General
I support the general approach the team has adopted for the GNLP 2026-38. They are to be commended for all the detailed work that they have put into this exercise.
Infrastructure (Introduction and Draft Strategy Appendix 1 pages 116-7, Q24)
In any future text could the team give greater emphasis to the work that is going on with respective partner organisations to ensure that planning for healthcare and education and transport links is taking place. I appreciate these areas are not in your gift and you are reliant on these partners being broadly in sync with your timescales. However, I note that, when confronted particularly with housing growth in their area, the complaint is often raised that “they” are doing nothing to increase access to GPs or to school places. From a presentational perspective at least, more updates and greater prominence in the report and any press releases, to these aspects, to allay fears, might help to make subsequent housing/ employment development more acceptable. Cecilia Riccardi 12 Abbey Road Wymondham NR18 9BY 3 March 2020 GNLP 1st
Options: Draft Strategy on Growth Options and Main Towns Policy 7.2. p103 onwards, paragraph 329, Q41 and 42)
Option 1: support. Option 2: support.
Garden Village Proposal: Support
I know this is not generally a favoured approach, not least because of the long lead times involved. However, it provides an ideal opportunity to develop something truly ground breaking, visionary and fit for the second half of the 21st century. Any area that can back the RIBA Stirling Prize winner for 2019 surely already has a head-start in the quest for the eco-friendly design that will be required. There must be national grants available to ensure that future communities can be built e.g.to meet climate change targets. It could have a share in the wind-farm bounty Norfolk provides. And simultaneously make a virtue of and preserve sympathetically existing environmental, historical and heritage features. Local authorities must be able to share best practise nationally. Creation of such a village should be standalone, with appropriate infrastructure - roads, healthcare, education - developed and not impinging upon already stretched local towns. Silfield Village, (GNLP2168) if chosen, could be built with all necessary facilities and access onto the A11 growth corridor and not via the Wymondham railway bridge. Such a strategy might also obviate the need for Wymondham to provide for the 1000 homes contingency should e.g. Carrow Road not be available, and thus remove the burden on Wymondham.

Policy 7.2: The Main Towns - Wymondham – preferred sites
GNLP0354 Land at Johnson’s Farm: preferred site for Wymondham
Position: Oppose access proposals.
The good news is that, subject to a 1000 homes contingency, Wymondham is initially only being required to take 100 new homes in the period up to 2038. This is surely in recognition that it took a disproportionate share in the planning period to 2026.
The 50 (of the 100) homes planned under GNLP0354 are neither here nor there given that we are already taking 335 homes on the B1172 Gonville site opposite. (These 335 are additional to the 2200 originally allocated to Wymondham to 2026). However, as the accompanying explanation makes clear, this is likely to lead to an unacceptable expansion (from 50) of up to 400 homes over time. Given that Johnson’s Farm has for some years been keen for development this is surely likely to be sooner rather than later. I am less than confident that the “protecting heritage aspects”, including any covenants currently in place, arguments, will hold much sway given the Gonville Hall experience.
A Request
Would planners, and especially highways, please reconsider the requirement for access/exit for the 50 homes to be through Abbey Road. There is one narrow entrance/exit to Abbey Road for the currently situated 77 homes. Abbey Road leads directly from the B1172 roundabout and at entry has a crossing point with a light which further restricts access. This estate road bends round to the left past the children’s park and then curves right to a left turn with a narrow access point (two cars width) on to Johnson’s field behind. Unless the plan is to remove the entry, crossing point and install double yellow lines all along this narrow road to prevent parking, further development is NOT feasible by this route. More worrying is the 18 months to 2-year building phase when this narrow road could not take all the JCBs, construction lorries, heavy machinery and low-loaders etc. safely. Surely new developments should not be designing in traffic chaos? I ask for a rethink and on- the- ground inspection. I enclose a map which shows the roundabout and unsuitability of this road for access/exit.