I supporting the planning officers’ decision to deem this site unreasonable, and object to any future development on the following grounds:



1. Landscape form and Character: The site is in an area that is rural in character and provides high contributions towards landscape character and openness of the area.  Many of us moved here because it is a tiny village and in the countyside. Adding 90 houses, when there has already been a lot of development seems completely out of character of what Strumpshaw is. The Development of this site would result in a significant impact on the character and rural landscape, given the high-quality landscape and views through the site to open the countryside.

2. Lack of local facilities: Strumpshaw does not have the services and facilities to deal with further increase in residential dwellings - there’s no school or even any shops

. We could not possibly provide for a further 90 houses

3. Private Car use: New residents will have to drive to shops, and to take their children to school. This significantly increases reliance on the private car, which is inconsistent with local authority sustainability plans, and national law to become carbon neutral by 2050.

 Adding 90 houses would add between 150 - 180 extra cars to Strumpshaw. These are likely to have at least 4 vehicle movements a day (given the lack of public transport here), equating to 600 more movements of cars. Our roads cannot handle this.

4. Highways: The roads and highways serving the site are narrow of a restricted width. The creation of an access and adequate visibility splays would result in the removal of an ancient hedgerow, which would be protected by the ancient hedgerow legislation. Even if the hedgerow is capable of being removed, the road is at National Speed limits and the increase in width of the road would result in a significant change to the rural character and appearance of the area.



5. Preferable sites: there are more preferable locations for development to take place.  The village has already experienced a lot of growth during recent years in order to support facilities and services and no further housing is required.  

The site has been deemed unreasonable by planning officers already as part of the GNLP consultation - and Broadland District Council already has a five year land supply.  Any more development would be wholly disproportionate. 





6. Contamination: The site is within 100m of ex landfill site and there is would be questions about contamination and safety?



7. Neighbourhood plan: Out of keeping with neighbourhood plan - going against local residents' wishes.  



8. Safety: Unsafe for children to walk to the nearest school because there are no streetlights either making it unsafe to walk back in winter when it is dark.  It's dangerous now, imagine how much more dangerous it would be with 600 additional car moments a day? It is highly unlikely new residents with children would walk to Lingwood - again, increasing reliance on the private car.