I am 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: Adding 90 houses would destroy landscape character and openness of the area. The site is in an area that is rural in character and this sort of development is fit for Norwich or a much bigger village at least. Many of us moved here because it is a tiny village and in the countryside. 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. If development were to go ahead, the visual amenities would have a significant impact on residents' well being.



2. Lack of local facilities: Strumpshaw does not even have a shop, let alone a school. We could not possibly provide for a further 90 houses. It's had growth in recent years in order to support facilities and services, and no further housing is required.  

3. Private Car use: Adding 90 houses would add between 150 - 180 extra cars to Strumpshaw (assuming around 2 per household). 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.



These 150 additional cars are likely to have at least 4 vehicle movements (assuming two trips) per day given the lack of public transport here, equating to 600 more movements of cars. Our roads simply 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.  Lingwood, Brundall and Blofield all have sites with better roads, service and facilities that can cater for them - where residents can walk to facilities, reducing reliance on the private car.

Granting permission for 90 houses to a site like this in Strumpshaw, with all the other reasonable sites listed on the GNLP consultation would seem absurd. Any more development in Strumpshaw is wholly disproportionate. 





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



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

As mentioned in my last representation, the number of residents supporting your planning officers' decision to deem the Strumpshaw sites unreasonable, shows the strength of feeling among residents here.

8. Safety: Unsafe for children to walk to the nearest school because this no continuous road and 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.