QUESTION 31: Do you think

Object

Representation ID: 262

Received: 02/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Geoffrey Lazell

Bressingham lacks the necessary infrastructure to support a residential development of any size. and in any location within the existing Settlement Limit. Narrow (and often poorly maintained) roads, combined with inadequate drainage, restricted visibility junctions and a lack of public transport all combine to exacerbate an existential problem, to which any further housing can only add. The village school already operates at maximum capacity and there are few local amenities or services (such as a village pub or health centre) accessible on foot. Rural communities such as this one can accommodate individual, sensitively placed newbuilds, but not substantial developments.

Comment

Representation ID: 297

Received: 30/06/2021

Respondent: Mr Brian Falk

Site SN3019SL: (12 dwellings) It is vital this site should not be developed, but form part of the current and hopefully to be protected open landscape between cluster 1 and 2. The fact that a pavement exists is no reason to justify new housing. It is used twice daily for delivery and collection of children to the school. Adding housing would create considerable traffic and personnel danger to pedestrians and children. A more effective minor improvement would be to provide a parking road behind the pavement which would provide a safer delivery pattern and keep School Road free of parked cars. But the main reason for rejecting this site is that it adds toi ribbon development.
Sites SN2079 and 2054: Agreed that these are unsuitable for development as being an essential part of the open landscape and should be protected as such. Sit SN2079 is important to keep free of development as it provides an open vista of landscape from the war memorial.
Sites SN3010 and SN 3036 and SN 3038 are already in employment uses and should be retained as such.
Site SN3038 (in Roydon) may later be added to the employment zone, but at this stage it is premature to consider any development.
SN4026, SN3023SL are unsuitable as both are beyond the settlement boundary
SN4033 has difficult access and adverse landscape impact
Site SN 4037: 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

Support

Representation ID: 552

Received: 22/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Des Aves

Agent: NPS Property Consultants

Land to the north of Fersfield Lane, Site SN2079 is located in a sustainable location with no physical or environmental constraints and should be allocated for housing in the South Norfolk VCHAP instead of, or in addition to, the preferred sites. The reasons for rejection by SNDC would not appear to be justified in relation to topography, heritage considerations and impact upon the river valley. The highway issues can also be easily resolved through careful design. The development of the site would form a natural rounding-off of the existing development boundary and would not be prominent within the landscape.

Object

Representation ID: 894

Received: 30/07/2021

Respondent: Bressingham and Fersfield Parish Council

Representing Bressingham and Fersfield's Parishioners’ views:

-we object to allocation of sites SN3019 and SN4036 as proposed in the Plan.
-we agree with the decision to reject the sites already marked as rejected.
-we object to allocation of shortlisted site SN4037 instead of, or in addition to sites SN3019 and SN4036.

Shortlisted site SN4037 does not meet the Plan’s Objectives or align with its Policies:
-SN4037 does not support Bressingham’s community and will destroy its character.
-Its location would damage wildlife in the woodland adjacent.
-Its location would increase the existing flooding which the location and homes opposite suffer from.

Support

Representation ID: 912

Received: 30/07/2021

Respondent: Mr stephen hubbard

Site SN3038 the eastern end away from The Grange could be suitable for a small number of homes, no more than 6 would be a number I think most people would find acceptable . This site has the benefit of being on the main drainage route, is not far from the local shop and on the bus route. While I am against taking good farmland for housing, and Bressingham has some of the best, with small developments this loss can be kept to a minimum. Use brown field sites, another pandemic may mean we need all our farmland!

Support

Representation ID: 914

Received: 30/07/2021

Respondent: Mr stephen hubbard

Site SN3037 At present derelict nursery beds of little value as farmland or to wildlife and are certainly an eyesore to the village would be improved with a sympathetic development, it is more connected to nearby Diss the facilities of which will be far more used than those of Bressingham. While I do not support 148 homes a more modest number with landscaping, parking and perhaps play area could be an asset to the southern part of the village.

Object

Representation ID: 1437

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Bressingham and Fersfield Parish Council

Representing our Parishioners’ views:

-we object to allocation of the SN3019 and SN4036 as proposed Plan.
-we agree with the decision to reject the sites already marked as rejected.
-we do not agree with allocation of shortlisted site SN4037 instead of, or in addition to sites SN3019 and SN4036.

Shortlisted site SN4037 does not meet the Plan’s Objectives or align with its Policies:
-SN4037 does not support Bressingham’s community and will damage its character.
-Its location would damage wildlife in the woodland adjacent.
-Its location would increase the existing flooding.

Comment

Representation ID: 1448

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Mrs Rachel Thomas

Future Planning - Planning for the future should be about what is needed. Do we have enough resources such as doctors, dentists, opticians, care homes, school places etc. Forecasting what growth will be and planning accordingly.

Planning for the future by building a completely new development with adequate land to incorporate facilities such as a health centre which can offer the services which residents need would benefit the village in a number of ways. Bringing jobs to the area for the land to be developed, bringing new residents and generating rate income to SNDC.

Comment

Representation ID: 1630

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.

Comment

Representation ID: 2078

Received: 14/07/2021

Respondent: Norfolk County Council - LLFA

See attachments for full comments.
Few or no constraints.
Standard information required at a planning stage.
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- 0.30cm.
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): No
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."
Assessment: Green

Comment

Representation ID: 2215

Received: 28/09/2021

Respondent: Norfolk County Council - Senior Ecologist

SN4037 - Land to the south of Fersfield Road, Bressingham.
Rating: Green no major ecological constraints identified from desk-top search. Surveys, and biodiversity enhancement in accordance with policy required.
Agricultural field (grassland?) bounded on two sides by hedgerows (priority habitats). PROW also along the western boundary. Site in green habitat zone for great crested newts (identified by Natural England). No other priority habitats identified (see MAGIC). Site in SSSI IRZ, bur residential not identified as trigger for Natural England consultation. 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.