GNLP0521

Strumpshaw Parish Council objects to GNLP0521. 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".

This site is in an area that provides a high contribution towards the landscapes character and openness of the area. It provides great access for walkers
The roads surrounding the site are narrow and entirely inappropriate. If the roads were made wider it would destroy ancient hedgerows.
Strumpshaw is a tiny hamlet with no facilities like shops, schools, doctors, dentist which means residents would be totally reliant on a car. This is not consistent with national law to become carbon neutral by 2050.
The village has experienced growth during recent years so more preferable locations for development should be considered.

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?!

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
Ancient hedgerows
Result would be a dramatic impact on the form and character of the rural landscape

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
Ancient hedgerows
Result would be a dramatic impact on the form and character of the rural landscape

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 am supporting the planning officers' decision to deem this site unreasonable. The area is divorced from the settlement and distant from limited local facilities. The village itself does not have services. It would require total reliance on cars, which is inconsistent with local authority sustainability plans. Vehicular access would be down a narrow road which has already seen an increase in traffic due to housing development in the same area. Flood risk is high.

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.
Roads serving the site are narrow and unacceptable from a Highways perspective.
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.
Creation of access would result in removal of an ancient hedgerow.

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.
Roads serving the site are narrow and unacceptable from a Highways perspective.
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.
Creation of access would result in removal of an ancient hedgerow.

I support the planning officers decision to deem the site unreasonable on the following grounds
The village has had a lot of new housing over the past 12 months and it is at its limit given its infrastructure and identity as a village.

I am supporting the planning officers’ decision to deem this site unreasonable on the following grounds; there has already been extensive building of residential dwellings in Strumpshaw and surrounding villages already. The impact on traffic has dramatically increased to the detriment of the village and the rural character has been spoiled as well as the environment. There are fewer opportunities for residents to enjoy the benefits of a village landscape and enjoy country walks and country living. Therefore, there is no need to continue building on the rural parts of the village remaining particularly when it doesn’t have the amenities to support it.

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 - on an area renowned for this already .
3. It could not be accomodated in terms of the infrastructure requirements - 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 in terms of increasing emissions etc.

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, Mill lane is too narrow for a car and bicycle to pass and is totally unsuitable for further accessing traffic. The proposed development will materially diminish the current 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.

I support the conclusion 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 inadequate; and because of the lack of a footway along all of Norwich Road. I support the conclusion that this site should not be developed because of the inadequacy of the access along Mill Road. Part of this site was considered by the Strumpshaw Neighbourhood Plan for 10 dwellings and a community hall but was rejected because the site is isolated from the remainder of the settlement.

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.
Roads serving the site are narrow and unacceptable from a Highways perspective.
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.
Creation of access would result in removal of an ancient hedgerow.

Inadequate services facilities to serve an increased population absent school, shops, GP surgery. Increased traffic would be unacceptable with limited bus service. Present speed limit is widely abused. Increased private car usage inconsistent with local authority sustainability plans and national law to become carbon neutral by 2050. All village roads would have to be widened for safe vehicular access. Ancient hedgerow, statutorily protected which helps preserve the rural character of the village would be removed. Unsafe pedestrian access.

I am supporting the planning officers decision to deem this site unreasonable on the following grounds, lack of services and facilities, increases reliance on the private cars, each house having at least 2 cars per household, goes against the carbon neutral 2050 policy. A very narrow single track road for all the cars.
No local school or shop and will significantly impact on the form and character of Strumpshaw's rural landscape.

I support the GNLP decision that this site is unsuitable. Development of this site would have a significant impact on the landscape and character of the area. The area is currently open. Development would alter the character of the existing rural community.
There are no facilities within easy walking distance of the site. There is one convenience store in Lingwood. This development would increase traffic to access shops and other amenities such as doctor's surgeries etc.
The roads are not suited to increases in traffic. Many are single track making access difficult, especially at peak times.
There would be Safety issues for pedestrians and cyclists wanting to access shops due to the absence of a continuous footpath to the existing shop at Lingwood. This would also impact children attending Lingwood (or any other) School and commuters accessing the train station or bus stop. Strumpshaw has no street lighting which would be a concern during the winter months.
There are no communal areas in Strumpshaw for residents, meaning no areas for children to meet and play.

We support the planning officers decision to deem this site unreasonable on the following grounds:
There is not the infrastructure to support more properties in Strumpshaw
Mill Road is much to narrow for more traffic.
Most people have moved into this village because of its size, any more development would change the feel of the village completely.

90 new dwellings in a small village!!!! It would totally destroy the character of this area.

Detrimental to the rural community with inadequate roads and facilities

The roads serving the site are narrow and inappropriate for the amount of traffic volume. Any attempt to increase the width would result in destruction of ancient hedgerows

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 would increase the reliance on private car for transport eg taking children to school and driving to shops

There are many more suitable sites available

I support Broadland District Council's decision to deem site GNLP0521 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 agree with Broadland DC and object to this property being developed for the reasons given (inadequate facilities and infrastructure to support additional village development of this size and nature) and additionally because:
- a development of this enormity (90 houses) completely destroys the rural character of a Norfolk/English village.
- Strumpshaw is within the immediate catchment and buffer (1 mile) of the Broads National Park and is not appropriate for urban development of this kind - the environmental footprint will be inappropriate in terms of noise and light pollution, quite apart from other socio-economic and environmental impacts.

I 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: The site is in an area that is rural in character and provides high contributions towards landscape character and openness of the area.  Many of us moved here because it is a tiny village and in the countyside. Adding 90 houses, when there has already been a lot of development seems completely out of character of what Strumpshaw is. The 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.

2. 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

. We could not possibly provide for a further 90 houses

3. 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, and national law to become carbon neutral by 2050.

 Adding 90 houses would add between 150 - 180 extra cars to Strumpshaw. These are likely to have at least 4 vehicle movements a day (given the lack of public transport here), equating to 600 more movements of cars. Our roads 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.  The village has already experienced a lot of growth during recent years in order to support facilities and services and no further housing is required.  

The site has been deemed unreasonable by planning officers already as part of the GNLP consultation - and Broadland District Council already has a five year land supply.  Any more development would be wholly disproportionate. 





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



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



8. 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'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.

Strumpshaw does not have a shop or school.

Residents would have to drive children to school in Lingwood, footpaths are inadequate.

The access to the site is from a very narrow road unsuitable for a substantial increase in traffic which is inconsistent with local authority sustainability plans and national law to become carbon neutral by 2050.

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

The council has a 5 year land supply .

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.

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.

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.
Well used footpath.
Resultant noise and traffic affecting quality of life.