QUESTION 33: Do you agree

Object

Representation ID: 28

Received: 07/06/2021

Respondent: Mr Rob Wilson

The settlement limit in Brooke should extend no further than the current property at 45 Norwich Road. The plan to create a housing estate north of this property would completely destroy the rural nature of the current properties in Norwich Road

Comment

Representation ID: 29

Received: 07/06/2021

Respondent: Mr Robert Panter

The Norwich Road site(s) is preferable, however I consider the site west of the road more appropriate.

Object

Representation ID: 124

Received: 19/06/2021

Respondent: Dr Patrick Frew

The proposed new housing would not be integrated with the rest of Brooke, which is oriented east west along High Green and The Street.
The existing houses on Norwich Rd were themselves recently built, extending Brooke north into countryside, but they are spaced reasonably and only one house deep. Squeezing up to 25 new houses into an estate would be an eyesore for existing residents, and for those approaching from Norwich.
As with the previous proposals to build houses on this site, which were rejected, the motivation seems to be commercial gain, rather than local benefit.

Support

Representation ID: 127

Received: 19/06/2021

Respondent: Miss Dominique Sutton

I agree with the limits but this area needs more affordable housing for the local community.

Comment

Representation ID: 146

Received: 21/06/2021

Respondent: Mr Richard Smith

The village of Brooke lacks suitable space for expansion in the areas off High Green. High Green itself is a narrow road, frequently obstructed by parked vehicles. It is further conjested by school traffic and vehicles accessing the shops. Adding additional dwellings which put further strain on access would worsen an already bad situation for the existing residents.
There is ample space for development to the north of the village on Norwich Road. Here there are many opportunities for access, which could be achieved without disruption to the remainder of the village.

Object

Representation ID: 152

Received: 21/06/2021

Respondent: Miss Helen Trelford

I do feel that Brooke has the facilities to support such large developments. This plan appears to offer nothing of benefit to existing residents and represents considerable upheaval, in terms of construction traffic/ road-works etc.

Comment

Representation ID: 160

Received: 22/06/2021

Respondent: Mr Timothy Spurrier

The Chairman says not everyone wants to live in the city. Of course he is right, but, to cut emissions and pollution, people should be encouraged to live near areas of employment and where there are retail, hospitality and entertainment venues - not in surrounding villages. If the Conservatives continue to build on green sites in rural communities, they will soon find themselves out of power.

Having said that, and given the current circumstances, the plan for Brooke is reasonable.

Object

Representation ID: 233

Received: 29/06/2021

Respondent: Please Select

Further extension of the Development Boundary to the north of the existing settlement on both sides of the very busy B1332 into open countryside may seem like an easy option to minimise inconvenience and potential impact on the Conservation Area but the number of units in the two proposed developments would double the total number of housing units in the whole of Norwich Road north of High Green / The Street. The proposed site density in depth (both SN0432 REVA & B)would be out of keeping with the adjoining properties to the south.

Object

Representation ID: 254

Received: 01/07/2021

Respondent: None

The proposed developments are directly off the main road with difficult access. Planning would need to be very carefully designed to fit in with the nature of the village.

Object

Representation ID: 266

Received: 03/07/2021

Respondent: Mrs Helen Groom

I moved to Brooke to be in a village not a built up area. I moved from a development on the edge of Norwich . Part of living in a village is the wide open space and village feel. I do not think that 25 houses either side of the road is in keeping with Brooke or village life.

Object

Representation ID: 282

Received: 04/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Ray Battershall

The settlement limit should not exceed existing limits on the Norwich Road. By having 'up to 25 properties' on either side of the B1332, the approach from Norwich would be too overwhelming and take away the character of Brooke which is predominantly in a Conservation area. An application in 2018 to build on the Eastern side of Norwich Road was, quite rightly rejected, and it would appear that any proposed plans would be for financial gain rather than any benefit. Furthermore it would open the ‘floodgates' to further develop these two sites.

Object

Representation ID: 308

Received: 06/07/2021

Respondent: Mr John Ash

I believe the Settlement area designated is adequate for the village which has limited facilities (shops, doctors, school)

Object

Representation ID: 356

Received: 11/07/2021

Respondent: Mrs Jenni White

SNDC state “No alterations are proposed to the existing Settlement Limit” - so if my understanding is correct nothing would change, and the Settlement area designated is considered to be adequate for Brooke.

Object

Representation ID: 438

Received: 16/07/2021

Respondent: mr Andrew Gibson

I don’t object to the site but to the number of properties. Highways state that if 50 properties were built then a roundabout might be required which would require even more houses to negate cost(their words).

