QUESTION 30: Do you support

Comment

Representation ID: 113

Received: 18/06/2021

Respondent: Ms Sue Barton

Special notice must be taken with regard to run off and drainage from this site as this road is subject to surface water flooding even now.

Object

Representation ID: 260

Received: 02/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Geoffrey Lazell

Bressingham lacks the necessary infrastructure to support a residential development of this size. In particular, School Road is too narrow in places for two vehicles to pass each other safely without using part of the verge. At the top end there are usually a number of cars permanently parked on the carriageway, reducing it to a single lane for a considerable distance. At the bottom there is a restricted visibility junction with the A1066, which has a history of serious accidents. Serious flooding has occurred here due to already inadequate drainage. The school is operating at maximum capacity.

Object

Representation ID: 280

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.

Object

Representation ID: 335

Received: 05/07/2021

Respondent: Ms Dawn Ackland

This will totally ruin Bressingham, it will lose its character and just become another sprawl. The school cannot take any more pupils. The road through the village is already busy and at a standstill if there’s ever a road accident on the 1066 as the village is used as a rat run for all traffic. The field you are looking to develop is a wildlife haven, I understood authorities were supposed to consider the effect on our already pressurised wildlife or is this money spinner more important?
I find it hard to believe that you cannot find somewhere more suitable that wouldn’t impact so badly on the village and it’s wildlife.

Object

Representation ID: 555

Received: 22/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Des Aves

Agent: NPS Property Consultants

Site SN4036, Land west of School Road - This site is not considered to be suitable for development as is more detached from the village than land to the north of Fersfield Road Site SN2079 and more prominent in the landscape. It extends the village into the countryside with a ribbon pattern of development on one side of the road only. It also suffers from surface water flooding to the front of the site which would make this an unsustainable location for development.

Object

Representation ID: 582

Received: 23/07/2021

Respondent: Ann Betts

I strongly object. Highways suggest carriageway widening to 5.5m and a continuous 2.0m footway to the school but they have not considered or commented on the carriageway at the bottom end of School Road leading onto the busy A1066 where it is impossible to widen the road or provide a footway.

With regard to surface water flooding has any consideration been given to the impact on the properties at the bottom end of School Road where 6” flooding occurs every time there is heavy rainfall making this end of School Road appear like a running river

Object

Representation ID: 611

Received: 25/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Terry Betts

The junction of School Road and the A1066 is the main entry and exit route for the village and is extremely hazardous, particularly during busy school run and work commute times. However, the plans give this no consideration. There is no room to widen the carriageway here or provide a footpath and the increased traffic the development will bring to the village will exasperate the problem and present a danger to residents. Plans mention easy access to a pub; with no footpath how is this easy or safe? An increase in drink driving offences? A fatal accident waiting to happen?

Object

Representation ID: 618

Received: 25/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Godfrey Knock

Looking at the preposed sites in school Road Bressingham, our concerns are traffic impact. The proposed developments would generate large volumes of extra traffic on an already well used country lane.
You can see the large volume of school traffic, on foot ,cycle and by car daily in school terms .Also the high volume of farm traffic in the area.
Would the mature oak trees be protected along with the hedgerows.
We have concerns over the surface water run off, currently the area has problems with surface water.

Object

Representation ID: 646

Received: 27/07/2021

Respondent: Mrs Judith Newbery

Road floods badly at bottom of school lane. Hard standing will increase problem.
Lorries to site will cause chaos, road insecure.
Impact on landscape and peace immense. Whole area north bungalows, planned to retain view?
Village single frontage. No other doubling up, except new development. Open land between two sections of village.
Field abundant wild life and flora. Not farmed for years.
School is full!! School lane is dangerous, heavy vehicles and bad driving, much by parents and two more entries onto road, recipe for accidents. Many parents will still drop off rather than use car park. 1066 junction horrendous.

