GNLP3003

We have recently become aware of the above proposed housing site in your search for housing development. As a resident directly affected by any proposed development of this site we are very concerned with this for a number of reasons, principally the suggestion that a public footpath will run from the site immediately next to our property causing loss of privacy and disturbance etc. However in addition there are a number of other reasons for our concern

1) This field has been put forward for development in the past with it previously being refused on grounds of unacceptable vehicular access, how has this issue been resolved?

2) The proposed footpath past our property adjoins Holly Farm Road at a point immediately next to the railway bridge, on the brow of a hill and on a bend in the road, visibility to both directions is negligible with the road being very narrow at this point. Any pedestrian entering Holly Farm Road at this point is in danger. The assumed suggestion that this is good walking route to the Primary School from the proposal site is ridiculous as this section of Holly Farm Road as well as being narrow (single carriageway) is subject to significant amounts of on-street parking ( school car park) . Any pedestrian walking in this direction to the school is at risk from both cars parking and through traffic which is surprisingly high as the road serves a small marina, industrial units, farms and AW sewage works as well as residential dwellings.

3) I am assuming the site owners agent has made a number of assumptions (ie point of vehicular access and footpath) in putting this site forward for your consideration, this being the case I feel it unsatisfactory that their certainly biased views can be robust enough to include in plans for public consideration. Can this be explained and clarified as to whether any unbiased views have presently been sought on such matters?

We have recently become aware of the above proposed housing site in your search for housing development. As a resident directly affected by any proposed development of this site we are very concerned with this for a number of reasons, principally the suggestion that a public footpath will run from the site immediately next to our property causing loss of privacy and disturbance etc. However in addition there are a number of other reasons for our concern

1) This field has been put forward for development in the past with it previously being refused on grounds of unacceptable vehicular access, how has this issue been resolved?

2) The proposed footpath past our property adjoins Holly Farm Road at a point immediately next to the railway bridge, on the brow of a hill and on a bend in the road, visibility to both directions is negligible with the road being very narrow at this point. Any pedestrian entering Holly Farm Road at this point is in danger. The assumed suggestion that this is good walking route to the Primary School from the proposal site is ridiculous as this section of Holly Farm Road as well as being narrow (single carriageway) is subject to significant amounts of on-street parking ( school car park) . Any pedestrian walking in this direction to the school is at risk from both cars parking and through traffic which is surprisingly high as the road serves a small marina, industrial units, farms and AW sewage works as well as residential dwellings.

3) I am assuming the site owners agent has made a number of assumptions (ie point of vehicular access and footpath) in putting this site forward for your consideration, this being the case I feel it unsatisfactory that their certainly biased views can be robust enough to include in plans for public consideration. Can this be explained and clarified as to whether any unbiased views have presently been sought on such matters?

Our Objection is based upon the proposed footpath link to the side of our property. It is an unsafe route which will join Holly Farm Road where visibility is poor and the road narrow. Additionally it will be very close to our property invading our privacy and enjoyment of our garden. In principle and subject to a satisfactory site layout we have no objection to housing on this site, however ,the footway link is unsafe, unnecessary and unacceptable.

Further evidence of the unsafe and unnecessary nature of this route can be provided

I challenge why this site has been accepted as an option in this consultation because it doesn't meet the criteria.
1) It doesn't presently have a safe means of vehicular access with no guarantees that the significant areas of third party land can be secured.
2)It can't be linked to footway services. Pedestrians (including children) will have to walk in narrow and busy roads to access services.
3)Proposed path to HollyFarm Road would be immediately next to our property invading our privacy. Its junction with the road has no visibility and is adjacent to a particularly narrow section of road.

