QUESTION 36: Do you think

Comment

Representation ID: 68

Received: 12/06/2021

Respondent: Mr Stuart Cook

Site SN0490. I think this site should be considered as shortlisted or even preferred. As stated it is in the village, accessible to amenities and has good access from existing Mereside

Support

Representation ID: 129

Received: 19/06/2021

Respondent: Miss Dominique Sutton

North of High Green/ West of Astley Cooper Place should be a preferred site. This area has the least visual impact on the village as it is largely hidden. A cul de sac or close design would result in more of a sense of community development. It makes more sense to build on this site.

Comment

Representation ID: 150

Received: 21/06/2021

Respondent: Mr Richard Smith

The shortlisted site does not have the advantages of the preferred sites. It should be rejected due to poor access for both development work and ongoing residency.

Object

Representation ID: 155

Received: 21/06/2021

Respondent: Miss Helen Trelford

None of these proposals seem appropriate

Support

Representation ID: 163

Received: 22/06/2021

Respondent: Mr Timothy Spurrier

I think the two sites proposed are enough. No further development is appropriate.

Support

Representation ID: 188

Received: 24/06/2021

Respondent: Mr Chris Stevens

SN0490 should be seriously considered as a preferred site. Access is already present and will not require any highways modifications. Development here will have very little visual impact on Brooke and can be easily screened by a tree line.

Object

Representation ID: 223

Received: 28/06/2021

Respondent: Mrs Charlotte Bowling

None of the proposed sites should be allocated. Brooke needs to remain as it is to preserve the character and benefits of the village.

Comment

Representation ID: 235

Received: 29/06/2021

Respondent: Please Select

SN0490 is worth reviewing further to see if previous issues and objections can be overcome. It is much closer to the heart of the village and with better access to the local services and facilities and will avoid the need for further linear extension of the village to the north on what is already a very busy unlit road
SN0020SL should also be looked at again for similar reasons

Object

Representation ID: 257

Received: 01/07/2021

Respondent: None

Reasoned rejection of sites already stated.

Comment

Representation ID: 268

Received: 03/07/2021

Respondent: Mrs Helen Groom

I do not think any of the rejected sites should be reconsidered. Access would be difficult and disruptive. It’s a small windy country Lane.

Comment

Representation ID: 272

Received: 03/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Gerald Michael Chance

Neither the shortlisted nor the rejected sites should be allocated as the preferred site(s) are clearly best placed to provide a more rounded form to the village.

Comment

Representation ID: 285

Received: 04/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Ray Battershall

It appears that The Mallows site is yet to be completed and consideration should be given to this. Further development would not have such a detrimental visual impact.

Support

Representation ID: 311

Received: 06/07/2021

Respondent: Mr John Ash

West of Burgess Way, Brooke. There was an access left for this development and it would extend an already developed area. I would suggest limited development here in keeping with the existing new development.

Comment

Representation ID: 359

Received: 11/07/2021

Respondent: Mrs Jenni White

SN0490 South East of Mereside should be considered for allocation if the outstanding issues can be resolved, as it is centrally located within Brooke and has good access to local services and facilities, and because it would have less impact as the original proposal was for 17 dwellings.

Support

Representation ID: 442

Received: 16/07/2021

Respondent: mr Andrew Gibson

Site:-SN0490(Rejected)

This site has been rejected however I feel that it should be considered for a small allocation of houses.

Central to the village and close to existing facilities.

Small sympathetic development could be accommodated into the conservation area with minimal impact to the landscape by careful thought, landscaping/screening.

This type of development would be far more in keeping with the village rather than building mini housing estates as proposed in the sites SN0432REVA East of Norwich Road and SN0432REVB West of Norwich Road which give absolutely no thought to the landscape or historic style and character of the village.

Comment

Representation ID: 475

Received: 19/07/2021

Respondent: Mr David White

Site SN0020SL should be reconsidered in relation to the current settlement boundary and a more logical and sensible revision made to the boundary line - please see comments in response to question 33. A site visit to see the present inconsistency would be welcomed.

Support

Representation ID: 539

Received: 22/07/2021

Respondent: Mr david harrison

Many would be less detrimental to the village. Smaller number of houses on many sites over the years would be preferable.
Site north of High Green preferable to those on Norwich Road as it contains a better mix of smaller houses and flats.
South east of Mereside with access to Hunstead Lane could be good if mix of smaller houses were planned

Support

Representation ID: 598

Received: 24/07/2021

Respondent: Brooke Parish Council

SN0432REVA (Shortlisted) North of High Green
We support this as the mix of properties is good and more in keeping with the needs of the village and access and other problems could easilly be overcome.

SN0490(rejected) South east of Mereside.
We support this as a small sympathetic development would fit the village better.
It is central to the village and close to amenities.
We feel all our allocation should not be put into development on Norwich Road.