Object

Representation ID: 730

Received: 28/07/2021

Respondent: Mr David Cole

The site allocation is acceptable in terms of some development. the scale of the development, given the current size of the village and associated infrastructure is far too much. Part of the logic is that people want a village location. This is more like a housing estate being slapped into a village with no consideration of the impacts on quality of life, nature or infrastructure. if done well, with significant investment into the local infrastructure (hundreds of thousands of pounds not token amounts) with more limited quantity, it could be reasonable.

Object

Representation ID: 756

Received: 28/07/2021

Respondent: Ms Veronica Beasley

Disproportionate development in one small area.
Why are schemes near schools being promoted over every other consideration. Villages without schools have no proposed development in them this results in residents living near schools being overwhelmed and pupils travelling in cars to schools already at capacity with no room to expand.
Infrastructure not adequate.
Topography ignored, climate change is happening, natural solutions exist: wildlife meadows should not be developed near OS high point of Waveney valley.
2 sites already assist with holding potential run off and flooding further down the valley and are established wildlife havens.

Object

Representation ID: 764

Received: 28/07/2021

Respondent: Mr stephen hubbard

My objection to this site is similar to my comments on site SN4036 also there is an opportunity to provide a safe pull in lay-by for parents to drop off children, along the entire frontage , this to me and most other people in the village is a main concern. If we are to except more people into Bressingham then please let it be made safe for the children. The land owner if approached I am sure will make more land available to facilitate this, if not forget the houses and build the lay-by, nobody would object to that

Object

Representation ID: 892

Received: 30/07/2021

Respondent: Bressingham and Fersfield Parish Council

Representing Bressingham_and_Fersfield Parishioners’ views, we object to allocation of Site SN3019.

It is outside Bressingham’s settlement limit, as delineated by the layout of the village and location of its dwellings. Therefore, it does not meet the allocation criteria.

The justification argument that SN3019 is well-related to the settlement centre is irrelevant. Services available are minimal and so locating the settlement as proposed offers no benefit.

Access road is too narrow for existing 2-way traffic. SN3019’s 12 dwellings, each with 1-2 cars, will exacerbate the problem.

Existing regular flooding of the access road will be increased by additional run-off from SN3019.

Object

Representation ID: 1425

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Mrs Rachel Thomas

Strongly object to this proposed site.

This would cause constraints on highways, the access roads are narrow. Would be detrimental to wildlife, hedgerows, habitat and landscape. Currently these areas of land are home to bats, deer, owls and many other little creatures.

Increase in traffic would be detrimental to well-being. Impact on carbon footprint for the development of the site and for the future.

The road is prone to flooding, the roads verges have been eroded away, the increase in traffic and properties would exacerbate this problem.

Object

Representation ID: 1434

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Geraint Thomas

The site will have a detrimental impact on the landscape / townscape of Bressingham village.
Villages are quiet places which have a positive impact on people’s well being.
The addition of housing and accompanying additions such as 2 cars per household etc. will hit people’s well being and have a detrimental impact on their health both mentally and physically with additional pollution caused to the village through extra vehicle usage.
The proposal will increase the carbon footprint in the village at the loss of the natural habitat which is carbon absorbing and oxygen producing.

Comment

Representation ID: 1443

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Bressingham Primary School

The School Governors wish to comment on the possible building of further housing in the village, pointing out some possible implications for the school and its users, from the School Governors’ point of view:

1. To enable provision for further pupils at the school, the local authority would be likely to need to facilitate and provide finance for expansion of the school premises

2. Traffic and safety for all are issues that would also need to be urgently addressed, together with parking

Object

Representation ID: 1490

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Mrs Jacqueline Willis

School Road is subject to flooding and any further development will exacerbate this. Additional housing will add to traffic on both the A1066 and along High Road towards Royden. This will make it more unsafe for cyclists and even more so for pedestrians where there is no pavement. The infrastructure does not support expansion of the area with Bressingham School already being oversubscribed, lack of regular public transport, pressure on local doctor’s surgeries and no NHS dentists.

