Support
Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations
Representation ID: 20353
Received: 05/03/2020
Respondent: Mr Stephen Cash
(Changed from object to support as respondent is actually supporting the categorisation of the site as unreasonable in the GNLP)
We are supporting the planning officers decision to deem this site unreasonable. Strumpshaw has no infrastructure for further residential development, no school, no shops therefore increased housing will mean more polluting car journeys, especially with the limited bus service. The roads to access Norwich are either through Brundall which is already overburdened with traffic or up Hemblington Rd which is single carriageway with a dangerous bend. There are no continuous footpaths to Lingwood or Brundall. The plan also includes an existing footpath which is frequently used by walkers. Valuable agricultural land such as this should not be built on.
We are supporting the planning officers decision to deem this site unreasonable. Strumpshaw has no infrastructure for further residential development, no school, no shops therefore increased housing will mean more polluting car journeys, especially with the limited bus service. The roads to access Norwich are either through Brundall which is already overburdened with traffic or up Hemblington Rd which is single carriageway with a dangerous bend. There are no continuous footpaths to Lingwood or Brundall. The plan also includes an existing footpath which is frequently used by walkers. Valuable agricultural land such as this should not be built on.