GNLP1001

Reedham cannot support any further housing because:-

Sewage system already overloaded. Frequent effluent flooding into properties & much is already being trucked out.

Village is at end of a single narrow 7 mile road which passes through several others.

Roads are narrow and in appalling state.

Many parents elect to send children to other schools.

Poor, infrequent public transport.

Post office only part time - nearest is 7 miles away.

Surgery is part time - nearest 7 miles away.

No police presence - nearest 20 miles away.

Telephone & internet services already stretched.

Minimal mobile phone service.

Electricity often fails.

The Village has already had substantial new developments in recent years . 24.4% between 2001 and 2011 plus significant development since, well in excess of 45, thus partly destroying the nature of the village. It now appears to be becoming more suburban. The proposed housing density on the proposed sites is heavy for a typical rural village. An additional 88 dwellings is above the 9% required in villages as stated in the plan. Local infrastructure is inadequate to accommodate further development. No free cash point, limited doctor access (4 half days per week) 3 half days at post office Almost non existent bus service. Trains limited, and do not make reasonable connection at Brundall to go to Acle, i.e. to access doctor or shops. A working household would probably require two cars, one for work and one for other functions like shopping etc. Sewage facilities are already at bursting point, as it has to be tankered to norwich everyday, and frequently more than once a day. Access to the sewage works is via Holy Farm Road witch is single track (only 2.7 Mtrs wide for lower part of the road). The tankers then need to go via Mill Road to Church Road (part of Mill Road (OS grid Ref TG420024 only 3.2 Mtrs wide a one point), including over a blind summit hump back bridge (at grid ref TG421022). Church Rd is also too narrow for vehicles to pass without using passing places at some points. This route passes site GNLP3003 in Mill Rd. In order to appreciate this it is necessary to visit the local topography, not easily appreciated on a map. Regarding GNLP1001 this is accessed via Station Rd. which is also of limited width, being too narrow for two large vehicles to pass in some parts. (4.2Mtrs)
Access to the village is in general via the Acle - Reedham road. This is winding country road, and has been declassified from a B road to unclassified (The road to Cantley is now B1140) There is a very dangerous corner in Mouton-St-Mary on the way to Acle (grid ref TG402077) which requires large vehicles to partly cross to the wrong side of the road in order to navigate it. This road carries a significant number of HGVs, delivery vehicles as well as large farm machinery, which has resulted in many vehicles using Ash Tree Lane (Grid refs TG400067 to 391076) a predominantly singe track road with passing places. (3.3 Mtrs at one point) There is a blind summit on this road, and there have been many near accidents there. This road is also used as a short cut to the A47 via Sandy lane (3.1 Mtrs at one point). None of these roads are really suitable for additional traffic from cars, delivery vehicles etc. and all are used by heavy agricultural machinery. An additional 30 -40 houses are proposed for Freethorpe adding to this load. Minor roads to both East (towards Halvergate) and West (towards Limpenhoe and Southwood) are predominantly single track, and are therefore not suitable for additional traffic.
It should be noted that the Reedham Primary school currently has 62 pupils, which is expected to rise.
If the country is to become carbon neutral we need to avoid additional travelling to access facilities, not effectively force people to have additional cars.
All new housing will also need to be carbon neutral, which is achievable with modern technology.

Copies to other parties

GNLP1001 Reedham.
If you stand in Station Road at the junction with Barn owl close in any weather at any time of year you can smell the main drain. Parts of Reedham smell like a third world country in the summer or I imagine London before the Victorians built the drainage infrastructure which is still in use to some extent today. The additional houses proposed in your plan will break the infrastructure of the village. Drains, roads, electrical supply, bus service, are all not up to the task. The local primary school has a limited capacity which would be stretched under this plan. Grid lock occurs outside the Primary school at start and end of the day as parents drop of their children and despite the short distances involved this will get worse. Travel times to secondary schools are problematic given the poor train service and distance for bus travel. An extra 30 homes will mean an extra 60 to 80 cars at a conservative estimate on inadequate roads. Then there will be delivery vans and lorries, service vehicles etc. Making the village more dangerous for children, pedestrians and cyclists.
Surface water run off from the proposed site will cause flooding to properties on station road given the propensity for brick weave paving and other solid surface solutions. The views from the Broads of the village has already been degraded by the complete lack of architectural merit in the new builds and the lack of planting and landscaping. This will be more of the same. Where is the tree planting in your proposal. The existing hedges and trees near the new builds have already starting to go despite any "best intention" .
There are many empty houses in Reedham and infill sites waiting to be developed which would probably exceed the number of proposed houses and would provide a more organic growth solution fo the village.
There is no need for the allocation of houses in your plan to be this large for our village. You can't turn a housing estate into a village but you can turn a village into a housing estate. A more organic solution will grow the village at just the same but I suspect make less money for any one mega developer. Small is beautiful. Time the planning department took that on board.

Objection to further housing because:-

Roads narrow & in a bad state.

Reedham is out on its own and not a drive through village.

Poor public transport.

Sewage system overloaded. Currently multiple truck loads carried out daily.

Problems with drains and flooding.

One small shop & post office, opens part time.

Doctor’s surgery stretched.

Mill road site access very tight & not wide enough & close to school entrance.

Allocation for new home 16%, which is way too much.

No parking so vehicles on the street.

No police presence.

Telephone/internet services are slow.

To many additional cars to support houses.

