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

2. Brooke has already seen more development than advised in the previous plan which lasts until 2026. In these circumstances, there is no need for any 'reasonable alternatives' to be considered at this point in time.

3. Developments of this size are not sustainable in villages of this type and size. Such a development would lead to a significant increase in population 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 larger developments. 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. This site was not deemed acceptable for a school and as such was rejected by the council.

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 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 existing sewerage systems on High Green are unable to cope with the demand for the existing properties and there are frequently drainage and foul smell issues throughout the year. Further connections onto this system would only cause more, significant issues.

10. The encroachment onto open land in the village risks a significant adverse impact on local wildlife. In very 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. Like other similar habitats in the village, there could also be a population of Great Crested Newts, which are a protected species.

11. This site intrudes into an area of high landscape character.

12. The site is located on a sweeping, blind bend which can already prove perilous to navigate, particularly at times of poor visibility such as darkness and poor weather. Building on this area would cause even greater significant risk to the public- both during construction and once completed.

13. There is no safe pedestrian access available on a road with a speed limit of 60mph with no lighting.

14. Further large development in Brooke and any potential street lighting to enable safe access to this site, would adversely impact the village's dark sky.

15. There is no evidence that such a development is required or in demand in an unserviced, rural village.