GNLP0090
Support
Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations
Representation ID: 19919
Received: 12/02/2020
Respondent: Upton with Fishley Parish Council
(Changed from object to support as the Parish Council are actually supporting the categorisation of the site as unreasonable)
Strumpshaw Parish Council objects to GNLP0090. Strumpshaw Neighbourhood Plan, which runs until 2026, aims to resist development of housing outside the present areas of housing. The site is outside the Neighbourhood Plan settlement limit. The village has no shop, no school and limited public transport. The Parish Council therefore supports the description of the site as being "unreasonable".
Strumpshaw Parish Council objects to GNLP0090. Strumpshaw Neighbourhood Plan, which runs until 2026, aims to resist development of housing outside the present areas of housing. The site is outside the Neighbourhood Plan settlement limit. The village has no shop, no school and limited public transport. The Parish Council therefore supports the description of the site as being "unreasonable".
Support
Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations
Representation ID: 20251
Received: 03/03/2020
Respondent: Miss Jenny Cockburn
The roads surrounding this site are narrow and entirely inappropriate for the increased use development would bring. New residents would need 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 substainability plans and national law to become carbon neutral by 2050
The roads surrounding this site are narrow and entirely inappropriate for the increased use development would bring. New residents would need 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 substainability plans and national law to become carbon neutral by 2050
Support
Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations
Representation ID: 20279
Received: 04/03/2020
Respondent: Mrs Kara Pull
(Changed from object to support as respondent is actually supporting the categorisation of the site as unreasonable in the GNLP)
Respect neighbour hood plan and rural character of the village. Take sensible decisions to use better sites and areas suited to mass development. Do not add to the traffic issues/too busy already country roads. Generally when building new houses ensure it’s law that big trees are planted to establish the development rather than just concrete concrete concrete.
We voted on a neighbourhood plan which should be respected not overruled. Struunpshaw is meant to be a country village large developments ruin this. There are plenty of bigger places that lend itself to housing estates not the leafy tranquil quiet small village of strumpshaw. The roads are country lanes there are few amenities or school play areas etc. Traffic is already bad esp down Hemblington road as a rat run and drivers are too fast around the country lanes which have little pull in places. Public transport is poor. The rural character has already been compromised by the Oakland’s and mill meadow the houses are fine however no attempt is made to plant trees and make them look established and replace the nature that was lost. Why do all small villages have to be developed when there is better quality land in larger places with plenty of roads services and amenities?!
Support
Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations
Representation ID: 20285
Received: 04/03/2020
Respondent: Mr Michael Jay
I would like to object to building on this land because it is not in keeping with the small village rural character of strumpshaw. I feel the roads and access to these sites in strumpshaw are not suitable to be safely used by the large increase in construction and residential traffic that would be created.
I would like to object to building on this land because it is not in keeping with the small village rural character of strumpshaw. I feel the roads and access to these sites in strumpshaw are not suitable to be safely used by the large increase in construction and residential traffic that would be created.
Comment
Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations
Representation ID: 20286
Received: 04/03/2020
Respondent: Mrs barbara Warrie
We are supporting the planning 0fficers decision to deem this site unsuitable on the following grounds: Any more development in Strumpshaw would result in more traffic on Norwich Road to enable people to access shops and schools and would change the whole feel of the village,
We are supporting the planning 0fficers decision to deem this site unsuitable on the following grounds: Any more development in Strumpshaw would result in more traffic on Norwich Road to enable people to access shops and schools and would change the whole feel of the village,
Support
Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations
Representation ID: 20289
Received: 04/03/2020
Respondent: Mr Simon Jermy
(Changed from object to support as respondent is actually supporting the categorisation of the site as unreasonable in the GNLP)
I support the planning officers’ decision to deem this site unreasonable for development. Lower levels of this land are prone to flooding and the site also contributes to the rural landscape in Strumpshaw. As such there are many more preferable locations for development to take place.
I support the planning officers’ decision to deem this site unreasonable for development. Lower levels of this land are prone to flooding and the site also contributes to the rural landscape in Strumpshaw. As such there are many more preferable locations for development to take place.