This proposed development has come up many times and always been rejected. What has changed?
The site is close to the railway line which is likely to become busier in future due to proposed rail upgrades.
Children and railways do not happily mix these days.
The access to this developement is via single lane track with passing places. A very dangerous 'blind' approach to the bridge must be addressed as a serious accident is inevitable. One way is to widen the road, this will then cause traffic to approach the bridge at a greater speed and will bring serious consequences thus causing speed reducing measures to be placed in the road. At present the speed is self regulated via the single track.
School 'drop off parking is aiready a problem and often it is difficult to pass safely, more houses and cars will present a serious safety risk at certain times.
I personally have little objection to this development but conditions must be placed on the developer to contribute to the village rather than taking the money and running.
There must be a large amount of parking spaces provided. A green area for children is a must as at present there is a problem with children and young adults along the railway line lighting fires etc?
Vehicular access is of paramount importance as the prime access route is Mill road, with it's single track and dangerous bridge. The developer must be made to pay for road improvements and any purchase of land as it is unjust to expect the village or council to foot the bill to provide for the developer's financial windfall.
The services were stated as 'existing' in the application, they 'exist' but the sewerage treatment and disposal is at breaking point - two more multi-house developments will overload the already failing system. Again, further loading must be subject to a large contribution from the developers.
It must also be remembered the Reedham is not a through village - what comes in goes out the same way and at certain times a 'rat run' situation will develop the road infrastructure needs to be addressed.

My objection is to this divide and conquer technique, where the link between house building and the necessary improvement to the infrastructure is broken. This is just an excuse for the Government to avoid any responsibility for not providing the money to improve the infrastructure. If Reedham is to be expanded then the infrastructure needs to be improved first, especially the roads, bus service, sewage and drainage.

I feel this site is completely inappropriate due to access issues and also the close proximity of the school. I think there is enough land on the outskirts of the village for potential new dwellings, providing the drainage would cope as there are already outstanding issues with regards to this. I have two young children that attend the school and roads are currently dangerous without another junction on mill rd. Also a housing development on this site would overlook all the properties on the boundary.

A land swap could be arranged with the school for their playing field, this would make the school playing field opposite the actual school making it a safer walk for the children. Also a potential site off new road could be achieved.

I feel this site is completely unsuitable for residential dwellings as it's close proximity to the school, I feel the site should be put forward to become a landswap (for the school playing field) so that the school can have a closer proximity playing field and off road parking for parents! This land swap would not impact the village as greatly as residential dwellings down new rd are already in situe and no new road frontage would be needed.

I feel this site is completely unreasonable for residential development as it's close proximity to the local school, I myself have two young children that attend reedham school, the roads are extremely dangerous for the walk to school without another roadway fronting on to the main road to the school (an accident waiting to happen!) I also feel that the sewage and the drainage system at this end of the village would struggle to accommodate the new dwellings as it's already being stretched.

My objection is to this divide and conquer technique, where the link between house building and the necessary improvement to the infrastructure is broken. This is just an excuse for the Government to avoid any responsibility for not providing the money to improve the infrastructure. If Reedham is to be expanded then the infrastructure needs to be improved first, especially the roads, bus service, sewage and drainage.

GNLP3003 Reedham
Entry and exit from this site is entirely inadequate and onto a road too small for the extra traffic produced by only two cars per proposed dwelling. Given the ratio of one car per person some households seem to prefer 60 to 80 cars is a conservative estimate. The site no doubt will be developed but I think you are far too optimistic as to the number of houses. Five or less is a better number. Better still having Broadland purchase the land and turn it into a playing field for the Primary school. A much better solutions as to the land use.
Drains on this side of the village will find themselves stretched by the extra capacity. Services to the village are a serious issue nobody seems to want to address in the context of proposed developments. Broadland are letting us down in this respect.
Small scale organic development of infill, and small developments with architectural merit; careful consideration of the local environment, should be the drivers for planning consideration not notional "spare" school capacity.

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.

Nearest hospital is 20 miles away.

Telephone & internet services already stretched.

Minimal mobile phone service.

Electricity often fails.

No access to proposed development in Mill Road. Understood field at top of Barn Owl Close used for recreational purposes when permission granted. Reedham at end of road network. One road graded B poorly maintained. Others narrow/passing places. Village has around 30% growth in past ten years no improvement infrastructure. Sewage particular problem. Tankers in village on daily basis taking sewage away. Regularly floods low lying premises during heavy rain. Extra traffic on Mill Road unacceptable. Increasing number of cars at dangerous crossing near school. Children walk Mill Road/playing field some distance away. Infrastructure overloaded. Cannot support another housing development.

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.

