Object
New, Revised and Small Sites
Representation ID: 18357
Received: 10/12/2018
Respondent: Mr Nigel Dowden
1. This infill development would adversely affect dwellings in Common Road and High Road changing the rural strip-village nature of Bressingham.
2. According to the Government's housing policy a 12.4 acre site should sustain a minimum of 148 dwellings. The Promoter's stated intention is to develop just 10x low-density affordable houses. A site of the correct size (c.0.8 acre) should be proposed instead so that villagers can then properly comment.
3. There is Medium-High surface water flood risk north of the proposed access according to the Government's website.
4. The infrastructure of the village just cannot sustain large-scale developments.
My wife (Sadie) and I object to this scheme on several grounds:
1. This site sits behind existing houses on both High Road and Common Road. These houses bound the village, contributing positively to Bressingham's strip village character. They all enjoy countryside views as befits their rural setting. Such a large infill development behind existing properties will impact those villagers' rural enjoyment; and will fundamentally change the character of Bressingham.
2. The 'Promoter' has put forward a 12.4 acre (5 Hectare) site, and has claimed that the intention is to construct a maximum of 10 single-family, high-quality, affordable homes. The Government defined minimum density criteria for Affordable Housing of 12 houses per acre (30 per hectare) in PPS3. Based on those criteria, this site would be expected to sustain an absolute minimum of 148 houses, which is contradictory with the Promoter's statement of intent. The village does need affordable housing, and we would welcome a few low-density, low-volume developments, but the scale of this site does not suggest that a development of just 10 houses is the real intention.
3. The Promoter proposes access off High Road, north into the site. Using the Government's Flood Risk from surface water website (https://flood-warning-information.service.gov.uk/long-term-flood-risk/map) shows clearly that there is an East-West strip of land just to the North of the intended access point which is graded as being Medium-to-High risk of surface flooding. It is not a suitable access.
4. We also agree with many others who have commented about the infrastructure of the village being overwhelmed by large-scale developments. The school has a waiting list; High Road is already too narrow for two cars to pass near the intended access; more car movements from such a development in this location would endanger children walking to/from school or the sparse village amenities.