I wish to submit my comments to planners responsible for the Reedham sites.
In summary I wish to raise the following points:
1. Reedham has already had 24 properties built in 2018, of which they are still for sale. Even if more are built, there isn't demand for this area.
2. The allocated percentage for rural villages is 9%. Based on the numbers provided across the sites, this is greater than 50-60 houses and greater than 16%. Why is this?
3. Public transport is already inadequate. It can't serve the residents it already has.
4. Sewage and water is already inadequate. It cannot keep up with the current residents. Tankers are pumping on a daily basis! And water is turned off when supplies drop or pressure becomes very low.
5. Parking fees have been introduced at the station meaning cars now park on the already very narrow roads with no paths! This will only worsen with more people residing in the area. Please remove the parking charge!
6. This is supposed to be a conservation area?????
7. There are no free public cash points.
8. The school is very small and does not have the capacity to take anymore than a maximum of 15 additional children.
9. The doctors surgery is only part time and already takes in excess of 3 weeks to obtain an appointment. More people would worsen this!
10. To date, developer fees of just £23,000 over the last 3 years have been provided to the parish council to improve facilities. How is this enough!?
11. The infrastructure cannot sustain more houses. They may look like roads on a map, but take a drive and you'll see that the majority of roads are not much more than single lane tracks! With no paths! The traffic now already poses a threat to safety.

Reedham
More houses would change the character of this treasured rural village.
More houses would mean more traffic and cars not garaged causing jam ups, more delivery vehicles, vehicles driven by gps would have to double back, some roads are only single lane now.
More light pollution.
The school only has a few more places.
Public transport overload.
Sewage and water cannot cope now.
More houses, more dog poo.
Lack of public facilities.

This large site is not necessary for development as existing (28) and future small development plans will suffice for the needs of the village and growth expectations. This large site along with GNLP3003 and small sites approved puts growth at over 16% in Reedham and the village should not be expected to overdevelop to compensate for other villages. The GNLP plan suggests the need homes is because the school has capacity but that is not necessarily the case. Also the consideration of the points in the Neighbourhood Plan re darks skies, farming and wildlife will be impacted by this development.

Not necessary as the growth targets will be met by small developments.

Infrastructure, particularly water, is insufficient for current residents. Sewage is being pumped out sometimes more than daily.

With regard to the proposed housing developments at Reedham, we would like to make the following points.
We believe the whole proposal is poorly conceived. There is no access to the proposed development in Mill Road and the understanding was that the field at the top of the development in Barn Owl Close was to be used for recreational purposes when permission was granted. Reedham is at the end of the road network and although one road is graded B it is poorly maintained. Others are narrow, with potholed passing places. The village has already experienced around 30% growth in the past ten years with no improvement in infrastructure. Sewage is a particular problem. Already we have tankers in the village on a daily basis to take sewage away and it regularly floods low lying premises during heavy rain. The situation becomes even worse in the summer, when Pettits opens and we have an influx of tourists. Protestations from Anglian Water that the current sewage and drainage systems are adequate are patently untrue. Extra traffic on Mill Road is unacceptable with the already increasing number of cars at the dangerous crossing near the school. Children have to walk on Mill Road to access the school playing field some distance away. All infrastructure is already overloaded and cannot support another housing development on this scale. Public transport is unreliable and infrequent. Other factors include:-
The Post Office is only part time and the closest alternative is 7 miles away.
The doctor's surgery is part time and the closest is 7 miles away.
There is no police presence. The closest is 20 miles away.
The nearest hospital is 20 miles away.
Telephone & internet services are already stretched.
There is minimal mobile phone service.
Mains electricity often fails, particularly in the Mill Road area.
Mains water pressure is already low in the village.
There is no available employment in the village, which would mean significantly increased traffic.
The large increase in the number of houses over the past few years has had a negligible effect on places being taken up at the village school. As was mentioned at the meeting, the latest development resulted in just one more child attending the school.
Any further developments would inevitably overstretch infrastructure which is already under strain and would significantly detract from the character of the village.
With particular reference to the proposed site at GNLP 3003, There are several further issues.
There is no appropriate vehicular access.
The road around the school is already heavily congested while parents are dropping off and collecting children. This site would add more vehicles and pedestrians to the area.
Building here would significantly detract from the views enjoyed by all the surrounding properties, as well as adding significantly to light pollution. Reedham is currently one of the few villages known for its dark skies at night.
There is inherent danger to children from the escarpment down to the railway line along the edge of the site.
There is apparently a power cable under the field, which would have to be moved.
We feel that there are numerous viable alternative sites, with far better roads and infrastructure. Many within a short distance of the new Norwich NDR. It would surely be better to utilise these, or brownfield sites, rather than further overload a small village at the end of a 7 mile, narrow, poorly maintained feeder road which passes through several other villages before joining the A47.

Enlargement on why the perceived need for additional housing in Reedham outlined in the GNLP is flawed

1. Reedham Primary School: -

• Until recently Reedham did not have a pre-school nursery therefore nursery age children attended Freethorpe Nursery from where on attaining school admission age they transited to Freethorpe Primary School on the same site.
• Since the establishment of a private pre-school nursery at Reedham Primary School (soon to be integrated into the school) children starting there are transiting into Reedham Primary School on attaining school admission age.
• In the past the reputation of Reedham Primary School was diminished, however under the present headship the school is thriving and is attracting pupils from adjoining villages.
• The present number of children attending Reedham Primary is greater than is being indicated and it is highly likely that if the current trend continues the school will be up to capacity before any additional houses are built.

