I wish to comment on the following proposals:

GNLP 2124 - Model Farm on the South side of Poringland Road

GNLP 2111 - Brickle Road

GNLP 2094 - Stoke Road

The comments below apply equally to each of the proposed developments because they are all a matter of a few metres away from my house:

There have already been the following new developments within a couple of miles of Stoke Holy Cross in the last year or so
1. Salamanca, Long Lane - 24 dwellings
2. Watermill Gardens, Long Lane - 53 dwellings
3. The Ridings, Stoke Road - 263 dwellings
4. Mulberry Park, Caistor Lane - 150 dwellings
5. Rosebury Park, Shotesham Road - 57 dwellings
6. Clements Gate, Stoke Road (behind Old Mill surgery) - 270 dwellings
7. Chandler Road, opposite the Poringland Road bus shelter - 12 dwellings
8. Earlsmead, Pigot Lane - 100 dwellings
9. New building site opposite the Octagon Barn on the B1332 - 60 "plots" on the planning application
10. Land south of stoke Holy Cross primary School - 53 dwellings
This is 1,042 dwellings in total which, at 4 persons each and at least two cars per home, is 4,168 people and 2084 vehicles.
Add to these the proposed 80 houses behind Model Farm, the 60 houses along Brickle Road and the 110 houses along stoke Road and there will be 1,292 new dwellings, 5168 new residents and 2584 more vehicles.
There used to be a half hourly bus service that connecting Upper (and Lower) Stoke Holy Cross to Norwich which was reduced to just one journey per hour from 1st July this year (that is when it actually rans because, as those who live here know, since Konnect Bus took over the service from Anglian, the buses often run late or don't even turn up at all) and, at the time of writing this document, Konnectbus have announced that there will be no service whatsoever from the end of 2018.
How will the hundreds of new residents commute into and out of Norwich? They will have to use their cars down Long Lane, Poringland Road and Stoke Road thus increasing the already unacceptable volume of traffic down this narrow 30mph road (no street lights and only a footpath down one side in the built up areas).
Vehicles have been measured travelling at over 90mph down this road in recent traffic surveys.
The schools and healthcare facilities in Stoke Holy Cross are already running beyond designed capacity.

We recently had a planning application (Application 2017/2871 - Land to the rear of 16, Poringland Road, SHX) for 54 dwelling in the field behind our garden on Poringland Road (within metres of GNLP 2124 - Model Farm on the South side of Poringland Road and GNLP 2111 - Brickle Road and GNLP 2094 - Stoke Road) and I reproduce the reasons given by South Norfolk District Planning which, I submit, will also apply to the three proposals upon which I am commenting:

"The proposed development does not represent a sustainable development, having regard to the three tests (social, economic and environmental) set out in the NPPF, by virtue of the harmful impact to the character and visual appearance of the area and encroachment into the open countryside, together with the detrimental impact on the amenities of the existing neighbouring properties which significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefit of housing in the Norwich Policy Area where there is not an up to date 5 year housing land supply, which is diminished by virtue of the evidence contained in the SHMA. Accordingly, the proposal fails to comply with policy DM1.1 of the South Norfolk Local Plan and Paragraph 14 of the NPPF.
It is considered that the proposal would be harmful to the character and visual appearance of the area; is incompatible with the existing grain of development and would not make a positive contribution to the village, in terms of integrating itself appropriately into the settlement form and character and its surroundings. Consequently, the proposal would result in the erosion of the rural undeveloped character of the site and lead to an encroachment on the open countryside. The proposal in view of the above is therefore contrary to policies DM 3.8, DM4.5, Policy 2 of the JCS, together with Section 7 of the NPPF and the design principle 3.4.1 of the South Norfolk Place-Making Guide requires new development to relate well to the character of the local area which this proposal does not do."