QUESTION 34: Do you support

Object

Representation ID: 872

Received: 29/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Dave White

SN0432REVA
Roundabout /junction needed.
Traffic on B1332 – already a busy road.
Noise/Pollution - detrimental to environment.
Landscape - spoil historical view of Brooke church.
School – is currently at capacity.
Post Office is closed permanently.
King’s Head - increase traffic onto B1332.
Services – only 3 units at Spurgeon’s Farm Shop & 1 garage.
Bus service is limited/unreliable.
Proposals to build were objected to at meeting at Framingham Earl School 2 years ago.
25 dwellings initially and more “phases" would create an estate as in Poringland.
Most houses not “affordable housing” - not helping first-time/young buyers.

Object

Representation ID: 901

Received: 30/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Peter Tully

I object to these flawed proposals. As the CPRE has pointed out in its response, 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

Representation ID: 905

Received: 30/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Peter Tully

There is insufficient provision or access to services in many of the settlements within the “village clusters”, in particular from many of the preferred sites for new housing. The decision to allocate additional new housing beyond what is already allocated within the JCS is largely based
on the existence of a primary school with available places or potential for expansion, for some clusters this is not the case with schools at or near capacity. This does not amount to the provision of ‘good access to services and facilities’ this level of new housing should not be
permitted within the GNLP.

Object

Representation ID: 1008

Received: 30/07/2021

Respondent: Mrs Rebecca Headden-Connelly

Objection against application:
* disproportionate increase to the size of the village
* shrinking services and infrastructure inadequate to support growth of this volume
* huge impact on the approach to the village - disregarding it’s rural roots
* negative environmental impact
* joint core strategy number for Brooke already exceeded
* developers have acted unethically previously

Object

Representation ID: 1011

Received: 30/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Daniel Connelly

Objection against application:
* disproportionate increase to the size of the village
* shrinking services and infrastructure inadequate to support growth of this volume
* huge impact on the approach to the village - disregarding it’s rural roots
* negative environmental impact
* joint core strategy number for Brooke already exceeded
* developers have acted unethically previously

Object

Representation ID: 1141

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Miss Angela Rowe

Should further building continue on this alignment it won't be long before Brooke joins the industrial estate and Brooke will start to look more and more like a housing estate rather than an attractive, rural village!
Consideration might be given to land infill a triangle of land behind the properties on High Green, infill the triangle of land between The Street, St Peters Road and Burgess Way, limited in fill development from Entrance Lane along Welbeck Road.

Comment

Representation ID: 1198

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: None

This site would be the preferred site for new housing as it would be least disruptive for the village. However any new housing must contain affordable houses for first time buyers.

Object

Representation ID: 1199

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Michael Banks

Ref: SN0432REVA, East of Norwich Road

The extra dwellings not sufficiently supported by local infrastructure. Even recently lost Brooke Post Office. Sites should be found nearer Poringland for better infrastructure or even nearer Norwich city.

Support

Representation ID: 1215

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Mrs Amy Robertson

If there is a need for additional housing in Brooke then the two preferred sites of seems to offer the best access to the main road, which would limit traffic travelling through surrounding lanes. Building on these sites would cause the least disruption to village residents in general and would do the least damage to wildlife habitats.

Object

Representation ID: 1261

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Dr Stephen Absalom

I object to this allocation.
No evidence for need to build so many houses. With the lack of services within the village there will be a detrimental increase in traffic.
It is outside the settlement boundary on agricultural land; the proposed density of the development in a highly visible location will be detrimental to the village character
Vehicle access onto an already busy road is a safety concern and if a roundabout is needed this would adversely impact the character of the village.
Should it proceed the housing density should be greatly reduced with good provision of screening with trees/hedges.

Object

Representation ID: 1268

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Dr Jonathan Newman

1. There is no need to build any new houses anywhere in South Norfolk outside the current LDP as there is already an excess of housing stock in this plan to cater for the increases in the region of 4000 extra houses. This development is not necessary in terms of housing requirements.
2. The proposed development to the North of Brooke is out of proportion to the rest of the village and represents a possible 20% increase in population and a 10% increase in housing stock to the village.

Object

Representation ID: 1290

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Mr David Barmby

This will extends the 30mph limit further where other sites have been refused for this.
More driveways on to a busy main road.
What happens to the layby need by drivers.
Blocks views across fields and church.
Access to fields for farming not thought about last time left to narrow.
Heavy clay problems with drainage not sorted last time poor percolation test done.
Spoil spread out on field's nothing grown on since.
No plans to show what the are planing to build.