2. Train travel: -

• One of the reasons put forward within the GNLP for the building of houses in Reedham is the fact that it has a railway station and therefore people will use the railway to travel to and from the village especially for employment purposes.
• The reality of this is that only 6% of people travelling from Reedham for employment purposes do so by train meaning that 94% are travelling by private vehicle and in most cases with only one occupant per vehicle.
• Unless one works within walking distance of the station it is of no use arriving in the centre of say Norwich when your place of employment is on one of the various business or retail parks on the outskirts of the city.
• If partners within a household work in different locations this immediately means two single occupied vehicles in daily use.
• Even if only one partner works a second vehicle becomes a necessity for shopping, school runs etc because of the remoteness of Reedham.
• With all Norfolk District Councils and the County Council pledging to reduce their carbon emissions and to improve air quality it is inconceivable that any consideration would be given to unnecessary additional housing in remote village locations knowing what the impact on the environment would be. Particularly when that location is served by a road system that is rapidly becoming unfit for purpose.

3. Perceived need for extra housing: -

• In 2011 Broadland District Council consulted under the Site Allocations DPD within the Joint Core Strategy on a shortlisted site in Reedham (Red 1) for 15-20 units to meet Reedham’s perceived housing needs up to 2026.
• The Site Allocations DPD was adopted on 21 April 2016 and in May 2016 Broadland District Council granted Planning Permission for 24 dwellings on a larger site than the one consulted on.
• In 2018 24 new houses and bungalows were built on Red 1 in Reedham, of these 25% remain unsold to date and one has now been reduced in price by £35k. This certainly does not demonstrate a need for additional houses to be built.
• Under a Section 106 agreement of the 24 houses, two houses were allocated for rental to persons wanting to live in Reedham who were either born there or had other strong family connections with the village. In reality no one came forward and they were allocated to people who wanted a house anywhere, not specifically in Reedham.
• With the large number of houses built in Reedham over the past 20 years there is no need for any new large sites to be allocated prior to 2038 and any perceived needs of Reedham under the GNLP can be more than met from windfall sites and a slight adjustment to the settlement boundary to incorporate the sites put forward in Church Road and Witton Green.

The infrastructure needs to be improved first before any further dwellings should be considered. There is limited public transport, a Post Office and Doctors surgery that only opens part time.
I understood that the top field of Barn Owl Close would be used for recreational purposes when permission was granted. There are still many houses available to purchase at Barn Owl Close, so why build more?
The sewage and drainage system in Reedham is already at struggling point, roads are narrow and in appalling condition so to add this further development I feel would only worsen the situation.

Already had 24 houses built in 2018 - which are still not all sold! Water and sewage can't cope now. Not enough paths. Not safe. Roads awful now. Not enough school places. Not enough GP space now! Ruin character of village. Traffic can't cope with roads now.

This unwanted, undesirable , unnecessary development would have an extreme negative affect on this 'jewel of the broads".An already overburdened infrastructure regarding inadequate public transport, medical facilities , drainage.
Ferry Rd designated B culminates in the chain ferry accommodating 2 vehicles per 12 minute crossing resulting in massive queues and frequent misdirected lorries which must return up Ferry Rd, usually at speed.
It won't provide "affordable" housing due to a lack of pupil spaces at the School which would benefit more from extra recreational ground.
Unavoidably congested roads will suffer increased private cars, delivery trucks, service/ emergency vehicles.
Light pollution.

Accessability Public transport from Reedham, one bus in and one bus out a day. Train services very expensive long term for thos travelling for work. Private cars are required for a good quality of life but issues around CO2 emissions climate change issues.
Limited health services provided at Reedham for 4 half days
Limited Post office service 3 mornings a week.
Sewerage issues up to 8 trucks a day are needed to service the Sewerage works during summer months.
Reedham is part of the Broadland National Park and deserves to be kept as a treasure of Norfolk.

The number of new houses proposed for Reedham should be scaled down, for the following reasons.

1. Sewage is emptied by tanker several times a day and this would increase considerably, meaning even more heavy vehicles in Holly Farm Road.

2. The roads are not suitable for more traffic.

3. There are far fewer school places than recorded previously.

4. The trains can be unreliable and commuters now pay £3 to park, and therefore park on the surrounding roads.

5. Reedham Village does not have, and does not need or want, street lighting!

6. Reedham is often cut off by snow drifts in winter, making it impossible to get to work.

7. The doctor’s surgery is struggling now, and would be hard pressed to cope with more patients,

Reedham Village has had more than its quota of houses in the past 20 years. It is an unspoiled rural area surrounded by farming land to the north and borders to the south by the river Yare and views over open marshland. Additional development would further detract from the village atmosphere as is evidenced by the two recent ones at Yare View and Barn Owl Close which have a suburban feel about them.
There is no footway on the Hills to the school and no footway along Mill Road to the school!
A large number of the roads along their full length in Reedham do not meet the criteria for car passing car,(4.1meters min) let alone car passing rigid vehicle. Additional housing would increase the number of of delivery vehicles potentially causing more traffic problems. The road from Acle to Reedham is also narrow in places ( inadequate for two rigid vehicles to pass satisfactorily). There is a dangerous corner in Moulton St Mary which necessitates lorries and buses including the school buses to have to partially cross to the wrong side of the road. Many people including myself have nearly crashed as a consequence. Further delivery vehicles would again exacerbate this problem. This is causing many vehicle including HGVs to use Ash Tree Road ( single track with passing places,) I have even known cars drive into a field to avoid agricultural vehicles along this road. All roads in the area are frequently used by large and heavy agricultural machinery!
The existing sewage facilities are already stretched as this requires emptying by tanker every day and more frequently at peak times.
Public transport to and from from Reedham is limited. Two buses a day to and from Acle. Two trains a day to and from Great Yarmouth. This obviously requires most households to have at least one car.
There is no cash point and only one very small shop and a separate Post Office which is only open three half days a week. The next nearest post office was in Freethorpe but this is now closed.
With the current shortage of Doctors the surgery is only open four half days a week.
Additional housing might lead to a demand for some street lighting which is not wanted by the majority of existing Reedham residents.

