South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 18 Draft)

Object

Representation ID: 887

Received: 30/07/2021

Respondent: Bressingham and Fersfield Parish Council

Plan does not meet Objective_1
Greater Norwich’ housing need to 2038: 42568 including buffer. GNLP’s 49,492 new dwellings including buffer is excessive.
GNLP forecasts 4,450 “windfall” dwellings, but only counts 1,296.
Conclusion: Sites allocated in the Plan are not needed.

Bressingham proposals do not meet Objective_2.
Three new estates will double the village’ population. The primary school is full, cannot accommodate expansion. Bressingham has no public transport.

Bressingham proposals do not meet Objective_3
Bressingham’s community consists of dwellings along narrow streets, no estates. Infrastructure cannot cope with increased through traffic. Building estates is not organic growth and will destroy it.

Object

Representation ID: 888

Received: 30/07/2021

Respondent: Bressingham and Fersfield Parish Council

Representing the stated views of Bressingham & Fersfield’s parishioners, we do not agree that there is a need for a Village Clusters Plan and we oppose the sites proposed for Bressingham.

If the plan goes ahead despite this, additional criteria should be added:
- Leisure facilities exist already for the existing community and can be extended for the new homes.
- Schools and public services can be extended to meet additional needs.
- Public transport supports the existing community and can be extended to new houses.
- New developments must not affect the existing community, its lifestyle or its infrastructure.

Comment

Representation ID: 889

Received: 30/07/2021

Respondent: Bressingham and Fersfield Parish Council

Representing the stated views of Bressingham & Fersfield’s parishioners, we do not agree that there is a need for a Village Clusters Plan and we oppose the sites proposed for Bressingham.

If the plan goes ahead despite this, the design policy should be revised to ensure that design of any new developments adheres to the design and layout of the existing settlement.

Comment

Representation ID: 890

Received: 30/07/2021

Respondent: Bressingham and Fersfield Parish Council

Representing the stated views of Bressingham&Fersfield’s parishioners, we do not agree that there is a need for a Village Clusters Plan and we oppose the sites proposed for Bressingham.

If the plan goes ahead despite this, the criteria should be amended.
- The plan should only allocate new sites for housing which meet a clearly demonstrable need.
- housing mix should mirror the community’s demographics, enabling families to grow and younger people to be able to find a first home in particular.
- affordable housing pricing should be based on the community’s demographics and incomes- not on average house prices.

Object

Representation ID: 891

Received: 30/07/2021

Respondent: Bressingham and Fersfield Parish Council

Representing the stated views of Bressingham & Fersfield’s parishioners, we do not agree that there is a need for a Village Clusters Plan and we oppose the sites proposed for Bressingham.

If the plan goes ahead despite this, we do not agree that the extent of the Bressingham settlement limit defined in the Plan is correct. Inclusion of Site SN1309 within the settlement limit is incorrect.
Site SN3019 is outside Bressingham’s settlement limit, as delineated clearly by the layout of the village and location of its dwellings: it should not have been allocated as a preferred site for this reason.

Object

Representation ID: 892

Received: 30/07/2021

Respondent: Bressingham and Fersfield Parish Council

Representing Bressingham_and_Fersfield Parishioners’ views, we object to allocation of Site SN3019.

It is outside Bressingham’s settlement limit, as delineated by the layout of the village and location of its dwellings. Therefore, it does not meet the allocation criteria.

The justification argument that SN3019 is well-related to the settlement centre is irrelevant. Services available are minimal and so locating the settlement as proposed offers no benefit.

Access road is too narrow for existing 2-way traffic. SN3019’s 12 dwellings, each with 1-2 cars, will exacerbate the problem.

Existing regular flooding of the access road will be increased by additional run-off from SN3019.

Object

Representation ID: 893

Received: 30/07/2021

Respondent: Bressingham and Fersfield Parish Council

Representing our Parishioners’ views, we object to allocation of Site SN4036.

Justification that SN4036 is well-related to the settlement centre is irrelevant:
-Services available are minimal, so locating SN4036 as proposed offers no benefit.
-Access road is congested and difficult to navigate due to its narrow width and its weight of traffic.
-Existing road infrastructure cannot accommodate the additional 40-80 vehicles caused by the development.

Proposed use of part SN4036 as school parking is flawed:
-SN4036 is on the opposite side of the access road to the school.
-Parking area and parents and children crossing create additional congestion and hazards.

Object

Representation ID: 894

Received: 30/07/2021

Respondent: Bressingham and Fersfield Parish Council

Representing Bressingham and Fersfield's Parishioners’ views:

-we object to allocation of sites SN3019 and SN4036 as proposed in the Plan.
-we agree with the decision to reject the sites already marked as rejected.
-we object to allocation of shortlisted site SN4037 instead of, or in addition to sites SN3019 and SN4036.

Shortlisted site SN4037 does not meet the Plan’s Objectives or align with its Policies:
-SN4037 does not support Bressingham’s community and will destroy its character.
-Its location would damage wildlife in the woodland adjacent.
-Its location would increase the existing flooding which the location and homes opposite suffer from.

Support

Representation ID: 895

Received: 30/07/2021

Respondent: Bressingham and Fersfield Parish Council

Based on Bressingham and Fersfield Parishioners’ views, we support strongly the rejection of Shortlisted Site SN4037.

-SN4036 does not meet the Plan’s Objectives or align with its Policies: it does not fit well with Bressingham’s existing community and, as with other estate sites proposed, will destroy its character.

-SN4036 does not relate well to the existing settlement, it lies outside the settlement in open countryside.
-It will have a detrimental impact on the landscape: its location and construction, and the increased traffic arising, would damage wildlife in the woodland adjacent.
-Its location would increase the existing flooding.

Comment

Representation ID: 896

Received: 30/07/2021

Respondent: Bressingham and Fersfield Parish Council

Representing the stated views of Bressingham & Fersfield parishioners, we do not agree that there is a need for a Village Clusters Plan and we oppose the sites proposed for Bressingham: allocated sites SN3019 and SN4036 and shortlisted site SN4037.

If the plan goes ahead despite this, we agree that it is essential that it be Monitored.
However the Monitoring Framework should include detailed monitoring of essential features of the Plan.
Metrics chosen should meaningful in assessing delivery of the plan's objectives: -Percentage of affordable housing and their take up should be monitored instead of number of builds.