General: Bressingham, under the 2009 Joint Core Strategy, is designated as an 'Other Village'; therefore growth options, if any are permitted, are strictly limited. If Bressingham and/or Fersfield are now to be designated 'growth satellites' of Diss a formal amendment of the strategic plan is first required. The entails a new process of public consultation around a proposal for a proper village plan. Identifying random sites offered up under Regulation 18 (New & Revised and Small Sites) opening the opportunity to expand the village on not basis other than land owners seeking private benefit puts the cart before thee horse. It is not planning. It makes the 'LP' in GNLP better read as 'Local Profit' than 'Local Plan'. With no village plan as a starting concept the continual adding of peripheral sites to settlements becomes, not place making, but a rag-tag process of land use obesity with development primarily directed at allocating benefit to the successful land owner, not the community.
Specific: Site GNLP2079 would radically change the visual character of the west end of the High Street element of Bressingham village, channelling and extending and emphasising its already long run of ribbon development. If Bressingham's JCS 'Other Village' category is to be scrapped and extensive village development permitted it wuld be better more centrally located and for the village to be expanded in depth rather than length. Whilst there may some minor logic in strictly limited building of a fourth corner of this end junction it will affect and change the look and historic setting of the war memorial (a fact not mentioned in the applicant's submission) adversely converting its established character and sense of rural openness to one of an enclosed cross roads. For this reason alone development of the site should not be accepted.