GNLP2017

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. 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. 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 have the services and facilities to deal with further increase in residential dwellings - there’s no school or even any shops

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.

4. 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. Heritage and Archaeology: From looking at the Norfolk Heritage Records it is clear that there are Ancient Monument and archaeology special considerations in relation to the site. Aerial photographs taken in 1946 show the remains of a World War Two searchlight battery to the south of Buckenham Road. The size of the site and number of searchlight emplacements would suggest that this was a Troop headquarters for the passive defense of the area. Directly opposite the site are records of a Mill. Faden’s map of 1797 marks this as the site of a windmill. It stood on the highest land in the parish and was pulled down in 1916 after closing in 1908. The site was used for transmitting commercial telegraphs during 1803

7. Wildlife and ecology: the site is in SSSI risk zone for Yare Broads and Marshes and Broadland Ramsar site. More developed increases the impact on the environment. This is from the DEFRA website (magic).

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

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

10. Safety: Unsafe for children to walk to the nearest school. There's no continuous footpath to Lingwood. Even if there were in the future, 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.

Lack of local facilities, surface water builds up in this area (close to Huntsman pub) unsuitable small roads on either side of the possible development, increased traffic for day to day activity as people go to schools, doctors etc prob some distance away (lack of walking distance amenities) need to achieve carbon neutral by 2050. Currently lack of pavements beside narrow roads for safe walking, risk of increased traffic accidents. Removal of hedgerows and trees, only just recently planted some new trees off Mill Road. Close to site of land fill. Currently takes a long time to access A 47

There is a lack of local amenities, link roads within half a mile prone to localised flooding, there will be increased traffic journeys on unsuitable roads as people seek out schools, doctors and other amenities that are not within walking distance. There is no pavement on the existing Mill Road and this road is too narrow for two cars to pass at the same time. Need to achieve carbon neutral by 2050. Risk of increased traffic accidents. Site is close to redundant land fill site. Lots of nature to observe. Currently takes a long time to access A47 safely.

This site is in an area that provides a high contribution towards the landscapes character and openness of the area. The development of this site would result in a significant impact on the form and character of rural landscape
The roads surrounding the site are narrow and entirely inappropriate
Strumpshaw is a tiny hamlet with no facilities like shops and schools meaning 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 am supporting the planning officers decision to deem this site unreasonable on the following grounds ,this is a very narrow lane, at the moment it is difficult for 2 cars to pass each other, and would add to traffic coming onto Norwich Road.

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.

STRUMPSHAW does not have services & facilities no school no shops new residents would have to drive to the facilities the existing roads are narrow with restricted width There are no street lights not a complete footpath the main sewer is under sized and over flows from manholes when we have heavy rain resulting in flooding To provide all required would impact on character of the rural landscape

I agree with the planning officers decision to deem the site unreasonable on the following grounds
This site is unsuitable as it is a long way from any schools and facilities and and the roads around that area are not suitable for high levels of traffic.

I am supporting the planning officers decision to deem this site unreasonable on the following grounds; the roads in this area are narrow and single file. As there are no amenities such as shops and schools, private vehicle transport will increase on the backroads and will impact on the area around Strumpshaw Fen and will cause unnecessary harm to local wildlife and hedgerows (protected). It will also increase carbon emissions which conflicts with national law policy of reduction plans. It will also impact on public foot paths and therefore healthy lifestyles which is contrary to the NHS goals of better.

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.

We already have just had houses built at the bottom of our garden and a village hall to which we raised no objection however this potential development would totally enclose us. This proposal together with others in the immediate area 0090; 0521 and 0521 have no local services by way of shop or footpath and using the additional vehicles/journeys these schemes would therefore of necessity generate to access shops or schools in Brundall or Lingwood would not aid our aim to become become carbon neutral. The narrow roads around this site are inappropriate for such a development.

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 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; and because the sewage system is already inadequate. The scale of development proposed on this site is inappropriate for the size of Strumpshaw and would change the settlement from being rural to being suburban. Access to the site is poor along narrow roads. It is also adjacent to a closed landfill site.

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 gas and services to the area. Increases the reliance on the private car as Strumpshaw is in a rural landscape with no school or shops. there are many more preferable locations for development to take place for residential dwellings.

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. The area is also adjacent to a disused landfill site which could provide a source of contamination.
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, schools etc 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.

Detrimental to the rural community

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

I support Broadland District Council's decision to deem site GNLP2017 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.

The area has already been developed. Loads of people walk up and down mill lane because it is quiet and has little traffic on it. A new development of houses would change that ambiance of the village permanently. In addition there are no local amenities such as doctor, school or shop, so the population in the new houses would be dependent on their cars - which is totally against the present climate of protecting the earth.

GNLP2017
Land immediately north of this plot is only recently developed: plans to EXTEND this development effectively undermine the trust and process of limiting this original development to 10 houses and new community hall, ensuring village character is sustained to some extent. Thus I support Broadland DC and object to any further development in this area.

Furthermore, Strumpshaw is within the immediate buffer (1 mile) of Broads National Park and is inappropriate for urban development - the environmental footprint will be inappropriate in terms of noise and light pollution, as well as the peaceful vicinities of the buffering lands.

Strumpshaw has no shop or school meaning more journeys using a motor vehicle.

Access to the site is from a very narrow road unsuitable for a substantial increase in traffic which is inconsistent with the 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.

There are other sites more suitable.