Outside the development boundary.
Contrary to GNLP Policy 2 issue 1 as the site cannot provide “safe ... access to ... schools, healthcare, shops, leisure/community/faith facilities” without the use of a car.
Contrary to GNLP Policy 7.4 347 as there is no safe walking route to school. As per the Discussion of Submitted Sites “Sites which do not have a safe walking route to school, or where one cannot be created, will not be considered suitable for allocation”. Highways have confirmed it is not feasible to provide an off-carriageway pedestrian facility to enable safe journeys to school.

The Greater Norwich Local Plan as presented is serious flawed in many respects and I wish to lodge my objections to the proposal to zone areas GNLP1001 and GNLP3003 for housing based upon the following:
• The GNLP consultation process is heavily reliant on access to and navigation of the GNLP website, which is appallingly badly constructed and excessively complex and cumbersome. The consultation pages are extremely difficult to locate and, as a result, public participation in the GNLP process will be constrained. I urge our local councillors to press for the GNLP process to be suspended until such time as an appropriate user friendly website can be constructed, to allow all members of the public to review the proposals and submit their views without the need for significant IT skills.
• The GNLP with respect to Reedham does not contain sufficient evidence of current or future housing demand, nor does it take into account the new housing proposed on the Sanderson Boatyard site, approved by Broads Authority Planning in December 2019.
• The addition of 60+ residential units in Reedham, over the period of the GNLP, is excessive would result in housing over-supply and, in the absence of the additional investment on community assets (i.e. new school, play areas, health facilities), would overburden the current facilities. Any expansion of the village should include provision for more community assets.
• Footpath provision in Reedham is very limited and largely non-existent on the main roads in and out of the village. An increase in the village population through substantially increased housing will increase footpath demand, especially on the roads close to the school and railway station, that cannot be met with the current configuration of the roads. A report from NCC Highways is clearly needed to assess the suitability of the proposed sites GNLP1001 and GNLP3003 and should be made available for public consultation before the GNLP process is concluded.
• The reference to places available at Reedham Primary school is not supported by documentary evidence or statements from the School management or governing boards or the local education authority. The school is an integral and important part of the village and any residential development in the village should take into account both the needs of the school and needs of the community from the school. This is not apparent in the consultation documents.
• The Reedham Assessment Booklet has not properly addressed affordable and social housing provision and demand in the village, nor has evidence been included of affordable and social housing approvals, waivers and construction in the developments at Station Drive, Yareview Close or Barn Owl Close. This should be addressed, and the Reedham Assessment Booklet be re-submitted to local consultation before the completion of the GNLP.
• GNLP1001 should not be developed for housing and should remain as a greenspace buffer site between Barn Owl Close and the agricultural land at the centre of the village bounded by houses on The Hills, Witton Green and the railway and is crisscrossed by footpaths. The existing developments of Yareview Close and Barn Owl Close together provide more than sufficient housing development in that part of the village.
• GNLP3003 is an enclosed site bounded by the railway and houses on Mill Road and is not suitable for the 30 houses proposed in the Reedham Assessment Booklet. Any development on this site should be modest, provide for suitable vehicular and pedestrian access to Mill Road and be in keeping with the local surroundings.

Reedham; Part of the Broads National Park, an area of outstanding natural beauty.
Services:
Schools.
Shops.
Public transport.
Roads & traffic.
Pavements.
Sewage.
Wildlife.
Expanding housing estates.
Please see attachment

There is no safe access to the school on foot from the proposed site.
The drainage system in the village can't cope already with heavy rain without flooding.
Extra houses will mean extra traffic through the village. The trains do not run often enough nor are there enough buses to cope with the extra people.
Just because the school is not full does not mean we need extra houses. Families moving in may not have children of the right age for the school. Also, fewer pupils surely means smaller classes which must be desirable.

Please see attached
Savills (UK) Ltd are instructed by Mr Chris Mutten to submit representations on his behalf to the Greater Norwich Local Plan Regulation 18 Draft Plan Consultation.
Please find attached to this email a letter containing our representations in support of Preferred Site Allocation GNLP1001 – Land East of Station Road, Reedham.

General Objections

The GNLP is deeply flawed. It appears to pursue a political agenda rather than duly considering sensible and pragmatic issues and flouts national policy on climate change mitigation.

The recent Court of Appeal decision to rule the expansion of Heathrow unlawful because it didn’t take climate change commitments into account puts the proposed GNLP in a dubious position, given that its proposed higher levels of rural development would lead to increases in carbon emissions, which contravenes national planning policy to facilitate their reduction. This would inevitably lead to it being challenged on that basis. It could even be that a legal challenge would be upheld and the policy deemed unlawful.

I’d argue that the GNLP is a redundant document, given that the current Joint Core Strategy has only been in effect since 2014 and covers the period up to 2026. Certainly, the unexplained change in policy in the GNLP concerning rural development is startling and inappropriate.

One of the core strategies in the JCS was to locate housing and other growth primarily in and close to Norwich, with minimal new development to be permitted in rural areas. One of the stated reasons for the development of the NDR, at great public expense, was to help the distribution of traffic to and from new housing built inside its length and in the northeast growth triangle (as that is what the JCS pointed to). The GNLP consultation document abandons that policy and sacrifices the important protection the JCS gave rural communities against inappropriate development. The main justification for this appears to be the availability of primary school places in the “village clusters”. The issue of climate change is a much more important factor and appears to have been completely ignored despite the introduction stating that ‘the GNLP must also assist the move to a post-carbon economy and protect and enhance our many environmental assets.’. This goal is completely undermined by the proposed policy.

