QUESTION 29: Do you agree

Support

Representation ID: 112

Received: 18/06/2021

Respondent: Ms Sue Barton

I agree that these are the better sites.

Support

Representation ID: 259

Received: 02/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Geoffrey Lazell

The existing Settlement Limit for Bressingham should remain as currently defined for a variety of reasons but primarily because our local infrastructure cannot support any significant extension. The roads, drains, public transport, school, traffic volumes etc are already at maximum capacity and in some instances have proved unable to cope with the existing demands placed upon them - e.g. recent severe flooding.

Object

Representation ID: 279

Received: 04/07/2021

Respondent: Mr nigel crane

The local primary school at Bressingham is full with no further capacity .
Local roads are single lane , inadequate for any construction traffic or increased traffic from further residents.
There is no employment potential .
Extra stress on the GP and dental surgeries.
Village has no fibre broadband and very poor phone reception.
Only the school road gets gritted.

Comment

Representation ID: 295

Received: 30/06/2021

Respondent: Mr Brian Falk

For all previous plans it has been irrational that the Bressingham Hundred, which consists of three settlements, should have only two identified. In settlement terms the relatively recent ribbon developments along Common Road and High Road are delineated as clusters but the historic central village grouping at the A1066 is not. It should be, even if tightly drawn. It contains vital elements of the parish - church, bar/restaurant, wedding venue, public garden, museum, tourist attraction, garden centre, clothing store and vets. Planning consent has recently been granted for additional retail development. These are the critical land uses, providing a considerable range of employment and cultural elements. Only three social uses, the primary school, a small shop and village hall and one employment use are located in the second and third settlement definitions. The fact that this cluster straddles an A highway is an important factor in the functioning and success of the settlement, not a reason for ignoring Bressingham’s historic core. It should be designated as the primary Bressingham settlement cluster.

Object

Representation ID: 648

Received: 27/07/2021

Respondent: Mrs Judith Newbery

Bressingham is a very disjointed village being divided into two sections by open land. Surely it would make more sense to extend where the 4 new houses have just been built. This would mean traffic could come onto a quieter road where school deliveries and collections are not taking place and not near a junction of 4 roads.

Object

Representation ID: 728

Received: 28/07/2021

Respondent: Mr David Cole

The site location, with this many houses, will put too much pressure on the local infrastructure. the school will not cope. the street will park full as there is never enough parking on new estates. Without significant investment in road, school and natural habitat for wildlife, this will create a over crowded, possibly dangerous situation. The location is ok, the quantity of housing and associated traffic, is far too much.

Object

Representation ID: 770

Received: 28/07/2021

Respondent: Mrs Jean Collins

There is not sufficient infrastructure to allow such developments

Object

Representation ID: 891

Received: 30/07/2021

Respondent: Bressingham and Fersfield Parish Council

Representing the stated views of Bressingham & Fersfield’s parishioners, we do not agree that there is a need for a Village Clusters Plan and we oppose the sites proposed for Bressingham.

If the plan goes ahead despite this, we do not agree that the extent of the Bressingham settlement limit defined in the Plan is correct. Inclusion of Site SN1309 within the settlement limit is incorrect.
Site SN3019 is outside Bressingham’s settlement limit, as delineated clearly by the layout of the village and location of its dwellings: it should not have been allocated as a preferred site for this reason.

Object

Representation ID: 1353

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Bressingham and Fersfield Parish Council

Representing the stated views of Bressingham & Fersfield’s parishioners, we do not agree that there is a need for a Village Clusters Plan and we oppose the sites proposed for Bressingham.

If the plan goes ahead despite this, we do not agree that the extent of the Bressingham settlement limit defined in the Plan is correct. Inclusion of Site SN1309 within the settlement limit is incorrect.
Site SN3019 is outside Bressingham’s settlement limit, as delineated clearly by the layout of the village and location of its dwellings: it should not have been allocated as a preferred site for this reason.

Object

Representation ID: 1421

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Mrs Rachel Thomas

Bressingham has 3 settlements, only 2 appear to be included. Does not include settlement on A1066 which has potential to be developed as a new cluster and will impact less on existing residents of the village. Forward plan for the future. Have vision.

Sites are not based on current or future needs, these are down to landowners putting forward proposed sites which financially benefit them but are not beneficial to the well being of the residents of the village.

School Road has narrow access, is prone to flooding. Traffic would be greatly increased.

Wildlife and rare hedgerows would be lost.

Comment

Representation ID: 1446

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Geraint Thomas

Planning for the future - Forecasting what growth will be and planning accordingly.

Roads in and out of Bressingham are narrow and any work to widen or add to them will be dterimental to the village population both human and wildlife.

Settlement Limit - this does not include all of Bressingham as it is a very disjointed village.

Sites on the A1066 nearer the Roydon bends could be considered with obvious highway changes that could also help access to the A1066 from Hall Road and Dolt Lane

Support

Representation ID: 1477

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Mrs Jacqueline Willis

Any future development should be infill only and remain within the current settlement limit.

Comment

Representation ID: 1499

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Mrs Gwenda Davies

I am new to the village and have come here to settle in to a quiet village setting not to find I am living in a large housing estate