Comment
Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations
Representation ID: 20294
Received: 04/03/2020
Respondent: Mr Jeremy Mills
I support the planning officers decision to deem this site unreasonable on the following grounds:
It goes against the adopted neighbourhood plan
This development would not be sustainable due to lack of transport, infrastructure, schools or amenities and shops
There are more preferable locations for development outside the village
There would also be significant impact on the form and character of the existing village
Roads are not suitable to increased traffic
Result would be a dramatic impact on the form and character of the rural landscape and village as a whole
Significant flooding issue
I support the planning officers decision to deem this site unreasonable on the following grounds:
It goes against the adopted neighbourhood plan
This development would not be sustainable due to lack of transport, infrastructure, schools or amenities and shops
There are more preferable locations for development outside the village
There would also be significant impact on the form and character of the existing village
Roads are not suitable to increased traffic
Result would be a dramatic impact on the form and character of the rural landscape and village as a whole
Significant flooding issue
Support
Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations
Representation ID: 20298
Received: 04/03/2020
Respondent: Mr Jeremy Mills
I support the planning officers decision to deem this site unreasonable on the following grounds:
It goes against the adopted neighbourhood plan
This development would not be sustainable due to lack of transport, infrastructure, schools or amenities and shops
There are more preferable locations for development outside the village
There would also be significant impact on the form and character of the existing village
Roads are not suitable to increased traffic
Result would be a dramatic impact on the form and character of the rural landscape and village as a whole
Significant flooding issue
I support the planning officers decision to deem this site unreasonable on the following grounds:
It goes against the adopted neighbourhood plan
This development would not be sustainable due to lack of transport, infrastructure, schools or amenities and shops
There are more preferable locations for development outside the village
There would also be significant impact on the form and character of the existing village
Roads are not suitable to increased traffic
Result would be a dramatic impact on the form and character of the rural landscape and village as a whole
Significant flooding issue
Comment
Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations
Representation ID: 20307
Received: 04/03/2020
Respondent: Mr David Mark Hopkins
Strumpshaw does not have any services or facilities to deal with further increase in residential dwellings.
Access to shops, employment, schools etc. will be by car, increasing reliance on a transport mode inconsistent with sustainability plans and environmental aims.
Any road serving the site will be accessing a road that will be made significantly busier by the proposed A47 changes.
Following recent developments there is no need for further housing and there are more preferable locations for development to take place. This proposal will destroy the existing form and rural character of the area and impact well being.
Strumpshaw does not have any services or facilities to deal with further increase in residential dwellings.
Access to shops, employment, schools etc. will be by car, increasing reliance on a transport mode inconsistent with sustainability plans and environmental aims.
Any road serving the site will be accessing a road that will be made significantly busier by the proposed A47 changes.
Following recent developments there is no need for further housing and there are more preferable locations for development to take place. This proposal will destroy the existing form and rural character of the area and impact well being.
Support
Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations
Representation ID: 20309
Received: 04/03/2020
Respondent: Mr Simon Rump
(Changed from object to support as respondent is actually supporting the categorisation of the site as unreasonable in the GNLP)
I support the planning officer's decision to deem the site unreasonable and object to any future development on the following grounds:-
The site is rural and provides contribution to landscape character and openness of the area. Any development would result in impact to existing residents well being.
Strumpshaw does not have the services or infrastructure to support further development, shops, schools, roads. Particular issues with sewage capacity and flooding.
There is no continuous footpath to local amenities.
The site is within close proximity to a landfill site. Risk of contamination.
I support the planning officer's decision to deem the site unreasonable and object to any future development on the following grounds:-
The site is rural and provides contribution to landscape character and openness of the area. Any development would result in impact to existing residents well being.
Strumpshaw does not have the services or infrastructure to support further development, shops, schools, roads. Particular issues with sewage capacity and flooding.
There is no continuous footpath to local amenities.
The site is within close proximity to a landfill site. Risk of contamination.
Support
Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations
Representation ID: 20314
Received: 04/03/2020
Respondent: Dr Ann Lahiff
I am supporting the planning officers' decision to deem this site unreasonable on the grounds that development would significantly impact on the form and character of the landscape of this village. Development of this nature would not only have a negative impact on the well-being of residents and visitors to the area, but also harm bio-diversity. It would also significantly increase flood-risk in the village.
