QUESTON 32: Do you support

Object

Representation ID: 114

Received: 18/06/2021

Respondent: Ms Sue Barton

I think that 40 houses is too many. As I have said before special notice must be given to run off and surface water drainage from site this big. School Road suffers from excessive surface water already. This site is too large.

Object

Representation ID: 261

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: 281

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: 296

Received: 30/06/2021

Respondent: Mr Brian Falk

Agreed as the primary development site with a considerable landscaped belt between new housing and The Pines and the back gardens of housing on the High Road. Additional parking for the school should not be permitted on this site. Any additional school parking needed should be taken from Amenity Site B which should also be allocated for extended school playing fields. A lower number of dwellings would be preferable.
It is also essential that design, layout and appearance, be unique and village oriented and not another spate of standard builders’ house designs.
Then dependent on both future plan-wide and local community needs for further development sites it is suggested development could be be in this order of preference:
1. Preferred Site 1 SN3037 (part): (would allow approx. 50 dwellings)
This site would develop in depth the new Bressingham settlement cluster and would require access from School Road. It should include a broad landscaped belt along the A1066, and at the back of the houses on School Road.
2. Preferred Site 1161 (from 2011 plan): (would allow approx. 35 dwellings) This site develops the Common Road cluster in depth.
3. Preferred Site SN 4037: (would allow 12 dwellings) but only to be included if absolutely essential and justified by local housing need as, although development in depth, it is also an extension of ribbon development along Fersfield Road. But preferable if this site were not to be developed

Object

Representation ID: 336

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: 556

Received: 22/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Des Aves

Agent: NPS Property Consultants

Site SN4036 - Land to the east of School Road – This site is located adjacent to a Listed building and its development is likely to have an impact upon its setting. The development of this site could also have a detrimental impact upon the residential amenity of adjoining residential properties. It would also result in a significant encroachment within the open countryside.

Object

Representation ID: 583

Received: 23/07/2021

Respondent: Ann Betts

I strongly object. The local road network is totally unsuitable. With most home owners having two cars SL3019SL and SN4036 could potentially bring an additional 104 cars into the village. School Road already experiences heavy traffic at busy times, unfortunately with many drivers ignoring the 30mph limit, and School Road simply cannot accommodate the additional traffic these two developments will bring.

In conclusion the development of SL3019SL and SN4036 for up to 52 dwellings will have a significantly detrimental impact on the semi-rural aspect of School Road and a catastrophic impact on traffic and the safety of residents.

Object

Representation ID: 610

Received: 25/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Terry Betts

For all the same reasons mentioned in my response to SN3019SL.
In conclusion the development of sites SN3019SL and/or SN4036 will have a disastrous impact on traffic in School Road and present a sure and certain danger to residents, and have a significant negative impact on the peaceful rural outlook on School Road.

Object

Representation ID: 647

Received: 27/07/2021

Respondent: Mrs Judith Newbery

Road floods badly at the bottom of school lane. Hard standing will increase problem.
Lorries to site will cause chaos, also road insecure.
Impact on landscape and peace immense. Whole area North bungalows, planned to retain view?
Village single frontage, no doubling up except new development. Open land between two section of village ideal.
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, two more entries onto road, recipe for accidents. Many parents will drop off rather than use car park. 1066 junction horrendous.

Object

Representation ID: 731

Received: 28/07/2021

Respondent: Mr David Cole

The site location makes sense in terms of adding some housing. the amount of housing being considered is far too much for the infrastructure of the community and would not be in keeping with the character of the village. Even with more limited housing, consideration to the local infrastructure needs to be given and addressed with significant investment from the developers being required. The road and pavements are not adequate for safety. the school is to small and the water run off would need to be addressed as it regularly floods down that road.

Object

Representation ID: 761

Received: 28/07/2021

Respondent: Mr stephen hubbard

The infrastructure is not in place to cope with a development of this size, school road is not fit for purpose both for extra traffic and has serious drainage issues which will be exacerbated by extra run off.
Safety issues with a car park for the school being proposed for the opposite side of the road are obvious, and construction traffic for a 2-3 year period can have serious consequences with school traffic.
It will be uneconomic, the facilities are not adequate, a housing estate is not needed, a wildlife habitat will be eliminated.
PLEASE DO NOT SPOIL MY VILLAGE

Object

Representation ID: 774

Received: 28/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Cyril Goodwin

A lot of my reservations are in the objections already submitted.
The number of dwellings, the school, the parking the pavement, the road, the flooding, the sewer, the 1066, I feel these need to be sorted.