The GNLP calculates housing needs based on the 2014 National Household Projection. It should use the 2016 National Household Projections and there is no acceptable excuse for not doing so.
Objections Specific to Reedham
Paragraph 120 of the GNLP stresses the need for good access to services and facilities, but the decision to allocate up to 60 new houses to the village appears to be based almost entirely on the fact that the primary school has a number of vacancies. This is poor decision-making,.
The recent development of 24 houses in Barn Owl Close in Reedham has resulted in one person of school age moving into the village. Clearly, the provision of additional housing does not automatically guarantee increased take-up of school places.
Other services in the village are extremely limited. There is a doctors’ surgery; it is only open four half-days per week. There is a post office; it is only open three half-days per week. There is no free cash point. There is a village store; most people use it for odds and ends and do most of their shopping at supermarkets in Acle (six miles each way), Yarmouth (10 miles each way) or Norwich (16 miles each way), to which they drive or from which they have their groceries delivered.
There are no significant employment opportunities in Reedham. The current businesses are generally fully staffed and do not have plans for expansion and it is not a village that will ever attract new business because of its location and lack of access to good roads.

Given the lack of employment opportunities within the village, there will be a massive increase of journeys from and to work for many of those living in any such new housing, as well as additional journeys by delivery vehicles.

Paragraph 125 states the need for ‘a radical shift away from the use of the private car, with many people walking, cycling or using clean public transport.’ That is not feasible for people who live in Reedham, where 96% of journeys are made by private car due to the infrequency or unreliability of public transport. This may not be an issue if we ever reach a point where electric-powered cars predominate, but it’s a huge gamble to base policy on that happening within the lifetime of the GNLP.

Another significant issue with the increased road traffic the proposed additional development would cause is that the road infrastructure in and around Reedham is poor and would not support the increased demand. The required road width for any road servicing 50 or more dwellings is 5.5 metres.
Most of the roads within Reedham do not comply with this requirement. Mill Rd is 3.8 metres wide, narrowing to 3.2 - 3.3 metres in places. Church Road is 3.7 metres at its narrowest point, and only 4.4 metres at its intersection with Freethorpe Rd. Station Road beyond Barn Owl Close is 4.2 metres wide. The Hills is 4.2 metres wide.
Site Specific Objections
GNLP1001
I object to GNLP1001:-
• Outside the development boundary for the village.
• Contrary to GNLP Policy 2 issue 1 as the site cannot provide “safe, convenient and sustainable access to on-site and local services and facilities including schools, healthcare, shops, leisure/community/faith facilities and libraries” without the use of a car.
• Contrary to GNLP Policy 7.4 347 as there is no safe walking route to school. As per the Discussion of Submitted Sites “Sites which do not have a safe walking route to school, or where one cannot be created, will not be considered suitable for allocation”. Highways have confirmed it is not feasible to provide an off-carriageway pedestrian facility to enable safe journeys to school.

GNLP3003
I object to GNLP3003:-
• Outside the development boundary for the village.
• Contrary to GNLP Policy 7.4 347 as there is no safe walking route to school. The Discussion of Submitted Sites states “Sites which do not have a safe walking route to school, or where one cannot be created, will not be considered suitable for allocation”. Highways have confirmed it is not feasible to provide a footway to enable safe journeys to school as there is no scope for improvements within the highway.
• The single entrance access is too narrow with no scope to widen. Highways confirm it is not feasible to provide a safe access as the carriageway is narrower than required for 2-way traffic and there is limited site frontage to the highway.
• The HELAA Conclusion states that Mill Road is “relatively lightly trafficked”. However, there is no evidence to support this statement.

I make no apology for echoing other residents concerns as detailed below.