GNLP3003 – MILL ROAD REEDHAM
I would like it recorded and put on file of my full disapproval and objection of the proposed development in the Greater Norwich Development Plan and the release of land under reference GNLP3003 Mill Road Reedham, this site is adjacent to my property and the access would be to the side of my property, this area is not suitable for development;
• The proposed 30 – 50 homes would be a massive intrusion to my privacy and that of my neighbours as a majority of housing along this site are bungalows and would be overlooked by the new development.
• The current infrastructure cannot cope now without the additional stress on the system with sewage regularly transported manually out of the village numerous times a day and the extra stress to the traffic system which is all narrow roads.
• The access is adjacent to the side of my property and is only single track wide and therefore does not allow safe access to the site with limited visibility on to an already narrow road
• The Mill Road site is outside of the settlement area and development area of the village.
• Planning has already been refused for development of this site several years ago so goes someway to enforcing the unsuitability of the site where in addition access was also the problem then.
• The NCC Evidence plan and Highways report already state the unsuitability of the Mill Road Site so I am at a loss at to why it is even being considered.
• This part of Mill Road sees enough traffic stress with the school nearby and with no footpath access available or feasible is also not a safe option.
• A development of this site would de-value the existing properties greatly and the increase in noise pollution impact.
• With the supposed main aim of this programme being to increase pupil numbers at Reedham school there is already a great number of families in the village who choose not to send their children to Reedham school for various reasons so building new homes will not guarantee more children for the school.
• The Mill Road area is close to nature areas and have unspoilt views with dark skies, and no doubt the village would insist on an environmental and nature impact survey.
• The site is elevated over the railway line and the steep embankments would be at risk of collapse with the excavation required to install 50 homes.
• Mill Road is a narrow road and the increased traffic would put the road and area under irrecoverable stress and damage.
• The whole community is greatly concerned with the proposed development of the village and the huge additional stress it would put on all services and infrastructure, and we feel that strongly we have a community action group to ensure that the communities interests are up help and implemented.
• With the addition of the station road development being extended which seems inevitable much to the villages disapproval and has hugely impacted the village already and with a further 2 phases proposed it is incomprehensible what this extra development and the detrimental impact to the village will be, with this mind surely this is enough for the village to cope with and the natural infill and natural growth of the village over the next 18 years,, why does it have to be hit in one swoop, Reedham will be hit with such an impact and swamped that no one will want to come to live here and existing home owners will move away.
• In the main village there are 2 areas of agricultural land both of which are being put forward for development.

I am a resident on Mill Road close to the school. I am concerned regarding the welfare of the children due to the fact that there is no pedestrian footpath. Most children arrive by car and have to get out of the car in the middle of the road while moving traffic is passing. Building more houses on this site will only add to more traffic having to use this road plus the extra pollution and traffic congestion at school and work times. Serious consideration needs to be given to the village infrastructure.

This site is totally unacceptable because of the following reasons. Access to Mill Road is restricted and is dangerous at school times. No footpath. Extra homes will cause congestion and air pollution. Extra houses will mean extra vehicles on narrow roads and more congestion. There is a very limited bus service. People coming to live in Reedham will either travel to work by car, limited bus service or expensive train with limited parking. The sewage plant is unable to cope at the moment with daily tankers travelling up and down Mill Road also causing more congestion.

This site is inappropriate as the space for vehicle access is not wide enough and visibility unsafe. This site has been previously denied and nothing has changed. Also most property in Reedham is relatively close to the school so this does not give this location more viability. The property would be better used as playing field for the school as existing is far away and a constraint on school attractiveness to parents. Also 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 GNLP1001 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 dark 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.

In addition the only access to the site is impossible as the landowner will not sell.

Instead of GNLP3003 it may be possible to swap school playing field with site on Mill Road. The council should work towards this.

We object to the development on site 3003 for the following reasons.

Already sewage lorries are coming through the village as sewage plant can’t cope.
Road network in village is inadequate because of poor parking and narrow roads. Parking at the school is already dangerous . There are no pavements or lights.
Hard to get appointments at doctors now as there are so many people due to already 40 new homes already built on a field.
We have already lost the buyer on our house due to the news of this development. We were trying to downsize.
The feel of a small village is being spoilt because of this.
We also feel the value of our house will drop as will others in our road.

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.

