I object to the further development of site reference number GNLP0431 and/or any other development(s) within the Wreningham parish boundary for the following reasons -

Policy 15 of the Joint Core Strategy (JCS) identified Wreningham as a Service
Village in which land was to be allocated for small-scale housing growth within the range of 10-20 dwellings, subject to form, character and servicing constraints.

During the last 2 years I know of 15 properties which have been built, and at least a further 4 in the last 5 years.

The Parish Council and local community consider that Wreningham has already met its Local Development Framework (LDF) target and that any additional development should not be required.

Prior to the recently built 10 large scale "executive style" homes by FW Properties (FWP) on this site, in their submission Norfolk County Council Highways (NCCH) expressed their concerns regarding road capacity and said that Wreningham could only manage extra traffic from no more than 10 additional houses.

As 10 houses have already just been built on this site, along with the other individual new properties by other developers in the village, I believe significant changes to the surrounding roads would need to be made to support the additional traffic created by what is likely to be a further 10 - 4-5 bedroom houses.

The overall narrowness and topography of the roads in Wreningham means the roads are already under pressure from the existing traffic flow and there are already periods during the day (especially during the school run) when there is a present danger to road users.

When FWP built the existing 10 homes on this site, the parishioners and Parish Council expressed a wish for the houses to be designed with a low profile, merge with the surroundings and not to disrupt the characteristic sight-lines for this area, and for the homes to individually and collectively to provide an appearance to enhance the village.

The general consensus in the village is that none of the above wishes were taken into consideration and the village has been spoilt by these very large executive style homes, which are not in keeping with the rest of the village.

The parishioners are concerned that if permission is granted again to FWP for a further 10 homes on this site, the size and style of these current houses will be replicated and will essentially create a large unsightly "estate" in the middle of the village.

It is also stated in South Norfolk Councils "Place Making" guide that it is a requirement that the design for the development reflects the locality. This type of housing does not in any way reflect the locality.

Parishioners previously expressed the view that the balance of housing within the village needed to support the differing needs for accommodation for parishioners, as their life circumstances evolve.

Therefore, the life cycle of ownership and occupancy needs to be considered, if permission is granted to build the type of property that FWP favours in the village, which largely excludes the wider range of the population demographic.

Large executive style properties are not suitable for an aging population who generally need and favour 2-3 bedroom bungalows, nor do they provide for smaller families or would be homeowners who need starter homes.

However, if permission were to be granted anywhere in the village for any additional homes, regardless of style or size, it would contradict the requirements of Policy 15 of the JCS as it appears the LDF target has already been met in Wreningham.

I also note from the Sustainable Appraisal interim report 2012 the following -
As the population grows and ages, the need to supply facilities and
services and the access to them, especially in the rural area, will become increasingly pressing;

I believe the local school is already at its maximum capacity with no adjoining land available to further develop the size of the school, and the local GP practices are oversubscribed with existing patients already having to wait up to 4 weeks for a routine appointment.

There is no local shop within the village and the local transport links are few and far between.

It also states -

the character and quality of natural and built environments must be
preserved and enhanced whilst being faced by widespread development pressure.

None of the recent developments appear to reflect this recommendation.

Wreningham is also a wet parish and its drainage system is already struggling to cope with high water tables and surface water. Further development will only add additional pressure to an already stressed water table level.

Due to the above reasons I object to any further development anywhere within the village.