GNLP0386

Showing comments and forms 1 to 4 of 4

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 12949

Received: 08/02/2018

Respondent: mr keith cowley

Representation Summary:

This site is accessed by a single track lane and is therefore unsuitable for any large number of houses of any nature. The site also extends the village habitation boundary into the countryside. Power and broadband availability in the village is already stretched to its limit and any large scale housing development would be detrimental to existing housing. Additional traffic caused by the development of this site would be unacceptable to a village which already has a high volume of commercial traffic caused by the For Farmers complex.

Full text:

This site is accessed by a single track lane and is therefore unsuitable for any large number of houses of any nature. The site also extends the village habitation boundary into the countryside. Power and broadband availability in the village is already stretched to its limit and any large scale housing development would be detrimental to existing housing. Additional traffic caused by the development of this site would be unacceptable to a village which already has a high volume of commercial traffic caused by the For Farmers complex.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 13245

Received: 23/02/2018

Respondent: Mrs Jenny Turner

Representation Summary:

This site is outside the Settlement Boundary and would encroach on open countryside and is down a very narrow country lane which is not sympathetic to the village character and shape. There would be a serious negative impact on traffic in Burston which is already extremely high for such a small village, mainly due to the heavy commercial traffic for the Mill. It would also add to the congestion in Diss which is already a considerable problem. Public transport facilities in Burston are minimal.

Full text:

This site is outside the Settlement Boundary and would encroach on open countryside and is down a very narrow country lane which is not sympathetic to the village character and shape. There would be a serious negative impact on traffic in Burston which is already extremely high for such a small village, mainly due to the heavy commercial traffic for the Mill. It would also add to the congestion in Diss which is already a considerable problem. Public transport facilities in Burston are minimal.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 16292

Received: 16/03/2018

Respondent: Mrs Norma Ajdukiewicz

Representation Summary:

0386 and 0349 are described as close to local school but there is no continuous pedestrian pavement to the school and very few throughout the village with no space to create new ones

Some enlargement of the village would be beneficial but 61+ an unspecified number" households are not a practical proposition. Small developments on all of these sites except 0560 would be feasible.

Full text:

0386 and 0349 are described as close to local school but there is no continuous pedestrian pavement to the school and very few throughout the village with no space to create new ones.
0560 abuts on Green Lane which is not a road, is an unpaved track and footpath less than 4 metres wide (see OS map) with a significant drain underneath it making it unsuited to heavy traffic. Access to Diss Road would have to be via 0561
Where are the new residents in 61 households plus "an unspecified number" in 0386 in Rectory road going to work? The roads in the village are narrow. The grass verges have been steadily eroded by heavy farm vehicles and lorries delivering to the For Farmers site. Additional commuter traffic will add to this problem. The only roads out of the village are the Diss Road and Shimpling Road leading to the A140 and both would become seriously congested at peak times.
The bus service is inadequate for commuters. Last service to the village is in the early afternoon.
Some enlargement of the village would be beneficial but 61+ an unspecified number" households are not a practical proposition. Small developments on all of these sites except 0560 would be feasible.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 16699

Received: 21/03/2018

Respondent: Burston and Shimpling Parish Council

Agent: Burston and Shimpling Parish Council

Representation Summary:

No number of homes has been specified...one imagines 30 to 40...increasing the number of homes in Burston by over 20% in one fell swoop.

There are no real facilities to support this number of additional residents. The site is joined to the village along a single trach no pavement road. The development would infill between Burston and the presently distinct development of Audley End.

Full text:

[General comment made in respect of all site proposals commented upon - see also response to Growth Options document question 24]
Burston has been wrongly classified as a service village. Burston does NOT have a village hall. At present the nave of the Church is made available for meetings, but the congregation is dwindling, and if the Church is declared redundant it seems most likely that the present arrangement will stop. There is a bus service to Diss, but the last bus back is shortly after lunch, and so travelling to work in Diss by bus is totally impracticable. Travelling to Norwich takes over an hour and costs £7 a day return. Having Burston as a 'dormitory' for Norwick is ludicrous. We do not have any pre-school facilities. Job opportunities in the village are limited to say the least. The only employers are the pub, who have the odd waiter/waitress job, Tucks Mill, who have just moved all their administration posts to Bury, and Burston House secure hospital, who have the occasional vacancy for a zero hours minimum wage 'bank worker'.
Broadband in the village is not good, and any development will put the present provision under strain. The roads in the village are inadequate for the present number of residents, being relatively narrow, and with very few pavements for pedestrians. The principal road through the village is used by lorries going to and from Tucks Mill - and in a typical day the number of lorry movements is measured in hundreds. Walking along the parts of this road with no pavement is a real risk. The power supply to the village is 'overhead' and prone to failures.

[Other comments on specific sites]
Site GNLP0349
This site is probably one of the better proposals, but is joined to the rest of the village by a 'no pavement' narrow road. The number of houses is excessive bearing in mind the facilities that the village has to offer,


Site GNLP0386
No number of homes has been specified...one imagines 30 to 40...increasing the number of homes in Burston by over 20% in one fell swoop.

There are no real facilities to support this number of additional residents. The site is joined to the village along a single trach no pavement road. The development would infill between Burston and the presently distinct development of Audley End.

Site GNLP0560
The site has no access to the highway apart from along a single track Green Lane which is a footpath but not even a byeway. The site is beyond the present boundary of the village.

GNLP0561
30 homes would increase the number of the houses in the village by 30%. The only access to the village is along a busy road with no footpath that is relatively narrow. People in starter homes may not be wealthy, and so have to rely on the public transport to get anywhere, and the public transport is not sufficient to get to and from work. Starter homes would bring young families to the village, which might swamp the primary school.

GNLP0562
This site is for a single dwelling. It is a 'greenfield' site, whereas the adjacent farmyard might make a better 'brownfield' site.

GNLP1028
This site is really beyond the present village boundary, and the only access is along a relatively narrow no-pavement stretch of road which experiences hundreds of lorry movement a day.