General objections:
The GNLP is deeply flawed. It appears to pursue a political agenda rather than duly considering sensible and pragmatic issues and flouts national policy on climate change mitigation.
The recent Court of Appeal decision to rule the expansion of Heathrow unlawful because it didn’t take climate change commitments into account puts the proposed GNLP in a dubious position, given that its proposed higher levels of rural development would lead to increases in carbon emissions, which contravenes national planning policy to facilitate their reduction. This would inevitably lead to it being challenged on that basis. It could even be that a legal challenge would be upheld and the policy deemed unlawful.
I’d argue that the GNLP is a redundant document, given that the current Joint Core Strategy has only been in effect since 2014 and covers the period up to 2026. Certainly, the unexplained change in policy in the GNLP concerning rural development is startling and inappropriate.
One of the core strategies in the JCS was to locate housing and other growth primarily in and close to Norwich, with minimal new development to be permitted in rural areas. One of the stated reasons for the development of the NDR, at great public expense, was to help the distribution of traffic to and from new housing built inside its length and in the northeast growth triangle (as that is what the JCS pointed to). The GNLP consultation document abandons that policy and sacrifices the important protection the JCS gave rural communities against inappropriate development. The main justification for this appears to be the availability of primary school places in the “village clusters”. The issue of climate change is a much more important factor and appears to have been completely ignored despite the introduction stating that ‘the GNLP must also assist the move to a post-carbon economy and protect and enhance our many environmental assets.’. This goal is completely undermined by the proposed policy.
The GNLP calculates housing needs based on the 2014 National Household Projection. It should use the 2016 National Household Projections and there is no acceptable excuse for not doing so.
Objections Specific to Reedham
Paragraph 120 of the GNLP stresses the need for good access to services and facilities, but the decision to allocate up to 60 new houses to the village appears to be based almost entirely on the fact that the primary school has a number of vacancies. This is poor decision-making,.
The recent development of 24 houses in Barn Owl Close in Reedham has resulted in one person of school age moving into the village. Clearly, the provision of additional housing does not automatically guarantee increased take-up of school places.
Other services in the village are extremely limited. There is a doctors’ surgery; it is only open four half-days per week. There is a post office; it is only open three half-days per week. There is no free cash point. There is a village store; most people use it for odds and ends and do most of their shopping at supermarkets in Acle (six miles each way), Yarmouth (10 miles each way) or Norwich (16 miles each way), to which they drive or from which they have their groceries delivered.
There are no significant employment opportunities in Reedham. The current businesses are generally fully staffed and do not have plans for expansion and it is not a village that will ever attract new business because of its location and lack of access to good roads.
Given the lack of employment opportunities within the village, there will be a massive increase of journeys from and to work for many of those living in any such new housing, as well as additional journeys by delivery vehicles.
Paragraph 125 states the need for ‘a radical shift away from the use of the private car, with many people walking, cycling or using clean public transport.’ That is not feasible for people who live in Reedham, where 96% of journeys are made by private car due to the infrequency or unreliability of public transport. This may not be an issue if we ever reach a point where electric-powered cars predominate, but it’s a huge gamble to base policy on that happening within the lifetime of the GNLP.
Another significant issue with the increased road traffic the proposed additional development would cause is that the road infrastructure in and around Reedham is poor and would not support the increased demand. The required road width for any road servicing 50 or more dwellings is 5.5 metres.
Most of the roads within Reedham do not comply with this requirement. Mill Rd is 3.8 metres wide, narrowing to 3.2 - 3.3 metres in places. Church Road is 3.7 metres at its narrowest point, and only 4.4 metres at its intersection with Freethorpe Rd. Station Road beyond Barn Owl Close is 4.2 metres wide. The Hills is 4.2 metres wide.
Site Specific Objections
GNLP1001
I object to GNLP1001:-
Outside the development boundary for the village.
Contrary to GNLP Policy 2 issue 1 as the site cannot provide “safe, convenient and sustainable access to on-site and local services and facilities including schools, healthcare, shops, leisure/community/faith facilities and libraries” without the use of a car.
Contrary to GNLP Policy 7.4 347 as there is no safe walking route to school. As per the Discussion of Submitted Sites “Sites which do not have a safe walking route to school, or where one cannot be created, will not be considered suitable for allocation”. Highways have confirmed it is not feasible to provide an off-carriageway pedestrian facility to enable safe journeys to school.
GNLP3003
I object to GNLP3003:-
Outside the development boundary for the village.
Contrary to GNLP Policy 7.4 347 as there is no safe walking route to school. The Discussion of Submitted Sites states “Sites which do not have a safe walking route to school, or where one cannot be created, will not be considered suitable for allocation”. Highways have confirmed it is not feasible to provide a footway to enable safe journeys to school as there is no scope for improvements within the highway.
The single entrance access is too narrow with no scope to widen. Highways confirm it is not feasible to provide a safe access as the carriageway is narrower than required for 2-way traffic and there is limited site frontage to the highway.
The HELAA Conclusion states that Mill Road is “relatively lightly trafficked”. However, there is no evidence to support this statement.

GENERAL OBJECTIONS

The GNLP is deeply flawed. It appears to pursue a political agenda rather than duly considering sensible and pragmatic issues and flouts national policy on climate change mitigation.

The recent Court of Appeal decision to rule the expansion of Heathrow unlawful because it didn’t take climate change commitments into account puts the proposed GNLP in a dubious position, given that its proposed higher levels of rural development would lead to increases in carbon emissions, which contravenes national planning policy to facilitate their reduction. This would inevitably lead to it being challenged on that basis. It could even be that a legal challenge would be upheld and the policy deemed unlawful.

I’d argue that the GNLP is a redundant document, given that the current Joint Core Strategy has only been in effect since 2014 and covers the period up to 2026. Certainly, the unexplained change in policy in the GNLP concerning rural development is startling and inappropriate.

One of the core strategies in the JCS was to locate housing and other growth primarily in and close to Norwich, with minimal new development to be permitted in rural areas. One of the stated reasons for the development of the NDR, at great public expense, was to help the distribution of traffic to and from new housing built inside its length and in the northeast growth triangle (as that is what the JCS pointed to). The GNLP consultation document abandons that policy and sacrifices the important protection the JCS gave rural communities against inappropriate development. The main justification for this appears to be the availability of primary school places in the “village clusters”. The issue of climate change is a much more important factor and appears to have been completely ignored despite the introduction stating that ‘the GNLP must also assist the move to a post-carbon economy and protect and enhance our many environmental assets.’. This goal is completely undermined by the proposed policy.

The GNLP calculates housing needs based on the 2014 National Household Projection. It should use the 2016 National Household Projections and there is no acceptable excuse for not doing so.

OBJECTIONS SPECIFIC TO REEDHAM

Paragraph 120 of the GNLP stresses the need for good access to services and facilities, but the decision to allocate up to 60 new houses to the village appears to be based almost entirely on the fact that the primary school has a number of vacancies. This is poor decision-making,.

The recent development of 24 houses in Barn Owl Close in Reedham has resulted in one person of school age moving into the village. Clearly, the provision of additional housing does not automatically guarantee increased take-up of school places.

Other services in the village are extremely limited. There is a doctors’ surgery; it is only open four half-days per week. There is a post office; it is only open three half-days per week. There is no free cash point. There is a village store; most people use it for odds and ends and do most of their shopping at supermarkets in Acle (six miles each way), Yarmouth (10 miles each way) or Norwich (16 miles each way), to which they drive or from which they have their groceries delivered.

There are no significant employment opportunities in Reedham. The current businesses are generally fully staffed and do not have plans for expansion and it is not a village that will ever attract new business because of its location and lack of access to good roads.

