I wish to offer my response to the site GNLP 1001.
First of all clearly this site is outside the development boundary for the village.  The site is lactated on historic agricultural land that has never been previously developed and would be a permanent loss of valuable agricultural land.  This will also create a dangerous president for future development applications on agricultural land outside of development boundaries.
The site cannot provide safe off-carriageway pedestrian footway for the whole route to the primary school which is a set policy for the GNLP.  The roads along the route to the school and other public places and local services within the village fall well short of acceptable widths for safe pedestrian use without off-carriageway footways.  It is therefore assumed use of a car would be needed at all times even for local journeys.  I believe this contradicts both GNLP policies 2 issue 1 and 7.4 347.  Highways have stated that a off-carriageway footway to the school cannot be created.
The sewage system of Reedham is at its maximum capacity already.  I understand that village sewage is lead to a tank setup that is managed by anglian water, this then requires emptying by a pump tanker sometimes several times a day.  This type of system has its obvious limitations for capacity and not to mention the man power and environmental effect of more regular empties by use of a large vehicle. An additional 20-30 house on this site and 60 in the village will overwhelm this system causing risk to health and environment.
None of the roads in the village are classed as "secondary road" and have the classification of "generally more than 4m wide" or "generally less than 4m wide" and very few have off-carriageway footways.  Expansion of the village is not appropriate for such a road system and would be unsafe for vehicles and pedestrians alike
I acknowledge that the school claims to have available capacity and that this is appealing for the GNLP.  I would add though that the previous site given the go ahead as part of the GNLP now known as Owl Barn Close of Station road had 24 dwellings built.  Many of which remain unsold as it appears the location of Reedham is undesirable.  The school has confirmed that of those 24 dwellings only 2 children from one address have enrolled at the school.  It is not correct to anticipate the value of school placements for future development especially in a rural location.
The location of the village makes for the use of cars a necessity.  The train destinations are not always convenient and the bus service is infrequent and time consuming.  Villagers depend on the use of their cars and with a safe assumption of national averages that each address has 2 cars that is a vast increase of vehicle use on village roads that aren't suitable but along considerable distances to the likes of Norwich and Great Yarmouth.  Not to mention the increase of delivery vehicles on the road whether it be from internet shopping or supermarket deliveries. I do not expect this is the type of situation that is encouraged by the GNLP or the government for that matter.  Pollution is to be reduced not increased.  This environmental impact is to be combated not created.
The local shop is not part of a supply chain (ie Londis or Spar) and remains an independent, although convenient at times it is not always affordable and due to Reedham's location alternatives are far away.  The doctors surgery has limited opening hours and does not have a dispensary, with an ageing population and the intention to encourage more families to the village due to the school the restriction of this service is a black mark for the village and should not be ignored.
If I have read the plan for Reedham correctly it has been proposed that including infill planning applications and the two proposed sites GNLP 1001 and GNLP 3003 Reedham could experience 60-80 new dwellings.  Given that currently Reedham has I think 505 dwellings at the top end of 80 new dwellings that is an increase of over 15%.  I do not feel that this is at all acceptable for a village that has been previously classified as a 'Service Village'  Other larger, better located villages and areas do not seem to have that percentage increase,  I strongly encourage that any future development to significantly increase the size and population of the village be discouraged at all costs, not only to preserve it but also to protect the local and widespread environment.