Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 14422

Received: 18/03/2018

Respondent: Mr WAYNE YAXLEY

Representation Summary:

Unacceptable development with a detrimental affect on local area. Existing services and amenities are not adequate for the size of development proposed.
As stated in my representation existing Doctors etc cannot cope with current population let alonethr influx of at least 1400 extra people using current facilities will cripple the existing system.
No provision for additional space in the High School and extra pressure on local schools.
Additional noise from an estimated 1400 car movements per day on already overcrowded roads.
This development has been rejected before on the same issues and nothing has changed so should be rejected again!

Full text:

This development site proposal is totally unacceptable. The infrastructure needed for a site this size is not in place. Existing Doctors etc cannot cope with the existing population let alone the additional influx that a development of this size would bring. The inclusion of a provision for a Primary school would alleviate some strain on the existing local over subscribed schools but does not take into account the additional intake at the High School.
A new development of 1400 homes on this site would have a detrimental effect on the existing community.
The existing road network already struggles even with the NDR in place. At least 1400 additional car movements can be expected on local roads if this development was to go ahead adding to the overcrowding already experienced. The extra traffic will bring additional noise and pollution issues
This area still has a village feel and appeal but any large development means we shall lose our village feel and become even closer to being just another suburb of Norwich.
This development would almost double the size and area of the existing area of Thorpe Marriott
This is not the first time the site and development has been proposed and pops up every time there is a development plan. This is exactly the same proposal as last time and was rejected before on the same issues. Nothing has changed so this site proposal should be rejected again based on previous proposals