1. The proposed development is outside of the village's permitted development boundary and should be refused as such.

2. The issue of an apparent lack of 5 year land supply should not be reason to expect a Service Village - with no sufficient infrastructure - to shoulder the entire burden of any district housing deficit. Furthermore, it would appear that the issue of the 5 year land supply is also controversial: in some calculations, South a Norfolk would appear to actually have a surplus. Until the issue of a lack of transparency from the district council and its representatives is resolved, this site should not even be discussed.

3. The size of the development (be it the 148 dwellings stated in the initial planning application or the nearly 200 dwellings referred to in the consultation period) is totally disproportionate to the size of the village (which currently only has just over 500 properties). Developments of this size are not sustainable in villages of this type and size. Such a development would lead to a population explosion for a small rural village and existing residents would be victims of its consequences, such as increase in traffic and the associated pollution, additional noise and light pollution from such a density of housing and competition for services such as school places, GP and dentist places.

4. Brooke does not represent a typical service village: there is no shop which sells basic amenities; no healthcare provision; there have been significant cuts to public transport links; very limited opportunities for employment. In fact, Brooke has very few practical and basic amenities for residents which do not require independent travel outside of the area. As such, it cannot support large increases to the population and the main road is insufficient to cope with yet another increase in commuter traffic.

5. There is no appropriate infrastructure to support a development of this size. There has been substantial development in neighbouring Poringland which has already put significant pressure on local services, such as healthcare, highways, schools and utilities.

6. In particular for this specific site and proposal, the issue of residential developments should not be closely entwined with any funding for a new school. They are two separate issues and should be treated as such. The existing school originally had funding for a new building but no school actually materialised during the lifespan of this funding because the preferred land could not be secured at an affordable price. It is outrageous that as soon as the funding is removed, that a developer with familial ties to the owner of the land in question proposes such a catastrophic plan. There are no guarantees that a new school will be built as the developer is merely offering a small parcel of land and some connection to services. The actual new school will need funds secured once again.

7. The requirement for a new school has not been proved and in fact, previous allocated funds have been redistributed so there is currently no funding available for a new school. However, if there was a prior need for a new school without the concession of hundreds of homes, the two issues should not now be conflated for the developer's benefit.

8 If there is a need for a larger school in Brooke to cope with the overflow from neighbouring villages (due to over-zealous and short-sighted developments in these areas which have lacked school places for children), this should be without the 'price' of a disproportionate housing estate in Brooke- and a greater density of population which may well further exacerbate the problem of limited school places for residents. The current school is very well supported in the local community and achieves excellent results, both academically and in sporting pursuits. It is not a failing school which would fulfil any criteria for replacement by an academy or free school.

9. The proposed development site is currently designated agricultural land and is indeed actively farmed. The proposed development encroaches on open land to an unacceptable degree with an 'estate' that is not in keeping with a rural village of this type; it is not conducive to the village and is too intrusive.

10. There is a significant risk of flooding to this area of land- being predominantly clay- should it be developed for residential housing. Indeed, at least one of the 12 recently built properties on abutting land have suffered poor drainage and flooding of outside areas. There are known flood risks in this area and properties surrounding the development site who currently experience problems, would likely see these magnified. In addition, it was reported that soil and drainage investigations were planned to take place during a time of unseasonable drought- thus skewing the required data submitted for plans.

11. The encroachment onto open land in the village risks a significant adverse impact on local wildlife. In close proximity to the proposed site, there are designated ancient woodland which play host to a variety of species- some of which are birds of prey on Amber Alert such as buzzards and kites. The habitat also has a population of Great Crested Newts which are a protected species.

12. The proposed development is in direct sight of an existing Conservation Area and as such intrudes into an area of high landscape character. This makes it contrary to the principal of protection within a Conservation Area.