QUESTION 35: Do you support

Object

Representation ID: 902

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: 906

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: 1009

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: 1201

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Michael Banks

Ref: SN0432REVB, West 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.

Comment

Representation ID: 1202

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: None

It would spoil the village to have 25 new houses either side of the Norwich Road, however the village does need affordable housing for the young, first time buyers. If new housing is to be built I would suggest that the East site of the Norwich Road would be better than this site although access to both is a concern.

Support

Representation ID: 1214

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 the 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: 1269

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Dr Jonathan Newman

1. There is no need for new houses anywhere in SNDC outside the LDP as there is an excess of 4000 houses already planned.
2. The development is out of proportion t and is a 20% population and 10% increase in housing
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 are ignored
5. The timing is suspicious post local elections
6. A significant risk of surface flooding, and a considerable risk to biodiversity exists

Object

Representation ID: 1278

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Dr Stephen Absalom

I object to this development (SN0432REVB).
The proposed density of properties is inconsistent with the character of the village and visually detrimental.
It is outside the settlement boundary on agricultural land and increases traffic on a busy road.
Together with SN0432REVA Brooke will be taking 50 houses If both proceed. This is at least double the average expected for the village clusters.
This is inappropriate for a village as small as Brooke with limited services and limited public transport.
If the proposal goes ahead the number of properties should be greatly reduced and good screening with trees/hedges planted.

Object

Representation ID: 1291

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Mr David Barmby

Sites SN0432REVB and SN0432REVA
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: 1296

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Mrs Katherine Barmby

Sites SN0432REVB and SN0432REVA
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: 1310

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Ms Alison Rhodes

The number of houses proposed for the west of the Norwich Road is excessive, having regard to the average of 15 per hectare; would create a housing estate at the north entrance of the village out of keeping with the other houses on the road; access to/from the busy main road would be a potential hazard; impact on the local school (full from September) would be a potential issue. A smaller number of houses would be more acceptable (eg 10 -15).

Comment

Representation ID: 1323

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Gerald Michael Chance

SN0432REVB
If further development to this village is unavoidable, then I feel that building appropriate housing, including affordable housing, on one side or the other of Norwich road to be the most acceptable choice. However, building on both the east and the west sides together would apparently require the construction of a roundabout on the main road. This would, perhaps, open up the area to yet further development. I do not support this.
It is also important to shield any development from traffic noise while allowing safe access to the main road.

Object

Representation ID: 1373

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Mrs Julie Leddy

Adversely impacts upon conservation status of village and views of and access to open countryside. Site often floods in heavy rains, as evidenced several times in recent years. Existing houses have drainage issues as a result. Access on and off busy, main road connecting Norwich and the South of the county is already difficult and would be further adversely affected by more houses and traffic in a small village. Overdevelopment of the site - and the village as a whole, particularly with disproportionately executive style houses - is a real concern.

Object

Representation ID: 1387

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Darren Bailey

As per my answer for Question 34. Although this would be the first time this land has been applied against versus the recent application for the field opposite.
25 homes on each side of the road would very tight for the space highlighted on the map. I would very much like to see the detailed layout for these houses.

Comment

Representation ID: 1548

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: 1699

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: 1705

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: 1798

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.

Support

Representation ID: 1808

Received: 03/08/2021

Respondent: Edward Jinks

• I support the inclusion of this site in the new Settlement Limit
• Development would fill in the gap between existing houses on Norwich Road and the established building and grounds of Brooke Lodge; the impact of any new buildings on the street scene would be limited
• The site area (1.2 hectares) is larger than the land to the east of Norwich Road and provides more flexibility to accommodate 25 new dwellings

Object

Representation ID: 1818

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: 1933

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Water Management Alliance

See attachment for full response.
SN0432REVB – West 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: 2113

Received: 14/07/2021

Respondent: Norfolk County Council - LLFA

See attachments for full response.
Few or no constraints. Standard information required at a planning stage.
"1.] At risk of surface water flooding?: Yes
* 3.33% AEP Event [Extent]: Minor flooding
* 3.33% AEP Event [Depth]: 0.00 - 0.60cm.
* 1.0% AEP Event [Extent]: Minor flooding
* 1.0% AEP Event [Depth]: 0.00 - 0.60cm.
* 0.1% AEP Event [Extent]: Minor flooding
* 0.1% AEP Event [Depth]: 0.00 - 0.60cm.
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: 2218

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 deciduous woodland is located to the north (see MAGIC) a 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.