GNLP0521

Showing comments and forms 1 to 5 of 5

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 12858

Received: 26/01/2018

Respondent: Mr Hilary Hammond

Representation:

The Strumpshaw Neighbourhood Plan retained the existing development boundary, whilst allowing development on the west side of Mill lane as an exception site, including a community hall. Allowing development on the east side of Mill Lane would add too much traffic to Mill lane.

Full text:

The Strumpshaw Neighbourhood Plan retained the existing development boundary, whilst allowing development on the west side of Mill lane as an exception site, including a community hall. Allowing development on the east side of Mill Lane would add too much traffic to Mill lane.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 12995

Received: 12/02/2018

Respondent: Upton with Fishley Parish Council

Representation:

Strumpshaw Parish Council objects: Mill Lane/Mill Road is single track road with no footway. It is also believed that there are former gravel workings on this site which would make it unsuitable. A development of this proposed size would be unacceptable to a very small village and would overwhelm the rest of the village and would be contrary to Strumpshaw Neighbourhood Plan.

Full text:

Strumpshaw Parish Council objects: Mill Lane/Mill Road is single track road with no footway. It is also believed that there are former gravel workings on this site which would make it unsuitable. A development of this proposed size would be unacceptable to a very small village and would overwhelm the rest of the village and would be contrary to Strumpshaw Neighbourhood Plan.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 13906

Received: 13/03/2018

Respondent: Mr Michael Manley

Representation:

Site GNLP0521 considered unsuitable for a variety of reasons including inadequate infrastructure in sewerage, surface water drainage, poor highway facilities and infrequent public transport. Strumpshaw has little employment and no school or shops. Doctors surgery struggling to cope. If the global birth rate continues at the same rate there will be inadequate agricultural land for food production to satisfy demand. Proposals will erode the visual separation from adjacent villages and therefore the individuality and identity of each village. Development of proposed sites will only further aggrevate the growing problem of flooding in certain locations

Full text:

Dear sirs

I wish to register my comments on the GNLP and more specifically to the proposals relating to Strumpshaw.

I refer specifically to the developments identified on plan numbers GLNP
0090, GLNP0521 Mill
Road, GNLP0215 Long Lane

I consider that these locations are unsuitable for the following reasons.

1. Inadequate infrastructure in sewerage, surface water drainage (especially in the light of global warming phenomina).

2. Poor highways facilities, the roads are of inadequate width for increased traffic and there are inonadequate and mostly no pedestrian pavements in these locations.

3. Infrequent public transportn namely an hourly bus service which ceases early evening.

4. Strumpshaw has very little and indeed diminishing employment.

5. Strumpshaw has no school or shops.

6. The local doctors surgery serving this area in Brundal is already struggling to cope under pressure of new developments and finding it is unable to recruit adequate qualified staff.

7. Over the next 50 years scientifically backed date indicates that if the global birth rate continues at the same rate there will be inadequate agricultural land for food production to satisfy demand.

8. These proposals will erode the visual separation from the adlacent villages and therefore the individuality and identity of each village.

Strumpshaw already suffers from an increase over the years of minor areas of flooding in certain locations partly due increased events of heavy storms and the added recent developments in Lingwood, if the proposed sites are developed this will only serve to further aggravate an already growing problem

For the above reasons I can see little justification for developing these locations.

Yours Sincerely

M.F.Manley

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 13999

Received: 23/02/2018

Respondent: Mrs Sheila Ashford

Representation:

The village of Strumpshaw is tightly defined by its Village Plan in order to keep its identity. Any breaches of the boundaries would inevitably lead to merging with Lingwood and Brundall. There is no Post Office or shop and one Public House and the parish Church and no other facilities. There is fierce local pride in our Village and long may it remain so. A small residential development is being built on a former light industrial site and another small development will take place in association with a Village Hall. These should be the limit of development in the Village.

Full text:

Dear Sir

I wish to raise strong objections to the allocations in STRUMPSHAW listed below:

GNLP 0215 extending the boundaries identified in the Village Local Plan GNLP 0521 as above GNLP 0090 as above GNLP 0277 as above

The village of Strumpshaw is tightly defined by its Village Plan in order to keep its identity. Any breaches of the boundaries would inevitably lead to merging with Lingwood to the East and Brundall to the West. There is no Post Office or shop and one Public House and the parish Church and no other facilities. There is fierce local pride in our Village and long may it remain so.

A small residential development is being built on a former light industrial site and another small development will take place in association with a Village Hall. These should be the limit of development in the Village.

Yours truly

Sheila Ashford J.P.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 19649

Received: 18/12/2018

Respondent: Emily Crouch

Representation:

(GNLP0521) I strongly oppose this residential development proposal for many reasons. First and foremost, the village itself has no amenities of its own, with no local shop and as of last year, no post office, more residents will have to travel through Strumpshaw into the neighbouring villages of Lingwood, Blofield and Brundall for services. This will clearly result in an increase in congestion of these narrow village streets and an enforced dependency on cars and other such vehicles due to the very limited alternative transport services of the village. This would be exacerbated further as the proposed site will encroach on the neighbouring village of Lingwood, affectively joining the two villages which would increase all these problems. All access to the proposed site is via back roads and is not viable for the modern car let alone the traffic caused by construction vehicles if this proposal was put forward. Furthermore, the proposed site is completely out of proportion to the current village. It would dramatically change the view of the village from afar which is known for its proximity to the RSPB reserve and its spectacular landscape views. Overall, it is clear that this proposal is unrealistic for Strumpshaw and would only benefit those after short-term monetary gain.

Full text:

(GNLP0215) I strongly oppose this residential development proposal for many reasons. First and foremost, the village itself has no amenities of its own, with no local shop and as of last year, no post office, more residents will have to travel through Strumpshaw into the neighbouring villages of Lingwood, Blofield and Brundall for services. This will clearly result in an increase in congestion of these narrow village streets and an enforced dependency on cars and other such vehicles due to the very limited alternative transport services of the village. Furthermore, the site itself is outside of the settlement limit. This goes directly against what is stated in the Strumpshaw Neighbourhood plan which does not allow any development especially one of this scale to take place outside the village limits. Due to the nature of the land of the specified site, any development will impact greatly on the surrounding landscape and townscape of the village which is known to have high agricultural and ecological importance and should not be ruined by this affliction of building houses.

(GNLP0521) I strongly oppose this residential development proposal for many reasons. First and foremost, the village itself has no amenities of its own, with no local shop and as of last year, no post office, more residents will have to travel through Strumpshaw into the neighbouring villages of Lingwood, Blofield and Brundall for services. This will clearly result in an increase in congestion of these narrow village streets and an enforced dependency on cars and other such vehicles due to the very limited alternative transport services of the village. This would be exacerbated further as the proposed site will encroach on the neighbouring village of Lingwood, affectively joining the two villages which would increase all these problems. All access to the proposed site is via back roads and is not viable for the modern car let alone the traffic caused by construction vehicles if this proposal was put forward. Furthermore, the proposed site is completely out of proportion to the current village. It would dramatically change the view of the village from afar which is known for its proximity to the RSPB reserve and its spectacular landscape views. Overall, it is clear that this proposal is unrealistic for Strumpshaw and would only benefit those after short-term monetary gain.