I am supporting the planning officers' decision to deem this site unreasonable on the grounds that development would significantly impact on the form and character of the landscape of this village. Development of this nature would not only have a negative impact on the well-being of residents and visitors to the area, but also harm bio-diversity. It would also significantly increase flood-risk in the village.
Comment
Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations
Representation ID: 20320
Received: 04/03/2020
Respondent: Mrs Deborah Hopkins
Strumpshaw does not have any services or facilities to deal with further increase in residential dwellings.
Access to shops, employment, schools etc. will be by car, increasing reliance on a transport mode inconsistent with sustainability plans and environmental aims.
Any road serving the site will be accessing a road that will be made significantly busier by the proposed A47 changes.
Following recent developments there is no need for further housing and there are more preferable locations for development to take place. This proposal will destroy the existing form and rural character of the area and impact well being.
Strumpshaw does not have any services or facilities to deal with further increase in residential dwellings.
Access to shops, employment, schools etc. will be by car, increasing reliance on a transport mode inconsistent with sustainability plans and environmental aims.
Any road serving the site will be accessing a road that will be made significantly busier by the proposed A47 changes.
Following recent developments there is no need for further housing and there are more preferable locations for development to take place. This proposal will destroy the existing form and rural character of the area and impact well being.
Support
Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations
Representation ID: 20335
Received: 04/03/2020
Respondent: Miss Jo Felgate
(Changed from object to support as respondent is actually supporting the categorisation of the site as unreasonable in the GNLP)
I am supporting the planning officers’ decision to deem this site unreasonable on the following grounds; there is limited facilities in the village, such as shops or a school. Increased residential housing would cause even more traffic through the village to connect with other villages and the out skirts of the city to access these services. There are other alternatives with better provision for increased housing than a village with minimal facilities so building further residential dwellings in this area is not necessary or needed.
I am supporting the planning officers’ decision to deem this site unreasonable on the following grounds; there is limited facilities in the village, such as shops or a school. Increased residential housing would cause even more traffic through the village to connect with other villages and the out skirts of the city to access these services. There are other alternatives with better provision for increased housing than a village with minimal facilities so building further residential dwellings in this area is not necessary or needed.
Support
Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations
Representation ID: 20336
Received: 04/03/2020
Respondent: Mr Martyn Lovett
(Changed from object to support as respondent is actually supporting the categorisation of the site as unreasonable in the GNLP)
I support the planning officers decision to deem this site unreasonable on the following grounds,
The village has just had a new housing estate built in the middle of it and the village has reached its limit in terms of housing given the infrastructure, and in terms of its identity.
I support the planning officers decision to deem this site unreasonable on the following grounds,
The village has just had a new housing estate built in the middle of it and the village has reached its limit in terms of housing given the infrastructure, and in terms of its identity.
Support
Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations
Representation ID: 20344
Received: 05/03/2020
Respondent: Mr Peter Hodgkinson
I support the planning officer's decision to deem this unreasonable on the following grounds:
1. It would create a ribbon development between Strumpshaw and Lingwood and thereby be contrary to the Local Neighbourhood Plan and local democratically arrived decisions..
2. It would create a considerable flood risk - if not immediately, then in the future - as seen in recent climate change events.
3. It could not be accomodated in terms of the infrastructure - roads, schools, medical etc.
4. It would decisively impact (negatively) on the rural character of the area.
5. The environmental impact would be enormously damaging.
I support the planning officer's decision to deem this unreasonable on the following grounds:
1. It would create a ribbon development between Strumpshaw and Lingwood and thereby be contrary to the Local Neighbourhood Plan and local democratically arrived decisions..
2. It would create a considerable flood risk - if not immediately, then in the future - as seen in recent climate change events.
3. It could not be accomodated in terms of the infrastructure - roads, schools, medical etc.
4. It would decisively impact (negatively) on the rural character of the area.
5. The environmental impact would be enormously damaging.
Support
Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations
Representation ID: 20352
Received: 05/03/2020
Respondent: Mr Stephen Cash
(Changed from object to support as respondent is actually supporting the categorisation of the site as unreasonable in the GNLP)
We are supporting the planning officers decision to deem this site unreasonable. Strumpshaw has no infrastructure for further residential development, no school, no shops therefore increased housing will mean more polluting car journeys, especially with the limited bus service. The roads to access Norwich are either through Brundall which is already overburdened with traffic or up Hemblington Rd which is single carriageway with a dangerous bend. There are no continuous footpaths to Lingwood or Brundall. The roads are extensively used by pedestrians and horses and increased traffic would materially affect this usage.
