GNLP2017

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.

I supporting the planning officers’ decision to deem this site unreasonable, and object to any future development. I've outlined 10 planning considerations, but want to start with a personal one:

My partner and I moved to Strumpshaw because our 5 year old soon has Autism, and it is too severe for him to be in a school. We perviously lived in Norwich and it was just too noisy for him. We moved to XXX (stretching us financially) because it backs on to this peaceful site, with horses and nature. This really calms him down and he's come along so much being homeschooled here in the last six months.

I hate to think how he would react to development on this site. It means we would likely have to move, costing us tens of thousands of pounds.

We're not anti-building houses. We, like you, just want them in the right places. Here's why we believe this site is unreasonable for development:

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, in addition to my own sons.

2. Lack of local facilities: Strumpshaw is a tiny village. The only reason our house was allowed to be built is because the developers built the new Community Centre opposite our house. 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: I understand the local authorities in Norfolk have sustainiabilty plans to get become carbon neutral (which is consistent with national law for the UK by 2050). Building on this site will increase reliance on the private car. New residents will have to drive to shops, and to take their children to school. While there a bus service, it is in no way regular enough to discourage driving. Everyone in Strumpshaw drives. More houses here simply means more private cars and more C02.

4. Highways: As the planning officers have noted, 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. Other Preferable sites: We agree with that planning officers that there are other, more preferable, sites in Broadland. With Mill Meadow and Oak Mews, 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.  

Any more development would be wholly disproportionate in Strumpshaw - especially given neighbouring Lingwood, Blofield and Brundall have facilities and services to cater for more houses. These facilities and services are all in walking distance in these other villages, reducing reliance on the private car and reducing C02, which is consistent with the district authority's sustainability plans.



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 appears to be 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 right next to - and well within 100m of ex landfill site - and there is would be big questions about contamination and safety?

 We have methane extraction there now and people cannot even smoke there due to risks of explosions. We would be very concerned if there were construction just a few meters away.

9. Neighbourhood plan: Building on this site is out of keeping with neighbourhood plan - going against local residents' wishes.  Residents only agreed to Mill Meadow being developed because they got a new Community Centre from it (the old one is in disrepair).

I've noticed that there's a lot of support this on the consultation for your decision to deem these sites unreasonable. More than a number of other unreasonable sites on the GNLP consultation. As you can see, the people of Strumpshaw are very motivated to ensure there no more development.



10. Safety: Unsafe for children to walk to the nearest school because there is no continuous path, and 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.

I support the planning officers' decision that this site is unreasonable; it is not in-keeping with the Strumpshaw NP which seeks to maintain the rural character of the village - development would have a significant impact on the local landscape. Facilities/services are in adjacent villages with limited public transport and no safe pedestrian route for schoolchildren. Lingwood station is accessed via unlit roads increasing reliance on cars. Mill Road is too narrow for vehicles and pedestrians/dog walkers/cyclists/horse riders to safely pass. The site provides habitat/food for wildlife including barn owls and is close to the Yare Broads and Marshes SSSI.

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.