QUESTION 34: Do you support
Object
South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 18 Draft)
Representation ID: 27
Received: 07/06/2021
Respondent: Mr Rob Wilson
Same reason as objections to development on land to west of Norwich Road. Totally inappropriate to build a housing estate either side of the road as you enter Brooke. Will destroy the rural character of the existing properties
Support
South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 18 Draft)
Representation ID: 66
Received: 12/06/2021
Respondent: Mr Stuart Cook
The village needs a few new houses as long as they are potentially affordable for young village residents to be able to remain in the village when they purchase their first property. I think this site would be least disruptive to the village, creating no more traffic on the surrounding lanes.
Object
South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 18 Draft)
Representation ID: 95
Received: 08/06/2021
Respondent: Mr Rob Wilson
Such development would be totally out of keeping with the area, and would destroy the rural nature of this end of the village.
Norwich Road at this end consists of detached properties in a single line along either side of the road. The construction of a housing estate spanning both sides of the road would totally change the nature of residential properties in this part of Brooke.
Comment
South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 18 Draft)
Representation ID: 116
Received: 19/06/2021
Respondent: Mrs Lesley Hanner
SN0432REVA, East of Norwich Road
If the village is to include properties that younger people can afford then this would appear to be one of the most suitable places to site them. It is close to the bus route along the main road which provides the links to services in Poringland Norwich and Bungay.
Comment
South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 18 Draft)
Representation ID: 118
Received: 19/06/2021
Respondent: Mr Martin Hanner
SN0432REVA
Building at the northern end of the village would be much less disruptive for existing village residents, where as any site off of The Street or High Green would cause more disruption to more residents for a considerable length of time.
Any new development should include a high percentage of affordable homes for young families and first time buyers.
Object
South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 18 Draft)
Representation ID: 131
Received: 19/06/2021
Respondent: Miss Dominique Sutton
This creates a long line of houses leading into and out of the village. Visually this is not appealing and does not lend itself to creating a community spirit for residents. It is unsafe for children when sited so close to a busy main road.
Comment
South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 18 Draft)
Representation ID: 148
Received: 21/06/2021
Respondent: Mr Richard Smith
Of all sites proposed, this is the most suitable as it:
builds on existing expansion;
has ample access without disrupting the rest of the village;
has excellent delivery access for development work;
provides opportunities for future development along Churchill Lane; and
is within walking distance of the village amenities.
Object
South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 18 Draft)
Representation ID: 153
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.
Support
South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 18 Draft)
Representation ID: 161
Received: 22/06/2021
Respondent: Mr Timothy Spurrier
If there has to be more housing in Brooke, this site make sense. I support it on the condition that there is no further development in Brooke, other than the two sites already proposed.
Object
South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 18 Draft)
Representation ID: 167
Received: 22/06/2021
Respondent: Mr Jack Wright
Used by the residents on a daily basis, to develop on this would destroy the natural beauty of the area.
Additional housing in the immediate area isn't required, there are plenty of available sites in already built up areas that are far more suitable and urbanized than Brooke. I appreciate that people may want to move into the area and that house prices are expensive, but that is not a valid reason to build more properties, by building developments and increasing the population you are directly impacting the reason people find the village attractive and desirable to live in.
Object
South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 18 Draft)
Representation ID: 186
Received: 24/06/2021
Respondent: Mr Chris Stevens
I object to SN0432REVA. Developing along the main road will have a huge negative visual impact on the village and adversely effect traffic flow as a result of increased car movements and extension of the 30mph limit.
I consider 25 properties on 1 hectare over development in a rural location.
Developing on this site facilitates future developments on farmland between the main road and Burgess Way as demonstrated by Highways comments "A (toucan) crossing is likely to be required for development to the east, to create a safer access to the school." I am opposed to developments in this area.
Object
South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 18 Draft)
Representation ID: 221
Received: 28/06/2021
Respondent: Mrs Charlotte Bowling
The housing would block the historic view of Brooke church as outlined by Historic England.
There would be increased traffic on the already very busy road into Norwich.
The idea that the people who potentially buy the proposed houses will use the village amenities is a dream that will not come true. They will probably be a price that only the wealthy can afford.
Object
South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 18 Draft)
Representation ID: 255
Received: 01/07/2021
Respondent: None
There is already development to the north of the village and a block of housing will be out of keeping with the character of the village. Access also an issue.
Object
South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 18 Draft)
Representation ID: 267
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
South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 18 Draft)
Representation ID: 271
Received: 03/07/2021
Respondent: Mrs S McGregor
Use brownfield sites in Brooke first. Poor drainage for houses. Loss of much needed lay by.
Support
South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 18 Draft)
Representation ID: 273
Received: 03/07/2021
Respondent: Mr Gerald Michael Chance
SN0432REVA
Clearly this site would provide a much needed rationalisation of the form of the village. Expanding to the north would enable far easier and safer access to the facilities available as opposed to a continuous east- west ribbon development with its inherent difficulties.
This is an opportunity to provide a mix of properties including affordable housing which could enhance the appeal of the village.
Object
South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 18 Draft)
Representation ID: 283
Received: 04/07/2021
Respondent: Mr Ray Battershall
- greenfield sites should be used for agriculture only
- as an 'open site' visual impact from Norwich would be destroyed
- properties unlikely to be suitable for young families/first-time buyers
- properties previously in single line so 'up to 25' either side would not be in keeping
- lack of amenities - schools/doctors/dentists etc already under extreme pressure
- traffic speed and overtaking would make egress from sites dangerous. Vehicles are not adhering to designated speed limits.
Object
South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 18 Draft)
Representation ID: 309
Received: 06/07/2021
Respondent: Mr John Ash
I object to this site as it extends 'ribbon' development on a busy road. The ribbon development is not conducive to village development. Also, there limited facilities in Brooke , no doctors, no post office, school over subscribed.