We are supporting the planning officers decision to deem this site unreasonable. Strumpshaw has no infrastructure for further residential development, no school, no shops therefore increased housing will mean more polluting car journeys, especially with the limited bus service. The roads to access Norwich are either through Brundall which is already overburdened with traffic or up Hemblington Rd which is single carriageway with a dangerous bend. There are no continuous footpaths to Lingwood or Brundall. The roads are extensively used by pedestrians and horses and increased traffic would materially affect this usage.
Support
Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations
Representation ID: 20385
Received: 05/03/2020
Respondent: Mr Oliver James
I am supporting the planning officers decision to deem the unreasonable on the following grounds:
Strumpshaw does not have the services and infrastructure to support an increase in dwellings. There is no school, shop, regular bus routes.
There will be an increase in traffic which will go against the local authorities sustainable plans and national law to become carbon neutral.
The has been significant development in the village which causes more traffic, speeding and nuisance which the rural roads are unable to cope with.
There will be significant impact on the form and character of the village and rural landscape.
I am supporting the planning officers decision to deem the unreasonable on the following grounds:
Strumpshaw does not have the services and infrastructure to support an increase in dwellings. There is no school, shop, regular bus routes.
There will be an increase in traffic which will go against the local authorities sustainable plans and national law to become carbon neutral.
The has been significant development in the village which causes more traffic, speeding and nuisance which the rural roads are unable to cope with.
There will be significant impact on the form and character of the village and rural landscape.
Support
Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations
Representation ID: 20389
Received: 06/03/2020
Respondent: Mr Hilary Hammond
I support the GNLP conclusions that this is not a reasonable site because Strumpshaw has already had some 40 additional dwellings built in 2019/20 or currently under construction; because the sewage system is already inadequate; because of the lack of a footway along the whole of Norwich Road, and in particular close to this site and because the site is identified as a key green feature in the adopted Strumpshaw Neighbourhood Plan.
I support the GNLP conclusions that this is not a reasonable site because Strumpshaw has already had some 40 additional dwellings built in 2019/20 or currently under construction; because the sewage system is already inadequate; because of the lack of a footway along the whole of Norwich Road, and in particular close to this site and because the site is identified as a key green feature in the adopted Strumpshaw Neighbourhood Plan.
Comment
Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations
Representation ID: 20399
Received: 06/03/2020
Respondent: Mr Timothy Bishop
Strumpshaw does not have any services or facilities to deal with further increase in residential dwellings.
Access to shops, employment, schools etc. will be by car, increasing reliance on a transport mode inconsistent with sustainability plans and environmental aims.
Any road serving the site will be accessing a road that will be made significantly busier by the proposed A47 changes.
Following recent developments there is no need for further housing and there are more preferable locations for development to take place. This proposal will destroy the existing form and rural character of the area and impact well being.
Strumpshaw does not have any services or facilities to deal with further increase in residential dwellings.
Access to shops, employment, schools etc. will be by car, increasing reliance on a transport mode inconsistent with sustainability plans and environmental aims.
Any road serving the site will be accessing a road that will be made significantly busier by the proposed A47 changes.
Following recent developments there is no need for further housing and there are more preferable locations for development to take place. This proposal will destroy the existing form and rural character of the area and impact well being.
Support
Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations
Representation ID: 20437
Received: 06/03/2020
Respondent: Mrs M Hovey
(Changed from object to support as respondent is actually supporting the categorisation of the site as unreasonable in the GNLP)
I am supporting the planning officers decision to deem this site unreasonable on the following grounds, Strumpshaw has no shop, no school, no gas. This will increase reliance on yet more private cars as every house has at least two cars per house. There are many more preferable locations for development to take place with plenty of land becoming available for residential houses in more suitable areas, This will impact on the form and character of Strumpshaw.
I am supporting the planning officers decision to deem this site unreasonable on the following grounds, Strumpshaw has no shop, no school, no gas. This will increase reliance on yet more private cars as every house has at least two cars per house. There are many more preferable locations for development to take place with plenty of land becoming available for residential houses in more suitable areas, This will impact on the form and character of Strumpshaw.
