Policy VC BRO1: East and West of the B1332, Norwich Road

Object

Representation ID: 2320

Received: 13/02/2023

Respondent: Dr. Jonathan Newman

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? Yes

Duty to co-operate? Yes

There should be additional requirements to require a full environmental impact statement, requiring due consideration for a number of protected species known to be present in the area, including bats and amphibians.
Additional requirements on developers should be imposed to make any development entirely carbon neutral, self sufficient in energy generation and consumption, use of community ground source heat pump technology, installation of solar panels on every house, domestic wind generator turbines and rainwater harvesting according to best available environmentally sustainable development practices.

Support

Representation ID: 2329

Received: 15/02/2023

Respondent: FW Properties

FW Properties consider VC BRO1 to be a suitable and deliverable location for new homes within the village. Development in this location, which is close to an established community, would represent sustainable development as defined within the National Planning Policy Framework. The site is immediately available and its development for 50 homes is considered to be viable and deliverable. The site is not subject to any constraints which would prevent its development for housing and the site specific requirements attached to this draft allocation can all be fulfilled. As a result, VC BRO1 should be taken forward for allocation.

Object

Representation ID: 2556

Received: 28/02/2023

Respondent: Mr Rob Wilson

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The site is home to a wide variety of wildlife - bats, amphibians, Red Kite, deer, rabbits, field mice etc. Development of this land would cause significant disturbance to the ecology and wildlife habitats.

Object

Representation ID: 2561

Received: 28/02/2023

Respondent: Mr Michael Lewis

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The proposed site is prone to annual flooding due to the nature of the heavy clay content in the soil, if this application was to be granted it would put existing homes situated along the B1332 at an increased risk of flooding. The site is also known to provide habitat for many protected species of Forna including but not limited to: Bats, Dormice, Breeding birds, Badgers and Water voles which this insensitive proposal fails to address.

Object

Representation ID: 2641

Received: 03/03/2023

Respondent: Ms Alison Rhodes

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

My concerns are:
* no rationale for allocation of up to 50 houses. Few other allocations exceed 35, so unclear why Brooke has this number..
* safety. Road through Brooke is very busy and will become busier if other proposed village developments proceed. Installation of a roundabout is a recommendation rather than a requirement. Will developers seek a cheaper alternative?
* impact on services. Document does not take into account impact on services, especially medical and educational (primary and secondary)
* ribbon development. Although within the village boundary, northern development brings it closer to Poringland, risking urban sprawl.

Object

Representation ID: 2706

Received: 05/03/2023

Respondent: Mr Peter Tully

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

This is an unwarranted and inappropriate development of a site which will cause ecological harm. It beggars belief that South Norfolk Council is enabling large scale housebuilding on our precious countryside. This developer is not motivated to tackle the housing crisis. Their main motivation, unsurprisingly, is to maximise their profits. This can be seen from their constant building on greenfield sites, despite enough brownfield land being available.

Object

Representation ID: 3165

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 to the south east of the grade II listed Brooke Lodge, dating from c1835 and to the north of the Brooke Conservation Area. Any development of the site has the potential to impact on the significance of these designated heritage assets.
We welcome the preparation of an HIA for the site. However, the HIA only covers the eastern portion of the site and does not consider the land to the west of the road, the development of which is likely to have a greater impact on the setting of Brooke Lodge. We recommend that the HIA is updated to reflect this. The recommendations from the revised HIA should be used to inform the policy wording.
That said, the extensive landscaping between the proposed site and the listed Lodge would limit the impact of development on the historic environment.
Bullet point 9 states that the HER should be consulted to determine the need for any archaeological surveys prior to development. In our view, some assessment is needed to inform any planning application.
We therefore advise that bullet point 9 should be amended to read, ‘Planning applications should be supported by archaeological assessment including the results of field evaluation where appropriate.’