Object
South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 18 Draft)
Representation ID: 312
Received: 06/07/2021
Respondent: Mr Kenneth Hillier
Yet again we are being forced into accepting housing without any infrastructure to support over 100 houses, no post office,doctors, dentists, one expensive store and a school at bursting point. Trying to get a doctors or dentist appointment is impossible especially as another 300+ houses are being built in Poringland. The houses no doubt being bought will be far too expensive for any young couple, all in all a very poor choice of location just to appease a charter for the developer.
Support
South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 18 Draft)
Representation ID: 346
Received: 08/07/2021
Respondent: Mr John Long
Brooke is a small
rural village so I would rather not see any development however if land must be given up for new housing development the proposed area has the minimum impact on the village.
*Any buildings should be tasteful and in keeping with the village.
Object
South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 18 Draft)
Representation ID: 357
Received: 11/07/2021
Respondent: Mrs Jenni White
SN0432REVA
• Roundabout needed.
• Traffic on B1332 = more congestion.
• Noise/Pollution = detrimental to environment.
• Landscape = block historical view of Brooke church.
• School - full.
• Post Office is closed.
• King’s Head - increase traffic onto B1332.
• Services – only shop - Spurgeon’s Farm Shop.
• Bus service - limited/unreliable.
• Proposal to build opposed at meeting at Framingham Earl School 2 years ago.
• “25” dwellings = “phase 1” - more “phases" = estate similar to Poringland.
• Majority of houses not “affordable housing” = not help first-time buyers.
Object
South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 18 Draft)
Representation ID: 421
Received: 15/07/2021
Respondent: Robert and Patricia Kelly
Number of people: 2
Site: sn0432 reva. Brooke. & site: sn0432 revb. Brooke
With reference to the above sites, we object to the proposal to develop the east and west of Brooke on the Norwich road.
Taking into consideration that Brooke is a conservation village, we would have thought it better to have preserved the village as best we can.
As you are aware Brooke has no gas and no street lighting, and is prone to poor drainage in some areas.
Apart from the fact that it has become more difficult to cross the b1332 with the steady stream of traffic coming from Bungay and Norwich, what will it be like with the planned extra housing?
Also, within the last couple of weeks, the closure of the post office has had an impact on the village.
Furthermore, has consideration been given to the school, which will inevitably become overcrowded.
Thank you
Object
South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 18 Draft)
Representation ID: 424
Received: 15/07/2021
Respondent: Resdent
SNO432REVA is the main drainage for the land on west side of Main Road, with a main drainage ditch on the northern side of the Site, the field below is a feature of the area bottom end is always wet, I think there is the possible source of the spring feeding The Little Mere the only feed to the meres.
Object
South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 18 Draft)
Representation ID: 439
Received: 16/07/2021
Respondent: mr Andrew Gibson
I don’t object to this site in conjunction with SN0432REVB 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.
Object
South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 18 Draft)
Representation ID: 537
Received: 22/07/2021
Respondent: Mr david harrison
Better sites are available that will not require roundabouts. There are better sites that will not impact the village as much.
Object
South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 18 Draft)
Representation ID: 596
Received: 24/07/2021
Respondent: Brooke Parish Council
We object to this along with SN0432REVB on the grounds there are too many properties.
Highways are of the opinion a roundabout would be needed resulting in the developer wanting even more houses to make it viable.
The numbers should be reduced to obviate this problem.
The sites if built should be well screened from Norwich Road.
Support
South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 18 Draft)
Representation ID: 632
Received: 26/07/2021
Respondent: FW Properties
We strongly support the draft preferred allocation of this site, the development of which has no specific site constraints and is therefore entirely deliverable. A high quality development will be progressed for this land comprising a wide range of house types and sizes. The early scheme concept plan prepared for the site confirms a development of 25 dwellings can be accommodated together with appropriate access and public open space and a new pavement running alongside its frontage with the main road. The land is immediately available and FW Properties believe that this development is a viable proposition.
Object
South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 18 Draft)
Representation ID: 635
Received: 26/07/2021
Respondent: None
Brooke is a lovely little village anymore development would spoil it. There is no infrastructure, not even a post office. The school is too small without adequate outside facilities. I am not against a few low cost starter homes and any infill building. We need homes for our young people and for our elderly wishing to downsize in an area where they live, a large number of large houses is totally inappropriate. We have a small farm shop, cafe, pub, dog groomer, plant shop and hairdressers. Not exactly a lot of services for a large community.
Object
South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 18 Draft)
Representation ID: 832
Received: 29/07/2021
Respondent: Mr Peter Tully
I object to these proposals. As the CPRE has pointed out in its response (see attached), the Village Cluster approach to housing distribution proposed to be neither necessary nor desirable. It is unnecessary because the housing need requirement, together with a reasonable buffer (5%), can be met without the need to disperse development in this way. It is undesirable because the additional dispersal of housing that will be generated via village clusters will cause an unnecessary loss of countryside and be more environmentally damaging than an approach in which development is concentrated in and near to Norwich.
Object
South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 18 Draft)
Representation ID: 839
Received: 29/07/2021
Respondent: Mrs Sara Hurn
I object to these proposals as they are wholly inappropriate.
Truly affordable housing should be concentrated in urban areas.
Development should utilise brownfield sites first not greenfield with the further loss of agricultural land required for food production.
The proposed development is disproportionate and will adversely affect the existing settlement.
Any building should continue the existing parallel linear small-scale development rather than cramming the site with dwellings.
This village does not have the infrastructure and facilities to cope.
There will be negative impacts on protected species, extra traffic noise and pollution, and commuters who suffer from using the B1332 already.