Support
Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations
Representation ID: 20441
Received: 06/03/2020
Respondent: Mrs M Hovey
(Changed from object to support as respondent is actually supporting the categorisation of the site as unreasonable in the GNLP)
I strongly support the planning officer's decision to deem this site unreasonable on the following grounds. The road is too narrow and there will be a real increase on the reliance on the private car as each house will have an average of 2 per house which will be needed as there is no school, shop or doctors close by. It will impact on the form and character of Strumpshaw. There are many more preferable locations for development to take place more suitable than Strumpshaw
I strongly support the planning officer's decision to deem this site unreasonable on the following grounds. The road is too narrow and there will be a real increase on the reliance on the private car as each house will have an average of 2 per house which will be needed as there is no school, shop or doctors close by. It will impact on the form and character of Strumpshaw. There are many more preferable locations for development to take place more suitable than Strumpshaw
Support
Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations
Representation ID: 20524
Received: 09/03/2020
Respondent: Mr Paul Cowcher
Ensure adequate drainage of the site to support existing and new housing
Increase in traffic to access shops etc.
Roads not suited to increase in traffic.
Safety issue for pedestrians wanting to access shops due to absence of footpath
no communal areas for residents
I support the GNLP decision that the site is unreasonable. The site is low lying and will need significant improvements to drainage to prevent flooding of any new development and to ensure existing housing is not impacted by drainage overload.
There are no local amenities within Strumpshaw meaning an increase of traffic into neighbouring villages to access shops etc. Many of the local roads are single track and are unsuitable for higher volumes of traffic.
There is no continuous pathway into Lingwood meaning access by foot represents a safety issue, especially during winter months during morning and evening commuting and school times. Note there is no street lighting in Strumpshaw.
There are no common open areas within Strumpshaw meaning no areas for young children to meet and play.
Support
Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations
Representation ID: 20708
Received: 11/03/2020
Respondent: Mrs Tracy Heywood
(Changed from object to support as respondent is actually supporting the categorisation of the site as unreasonable in the GNLP)
The village of Strumpshaw does not have the access or amenities to support any more development.
The village of Strumpshaw does not have the access or amenities to support any more development.
Support
Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations
Representation ID: 20830
Received: 13/03/2020
Respondent: Mr mark cannon
The rural area would be damaged by the scale and location of the proposal with inadequate roads and facilities
The rural area would be damaged by the scale and location of the proposal with inadequate roads and facilities
Support
Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations
Representation ID: 20930
Received: 14/03/2020
Respondent: Mr Richard Dennison
It would result in a significant impact on the form and character of the rural landscape
There is a lack of local services and facilities eg shops and schools
It will increase the reliance on private car for transport eg taking children to school and driving to shops
There are many more suitable sites available
It would result in a significant impact on the form and character of the rural landscape
There is a lack of local services and facilities eg shops and schools
It will increase the reliance on private car for transport eg taking children to school and driving to shops
There are many more suitable sites available
Support
Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations
Representation ID: 20940
Received: 14/03/2020
Respondent: Mr Anthony Tuddenham
I support Broadland District Council's decision to deem site GNLP0090 as 'unreasonable' for development.
No reason to develop outside Strumpshaw's existing settlement boundary, the council has a 5 year land supply.
Strumpshaw has no schools, post office or shop.
Increased traffic on narrow and single lane local roads, which also doesn’t support the UK’s carbon neutral plan.
Access would have limited visibility and endanger highway safety.
The site would impact an area that is rural and open, with excellent countryside views.
The negative impact on amenity for properties and community through noise, disturbance, nuisance, loss of privacy and overlooking.
I support Broadland District Council's decision to deem site GNLP0090 as 'unreasonable' for development.
No reason to develop outside Strumpshaw's existing settlement boundary, the council has a 5 year land supply.
Strumpshaw has no schools, post office or shop.
Increased traffic on narrow and single lane local roads, which also doesn’t support the UK’s carbon neutral plan.
Access would have limited visibility and endanger highway safety.
The site would impact an area that is rural and open, with excellent countryside views.
The negative impact on amenity for properties and community through noise, disturbance, nuisance, loss of privacy and overlooking.