The number of properties should be reduced to negate road alteration.

Building what would be a housing estate on the main road into Brooke would have a massively detrimental visual impact on the village.

If an allocation is to be made careful thought should be given to screening the sites to make them look more in character with the village.

Comment

Representation ID: 474

Received: 19/07/2021

Respondent: Mr David White

Site SN0020SL. Consideration should be given to revising the settlement boundary line created by The Mallows development, which resulted in a long narrow neck of 'countryside' extending into our curtilage dividing our dwelling from the Mallows boundary. This is inconsistent treatment of the curtilage of our house with number 6 The Mallows. It seems as though this has been a 'desk top' exercise and we would welcome a site visit from a planning officer to see how illogical the current boundary is and how a small revision to the boundary line would be both a sensible and equitable solution.

Object

Representation ID: 536

Received: 22/07/2021

Respondent: Mr david harrison

A developement of 25 houses each side of norwich road would be detrimental to the village and as Highways state would probably need a roundabout leading to the developer needing even more houses.

Comment

Representation ID: 868

Received: 29/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Dave White

I think that the Settlement Limit is adequate for Brooke as the village has limited facilities and amenities for the existing number of residents living here already.

Object

Representation ID: 1196

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Michael Banks

There simply is not sufficient infrastructure in the village to accommodate an extra 50 housing units. I suggest you find more available sites nearer to Norwich city or at least consider sites nearer Poringland which has much more relevant infrastructure (including a post office which Brooke no longer has)

Comment

Representation ID: 1197

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: None

This is the best site for new houses in Brooke as it would cause less disruption to the village. However, any new development must contain housing that is affordable to first time buyers so that young people can afford to buy in the village. I would also object to there being new housing on both sides of the Norwich Road.

Support

Representation ID: 1245

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Dr Stephen Absalom

I agree with the current settlement limit and it should not be extended.
Development outside this limit should be discouraged unless it has the support of the community and there is a demonstrated need.
Brooke does not have a supermarket, Doctors Surgery, Dentist, Bank, or Post Office; the primary school is at capacity and there is no high school. These services will need to be accessed outside the village by motor vehicle (or home deliveries). Further expansion of the village will not help reduce vehicle journeys to minimise climate change and will put further traffic on an already busy road.

Object

Representation ID: 1267

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Dr Jonathan Newman

The extent of the settlement area must be addressed. Currently there is little control over development distance from the road in an east west direction, only a limit to the North. The two proposed sites for up to 25 houses are a consequence of the inadequate definition of this area.

Comment

Representation ID: 1289

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Mr David Barmby

I don’t object to new houses being built but think they should be smaller groups and near the centre of the village.
Affordable for young families

Comment

Representation ID: 1304

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Ms Alison Rhodes

Concerns:
i) volume of traffic using High Green - narrow road; primary school; large number of parked cars at peak times; access to shops/hairdresser's ;
ii) 50 houses encompassing both sides of the Norwich Road too many - and larger than envisaged average of up to 35 houses; would create a housing estate at the north end out of keeping with the appearance of the village; could presage more building behind the developments; access to/from a busy road hazardous;
iii) no sites shortlisted at Kirstead/Howe. It seems that Brooke is bearing the brunt of development, which seems unfair.

Object

Representation ID: 1377

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Adrian Leddy

Drainage and flooding issues are much worse than the proposal indicates. The fields flood and suffer standing water from poor drainage regularly already.

Proximity to wildlife such as nesting red kites and buzzards means there would be significant adverse consequences to these.

Dangers regarding risk given the location of the proposed site being on arguably the blindest bend in the whole village

Comment

Representation ID: 1703

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Dr Jonathan Newman

The extent of the settlement area must be addressed. Currently there is little control over development distance from the road in an east west direction, only a limit to the North. The two proposed sites for up to 25 houses are a consequence of the inadequate definition of this area.

Comment

Representation ID: 1806

Received: 03/08/2021

Respondent: Edward Jinks

• I believe that the Settlement Limit in Brooke should be increased by no more than 25 new dwellings; this reflects the average requirement for additional housing allocations across the 48 village clusters in South Norfolk
• Brooke has limited facilities - no post office, no medical facilities, very limited shopping provision and very limited employment opportunities; any significant expansion of the population would simply increase the number of people having to travel outside the village for their everyday living requirements
• Brooke has already accommodated new dwellings on Howe Lane in excess of the allocation in the current Local Plan