Hello Although I don't live in Stoke Holy Cross I have many friends there, several of whom live on the current Harrold Place development and are delighted with the properties they were able to buy.
The proposed extension of Harrold Place is exactly the type of development the village needs. It is proposed to provide high quality housing with many of the units being bungalows suitable for retired people which are in high demand locally by residents seeking to downsize.
The initial proposed layout from the developer showed some 9 bungalows to be built on the site and there are only bungalows adjacent to any of the current properties so no privacy/overlooking issues would arise.
I believe the existing scheme was given at least one reward. The proposed developer is well known for providing high quality properties to a much better standard than many bigger developers.
I believe there may have been objections from some residents on the current scheme making the "nimby" type of objection. I find it sad that owners of new houses they are very happy with, try to stop other people having the chance to similar new houses in such villages. I hope you will ignore objections from any such "nimbies".

The Parish Council considers that there should be an additional requirement in policy ST 01 for a financial contribution to be made towards a new village hall/community facilities that would facilitate replacement of the existing Pavilion that is unsustainable as a village hall serving Stoke Holy Cross.
The Parish Council considers that this request for a financial contribution would not only be in accordance with the adopted policy for service villages in the JCS. It would also meet the planning obligations test set out in paragraph 57 of the National Planning Policy Framework and the need to address community needs. Paragraph 93 of the NPPF states that :
To provide the social, recreational, and cultural facilities and services the community needs, planning policies and decisions should:
a) plan positively for the provision and use of shared spaces, community facilities (such as local shops, meeting places, sports venues, open spaces, cultural buildings, public houses, and places of worship), and other local services to enhance the sustainability of communities and residential environments;
b) take into account and support the delivery of local strategies to improve health, social and cultural well-being for all sections of the community;
c) guard against the unnecessary loss of valued facilities and services, particularly where this would reduce the community’s ability to meet its day-to-day needs;
d) ensure that established shops, facilities, and services are able to develop and modernise, and are retained for the benefit of the community; and
e) ensure an integrated approach to considering the location of housing, economic uses and community facilities and services.in order to promote Healthy and safe communities, planning policies need:
If the Parish Council considers that Policy VC ST01 fails to meet these requirements by not addressing the negative impact that the resultant housing development would have on the existing community facilities in the village. It would therefore not deliver sustainable development and is unsound, unless modified to include a financial contribution to rectify this.

Stoke Holy Cross Parish Council have studied the proposals in the draft local plan and our response is as follows regarding the site to the East of the Harrold place development on Long Lane Stoke Holy Cross.

