I object on the grounds of Access and road safety, environmental impact, the large scale of the proposal in relation to the village and the likelihood that the kind of homes proposed will do nothing to alleviate the shortage of affordable homes for local people and first time buyers on low incomes.

Access
There would be considerable impact on the small and somewhat dangerous road up New Inn Hill and the corner by Eel Catcher Close. 200 homes potentially means 300 cars joining and leaving Lower Rd at some point.

Lower Road is prone to subsidy on the dyke edge, and this development is likely to enhance damage.

The current pavement on New Inn Hill Road is narrow and uneven, to improve access could put old and important trees at risk.

New Inn Hill Road has 2 'black spots'. I am concerned about the impact of potentially 300 vehicles on the road.



Environmental impact

An area of outstanding natural beauty and peace would be utterly spoilt. The lines of beautiful old oak trees, the sweep of those lovely open fields and the wild areas in the valley would all vanish permanently.

The area is rich in wildlife and unspoilt habitat, with good footpaths providing beautiful views and the opportunity for recreation.

It is attractive to tourists, cyclists, walkers, birdwatchers, sailors and those seeking peace and fresh air. Witness the increased numbers of holiday properties in this part of south Norfolk.

Currently there is a lack of light pollution, which is now considered to have a considerable impact on wildlife. This would be spoilt and it is likely that all night street lighting would be required along the road for safety, and no doubt street lighting on the estate.

The Community Reserve, which is a Norfolk Wildlife Trust county wildlife site, would struggle to absorb the massive increase in footfall and dog walking, which would follow.

Although some measures taken by the current landowner have been unpopular he has claimed that an increase in the owl and raptor population has taken place along the Hellington Beck valley. It is sad that apparently this is no longer a consideration.

This area is home to rare plant species such as orchids, and provides a significant wildlife corridor, which would be disturbed.

It is close to Wheatfen Broad, the Yare Valley Bee corridor, Dugan's Marsh, and on the Wherryman's Way and opposite to the RSPB reserve at Brundall. This is a rare and disappearing type of landscape and this is the aspect of this area we should be developing, so that people have somewhere to take in healthy outdoor pursuits and our pollinators, plants, bugs, birds and beasts have somewhere to live and feed too.


Scale
In relation to the village, this is another half again. 200 houses means potentially 300 cars, at least 500 people and probably at least 100 dogs.

Currently the village has a mix of housing stock, which has grown organically over time producing visual interest and variety and allowing the community to gradually absorb changes and to welcome newcomers as people who could join and enrich the existing community.

Large new developments like these are suburban rather than rural in appearance and culture.

Furthermore at a time when global food security is increasingly an issue should good agricultural land be tarmaced over in this way?

Could there be an impact on flooding due to run off?

There is no guarantee the village school will be revived, it could still be closed / merged with the larger school in Poringland. This would not support the notion of a Rockland St Mary as a Service Village and could undermine the community.



Whilst small developments of affordable housing are indeed necessary, the size and nature of this proposal is utterly unacceptable and a cynical attempt to gain more wealth for already wealthy individuals at the expense of the environment and the whole community.