Reedham should not be included under this heading as it is not clustered, neither is the environment suitable for more housing development. It is a rural non-drive through village to anywhere else at the end of a narrow country road 6 miles from Acle. I have objected greatly to any housing development of GNLP 3003 on the GNLP website. GNLP 1001 is neither suitable or needed for more housing in the village. Reasons:

New houses already built (Barn Owl Close) are not being readily sold, the 'affordable' houses offered to qualifying residents were not taken up indicating that these are not truly 'affordable'.

Single roads with poorly maintained passing places are too narrow to sustain more traffic; they can already become congested with private cars, delivery vehicles etc at times which would increase with more housing.

The sewage plant is inadequate. Tankers removing waste are continuously coming and going to the plant along narrow roads. Residents complain of flooding during heavy rainfall and raw sewage in gardens in some areas. Anglia Water have said nothing can be done about it. Disgraceful! So building more houses will only add to this problem.

We have a part-time post office and overstretched GP surgery which again is only available part-time.

Reedham has been classed as a Cluster Village and (over) allocated the number of houses to be built because there is a primary school. There is no safe walking for children to attend school and for pedestrians generally. There are heavy agricultural vehicles on the roads daily.

The village shop is open early morning and well into the evening and is good for basic shopping and newspapers. Residents have to use their cars for bulk shopping or rely on supermarket deliveries.

There are hardly any opportunities for employment in the village. The GNLP states that housing would be built to encourage people to cycle (too dangerous) or walk (again dangerous) to their place of employment but this is impossible to attain that goal in Reedham as the village is not an area suitable for employment other than in the few existing small businesses. People have to use their cars to get to work in Norwich City or elsewhere.

More house building will contribute to increased light pollution (we have the absolute minimum at present) and will add to, not decrease carbon emissions and threaten our wildlife.

We have a train station which now has trains to Norwich and Great Yarmouth after a year without any due to upgrading signal boxes but they run infrequently and at inconvenient times. Flooding at Brundall can close the line in bad weather. It is necessary to drive 6 miles to Acle to shop at the Co-op or park and catch a bus into Norwich or Yarmouth. We have no direct bus route into Norwich. The present infrastructure will not sustain further development.

Reedham is an ancient village which brings many visitors to our lovely riverside and pubs where they can park and watch the water traffic (Reedham is the only place in Broadland where it's possible to do this) or boaters can moor overnight without charge. Tourism is important in Reedham and we need to keep the character of our village without a lot of new housing and be able to protect our greenfield sites and amazing wildlife.

THE GNLP
Is flawed for many reasons. In particular It's so called Vision and Objectives, relating to the Village Clusters, are actually HARMFUL to the rural areas of Broadland. It was intended in the Joint Core Strategy that these areas would be PROTECTED by keeping new housebuilding nearer to Norwich and within the border of the NDR built inter alia to preserve unique wetlands and wildlife. So why has this policy changed so drastically? How can this GNLP building plan possibly be upheld? In Reedham, the Highways Dept. has said in relation to GNLP 3003 that Mill Road (besides inaccesibility) is unsafe for pedestrians and totally unsuitable, with no room for improvement to make a safe walkway for schoolchildren, and should therefore not be considered! Why are opinions like these being completely ignored?

There is over-allocation of housing in areas where the infrastructure cannot sustain this development. This will inevitably increase carbon emissions - another change in BDC policy although the GNLP still maintains that it will work towards decreasing these statistics. How can this possibly be enforced? It is in complete contradiction to the aims of the Plan.