Object

Representation ID: 776

Received: 28/07/2021

Respondent: Mrs Jean Collins

40 dwellings directly opposite to the school would mean far more traffic on a road that is very congested and can be dangerous at certain times of the school day.

Object

Representation ID: 893

Received: 30/07/2021

Respondent: Bressingham and Fersfield Parish Council

Representing our Parishioners’ views, we object to allocation of Site SN4036.

Justification that SN4036 is well-related to the settlement centre is irrelevant:
-Services available are minimal, so locating SN4036 as proposed offers no benefit.
-Access road is congested and difficult to navigate due to its narrow width and its weight of traffic.
-Existing road infrastructure cannot accommodate the additional 40-80 vehicles caused by the development.

Proposed use of part SN4036 as school parking is flawed:
-SN4036 is on the opposite side of the access road to the school.
-Parking area and parents and children crossing create additional congestion and hazards.

Object

Representation ID: 1426

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: 1436

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Bressingham and Fersfield Parish Council

Representing our Parishioners’ views, we object to allocation of Site SN4036.

Justification that SN4036 is well-related to the settlement centre is irrelevant:
-Services available are minimal, so locating SN4036 as proposed offers no benefit.
-Access road is congested and difficult to navigate due to its narrow width and its weight of traffic.
-Existing road infrastructure cannot accommodate the additional 40-80 vehicles caused.

Proposed use of part SN4036 as school parking is flawed:
-SN4036 is on the opposite side of the access road to the school.
-Parking area and parents and children crossing create additional congestion and hazards.

Object

Representation ID: 1439

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Geraint Thomas

People leave towns and cities to live in villages for their well being and not to suddenly have large housing estates thrust upon the back gardens.

The proposal will increase the carbon footprint in the village at the loss of the natural habitat which is carbon absorbing and oxygen producing

The proposed sites and the land adjacent have an abundance of wildlife such as mammals, insects, reptiles and birds which have come to use quiet places such as Bressingham as suitable habitats. Their presence also have a huge positive impact of people’s well being

Comment

Representation ID: 1449

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: 1493

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Mrs Jacqueline Willis

The proposed scale of this site is very concerning and ill conceived. 40 dwellings will unquestionably be detrimental to the local character of this part of the village. Additional housing will result in congestion along School Road, add to traffic on both the A1066 and along High Road towards Royden. This will make it more unsafe for pedestrians where there is no pavement and for cyclists. 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: 1506

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Mrs Gwenda Davies

I am new to the village which I now find is going to become a busy and hazardous place for me to live in given my age. It is heartbreaking.

Object

Representation ID: 1626

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

Object

Representation ID: 1629

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: 1714

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: 1717

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: 1792

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: 1931

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Water Management Alliance

See attachment for full response.
SN4036 – Land to the east of School Road
Outside the IDD boundary, within the Waveney, Lower Yare and Lothingland IDB watershed catchment.
Major development - 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: 2033

Received: 21/07/2021

Respondent: Historic England

Please see attachments for full response.
Site: SN4036 - Land to the east of School Road

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 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: 2127

Received: 14/07/2021

Respondent: Norfolk County Council - LLFA

See attachment for full comments

SN4036
Few or no constraints.
Standard information required at a planning stage. "1.] At risk of surface water flooding?: Yes
* 3.33% AEP Event [Extent]: No flooding present
* 3.33% AEP Event [Depth]: No flooding present.
* 1.0% AEP Event [Extent]: No flooding present
* 1.0% AEP Event [Depth]: No flooding present.
* 0.1% AEP Event [Extent]: Minor flooding
* 0.1% AEP Event [Depth]: 0.00 - 0.15cm.
2.] Internal & external flooding?:
* On-site: No
* Within proximity to site (~500.00m): No
3.] Watercourses [Online ordinary watercourses or mains rivers]?:
* On-site: No
* 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."
The site is adjacent to a flow path. This must be considered in the site assessment.

Assessment: Green

Comment

Representation ID: 2212

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. Southern and western boundaries are hedgerows (priority habitat). Site in amber habitat zone for great crested newts (identified by NE as part of DLL). No other 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.