Object

Representation ID: 1500

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

Having been here for short breaks over the last 10 years I have enjoyed the peace and tranquility but that is now to be shattered.

Support

Representation ID: 1566

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Durrants

We support the preferred site SN3019 and agree that this site should be considered suitable for allocation or a settlement limit extension. The site is well related and connected to the centre of the settlement where there is an existing footpath provision. We would expect any footpath or surface water drainage issues to be reasonably mitigated.

Object

Representation ID: 1625

Received: 28/07/2021

Respondent: Ms Veronica Beasley

See full comments.
Regards location, size / density of preferred sites under consideration:-
The existing proposal of possible sites involves a disproportionate concentration in a small area with nothing elsewhere – how is this a good idea?
Topography: It is surely possible that additional development in fields is contra indicated due to the topography of the area, being on the side of a river valley, hence the ribbon style pattern of housing that exists in Bressingham village today??
School Road is a country lane which broadens and narrows along it’s length requiring traffic to pull in and wait while traffic approaching from other direction passes.
Quiet Lane status and OS Spot Height Marker: Fersfield Road is designated a ‘Quiet Lane’ as is Folly Lane (although the post marking it as such has disappeared and needs replacing) beyond this Lady’s Lane also a ‘Quiet Lane’.
Alternative Sites: Why have no areas along the A1066 (Low Road Bressingham) been considered as possible new development sites?
Local Primary School currently at capacity.
A1066 speed limit 50mph a lot of traffic exceeding the limit.
Environmental Impact and Climate Change
Preserve wildlife habitats

Object

Representation ID: 1628

Received: 29/07/2021

Respondent: Anna Fox, Sam Pardoe and Raymond Dowse

The preferred sites in Bressingham are too large and the area around School Road is already congested. please consider some of your smaller sites or
those located on roads much more suited to the extra volume of traffic that any extra housing
would bring.
Some of our main concerns:

• School Road suffers congestion during school opening times, School Road has safety issues
• We have fragile water and electricity supplies;

• There are no health facilities in the village. A vehicle is essential to access those in Diss, Botesdale etc'.
• Mobile and internet signals are also very poor
• Flooding issue
• During the recent Covid outbreaks, those ofus in the Clinically Extremely Vulnerable Group have been grateful to live beside open countryside, this would not be the case for future outbreaks should the School Road area have more dwellings squeezed into this small space.
• It is not clear if your proposed housing is private, social or a mix.
• The existing residents, including wildlife, flora and fauna could not cope with 70 plus new dwellings in one area.

Comment

Representation ID: 1713

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Stephen Mitchell

I am Secretary of the Bressingham & Fersfield Allotment Association and would like to register that the new proposed developments will due to the generally small size of the gardens require us to provide additional allotment plots for the new residents. We currently rent our allotment site from Bressingham & Fersfield Parish Council. This expected increase in the number of plots will require expansion of the current allotment site potentially into the adjacent Parish land which is being proposed by the Parish Council for Woodland site. If the Parish Council go ahead with this Woodland development then the expansion of the allotment plots will not be possible. It is understood that the proposed Woodland site was allocated for allotment use many many years ago. Currently all our plots on the existing site are allocated and in used.

Object

Representation ID: 1716

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Ms Angie Sains

The sites located are streaming with wildlife and whilst this may be the case with anywhere selected. The area already has a large population for the size of the road, area gets blocked during school times, roads are narrow for tractors, the area floods. There appears to be plenty of spaces up on the A1066 which would not compound the traffic or narrow roads within the village, that area would be better served by the main road to both Dr’s, Schools and local towns.

Object

Representation ID: 1791

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Ms Nancy Gray-Davies

I am pretty shocked at the proposal to build houses on the fields around my cottage. We have deer, owls, countless bats all around us here and the thought that housing could replace that is unthinkable.
The road is far too narrow for cars already jamming it up to drop off children at the school, a wing mirror a day is lost, the school is full, we have no mains drainage I pay £346 a year to have my tank serviced and emptied.