I would like it recorded and put on file of my full disapproval and objection of the proposed development in the Greater Norwich Development Plan and the release of land under reference GNLP3003 Mill Road Reedham, this site is adjacent to property and the access would be to the side of property, this area is not suitable for development;
• The proposed 30 – 50 homes would be a massive intrusion to the privacy (of local residents) as a majority of housing along this site are bungalows and would be overlooked by the new development.
• The current infrastructure cannot cope now without the additional stress on the system with sewage regularly transported manually out of the village numerous times a day and the extra stress to the traffic system which is all narrow roads.
• The access is adjacent to the side of property and is only single track wide and therefore does not allow safe access to the site with limited visibility on to an already narrow road
• The Mill Road site is outside of the settlement area and development area of the village.
• Planning has already been refused for development of this site several years ago so goes someway to enforcing the unsuitability of the site where in addition access was also the problem then.
• The NCC Evidence plan and Highways report already state the unsuitability of the Mill Road Site so I am at a loss at to why it is even being considered.
• This part of Mill Road sees enough traffic stress with the school nearby and with no footpath access available or feasible is also not a safe option.
• A development of this site would de-value the existing properties greatly and the increase in noise pollution impact.
• With the supposed main aim of this programme being to increase pupil numbers at Reedham school there is already a great number of families in the village who choose not to send their children to Reedham school for various reasons so building new homes will not guarantee more children for the
school.
• The Mill Road area is close to nature areas and have unspoilt views with dark skies, and no doubt the village would insist on an environmental and nature impact survey for al further sites.
• The site is elevated over the railway line and the steep embankments would be at risk of collapse with the excavation required to install 50 homes.
• Mill Road is a narrow road and the increased traffic would put the road and area under irrecoverable stress and damage.
• The whole community is greatly concerned with the proposed development of the village and the huge additional stress it would put on all services and infrastructure, and we feel that strongly we have a community action group to ensure that the communities interests are up help and implemented.
• With the addition of the station road development being extended which seems inevitable much to the villages disapproval and has hugely impacted the village already and with a further 2 phases proposed it is incomprehensible what this extra development and the detrimental impact to the village
will be, with this mind surely this is enough for the village to cope with and the natural infill and natural growth of the village over the next 18 years,, why does it have to be hit in one swoop, Reedham will be hit with such an impact and swamped that no one will want to come to live here and existing
home owners will move away
• In the main village there are 2 areas of agricultural land both of which are being put forward for development !

PLEASE ENSURE THAN THE VILLAGE/COMMUNITY VOICE IS HEARD.

This site has been put forward due to its closeness to the Primary school, however the site access is very limited and surely dangerous for anyone attending the school. Access is not wide enough at either location on Mill road or Holly Farm Road which again questions the issue of safety.
The infrastructure needs to be improved first before any further dwellings should be considered , 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.

No access. Better for school to use? Not enough school places for all this development. Water and sewage can't cope with the houses that are here now. Not enough GPs. Negatively affect character of the village. Already had 24 houses built in 2018 of which not even all sold yet! Roads are already awful, can't cope with more traffic. Safety - few paths.

Accessibility Public transport from Reedham one bus in and one out each day
Train services very expensive for those wishing to travel to work long term
Private cars required for a good quality of life but issues concerning CO2 emissions and the affect of climate change
Limited helath services provided at Reedham, four half days
Limited post office services three mornings
Sewerage issues up to eight 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 the treasure it is.

This site is not suitable for housing development because:
Access is restricted with no visible splay onto Mill Road
Main vehicle access would be over railway bridge on Mill Road only wide enough for 1.5 car width and poor visibility on approach from both sides this will be/is now an accident blackspot, not able to cope with volume of traffic increase..
Traffic increase causing potential hazards passed local school
Site sits on railway embankment - hazard for children and railway traffic

Access Impossible. Heavy agricultural machinery/delivery lorries/sewage tankers daily on Mill Road and Holly Farm Road- too narrow for pedestrian safety causing congestion with no scope for improvement. Assessment Booklet indicates sites without safe walking to school would NOT be considered! Threats to wildlife and environment. Site within3000 metre buffer zone for Halvergate Marshes(SSSI). Doctors surgery overstretched and only part time. Outside Settlement Boundary. Surface water flooding risk medium to high . Sewage in gardens and poor sewage treatment plus problems with mains incoming water for current homes. Post Office part time. Lack of public transport. Car use vital.

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,