Given the lack of employment opportunities within the village, there will be a massive increase of journeys from and to work for many of those living in any such new housing, as well as additional journeys by delivery vehicles.

Paragraph 125 states the need for ‘a radical shift away from the use of the private car, with many people walking, cycling or using clean public transport.’ That is not feasible for people who live in Reedham, where 96% of journeys are made by private car due to the infrequency or unreliability of public transport. This may not be an issue if we ever reach a point where electric-powered cars predominate, but it’s a huge gamble to base policy on that happening within the lifetime of the GNLP.

Another significant issue with the increased road traffic the proposed additional development would cause is that the road infrastructure in and around Reedham is poor and would not support the increased demand. The required road width for any road servicing 50 or more dwellings is 5.5 metres.

Most of the roads within Reedham do not comply with this requirement. Mill Rd is 3.8 metres wide, narrowing to 3.2 - 3.3 metres in places. Church Road is 3.7 metres at its narrowest point, and only 4.4 metres at its intersection with Freethorpe Rd. Station Road beyond Barn Owl Close is 4.2 metres wide. The Hills is 4.2 metres wide.

SITE SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS

GNLP1001

I object to GNLP1001:-

•Outside the development boundary for the village.

•Contrary to GNLP Policy 2 issue 1 as the site cannot provide “safe, convenient and sustainable access to on-site and local services and facilities including schools, healthcare, shops, leisure/community/faith facilities and libraries” without the use of a car.

•Contrary to GNLP Policy 7.4 347 as there is no safe walking route to school. As per the Discussion of Submitted Sites “Sites which do not have a safe walking route to school, or where one cannot be created, will not be considered suitable for allocation”. Highways have confirmed it is not feasible to provide an off-carriageway pedestrian facility to enable safe journeys to school.

GNLP3003

I object to GNLP3003:-

•Outside the development boundary for the village.

•Contrary to GNLP Policy 7.4 347 as there is no safe walking route to school. The Discussion of Submitted Sites states “Sites which do not have a safe walking route to school, or where one cannot be created, will not be considered suitable for allocation”. Highways have confirmed it is not feasible to provide a footway to enable safe journeys to school as there is no scope for improvements within the highway.

•The single entrance access is too narrow with no scope to widen. Highways confirm it is not feasible to provide a safe access as the carriageway is narrower than required for 2-way traffic and there is limited site frontage to the highway.

•The HELAA Conclusion states that Mill Road is “relatively lightly trafficked”. However, there is no evidence to support this statement.

Reedham should not be included under this heading as it is not clustered, neither is the environment suitable for more housing development. It is a rural non-drive through village to anywhere else at the end of a narrow country road 6 miles from Acle. I have objected greatly to any housing development of GNLP 3003 on the GNLP website. GNLP 1001 is neither suitable or needed for more housing in the village. Reasons:

New houses already built (Barn Owl Close) are not being readily sold, the 'affordable' houses offered to qualifying residents were not taken up indicating that these are not truly 'affordable'.

Single roads with poorly maintained passing places are too narrow to sustain more traffic; they can already become congested with private cars, delivery vehicles etc at times which would increase with more housing.

The sewage plant is inadequate. Tankers removing waste are continuously coming and going to the plant along narrow roads. Residents complain of flooding during heavy rainfall and raw sewage in gardens in some areas. Anglia Water have said nothing can be done about it. Disgraceful! So building more houses will only add to this problem.

We have a part-time post office and overstretched GP surgery which again is only available part-time.

Reedham has been classed as a Cluster Village and (over) allocated the number of houses to be built because there is a primary school. There is no safe walking for children to attend school and for pedestrians generally. There are heavy agricultural vehicles on the roads daily.

The village shop is open early morning and well into the evening and is good for basic shopping and newspapers. Residents have to use their cars for bulk shopping or rely on supermarket deliveries.

There are hardly any opportunities for employment in the village. The GNLP states that housing would be built to encourage people to cycle (too dangerous) or walk (again dangerous) to their place of employment but this is impossible to attain that goal in Reedham as the village is not an area suitable for employment other than in the few existing small businesses. People have to use their cars to get to work in Norwich City or elsewhere.

More house building will contribute to increased light pollution (we have the absolute minimum at present) and will add to, not decrease carbon emissions and threaten our wildlife.

We have a train station which now has trains to Norwich and Great Yarmouth after a year without any due to upgrading signal boxes but they run infrequently and at inconvenient times. Flooding at Brundall can close the line in bad weather. It is necessary to drive 6 miles to Acle to shop at the Co-op or park and catch a bus into Norwich or Yarmouth. We have no direct bus route into Norwich. The present infrastructure will not sustain further development.

Reedham is an ancient village which brings many visitors to our lovely riverside and pubs where they can park and watch the water traffic (Reedham is the only place in Broadland where it's possible to do this) or boaters can moor overnight without charge. Tourism is important in Reedham and we need to keep the character of our village without a lot of new housing and be able to protect our greenfield sites and amazing wildlife.

THE GNLP
Is flawed for many reasons. In particular It's so called Vision and Objectives, relating to the Village Clusters, are actually HARMFUL to the rural areas of Broadland. It was intended in the Joint Core Strategy that these areas would be PROTECTED by keeping new housebuilding nearer to Norwich and within the border of the NDR built inter alia to preserve unique wetlands and wildlife. So why has this policy changed so drastically? How can this GNLP building plan possibly be upheld? In Reedham, the Highways Dept. has said in relation to GNLP 3003 that Mill Road (besides inaccesibility) is unsafe for pedestrians and totally unsuitable, with no room for improvement to make a safe walkway for schoolchildren, and should therefore not be considered! Why are opinions like these being completely ignored?

