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

Object

Representation ID: 1349

Received: 02/08/2021

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’s 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.

Comment

Representation ID: 1350

Received: 02/08/2021

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, style and layout of any new developments blend with the existing settlement, which consists of dwellings alongside narrow roads.

Comment

Representation ID: 1351

Received: 02/08/2021

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:
- it should only allocate new sites for housing which meet a clearly demonstrable need.
- housing mix should mirror the community’s demographics, enabling older people to stay, families to grow and younger people to be able to find a first home.
- affordable housing pricing should be based on the community’s demographics and incomes and not on average house prices.

Object

Representation ID: 1352

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Bressingham and Fersfield Parish Council

Plan conflicts with its own 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: 1353

Received: 02/08/2021

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: 1436

Received: 02/08/2021

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.

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: 1437

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Bressingham and Fersfield Parish Council

Representing our Parishioners’ views:

-we object to allocation of the SN3019 and SN4036 as proposed Plan.
-we agree with the decision to reject the sites already marked as rejected.
-we do not agree with 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 damage its character.
-Its location would damage wildlife in the woodland adjacent.
-Its location would increase the existing flooding.

Object

Representation ID: 1438

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Bressingham and Fersfield Parish Council

Based on our Parishioners’ views, our opinion is that Shortlisted Site SN4037 should be rejected.

-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 damage 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.

Support

Representation ID: 1440

Received: 02/08/2021

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.