Policy VC STO1:
Stoke Holy Cross objects to policy VC ST01, which it considers to be unsound for the following reasons.
Stoke Holy Cross was defined as a service village deemed to be suitable for a development of between 10 to 20 dwellings in the Joint Core Strategy for Broadland, Norwich and South Norfolk adopted in 2014. Being within the Norwich policy area, additional development could be considered if necessary to help deliver ‘smaller sites’ in the defined Norwich Policy Area allowance (Policy 15: Service Villages). ‘Allocations to deliver smaller sites in South Norfolk will be made in accordance with the settlement hierarchy and local environmental and servicing considerations’.
Paragraph 6.61 of this policy explains that:
’20 dwellings may be exceeded where a specific site is identified which can clearly be demonstrated to improve local service provision or help maintain services under threat’.
The JCS lists the presence of a village hall as an important Facility expected in service villages (para 6.60). Stoke Holy Cross Parish Council has consistently pointed out that the existing village hall (called the Pavilion) situated on the playing fields and designed to accommodate demand arising from the level of housing in the village that existed in 1983, is now too small and outdated to serve a village the size Stoke Holy Cross now is. This is partly as a result of the fact that almost 300 family type houses have been built in Stoke Holy Cross since 1983 increasing the population by almost a third. It is also due to the fact the village pre-school is now housed in the pavilion, and therefore it cannot be used for any other purpose when in session, due to statutory child safeguarding requirements.
This deficiency was brought to the District Council’s attention during the determination of the major housing development proposals at Broomefield Road and Harrold Place and resulted in a limited financial contribution being made towards community facilities. This was significantly less than required for a New Hall, partly because the money had to also be used for other community facilities that were also put under strain by the increased housing developments in the village, such as a car park to ease school elated congestion, and land to facilitate an extension to the school. The Parish Council has since been trying to accumulate funds to facilitate the building of a larger Parish Hall and has obtained planning permission and detailed costings for a replacement including greatly improved accommodation for the pre-school. Unfortunately, it still requires substantial funds to enable these plans to be realised.
The Parish Council accepts that the site which is the subject of VC STO1 is a logical extension to the village being in close proximity to the primary school and the playing fields, and would result in a ‘squaring off’ of the village in this location. It strongly disagrees however with the suitability assessment justifying the allocation of this site in Stoke Holy Cross, which considers the existing village hall as having a site score of ‘green’, when this is clearly not the case, by any reasonable assessment.
The Parish Council therefore considers that in order to rectify the current position, there should be an additional requirement in policy ST 01 for a financial contribution to be made towards a new village hall/community facilities that would facilitate replacement of the existing Pavilion that is now too small, outdated, and unsustainable as a village hall serving Stoke Holy Cross. The financial contribution is also required to improve other community facilities that are struggling to cope with the recent significant housing growth in the Parish, which will be worsened by the additional housing development that would result from the implementation of this site. The developer who holds the option on the site has agreed a negotiated contribution to the PC of £370000 towards the replacement pavilion.
The Parish Council has supported this land being allocated on the basis that the contribution above will be forthcoming via a 106 agreement as a condition of granting planning permission.

The Parish Council considers that this request for a financial contribution would not only be in accordance with the adopted policy for service villages in the JCS. It would also meet the planning obligations test set out in paragraph 57 of the National Planning Policy Framework and the need to address community needs. Paragraph 93 of the NPPF states that :
To provide the social, recreational, and cultural facilities and services the community needs, planning policies and decisions should:
a) plan positively for the provision and use of shared spaces, community facilities (such as local shops, meeting places, sports venues, open spaces, cultural buildings, public houses, and places of worship), and other local services to enhance the sustainability of communities and residential environments;
b) take into account and support the delivery of local strategies to improve health, social and cultural well-being for all sections of the community;
c) guard against the unnecessary loss of valued facilities and services, particularly where this would reduce the community’s ability to meet its day-to-day needs;
d) ensure that established shops, facilities, and services are able to develop and modernise, and are retained for the benefit of the community; and
e) ensure an integrated approach to considering the location of housing, economic uses and community facilities and services.in order to promote Healthy and safe communities, planning policies need:
If the Parish Council considers that Policy VC ST01 fails to meet these requirements by not addressing the negative impact that the resultant housing development would have on the existing community facilities in the village. It would therefore not deliver sustainable development and is unsound, unless modified to include a financial contribution to rectify this.

Ideally to scrap it, but under the cynical conclusion that it is already a done deal with the known developer, to insist on site access via a new roundabout to be built opposite Broomefield Road which makes much more sense particularly from a road safety viewpoint on entering the village from Upper Stoke.

Stoke Holy Cross Parish Council are already talking of this field being ‘signed off’, quoting the actual developer by name even before this VCHAP consultation process is complete and before an actual planning application is submitted, properly considered and all arguments weighed up. This approach leaves a nasty taste in the mouth as to whether proper process is being followed or rather a questionable approach as to favouritism and expediency including the Parish Council receiving a large financial contribution from the landowner/developer towards their new pavilion, which without said large contribution it is hard to imagine would otherwise achieve the necessary funding to proceed.

So, I make these comments believing they will not be properly considered and believing it will make not a scrap of difference to the already decided outcome.

All this ignores genuine concerns over drainage, sewerage issues, access and traffic movements.

