QUESTION 35: Do you support

Object

Representation ID: 26

Received: 07/06/2021

Respondent: Mr Rob Wilson

It is totally ridiculous to propose constructing a housing estate on this piece of land. It would ruin the rural nature of the existing properties, and be totally out of keeping with the area. It would have a massive detrimental impact on the homes adjoining this land. Creating a housing estate as the gateway to Brooke would be detrimental to the village. If this land must be developed it should be with detached houses in a row, similar to the existing properties to the east/west of Norwich Road, not a housing ghetto.

Support

Representation ID: 30

Received: 07/06/2021

Respondent: Mr Robert Panter

The site west of Norwich Road is most appropriate.

Support

Representation ID: 67

Received: 12/06/2021

Respondent: Mr Stuart Cook

The village needs a few new houses as long as they are potentially affordable to young residents so they can remain in the village. This site would cause least disruption to the village, creating no more traffic on the surrounding lanes

Object

Representation ID: 96

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.

As somebody whose property adjoins the land to the west of Norwich Road, which is proposed for this development, I would also add that the intrusion on our home by such a development would be most unwelcome. I could understand if a proposal were made for development of this site that would continue the line of detached houses, but to build 25 houses on this plot would be quite unacceptable.

Comment

Representation ID: 117

Received: 19/06/2021

Respondent: Mrs Lesley Hanner

Site: SN0432REVB, West of Norwich Road
Assuming the development will include a number of properties suitable for younger and less affluent people this site is well placed for access to the bus service which provides links to Bungay Poringland and Norwich for work and social needs. Proximity to this service is important as there is no street lighting in the village.

Comment

Representation ID: 120

Received: 19/06/2021

Respondent: Mr Martin Hanner

SN0432REVB
This site would be handy for the bus route and the building of it would be less disruptive than other proposed sites.

Object

Representation ID: 125

Received: 19/06/2021

Respondent: Dr Patrick Frew

Building this isolated housing estate would be visually and functionally damaging to the nature and appearance of Brooke.
25 houses here (and possibly the same east of Norwich Road) would be out of keeping with the existing housing on Norwich Road, which already has extended Brooke north into countryside.
As with the previous attempts to build E and W of Norwich Road, this commercial development should be rejected, as of no benefit to Brooke.

Object

Representation ID: 128

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 main road with fast moving traffic.

Comment

Representation ID: 149

Received: 21/06/2021

Respondent: Mr Richard Smith

This should be the preferred second choice, for reasons outlined in the response to question 34.

Object

Representation ID: 154

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

Representation ID: 162

Received: 22/06/2021

Respondent: Mr Timothy Spurrier

As per my previous condition.

Object

Representation ID: 168

Received: 22/06/2021

Respondent: Mr Jack Wright

As per my objection for the east side development.

Object

Representation ID: 187

Received: 24/06/2021

Respondent: Mr Chris Stevens

I object to SN0432REVB. 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 1.2 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

Representation ID: 222

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

Representation ID: 234

Received: 29/06/2021

Respondent: Please Select

SN0432REVB This is too small a site to provide well designed properties with reasonable sized gardens - fewer numbers might be acceptable with a shared driveway accessing the B1332 but may not satisfy the promoting developer and / or provide sufficient affordable housing. There are 4 mature trees which need to be protected.
There is no pavement on the west side of Norwich Road so to reach school / shop / bus stop would require crossing this busy road twice -speeding is a problem now which existing measures have failed to control

Object

Representation ID: 256

Received: 01/07/2021

Respondent: None

A block development out of keeping with the village character. Access difficult.

Object

Representation ID: 270

Received: 03/07/2021

Respondent: Mrs Helen Groom

I feel that smaller individual properties that are in keeping with the existing buildings in a village are what should be added on a small scale. A large development is an isore. No character and usually they become scruffy and unkept. Not what people want when entering the place they live. I know this from experience.
So smaller additions in keeping with the rest of the village.

Object

Representation ID: 284

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
- houses 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 already under extreme pressure
- traffic speed and overtaking would make access from sites dangerous. Vehicles are not adhering to designated speed limits.

Object

Representation ID: 310

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.

Comment

Representation ID: 320

Received: 06/07/2021

Respondent: Mrs Cynthia Ambridge

Sympathetic houses could be built within Brooke.
Development on the main road is not a good idea. New houses which have been built have been sold again. THE ROAD IS VERY NOISY I know people who have moved because of road noise.

Comment

Representation ID: 347

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.
Any further future developments should be considered for another area if this project goes ahead.

Object

Representation ID: 358

Received: 11/07/2021

Respondent: Mrs Jenni White

SN0432REVB
• 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

Representation ID: 422

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.

Object

Representation ID: 440

Received: 16/07/2021

Respondent: mr Andrew Gibson

I don’t object to this site in conjunction with SN0432REVA 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

Representation ID: 538

Received: 22/07/2021

Respondent: Mr david harrison

Better sites are available that will not need roundabouts and would not be so detrimental to the village.

Object

Representation ID: 597

Received: 24/07/2021

Respondent: Brooke Parish Council

We object to this 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

Representation ID: 634

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

Representation ID: 833

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

Representation ID: 840

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.

Object

Representation ID: 874

Received: 29/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Dave White

SN0432REVB
Roundabout /junction - huge financial cost.
Traffic on B1332 causing more congestion.
Noise/Pollution - detrimental to environment.
Landscape - obscuring the historical view of Brooke church.
School – currently full to capacity.
Post Office - permanently closed.
King’s Head – trade increasing traffic onto B1332.
Services – only 3 units at Spurgeon’s Farm Shop & 1 garage.
Bus service – limited & unreliable.
Proposals to build opposed at meeting at Framingham Earl School 2 years ago.
25 dwellings - phase 1 + more “phases" = estate like Poringland.
Most houses not “affordable housing” - not helping first-time/young buyers.