Policy VC BRE1: Land east of School Road
Object
South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 19 Pre-submission Draft)
Representation ID: 2309
Received: 10/02/2023
Respondent: Ms Sue Barton
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
This plan does not take into account the number of cars which will be associated with this many houses. The roads around the school are already clogged by parked cars and local agricultural vehicles use these roads regularly.
A reduced number of houses.
Object
South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 19 Pre-submission Draft)
Representation ID: 2680
Received: 04/03/2023
Respondent: Ms Veronica Beasley
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Yes
Too many dwellings proposed.
School Road unsuitable for additional traffic, very congested at northern end with on road parking, school staff & pupil traffic and residents housing, lack of pavements. Accident waiting to happen, no pedestrian crossing.
Southern end junction unsafe speed limit on A1066
Highways need to visit at the busy drop off and pick up times.
Site not level as on side of a valley, 4 metre drop from north to south.
Rainwater run off currently absorbed by site also a haven for wild life.
Rural character & views across the Waveney Valley will be compromised.
This site needs to be primarily for school parking, (some) parents continue to disregard road safety issues, parking near junctions, up on pavements, part blocking residents driveways, parking on verges. School staff also need adequate parking provision.
Reconsider density to prevent overwhelming impact on the western end of Bressingham village.
Work out cost of road widening and pavement provision on School Road also pedestrian crossing. Incorporate yellow lines.
Improve junction of School Road with A1066 + reduced speed limit on A1066.
Improve junction with High Road/Fersfield Road at northern end of School Road.
Surely housing also needed away from schools not all people who need housing have children? No mains drainage so each dwelling with alternative waste management system?
Evidence that this site is better than brown field site on A1066 opposite entrance to veterinary surgery and Garden Centre, even closer to possible employment opportunities and transport links Diss and Thetford.
Request impact statements from Bressingham School, Highways on measures to improve road safety, Norfolk Wildlife Trust, Anglian Water, emergency services.
Is it financially viable?
Consider wildlife pathway for animals to connect between wild areas. Most land around site is arable where hedgerows alone not adequate for a lot of wildlife.
Allocation Site has been working for many years on carbon capture, water absorption / flood protection, wildlife reserve and resource.
Object
South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 19 Pre-submission Draft)
Representation ID: 2812
Received: 06/03/2023
Respondent: Mr stephen hubbard
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
40 houses would effectively double the west end of Bressingham , this will have a significant impact on the village, particularly the traffic exiting to school road along the school frontage, the safety implication of this is clear. A small number of houses probably could be acceptable, would greatly reduce the flood risk and the number of cars. the car park idea on the opposite side of the road to the school is I believe unsafe for the children and unnecessary, safe drop off could be provided on the school side.
this site could be suitable for up to 10 houses making full use of the road frontage, this would leave the rest of the site to continue to re-wild which is proving to be of great value to an increasing range or wildlife, barn owls in particular as this type of hunting ground is rare locally. While up to 10 houses would still impact on traffic and drainage this could work if A, school road drainage is substantially improved and B, the footpath to the west of school road is moved further west to allow safe drop off for children [ piping the roadside ditch and putting the path on top will achieve this]
Object
South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 19 Pre-submission Draft)
Representation ID: 2887
Received: 07/03/2023
Respondent: Mr stephen hubbard
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
40 houses are far too many, could result in 60 extra cars negotiating a junction exactly opposite the school with obvious problems, surface water can only increase the flood risk, there will be run off from roofs, driveways, the service road, the car park and all the treated water from sewage plants and because the site falls some 3 to 4 metres to the road this will be catastrophic to the residents further down school road, car park is dangerous and unnecessary, safe drop off could be made on the school side, junction and car park takes up building plots.
The site opposite the school has become through natural re-wilding a valuable wildlife sanctuary among open farmland and housing particularly for barn owls, ideal hunting habitat however a development could be acceptable for up to 10 dwellings on the western end but school road drainage would have to be addressed to accommodate these. The path on the western side of school road should be moved to provide more road width for safe drop off of children, piping the ditch and putting the path on top will achieve this.
Object
South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 19 Pre-submission Draft)
Representation ID: 3057
Received: 02/03/2023
Respondent: Welbeck Strategic Land III Ltd
Agent: James Bailey Planning Ltd
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Although the site appears relatively constraint free, with access to a small number of services accessible locally, there appears to be insufficient capacity at the local primary school. The inability to serve the proposed new
population will inevitably put pressure on the local highways network and surrounding villages, increasing congestion through a more significant reliance on private vehicle use.
Object
South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 19 Pre-submission Draft)
Representation ID: 3163
Received: 01/03/2023
Respondent: Historic England
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Although there are no designated heritage assets on site, the site lies immediately adjacent to the grade II listed Pine Tree Cottage. Development of this site has the potential to impact upon the significance of this designated heritage asset through development within its setting.
We welcome the preparation of an HIA for the site.
Whilst we welcome the recommendation of the HIA to provide an area if open space to preserve views of the building and create a degree of separation, we note that this area is also now being proposed as an area of informal car parking.
We have some concerns as to whether an area of open space to protect the setting of the listed building is compatible with the land also being used as a car park. We suggest that consideration should be given to locating the car park in another area of the site, or even off -site – for example it might be more appropriate to locate the car park on the same side of the road as the school to reduce the number of children crossing the road.
If you are going to pursue the car park option on-site, we suggest the addition of wording to criterion 2 to read, Consideration should be given to the design of the car park to ensure that the grade II listed Pine Tree Cottage including its setting is conserved and enhanced.
Criterion 1 of the policy suggests that there should be frontage development and yet the HIA was specific about the need to set development back from the frontage. We suggest you review the wording of criterion 1 accordingly.
We welcome criterion 3 and 5 of the policy.
Bullet point 4 states that the HER should be consulted to determine the need for any archaeological surveys prior to development. However, this is different to the recommendation in the HIA which states that ‘This site would need to be investigated prior to development’. In our view, some assessment is needed to inform any planning application.
We therefore advise that bullet point 4 should be amended to read, ‘Planning applications should be supported by archaeological assessment including the results of field evaluation where appropriate.’
Consider carefully the most appropriate location for a car park if required.
Add the following at criterion 2
‘Consideration should be given to the design of the car park to ensure that the grade II listed Pine Tree Cottage including its setting is conserved and enhanced.’
Review criterion 1 in relation to frontage development in light of HIA comments.
Amend criterion 4 to read ‘Planning applications should be supported by archaeological assessment including the results of field evaluation where appropriate.’
Support
South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 19 Pre-submission Draft)
Representation ID: 3258
Received: 03/03/2023
Respondent: Norfolk Wildlife Trust
We welcome the policy wording for hedgerows/trees in Policy VC ROC. We recommend that similar policy wording is applied to the policies listed below to ensure this approach is applied consistently across the Local Plan. Where removal of a tree or any part of a hedgerow is unavoidable, we recommend that policy wording includes reference to mitigation measures, reflecting the updated biodiversity duty required in the 2021 Environment Act to have regard to the enhancement of biodiversity.
VC BB1, VC BRE1, VC HAL2, VC SWA2, VC NEE1, VC WOR2, VC NEW2, VC SPO3, VC TAS1, VC BUR1, VC WIN1.