The Joint Core Strategy (JCS) states, as an 'Other Village' very limited infill can occur without affecting the form and character of the village although settlements may be considered to deliver the smaller sites in the NPA allowance. It states that no such sites have been indentified in Swainsthorpe. This proposal for 25 houses is not very limited infill but proportionally a large development for a tiny village to be built in a field alongside existing properties.

GNLP states that it will focus rural growth on villages with services - Swainsthorpe does not have a school, doctor's surgery, shop or any other services - only a pub on the A140.

GNLP states the need to reduce environmental impact contributions to climate change and air pollution - locations need to reduce the need to travel. This proposal contradicts this. It will increase the need to travel by car as there are no services in Swainsthorpe. This will increase pollution and contribute to poorer air quality.

Access to Church View is on a blind bend and there are no pathways for pedestrians. Exiting from here by car or on foot will be dangerous and increase the likelihood of accidents. School children will need to cross to/from the opposite side of the road to get to/from the school bus stop. Pedestrians will need to cross here to be able to walk safely along the road which will be extremely dangerous.

Access for vehicles and staff during construction of the proposed development would cause a potential hazard as the entrance to Church View is on a blind bend. There are no suitable places for large vehicles to turn around safely in the village. Church Road, the main access road through Swainsthorpe is not suitable for large construction vehicles.

This development could add up to 50 extra cars to the road through the village (developments in Mulbarton would add to this number). This road has a level crossing for the high speed railway line and is narrow and uneven with several blind bends (Church View, The Vale, Gowing Lane). It is not suitable for more traffic.

JCS - This proposal does not protect and enhance the individual character and culture of the area - development would destroy, not protect, rural green fields, harm wildlife and the countryside.

Loss of productive arable land - this field has been farmed for generations.

Loss of green, open space enjoyed by many villagers for recreational purposes such as walking. Cycling and walking on the road through the village can be dangerous due to limited pavements, blind bends and existing traffic travelling at dangerous speeds.

Highway safety - Increased traffic on A140 from this development will add to existing daily congestion and compromise road safety. There will also be increased traffic from large housing developments in Long Stratton. It is already extremely difficult to turn right from Church Road onto the A140 during rush hour. I have to turn left onto the A140, which is almost as difficult, and swing round in the Caistor turning to then get back onto the A140 to travel to work. Traffic from this development will back up along Church Road during busy times.
To travel by public transport it is necessary to cross the A140 at some point. Even with an island on this road it does not feel safe standing in the middle of the A140 with lorries and cars thundering along past you.
It is also very dangerous at present to turn right from the A140 onto Church Road due to the excessive amount of traffic and narrowness of the turning lane. This can be extremely frightening especially when lorries are approaching in front of you and from behind. Any increase in traffic volumes, such as created by up to an additional 50 cars would make all of these situations even more dangerous.

The A140 is the main route for a high number of emergency response vehicles. Sirens can be heard many times throughout the day and any increase in traffic would delay these vehicles potentially putting lives at risk.