Support
Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations
Representation ID: 21012
Received: 15/03/2020
Respondent: Mrs Mary Green
(Changed from object to support as respondent is actually supporting the categorisation of the site as unreasonable in the GNLP)
For all the reasons mentioned. There is no local school, doctors practice or shop so the population would live in their cars. This would not support a community that cares for each other, but rather a dormitory village. Additionally and most importantly the sewage and surface water problem that already exists in the village will get considerably worse.
For all the reasons mentioned. There is no local school, doctors practice or shop so the population would live in their cars. This would not support a community that cares for each other, but rather a dormitory village. Additionally and most importantly the sewage and surface water problem that already exists in the village will get considerably worse.
Support
Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations
Representation ID: 21018
Received: 15/03/2020
Respondent: Dr Michael Green
(Changed from object to support as respondent is actually supporting the categorisation of the site as unreasonable in the GNLP)
I agree with Broadland DC and object to this property being developed.
This site (previously woodland and the owner has more recently felled the trees without permission) is subject to significant flood risk. Moreover, the land comprises a natural basin for collecting water - having been a former quarry ?
- The best use for this plot is a wetland to take surface water run off in times of flooding. With a little engineering it could serve this purpose better than at present and become an asset to the community. Obviously landowner needs to be compensated through an appropriate mechanism.
I agree with Broadland DC and object to this property being developed for the reasons given and additionally because:
- lessons need to be learned from Huntsman Pub which has been closed for 2+ years due to flooding issues. Even though it was made fit for re-opening after sewage from Anglian Water foul drains along the adjacent Norwich Rd had overtopped during a flood, I understand that the insurers annual premium rose to £20,000 which is understandably why the Pub could not afford to re-open.
- This site (previously woodland and the owner has more recently felled the trees without, I gather, the relevant permissions) must be the lowest plot of land SOUTH of Norwich Rd between the Huntsman (also relatively low and susceptible to flood) on the eastern extremity of Strumpshaw settlements and the Shoulder of Mutton Pub/village church to the west. This plot is subject to significant flood risk. Moreover, the land comprises a natural basin for collecting water (having been a former quarry or used for brick-making I recollect).
- The best use for this plot is a wetland that can take surface water run off in times of flooding. With a little engineering it could serve this purpose more adequately than at present and become a real asset to the community. Obviously landowner needs to be compensated through an appropriate mechanism.
Support
Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations
Representation ID: 21057
Received: 15/03/2020
Respondent: Mr Marcus Hemsley
I supporting the planning officers’ decision to deem this site unreasonable, and object to any future development. In addition to the points around the neighbourhood plan and flood risks, I would like to add the following reasons:
1. Lack of local facilities:
2. Increases private car use
3. Highways: The roads and highways serving the site are narrow of a restricted width and already too busy.
I supporting the planning officers’ decision to deem this site unreasonable, and object to any future development on the following grounds:
1. 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
.
2. 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.
3. Highways: The roads and highways serving the site are narrow of a restricted width and already too busy. It is 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 is highly unlikely new residents with children would walk to Lingwood - again, increasing reliance on the private car.
Support
Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations
Representation ID: 21074
Received: 15/03/2020
Respondent: Mr Robert Hunt
(Changed from object to support as respondent is actually supporting the categorisation of the site as unreasonable in the GNLP)
As a resident I am very aware of the traffic issues in Strumpshaw.The road through the village is narrow with blind bends. The pavements are narrow and discontinuous in a number of places. There are no street lights. There are no shops, school or medical centre. Direct access Is from the A47 is via Hemblington Road which is a twisting road with a dangerous hump back rail bridge. Alternative road access is a lengthy detour either via Lingwood or Brundall. This particular site frequently becomes waterlogged.
The proposal is in violation of the Neighbourhood Plan.
I strongly object to development.
As a resident I am very aware of the traffic issues in Strumpshaw.The road through the village is narrow with blind bends. The pavements are narrow and discontinuous in a number of places. There are no street lights. There are no shops, school or medical centre. Direct access Is from the A47 is via Hemblington Road which is a twisting road with a dangerous hump back rail bridge. Alternative road access is a lengthy detour either via Lingwood or Brundall. This particular site frequently becomes waterlogged.
The proposal is in violation of the Neighbourhood Plan.
I strongly object to development.