There is over-allocation of housing in areas where the infrastructure cannot sustain this development. This will inevitably increase carbon emissions - another change in BDC policy although the GNLP still maintains that it will work towards decreasing these statistics. How can this possibly be enforced? It is in complete contradiction to the aims of the Plan.

Limited services in the village.
Roads leading to and around the village are not wide enough, there have been three school bus crashes between the high school and Reedham recently. Many roads around the village do not have a pavement.
Increased traffic will lead to greater air pollution in the area.
Sewerage system in the village is near to capacity, tankers are already used daily.
No off road route to the primary school.
New housing only added 1 to the NOR at the primary school. New houses seem slow to sell.
Light pollution.

Outside the development boundary.
Contrary to GNLP Policy 2 issue 1 as the site cannot provide “safe, convenient and sustainable access
to ... local services and facilities including schools, healthcare, shops, leisure/community/faith
facilities” without the use of a car.
Contrary to GNLP Policy 7.4 347 as there is no safe walking route to school. Highways confirm it is
not feasible to provide an off-carriageway pedestrian facility to enable safe journeys to school.
The sewerage system in the village is at near capacity already.
The road infrastructure to and around the village is not suitable for a permanent increase in traffic.

I wish to offer my response to the site GNLP 1001.
First of all clearly this site is outside the development boundary for the village.  The site is lactated on historic agricultural land that has never been previously developed and would be a permanent loss of valuable agricultural land.  This will also create a dangerous president for future development applications on agricultural land outside of development boundaries.
The site cannot provide safe off-carriageway pedestrian footway for the whole route to the primary school which is a set policy for the GNLP.  The roads along the route to the school and other public places and local services within the village fall well short of acceptable widths for safe pedestrian use without off-carriageway footways.  It is therefore assumed use of a car would be needed at all times even for local journeys.  I believe this contradicts both GNLP policies 2 issue 1 and 7.4 347.  Highways have stated that a off-carriageway footway to the school cannot be created.
The sewage system of Reedham is at its maximum capacity already.  I understand that village sewage is lead to a tank setup that is managed by anglian water, this then requires emptying by a pump tanker sometimes several times a day.  This type of system has its obvious limitations for capacity and not to mention the man power and environmental effect of more regular empties by use of a large vehicle. An additional 20-30 house on this site and 60 in the village will overwhelm this system causing risk to health and environment.
None of the roads in the village are classed as "secondary road" and have the classification of "generally more than 4m wide" or "generally less than 4m wide" and very few have off-carriageway footways.  Expansion of the village is not appropriate for such a road system and would be unsafe for vehicles and pedestrians alike
I acknowledge that the school claims to have available capacity and that this is appealing for the GNLP.  I would add though that the previous site given the go ahead as part of the GNLP now known as Owl Barn Close of Station road had 24 dwellings built.  Many of which remain unsold as it appears the location of Reedham is undesirable.  The school has confirmed that of those 24 dwellings only 2 children from one address have enrolled at the school.  It is not correct to anticipate the value of school placements for future development especially in a rural location.
The location of the village makes for the use of cars a necessity.  The train destinations are not always convenient and the bus service is infrequent and time consuming.  Villagers depend on the use of their cars and with a safe assumption of national averages that each address has 2 cars that is a vast increase of vehicle use on village roads that aren't suitable but along considerable distances to the likes of Norwich and Great Yarmouth.  Not to mention the increase of delivery vehicles on the road whether it be from internet shopping or supermarket deliveries. I do not expect this is the type of situation that is encouraged by the GNLP or the government for that matter.  Pollution is to be reduced not increased.  This environmental impact is to be combated not created.
The local shop is not part of a supply chain (ie Londis or Spar) and remains an independent, although convenient at times it is not always affordable and due to Reedham's location alternatives are far away.  The doctors surgery has limited opening hours and does not have a dispensary, with an ageing population and the intention to encourage more families to the village due to the school the restriction of this service is a black mark for the village and should not be ignored.
If I have read the plan for Reedham correctly it has been proposed that including infill planning applications and the two proposed sites GNLP 1001 and GNLP 3003 Reedham could experience 60-80 new dwellings.  Given that currently Reedham has I think 505 dwellings at the top end of 80 new dwellings that is an increase of over 15%.  I do not feel that this is at all acceptable for a village that has been previously classified as a 'Service Village'  Other larger, better located villages and areas do not seem to have that percentage increase,  I strongly encourage that any future development to significantly increase the size and population of the village be discouraged at all costs, not only to preserve it but also to protect the local and widespread environment.

This proposed site is outside the development boundary for the village.
Contravenes GNLP Policy 2 Issue 1 – It does not (and can not) provide “safe, convenient and sustainable access to on-site and local services and facilities including schools, healthcare, shops, leisure / community / faith facilities and libraries” without use of a private car. This in turn contravenes paragraph 125 which is trying to promote other, greener methods of transport.
Contravenes GNLP Policy 7.4 347 - there is no safe walking route to school and Highways have confirmed it is not feasible to provide such.

Outside the development boundary.
Contrary to GNLP Policy 2 issue 1 as the site cannot provide “safe, convenient and sustainable access to ... local services and facilities including schools, healthcare, shops, leisure/community/faith facilities” without the use of a car.
Contrary to GNLP Policy 7.4 347 as there is no safe walking route to school. Highways confirm it is not feasible to provide an off-carriageway pedestrian facility to enable safe journeys to school.
The sewerage system in the village is at near capacity already.
The road infrastructure to and around the village is not suitable for a permanent increase in traffic.