to cope. Extreme risk to life. Flood area. Ruin the village and wildlife

Comment

Representation ID: 218

Received: 24/06/2021

Respondent: Mr Philip Clarke

While this seems to be just adding to a recent development site, does this development complete construction here? There have been water management and drainage issues here; does any further housing exacerbate the ground water-logging?
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.

Object

Representation ID: 229

Received: 29/06/2021

Respondent: Mr Stanley Deeks

1. The site is outside the historical Settlement Boundary.
2. Development here would be contrary to linear pattern of the village.
3. MOST IMPORTANTLY the proposed access to 'The Street' is at its busiest point i.e. opposite village store/post office and bus stop. There are often cars and lorries parked at this point.
4. Visitors to the surgery on foot or by car will have to break into a narrow access road
5. Through traffic at peak times can be very heavy and if sites SN2007 and SN0531 were approved even more traffic will pass or shop.

Comment

Representation ID: 230

Received: 29/06/2021

Respondent: Mrs Jacqueline Robinson

This proposed housing development should reflect the local need, affordable housing to allow families to stay connected in their own communities. South Norfolk should be ambitious in this development, using interesting architecture to build passive houses that are cheap to run. It would also be good to see some housing that would be suitable for the needs of older people in the community. Executive boxes are not needed. Access would be an issue, as the proposed access would be 'tight' especially if the site was to have further development in the future.

Object

Representation ID: 301

Received: 05/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Sam Bence

Access from the road is difficult. There are already lots of cars parked around the post office and with a junction joining the road immediately opposite I have concerns about the safety of pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles. I have serious fears that additional houses would create an accident blackspot.

Building behind the surgery creates a precedent for development away from the road in the village. There were reasons to reject other development applications in the village based on the fact they altered the character of the village. How is a development behind the surgery any different?

Object

Representation ID: 317

Received: 06/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Neil Scarborough

The 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, while 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.

I strongly object to proposal SN2064 as it will set the most dangerous precedent in the village and will likely lead to further small scale developments behind existing homes on the street totally destroying the current form of the village.

Comment

Representation ID: 348

Received: 05/07/2021

Respondent: T Ross Wylie

From the revised SN2064REV it is evident that access to the site will be by a new road, to be constructed along the side of the Surgery.
I am against the two sites going ahead simultaneously because:-
(a) The two sites will result, in due course, with increased traffic congestion around site entrances at specific times of the day.
(b) This would be additional to current traffic at the Post Office and Shop and cars ,vans and lorries parked there for deliveries and shopping.
(c) There are parts of the existing Street where the bus and tractors/machinery cannot pass without difficulty. The additional cars, many of which will be large SUV's and 4x4's will stop at the shop and this will cause problems for access to/from site SN2064REV.
Whenever there are problems on the A146, traffic uses our Street at speed as a "rat run" - I do not see this stopping in the near future.
Therefore, at peak times, I do not think that the Street will be able to deal with the increased congestion at the Post Office and Shop of about 50 cars, from an initial 25 houses, and for this to be compounded by a similar number of cars from site SN2007. I suggest the sites should be delayed until our basic facilities are improved to handle the traffic.

Comment

Representation ID: 372

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: 393

Received: 14/07/2021

Respondent: Mrs Sharon Black

Development of this site detracts form the linear nature of the village and could create a precedent for further build.
Access is tight and dangerous given current on street parking for the shop.
On street parking is likely to increase for the school, shop and surgery with no scope for alternative parking.
There will be increased pressure on utilities and services including the school and surgery.

Object

Representation ID: 418

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: 444

Received: 16/07/2021

Respondent: Mrs Susan Plaw

Strongly object, Outside development boundary of a linear village which has only just had 21 new houses built.
This is backfill.
Loss of agricultural land and wildlife habitat.
Exit point onto The Street is a very congested area already with the the GP Surgery and Post Office opposite.
Pavements are narrow, uneven and often single file. People have to walk in the road to avoid others.
Substantial increase in traffic using narrow and dangerous roads leading to the A146. Difficult to pass large vehicles in places.
Village infrastructure and services does not support more housing.
Limited bus service.

Object

Representation ID: 479

Received: 20/07/2021

Respondent: David Gregory

Proposed access & egress totally inadequate. Back land development sets a dangerous precedent for further unrestrained development as has happened in Poringland. Proposal threatens the linear nature of the village. Too many houses, 25 far too many for site / exceeds identified local need of the village. Inadequate transport infrastructure. Traffic congestion. Unsuitable due to impact on the landscape and character of this part of Rockland St Mary. Adverse impact on heritage assets. Loss of tributary farmland. Negative effects on nature and ecology.

Object

Representation ID: 493

Received: 20/07/2021

Respondent: Mrs G FV Sergent

Unsafe access at a busy village junction
The Post Office and shop is a busy destination point serving at least 5 surrounding villages and customers primarily drive to the shop and park on the road around the proposed junction
Busiest road point in the village with limited visibility due to the curve in the road
Anticipated 50 additional cars would create a great accident risk to an already known accident spot in the village


detrimental impact on the linear character of the village
No other road access from this proposed site to school
Insufficient road/pavement width for proposed access road

Object

Representation ID: 506

Received: 21/07/2021

Respondent: Mrs Claire Urwin

Safety concerns regarding junction

Object

Representation ID: 508

Received: 21/07/2021

Respondent: Mrs Jo Dixon

Safety and access concerns. The shop and post office provide an important community service. There are frequently cars parked on the road and an access road close to this amenity would be a potential hazard.
Do we really need to build on the green belt when so many if our town and city commercial properties are now empty. New building plans could sensibly involve redesigning and repurposing town and city centres.

Object

Representation ID: 511

Received: 21/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Michael Hayward

Opposite to the Shop, 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).

Object

Representation ID: 550

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.