Comment

Representation ID: 656

Received: 21/07/2021

Respondent: Ian Neave

Within your comments it refers to :-“ The site is more than 1.5km from all the key services and facilities”

As you can see from the attached photo(UK Grid Reference Finder) the site sits between two existing properties (the Oaks and Oaklands).
Site is considered to comply with Paragraph 78 and Paragraph 68 of the NPPF.
Policy 7.5 Small Scale Windfall Housing Development which support Windfall Development.

Proposal would be for a single property on the site that will have a “Fabric First" to meet the Sustainable Development and support the Windfall Development numbers.
Proposal would be for a self-build single property with a Fabric First Approach to Sustainability.

The site is not in a flood risk area - see attached.

Site has extremely good visibility of approximately 200m in each direction.
The importance of Brooke Wood - This is on the opposite side of the road to our site and there is also a small strip of grazing land opposite that also helps increases the distance from our site .

Comment

Representation ID: 875

Received: 29/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Dave White

SN0490 South East of Mereside could be considered as it is more central ly situated to the local services and amenities in Brooke, and there would be less of an impact than the other suggested sites.

Comment

Representation ID: 1010

Received: 30/07/2021

Respondent: Mrs Rebecca Headden-Connelly

No - the additionally proposed sites have already been disregarded and Brooke is already considerably in excess of the joint core strategy.
It would be more sympathetic to build fewer houses more widely dispersed throughout the village as opposed to broad large scale developments

Object

Representation ID: 1031

Received: 31/07/2021

Respondent: Mrs Susan Justice

1. More cars turning out of A C Place there is not good visibility when turning left onto high green as there is a bend with fast traffic

2. People living in the new development will not walk their children to school therefore even more cars dropping off children the school is already approaching full capacity

3. Possibility of up to more than 50 extra cars turning in and out of A C P

4. There are now very few amenities left in the village as the Post Office has closed

5. Bad idea

Object

Representation ID: 1203

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Michael Banks

Re. list of shortlisted or rejected sites:

NO allocations! All those listed have explanations for why there they have been rejected and I totally agree with these reasons. The one that is shortlisted is also not acceptable - it falls into the category of being way too close to the treasured heart and character of Brooke Village itself and the conservation areas. It would be a travesty to ruin our beautiful and protected village by imposing new developments that are totally out of character with our historic village. And the aesthetics ... God forbid!

Comment

Representation ID: 1212

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Mrs Amy Robertson

None of the shortlisted or rejected sites provide sustainable or suitable development to the village. All would cause massive disruption to residents.

Object

Representation ID: 1271

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Dr Jonathan Newman

If a smaller number of houses were allocated, opportunities should be taken as and when land or space becomes available or accessible in other areas of the village. this would fit better with the character of the village

Comment

Representation ID: 1282

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Dr Stephen Absalom

The rejected site SN0490 should be reconsidered instead of the preferred sites.
It meets the Council's own criteria for a Further Site in that it could provide 12 - 25 houses, and is close to the village centre and services.
It is in a much less visually damaging location than the sites on Norwich Road and therefore better placed to conserve the general character of the village,
The proposed density of houses is more appropriate for the village and the total number more in keeping with the size of the village.

Comment

Representation ID: 1314

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Ms Alison Rhodes

Three rejected sites could be reviewed:

Two at Kirstead Green (SN2174 and SN4004). The arguments for rejection (apart from the issue of surface water) do not seem strong. Modest development here would fit the concept of sustainability whilst being reasonably near facilities and services.

The site southeast of Mereside (SN0490). Of the arguments for rejection, 'visibility' from Hungate Lane (not a busy road) and a PRoW are not strong although the situation and access require consideration.

Inclusion of the above would alleviate pressure on the shortlisted sites whilst still potentially achieving the proposed number of houses..

Object

Representation ID: 1392

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Darren Bailey

These are all problems when you consider the main road traffic and congestion that already exist, there is very little to support the desire for new homes in Brooke, this is a desire to sell land and houses, not for accommodation for those who need it, as they would not find any solutions regarding employement in Brooke. This is for purely profit for landowners and property developers in the gold rush.

Comment

Representation ID: 1715

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Mr David Corbett

Site SN2174 should be allocated for the following reasons:
1. It is quite easy to cycle/walk from the site into Brooke to access services.
2. Although we have had some extreme weather in recent years, this field has never become flooded. The ditch along one side of the site has always taken all the water that it has needed to. The flood risk seems to be overstated in the assessment.
3. There is one mature tree on the front line of this site which could be incorporated into any scheme. The rest of the hedge line is rather scrappy and any scheme could incorporate renewal.

Object

Representation ID: 1741

Received: 17/08/2021

Respondent: Lanpro Services Ltd

As such it is clear that there are better development options to accommodate local housing needs within the Brooke, Kirstead and Howe cluster.
My client also does not agree with the reasons for rejection used to rule out a similar level of new residential development within discounted site SN0490 that is within the centre of the village. It simply cannot be the case that the heritage, townscape and landscape impacts that are relied upon to reject site SN0480 are so severe that this site should be discounted in favour of the serious landscape and highway safety harm that would result from the preferred sites SN0432REVA and SN0432REVB.