I am writing to you directly because my comments which will not fit in the allowable space in the comments box on the web-site, will apply equally to the following three sites:-

GNLP 2094, Stoke Road, Poringland 110 Proposed houses
GNLP 2111, Brickle Road, Stoke Holy Cross 60 Proposed houses
GNLP 2124, Model farm on the South Side of Poringland Road. 80 Proposed houses

Stoke Holy Cross/Poringland/The Framinghams/Caistor St. Edmund have seen a huge amount of housing developments over the last few years:-

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
If the three sites(GNLP 2094/2111/2124) under consideration are given permission to be developed then that will be a total of 1292 new houses, and equates - at 4 persons per houses and 2 cars per house) to 5168 new residents and 2584 more cars.

The developments I have highlighted in red text will all access from and exit to Stoke Road, Poringland; Poringland Road, Stoke Holy Cross; and Long Lane, Stoke Holy Cross.
These developments in red text comprise 925 houses, which at the above occupancy and car use equates to 3,700 new residents and 1850 cars.

The reason I am highlighting the developments in red text is because I am a resident of Poringland Road, Stoke Holy Cross and am well aware of the current over use of this road. It has become a rat-run for vehicles trying to access Norwich by avoiding the already congested B1332. Stoke Road, Poringland; Poringland Road, Stoke Holy Cross; and Long Lane, Stoke Holy Cross is treated as if it's a race track. Stoke Road and Poringland Road are in a 30MPH zone, but cars regularly speed along here, and vehicles have been recorded during speed monitoring phases of grossly exceeding the 30 mph limit, with one vehicle reported as doing 95mph in the afternoon. Residents have to pull out of their drives to face this sort of excess speed and traffic. The traffic speed monitoring data is available on the SHX parish council web site.

Almost a year ago South Norfolk Council received an application to demolish a property at 16, Poringland Road - 2017/2871, on South Norfolk Council planning portal. -The Parish Council recommended refusal, which South Norfolk Council agreed with and consequently this application was refused.

NHS England, Midlands and East commented that:- There are 2 GP practices within a 2km radius of the proposed development, Heathgate Medical Practice and Old Mill Surgery. The practices do not have sufficient capacity for the additional growth resulting from this proposed development and cumulative development in the area. ..... The proposed development would have an impact on primary healthcare provision in the area and its implications, if unmitigated, would be unsustainable.

If the current GP practices would not be able to meet the demand 54 houses would produce, then surely the extra 250 houses proposed in the GNLP document would also not be able to access GP services!

South Norfolk Council refused planning for 2017/2871 on the grounds that:-

Conclusion and reasons for refusal

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.
The proposed housing is not supported by any specific Development Management Policy which allows for development outside of the development boundary and nor does it represent overriding benefits when having regard to the harm caused in relation to the impact on the form and character of the area and as such does not satisfy the requirements of either 2 c) or d) of Policy DM1.3 of the South Norfolk Local Plan.
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.

The development is for a maximum of 54 dwellings and it is considered that the volume of vehicular movements associated with the proposal, with the access situated in such close proximity to the two neighbouring bungalows would give rise to a situation detrimental to the amenities of the occupiers of the existing dwellings via noise and disturbance. As a result, the proposed development would be harmful to existing neighbouring property's amenity, contrary to policy DM 3.13 of the South Norfolk Local Plan 2015

I will also point out that the local bus service along Stoke Road, Poringland Road, and Long Lane through to Caistor St. Edmund and then Norwich is not relaible.
This bus service has had a chequered history and currently is only hourly through most of the day assuming the buses run. Evening services are poor. It is currently operated by Konnect Bus, route No. 87. Konnect are discontinuing this service as from the start of 2019 :-Due to continuing unsustainable losses we have made the difficult decision to withdraw route 87 (Bungay - Poringland - Upper Stoke - Stoke Holy Cross - Caistor St Edmund - Trowse - Norwich), except in the evenings and on Sundays & bank holidays. Copied from their Website. First bus are going to run the service that Konnect are discontinuing, but if Konnect make unsustainable loses, then how will First be able to make the service sustainable, and will they eventually withdraw, leaving these new proposed developments without a bus service.

In short then, the proposals, GNLP 2094;GNLP2111;GNLP2124 are unsustainable and should be rejected.