Object

Representation ID: 1295

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Mrs Katherine Barmby

Sites SN0432REVB and SN0432REVA
Extension of the 30mph limit further where other sites have been refused for this.
More driveways on to a busy main road.
Lay by is currently used by a lot of vehicles, what will happen to this?
Blocks views across fields and of church.
Access to fields for farming not thought about last time left to narrow, access will potentially be obstructed again.
Heavy clay problems with drainage not sorted last time poor percolation test done.
Spoil spread out on field's nothing grown on since.
No plans to show what the are planing to build.

Object

Representation ID: 1309

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Ms Alison Rhodes

The proposed number of houses on either side of the Norwich Road (total 50) is excessive, being larger than the envisaged average of 35 per cluster and, indeed, 15 houses per hectare; would create a housing estate at the (north) entrance to the village out of keeping with the village; access to/from a very busy road would be hazardous; impact on the local school (which is full from September) a potential issue. A smaller development (say, 20 houses) would be more acceptable.

Object

Representation ID: 1386

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Darren Bailey

My objection is on the grounds that this is would act as a gateway housing agreement to continue on developing piecemeal across the whole field and this has already been applied for and rejected.
The roads are not suitable for the additional road traffic and local wildlife would be impacted which we have seen have been making a renewed footprint across this area in the last 2 years.

Comment

Representation ID: 1547

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Matthew Tinkler

Development of approximately 25 dwellings would be too dense and out of character – the open countryside location would not suit a housing estate style development. The large neighbouring dwellings immediately to the south are all set in spacious plots of approximately 0.4 acres and in a linear form. Any further development along Norwich Road should be similar to this (6-8 dwellings would seem more appropriate).

Object

Representation ID: 1696

Received: 31/07/2021

Respondent: Brooke Society

While we understand that we must accept more dwellings being built within the conservation area we also understand that we are only required to accept 25 homes.
The proposal for 25 dwellings on both sides of B1332 on the north edge of the village seems inappropriately excessive. To extend the village by the ribbon development of 50 dwellings would seriously damage the character and appearance of the village especially when approaching from the direction of Norwich.
In addition, when considering building 25 houses on 1.2 hectares compared with the land needed for the most recently built houses next to the sites, it would seem serious overdevelopment and to fit that number in the area available would require houses of unsuitable design that would detract for the character of the village.
In order to maintain the character of Brooke, it would be more acceptable for the required 25 to be in small groups of 5 or less, scattered around the village.
We understand that the danger of flood risk has been sited as reason for some other sites being rejected, but note that there is also risk of flooding on the proposed site on the east of B1332.

Comment

Representation ID: 1704

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Dr Jonathan Newman

Summary of Objections

1. There is no need to build any new houses anywhere in South Norfolk outside the current LDP as there is already an excess of housing stock in this plan to cater t=for the increases in the region of 4000 extra houses. This development is not necessary in terms of housing requirements.
2. The proposed development to the North of Brooke is out of proportion to the rest of the village and represents a possible 20% increase in population and a 10% increase in housing stock to the village. A proposed development of no more than 6 houses on the east and west proposed sites may be acceptable, representing a potential 3% increase in population and a 2% increase in housing stock to match the predicted population increase over the same time period.
3. Consideration of the carbon dioxide emissions of the construction and population has not been adequately addressed in any overall council housing strategy that requires reduction, not increases in emissions.
4. Access issues have been referred to but more details are required.
5. The timing of the plan is suspicious, the history of planning permission refusals on these sites are suspicious and there is no evidence that this site has been considered in any detail, leading to the conclusion that this is already a done deal in the absence of evidence to the contrary. This may have to lead to a full disclosure request via an FOI regarding the selection process for all proposed sites.
6. There is a significant risk of surface flooding, and a considerable risk to biodiversity form any development on this site.

Object

Representation ID: 1739

Received: 17/08/2021

Respondent: Lanpro Services Ltd

Development of these greenfield sites will have a significant adverse impact on public views across the open landscape to the north of the village of Brooke; • Development of these important gateway sites will cause harm to the setting of the village and its conservation area; • Development in this location is at odds with the historic spatial development pattern of the village and will result in new housing that is unrelated and physically divorced from existing village shops and services; • Due to the lack of any existing footway or cycleway new housing development in this location will certainly result in excessive motor car use to access local shops and services; • New vehicular access points into the proposed residential sites on either side of the A1332 (and in close proximity to existing access points either side of the layby if SN0432REVB were delivered in advance of as a stand-alone scheme) will result in a serious highway safety hazard; and • Measures required to design-out the severe landscape and highway safety problems will only increase the level of harm already identified.

