QUESTION 107: Do you support

Object

Representation ID: 1597

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Mrs Heather Allinson

The road with the access to the surgery suffers some congestion already, the bus stop, school bus collection point, shop deliveries/customers plus doctors patients all using this area. the house next door but one has a white transit van in its driveway which obstructs the view of the doctors driveway for traffic coming from the Claxton end of the village towards the shop.
Construction would destory the wildlife pond in the surgery garden, the building area would destroy the habitat of many wild animals, deer and hedgehogs have an established route at the top of the proposed dev site

Object

Representation ID: 1607

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Mr John Stone

I object to site SN2064 as the access point is very dangerous and busy with the shop, drs, bus stop and garages. This is not a viable access point for 25 homes and will make this part of the road even more unsafe and congested. I do not agree with the development of this land and intruding out on to open landscape. It will cause more backland developing in this village which will make it unrecognisable and unsustainable.
The highway will also struggle to cope with the excess traffic and there will also be more noise pollution.

Object

Representation ID: 1613

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Ms Jeni Barnacle

I object to the allocation of this preferred site SN2064REV

Undermining the historic linear development of the village on the ridge
potential for further encroaching into rural landscape which could lead to more building development at a later date
Adverse impact with access issues of the location on to an already congested area for traffic with village shop and doctors surgery
infrastructure of village not able to meet capacity of more new houses

Object

Representation ID: 1748

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.

Object

Representation ID: 1778

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Edward Gosling

This question refers SN2064REV. I do OBJECT to this proposed development as follows:
1) Townscape. Over the last 140 years building developments in the Rockland St Mary have been proportionate, maintaining the essential historic village structure. This proposal would not only in itself change historic village structure, but also set a precedent for further change, consequently having a detrimental impact on the townscape which cannot be mitigated. On these grounds alone should be refused.
2) Biodiversity. This proposal if built would significantly disrupt (or prevent) what is believed to be the only remaining migration route for dear passing across The Street at this end of the village.
3) Location & Density. Contrary to the requirements of SNVC Objective 3 this proposed development seeks to implement a housing density incompatible with adjacent existing properties at this location & so should be refused.
4) Settlement Limits. I’m concerned that this proposed development is completely outside the existing settlement limit and in all but one case the surrounding property land abutting the site is also outside the settlement limit. Has sufficient consideration been given to existing residents?

5) Scale. In this case there are 1200 properties to be allocated to 48 village clusters. The Rockland St Mary cluster is one of the smallest (I calculate that it is in the lowest quartile) and yet it seems to have been allocated up to double (50 properties) the average (25) properties. Calculating the allocation of properties proportionately (to scale) in relation to the size (area) of each cluster I calculate that the RSM cluster should be allocated 15 or 16 properties. These properties could be accommodated elsewhere making SM2064REV surplus to requirements

Object

Representation ID: 1805

Received: 03/08/2021

Respondent: T Ross Wylie

With reference to my wife's letter of 7th July, addressed to South Norfolk Council, reference VCHAP REG18, and my letter of 30th June, addressed to The Secretary, Rockland Parish Council, at the time of writing we were not aware that the site on the north side of The Street had been rejected. This I was aware of when I visited the Parish Rooms.
Apart from facing south from The Street, the same reasons for rejection could be made for site SN 2064REV. In addition to high quality agricultural land being a change of usage for housing there is, more importantly, development beyond the village historical Settlement Boundary.
Perhaps at some stage the South Norfolk Council will explain the material difference in the two sites, SN2061REV and SN2064REV. It may be something they don't wish to disclose but neither site had a good access without a purchase.

Comment

Representation ID: 1812

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: 1915

Received: 22/07/2021

Respondent: South Norfolk Council

Question 107 - Site: SN2064REV
Land to the south of The Street, Rockland St Mary
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.

I would offer the following comments in respect of question 108 to Chapter 43 of the VCHAP relating to the Rejected Sites in Rockland St Mary, Hellington and Holverstonin the event that one or more of them be allocated instead of, or in addition to, the preferred sites as a result of the consultation process.

Comment

Representation ID: 1967

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Water Management Alliance

See attachment for full response.
SN2064REV – Land to the south of The Street, 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: 2148

Received: 14/07/2021

Respondent: Norfolk County Council - LLFA

SN2064REV
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?: Source Protection Zone 3
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."
Only the northwest corner of the site is within a SPZ 3.

Assessment: Green

Comment

Representation ID: 2164

Received: 14/07/2021

Respondent: Norfolk County Council

Rockland St Mary
SN2064REV - It is believed that 3rd party land is needed for the visibility splay to the west of the proposed site access. Particularly as the highway requirements relate to the ability to provide a safe access, the ability for them to be met should be demonstrated prior to allocation.

Comment

Representation ID: 2211

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 south of village, behind dwellings. Hedges are a priority habitat so losses should be avoided, minimised and as a last resort, compensated for. No other priority habitats are identified onsite although deciduous woodland to east of site (see MAGIC). Site within 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.