Please reconsider and stop this awful proposal now. I live here because of the wildlife and solitude and I’m terrified I’ll lose it and have to move.

Comment

Representation ID: 1930

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Water Management Alliance

See attachment for full response.
SN3019 – Land west of School Road
Outside the IDD boundary, within the Waveney, Lower Yare and Lothingland IDB watershed catchment.
Major development - A riparian owned watercourse runs adjacent to the southern site boundary which feeds into the Waveney, Lower Yare and Lothingland IDD. If surface water discharges within the watershed catchment of the Board's IDD, we request that this discharge is facilitated in line with the Non-statutory technical standards for sustainable drainage systems (SuDS).

Object

Representation ID: 2032

Received: 21/07/2021

Respondent: Historic England

Please see attachments for full response.
Site: SN3019, Land west of School Road
Although there are no designated heritage assets on site, the site lies immediately opposite the grade II listed Pine Tree Cottage. Development of this site has the potential to impact upon the significance of this designated heritage assets through development within its stetting.
A heritage impact assessment of the site should be undertaken to assess the impact of the proposed development on the listed building and determine if allocation of this site is appropriate, and if it is what mitigation may be required. The findings of the HIA should inform whether the site is allocated and if it is, the policy criterion including any mitigation and enhancement.
Complete an HIA to inform the allocation of the site including any mitigation, enhancement and policy wording.

Comment

Representation ID: 2140

Received: 14/07/2021

Respondent: Norfolk County Council - LLFA

SN3019
See attachment for full comments

Significant mitigation required for severe constraints. Recommend a review of the site and potential removal from the local plan.
"1.] At risk of surface water flooding?: Yes
* 3.33% AEP Event [Extent]: Minor flooding
* 3.33% AEP Event [Depth]: 0.00 - 0.30cm.
* 1.0% AEP Event [Extent]: Minor flooding|Moderate flooding
* 1.0% AEP Event [Depth]: 0.00 - 0.30cm.
* 0.1% AEP Event [Extent]: Major flooding
* 0.1% AEP Event [Depth]: 0.00 - 0.60cm.
2.] Internal & external flooding?:
* On-site: No
* Within proximity to site (~500.00m): No
3.] Watercourses [Online ordinary watercourses or mains rivers]?:
* On-site: Yes|Ordinary Watercourse
* Within proximity to site (~100.00m): Yes|Ordinary Watercourse
4.] Surface water sewer systems?:
* On-site: No
* Within proximity to site (~100.00m): No
5.] Source Protection Zone?: No
6.] Internal Drainage Board?: No IDB referenced
7.] The site predominantly has superficial deposits of DIAMICTON. Comments on infiltration potential are dependent on a complete geotechnical investigation, including BRE365 Soakaway Testing. Where possible, surface water infiltration should be utilised." "Site reference in GIS differs from site reference provided in excel document (SN3019SL vs SN3019). From the description provided, we have concluded these are the same site and have reviewed accordingly. If this is not the case, please disregard the comments provided by the LLFA and reconsult with updated data.

The on-site flood risk is a major flow path in the 0.1% AEP event. It affects the majority of the site. Flow lines indicate this flood water flows south off of the site. We advise this must be considered in the site assessment.

Access to the site appears to be heavily affected by the on-site flood risk.

A small area of the site is unaffected by flood risk (west). We would advise that inclusion of this site in the plan is reassessed."

Assessment: Red

Comment

Representation ID: 2209

Received: 28/09/2021

Respondent: Norfolk County Council - Senior Ecologist

Rating: Green no major ecological constraints identified from desk-top search. Surveys, and biodiversity enhancement in accordance with policy required.
Agricultural field. Green habitat zone for great crested newts (identified by NE as part of DLL). No priority habitats identified via MAGIC. Applications for planning consent should be accompanied by a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal/Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) which, together with the mitigation hierarchy should inform the design. Consideration should be given to delivering Biodiversity Net Gain.

Comment

Representation ID: 2274

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.