Object

Representation ID: 1797

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: W Walker

The scale of the development is too large.

This number of houses would require the need for a roundabout which would be detrimental to the flow of traffic. Roundabouts also have an increased environmental impact caused by the deceleration and acceleration of the vehicles. Noise pollution would also increase as would light pollution due to the requirement for road lighting.

This proposal would adversely change the visual appearance of the northern entrance to the village.
A roundabout would also adversely change the visual appearance of the entrance to the village.
We are told by our councillors how lucky we are to live in rural Norfolk and how we should protect it, yet we see many villages ruined with development of a disproportionate scale. People that moved to Brooke did not do so for the amazing infrastructure and wide range of shops and facilities. Development should be made up of small sites sympathetically designed.
We often see larger developments permitted if they incorporate a small percentage of affordable homes. Whether they are affordable is debatable but either way an urban location is far better with its more abundant facilities and better infrastructure.

My understanding of VCHAP shows it as being open-ended which leads to concern.
The last plan, which ran from 1st. April 2008 to 31st. March 2026 allocated Brooke for 10 to 20 houses, by the end of 2019 there had been over 30 houses permitted. The Village Clusters (VCHAP) plan allocates a ‘minimum’ (with no set maximum figure) of 1200 houses for South Norfolk of sites of 12 to 50 houses. This does not include sites of 1 to 11 houses that could be permitted during the duration of the plan and again there is no set maximum number.
I understand there is currently permission for 6,894 houses in the South Norfolk area that are not yet built and no stipulation as to when they should be built by.
These permissions will never expire and the number should be reduced before any further permission for large sites are granted.
If developments like this are permitted the damage will be permanent to the land, the environment and the village.

Object

Representation ID: 1807

Received: 03/08/2021

Respondent: Edward Jinks

• I object to this site being included in the new Settlement Limit
• Development of this land would be development in open countryside, with no existing features to mitigate the visual impact of any new buildings
• Development of this land in addition to the land to the west of Norwich Road would create two issues:
o Traffic conflict on the B1332, resulting in pressure for a roundabout, which would have a detrimental impact on the character of the village
o An excessive number of new dwellings in Brooke, whose growth during the period of the new Local Plan should be limited to 25 new dwellings

Object

Representation ID: 1817

Received: 04/08/2021

Respondent: Mark Barmby

Hello I would like to object to the houses planned on the main road in Brooke I believe like any new build housing they will be build very poorly. I understand we need houses in the village but extending the village like this is not the way forward it’s just addling to the problem off high traffic on the Norwich - Bungay road.
Surely the answer is to put a few houses a year in for people off the village who want to buy there 1st home.
>

Comment

Representation ID: 1932

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Water Management Alliance

See attachment for full response.
SN0432REVA – East of Norwich Road
Outside the IDD boundary, within the Waveney, Lower Yare and Lothingland IDB watershed catchment.
Minor development – no further comments

Comment

Representation ID: 2034

Received: 21/07/2021

Respondent: Historic England

Please see attachments for full response.
Site: SN0432REVA, East of Norwich Road
Although there are no designated heritage assets on site, the site lies to the south east of the grade II listed Brooke Lodge, dating from c1835 and to the north of the Brooke Conservation Area. Any development of the site has the potential to impact on the significance of these designated heritage assets.
A heritage impact assessment of the site should be undertaken to assess the impact of the proposed development on the listed building and conservation area 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: 2111

Received: 14/07/2021

Respondent: Norfolk County Council - LLFA

Please see attached for full response.
Few or no constraints. Standard information required at a planning stage.
"1.] At risk of surface water flooding?: No
* 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]: No flooding present
* 0.1% AEP Event [Depth]: No flooding present.
2.] Internal & external flooding?:
* On-site: No
* Within proximity to site (~500.00m): Yes - Internal Flooding|Yes - External Flooding
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?: Source Protection Zone 3
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: 2216

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. Site in SSSI Impact Risk Zone but residential not identified for consultation with NE. No priority habitats onsite (see MAGIC) although hedge (a priority habitat) along southern boundary bordering neighbouring dwelling. Site within amber habitat zone for great crested newts. 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.