GNLP0215

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, which is inconsistent with local authority sustainability plans.

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



4. 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 is highly unlikely new residents with children would walk to Lingwood - again, increasing reliance on the private car.

Strumpshaw does not have the facilities to support further residential development , no shops or school.

The site is too far to walk to shops and schools in Lingwood resulting in greater use of motor vehicles to access these facilities which is not in line with local authority sustainability plans and national law to become carbon neutral by 2050.


Development of the site would impact on the character and structure of the village and rural landscape.

The council has a 5 year land supply and this development is not needed.

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.
The proposal is in violation of the Neighbourhood Plan.
I strongly object to development.

Over recent years access to Strumpshaw has been severely restricted due to flooding, and with only one road from Brundall to Lingwood housing development would cause further concerns. There is no recognizable footpath on Norwich road. All local schools are fully attended and could only be reached via cars, with the bus service having limited timetable. The doctor surgery at Brundall as already at capacity, shops would also only be accessible by car. This site also sits adjacent to Strumpshaw nature reserve and any development would have any major impact on visiting and resident wildlife, including Barn Owls, Bats,Marsh Harrier.

I support the planning officer's decision to deem this site unreasonable on the following grounds:
The site is outside the Strumpshaw Neighbourhood plan. Infrastructure is lacking.
Doctor’s surgeries at Brundall and Blofield are both already struggling to cope, with new developments taking place in the area.
Loss of prime agricultural land.
Resultant noise and traffic affecting quality of life.

Site Numbers
GNLP0090
GNLP0521
GNLP2017
GNLP0215

I wish to SUPPORT the GNLP's decision to deem the sites unreasonable for several reasons including total lack of infrastructure with no shop, school, doctor, etc.
Complete dependency on having a car and the country roads around are not suitable for any more volume of traffic.
The sewage system is in adequate for any more development, I know because when the pumps stop it all ends up in my drive.
I could go on, but I guess you have the message.

Please attach my comments to all four sites as my view are the same for all. GNLP0090,0521, 2017, 0215
I am supporting planning officers decisions to deem these sites unreasonable on the grounds of the following:
These sites are in a small village.
They will ruin the landscape and have a negative impact on the local wellbeing and quality of life. 2 of these sites 2017 and 0215 will lead to the removal of hedges which are protected by the ancient hedgerows legislation this is because the roads are not wide enough. Our village has already got enough new houses the council has a five year supply so more houses are not needed. Strumpshaw does not have enough facilities to support more people . No local shop and very minimal bus service people coming here will have to have cars and have enough on our road now.
Building these houses in our village is inconsistent with the local authority sustainability plans and national law to become carbon neutral by 2050 . To summarise this is a small village and we love our wildlife

Please attach my comments to all 4 sites:
GNLP0090, GNLP0521, GNLP2017, GNLP0215 - Strumpshaw
I am supporting the Planner's decision to deem the sites unreasonable on the grounds of:
These sites are in a small village, they will ruin the landscape and will have a huge impact on the character of the area, locals well being, and quality of life. We didn't choose to live in LEGOLAND, Please don't force this on us. 2 of these sites GNLP2017 ad GNLP0218 will lead to removal of hedges which are protected by the ancient hedgerow legislation. this is because the roads are wide enough to support new housing.
Our village has already experienced growth that we had not say over. The council has a 5 year land supply so more development shouldn't be necessary. Strumpshaw does have enough facilities to support the increase of the population, there is no local shops, a very minimal bus service this means that anyone coming to the village will use cars, our roads are very busy enough. Building these properties in Strumpshaw is inconsistent with Local Plan Sustainability Plans and National Law to become carbon neutral by 2050. In summary this is a small village not a housing estate , we are very fortunate to have beauty and wildlife around us. Please reconsider putting GREED before the Locals.

Please let it be known that I fully support the planning officer's decision to deem these sites unreasonable on the grounds that they will be detrimental to the village of Strumpshaw and it's residents because of lack of infrastructure, destruction of the rural character of the area, inevitable and unacceptable increases in traffic through the narrow lanes of the village and in particular to 0090, flood risk. Furthermore, yet more development of the village shows no respect for the Strumpshaw village plan. There are more preferable locations for development to take place given Strumpshaw's considerable recent growth. Further development would be wholly disproportionate.