QUESTION 108: Do you think

Comment

Representation ID: 231

Received: 29/06/2021

Respondent: Mrs Jacqueline Robinson

The rejected sites should be reviewed again. It seems illogical to be considering site reference SN2064REV, which has access issues and would change the linear nature of The Street, which has been used as a reason for rejecting these sites. If sites were considered on both sides of The Street it would make for more balance through the village.

Comment

Representation ID: 302

Received: 05/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Sam Bence

I agree with the rejections to the sites. The rationale used to reject should have been used for the accepted sites.

Object

Representation ID: 427

Received: 16/07/2021

Respondent: Mrs Jane Henry

There is no footpath between The Oaks and the Village Shop or School. The road is narrow and bends. Dangerous to those people who walk and to others who use the road

Support

Representation ID: 464

Received: 19/07/2021

Respondent: mr johnny fincham

land to the north of rookery hill is much closer to the shops, surgery and school than other proposals. The pavement is complete on that side of the road. The northern approach is very bending with roads slow and twisting and this makes access an issue, however, there could easily be an access point further out. No one would be concerned if there was houses at this point as the hill behind the houses would make them not obscure the skyline.

Support

Representation ID: 466

Received: 19/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Toby Sawrey Cookson

Land North of Rookery Hill is ideal for a site. No one would be overlooked or blocked. There would be open feilds either side. It would be much closer to the shop, shool and surgery than the development proposed for the other end of the village. The only issue is access, but this could be solved with a link to the road slightly further up where the road has a bend and route to Surlingham.

Support

Representation ID: 472

Received: 19/07/2021

Respondent: Mr david fornby

land north of rookery hill would be very close to the shop and surgery and school with a pavement all along that side of the road. The view would not block or intrude on anyone. The road there is very fast and bending and would not be a area where there is open access nor a particularly good view.

Support

Representation ID: 575

Received: 23/07/2021

Respondent: Mr david mathews

This is the only sensible site, being close to the shop, post office and school. The site would not intrude on present houseing at all. The other proposal at eel catcher c lose is almost a mile from the village ameneties .

Object

Representation ID: 714

Received: 28/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Peter Armitage

I object to these sites for housing and agree with the reasons for rejecting them already outlined. The same reasons also apply to the the two proposed sites; which is that they will all alter the linear nature of the village and will affect the landscape, appearance and character of the village. Also some sites are too far away from the centre of the village. They will all add to the already heavy traffic in the village and increase congestion, especially at key times. More importantly. increased housing leads to habitat loss and has a detrimental affect on wildlife.

Support

Representation ID: 723

Received: 28/07/2021

Respondent: Ms lydia symmonds

land north of rookery hill not intrusive or with any kind of pleasant aspect. A steep hill would mean the sky would still be visible. No other houses in the village impacted. The shops, school and post office are very close to this end of the village.

Comment

Representation ID: 734

Received: 28/07/2021

Respondent: Mrs. emily ireson

Regarding site SN2063 I find it hard to understand that the reasons for rejecting are obviously the same reasons that the site to the south side should be rejected also.
The comment regarding school lane taking the line back for the south makes not sense, when the same could be said for large development behind Broadfields Way?

Object

Representation ID: 928

Received: 30/07/2021

Respondent: Rockland St Mary With Hellington Parish Council

The Parish Council does not think that any of the rejected sites should be allocated instead of or in addition to the preferred sites for the same reasons put forward by the Parish Council in the original consultation and for the reasons that the sites were rejected by the South Norfolk Planning team.

Support

Representation ID: 1419

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Ms paula norris

Land north of rookery hill not near or adjacent to existing housing and very near to school and shops. The steep bank means the skyline would still be visible. This area is nowhere near as scenic as the area proposed for development at eel catcher close,.

Object

Representation ID: 1466

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Jason Davey

I object to any of the rejected sites to be allocated instead or in addition to the preferred sites. None of the rejected sites are suitable as per the above statements. I would especially object to sites SN2061REV and SN2063 as they would be backland developments intruding into open landscape changing the liner development and set precedents for further backland developments along the liner line changing a very rural village into a townscaping nightmare. Also there are very big concerns regarding access especially for Site SN2063 as this is already a very congested part of the main road.

Object

Representation ID: 1567

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Stuart Ellison

For the same reasons as the previous submissions I have made. The village is already at capacity in human terms and the impact on the environment of increased housing and traffic will be massively detrimental to the other inhabitants of this area, namely the flora and fauna which are already at risk and vital to the continued health of us all. The threat to bio-diversity caused by proposed site developments is too great given the local and global situation of global heating and climate crisis. Please find brownfield sites and spare the local flora and fauna of Rockland St Mary.

Object

Representation ID: 1569

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Mrs Nicola Davey

I strongly object to any of the rejected sites as per the very valid points already made by planning - access to these sites are unsafe already let alone with the added traffic these will produce. I do feel that these points also apply to the proposed sites as it is clear this village will not benefit without detriment which is why our countryside, landscapes, wildlife and plants should be protected. This village will not benefit from urbanisation as there is a lack of infrastructure, employment, public transport, poor highway and sewage to support it..

Comment

Representation ID: 1590

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: mr russell gregory

I don’t believe we need another development. The village and is roads don’t need another 50+ cars, delivery etc.

Object

Representation ID: 1609

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Mr John Stone

I object to all the rejected sites to be allocated instead of or in addition to the preferred sites. The reason given for the rejections are correct and also apply to the other proposed 2 sites.

Comment

Representation ID: 1916

Received: 22/07/2021

Respondent: South Norfolk Council

SN0165 - Land north of Bramerton Lane & Rookery Hill, 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.

Comment

Representation ID: 1917

Received: 22/07/2021

Respondent: South Norfolk Council

SN2061REV - North of The Street, Rockland St Mary (access between No101 and 103 The Street)
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: 1918

Received: 22/07/2021

Respondent: South Norfolk Council

SN2063 - Land north of The Street (behind Post Office), 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.

Comment

Representation ID: 1919

Received: 22/07/2021

Respondent: South Norfolk Council

SN2070 - West of the Oaks, 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.