Drainage. This field has consistently had natural drainage issues with water inundating the gardens of the existing Harrold Place homes.

Sewerage. Some five plus years after completion of the existing Harrold Place (HP) development the roads and sewers of HP have not been adopted due to issues over the flow of sewage down HP from the the neighbouring Hopkins Homes development whereby Anglian Water are unwilling to sign off their side of things. In the summer there are unacceptable sewage smells for the residents of HP coming from the “drains” when the pumping station in the Hopkins development is in operation. Basically the process doesn’t work and is not fit for purpose. Any additional development on this field will doubtless feed into the existing sewage drainage system within HP, adding to the already unacceptable situation for the HP residents.

Traffic/access to the site. A very simplistic approach to this appears to have been taken. If genuinely there is a desire to encourage traffic entering the village to slow down from the Upper Stoke direction this would quite clearly be more effectively achieved by building a mini roundabout opposite Broomefield Road, also allowing easy access into the site. Doubtless this practical and safer approach is not put forward by Highways on grounds of cost to the landowners/developer, which again leaves a nasty taste. Safety instead to be achieved by a supposed awareness from drivers, from frontage development onto Long Lane, again feels expedient/not properly considered and rather a hopeful outcome rather than the proper outcome that would be achieved by drivers having to slow down due to a physical roundabout at the entry to the village.

Also, the proposed solution of access to the site by widening the existing H P is hard to envisage and on the face of it would lead to real issues of access and safety for the existing H P residents on what is already a very short approach road into H P. This approach feels completely wrong and any decision should not be taken on grounds of cost over genuine safety. Also there are legal aspects to overcome as land that would be required is owned by the residents of HP through their management company Salamanca Management Company Limited.

I agree with Mr Harper that having a separate entrance from Long Lane if necessary via a mini roundabout would be safer. The sewage and drainage issues need to be addressed.

The fact that after 5 years the sewage and drainage system for H.P. has still not been adopted by Anglia Water is a cause for concern especially if new dwellings are to be added to the system. Accessing the new development via Harrold Place is dangerous as the new junction is approached by a blind corner from the direction of H.P. The traffic along Long Lane is not safe and free flowing during start and finishing times at school. In fact it is dangerous. Any more development along Long lane would add to the danger for children, parents and motorists.

If development proceeds, access road should be via roundabout at Broomefield road entrance for the following reasons - Harrold Place entrance gets heavily congested at school times with parents parking in entrance to Harrold Place causing access and exit difficulties for residents, more traffic coming this way would would increase traffic problems.
A roundabout at the entrance to Broomefield would slow down traffic on Long Lane as there has already been some minor accidents at Broomefild Road exit caused by vehicles speeding down road from Poringland and also alleviate problems at entrance to Harrold Place.
Limiting the buildings to 1 storey would reduce the detrimental visual impact.
Reducing the number of dwellings would also alleviate the traffic problems on a already congested road.

Problems with sewage which is controlled by Hopkins Homes and after 5 years has still not been handed over to Anglian Water.
Problems with foul smells coming from drains during hot weather.
Suggested access road into Harrold place belongs to residents and suffers from traffic congestion issues during school closing times with parents parking on Long Lane and on the access road into Harrold Place
Designated building area prone to flooding, gardens adjacent to site have had serious flooding and there was a large pool of water for a few months in field at right hand side of entrance

The site can be developed to ensure the identified points are considered and addressed, this follows detailed discussions with NCC Highways and specialist surveys undertaken by ecologists and arboriculturalists during the consultation process and as part of pre-application discussions. Sufficient land is available to provide new planting and landscaping features to link to existing.

There are public benefits proposed associated with this site. Namely, funding to be allocated to facilitate the construction of the new Village Hall via a S106 agreement, as well as the provision of a footpath along the site frontage with Long Lane for public use. The Parish Council support the development of this site for housing as a method of enabling the village hall development, as confirmed during pre-application discussions with SNDC. Ingram Homes has developed a scheme which could be progressed via a formal plannign application.