QUESTION 32: Do you think

Object

Representation ID: 767

Received: 28/07/2021

Respondent: Mr stephen hubbard

Site SN4037 should be rejected for reasons outlined in my comments on site SN4036 as this site run off will also impact school road drainage via both the northern and the southern drainage ditches which connects to school road. This site has also become a valuable wildlife habitat.

Support

Representation ID: 895

Received: 30/07/2021

Respondent: Bressingham and Fersfield Parish Council

Based on Bressingham and Fersfield Parishioners’ views, we support strongly the rejection of Shortlisted Site SN4037.

-SN4036 does not meet the Plan’s Objectives or align with its Policies: it does not fit well with Bressingham’s existing community and, as with other estate sites proposed, will destroy its character.

-SN4036 does not relate well to the existing settlement, it lies outside the settlement in open countryside.
-It will have a detrimental impact on the landscape: its location and construction, and the increased traffic arising, would damage wildlife in the woodland adjacent.
-Its location would increase the existing flooding.

Object

Representation ID: 1438

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Bressingham and Fersfield Parish Council

Based on our Parishioners’ views, our opinion is that Shortlisted Site SN4037 should be rejected.

-SN4036 does not meet the Plan’s Objectives or align with its Policies: it does not fit well with Bressingham’s existing community and, as with other estate sites proposed, will damage its character.

-SN4036 does not relate well to the existing settlement, it lies outside the settlement in open countryside.
-It will have a detrimental impact on the landscape: its location and construction, and the increased traffic arising, would damage wildlife in the woodland adjacent.
-Its location would increase the existing flooding.

Support

Representation ID: 1440

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Bressingham and Fersfield Parish Council

Based on Bressingham and Fersfield Parishioners’ views, we support strongly the rejection of Shortlisted Site SN4037.

-SN4036 does not meet the Plan’s Objectives or align with its Policies: it does not fit well with Bressingham’s existing community and, as with other estate sites proposed, will destroy its character.

-SN4036 does not relate well to the existing settlement, it lies outside the settlement in open countryside.
-It will have a detrimental impact on the landscape: its location and construction, and the increased traffic arising, would damage wildlife in the woodland adjacent.
-Its location would increase the existing flooding.

Object

Representation ID: 1502

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Mrs Jacqueline Willis

Both SN3019SL and SN4036 should be rejected. The village does not have the infrastructure to support housing on this scale. The location of additional housing on this side of the village will be detrimental to the townscape and local environment as well as increasing traffic and putting pedestrians and cyclists at risk on our narrow roads already overburdened with traffic. No consideration has been given to the local impact or sustainability of development on this scale in these locations.

Comment

Representation ID: 2275

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.