GNLP2054

Due to the existing infrastructure in the area including the current lack of amenities within a 3 mile radius of Bressingham expanding the village further will put more strain on the village, the schools and shop are already undersized.The roads in the area would need to be greatly improved as in many sections it is tight for cars to pass. The services in the region are weak at best with half the village on septic tanks etc. Bressingham is a village with a good rural heritage and by building further housing developments this will ensure the village loses this

With regard to the sites that i wished to comment on, the sites concerned are all in the Bressingham and Fersfield vicinity and are numbered GNLP Sites 2052, 2053, 2054 and 2056.
I believe theses sites are inappropriate and the concerns that i had tried to express were as follows:
* There are no pavements adjoining any of the sites - raising safety issues
* There is no street lighting - again safety issues
* There are no mains sewers which would mean more septic/treatment tanks emptying into ditches (although i am not sure if this is the case with site mentioned on School lane, Bressingham). - This will almost certainly give rise to environmental issues.
* Two of the designated areas completely surround one property which is likely to significantly alter the value of that property and its enjoyment by the present owners.
* There is already significant traffic (short cut from A!! to A1066, agricultural vehicles, haulage vehicles servicing warehouses and intensive livestock units) going through the village with very little control over speeds, "Quiet lane' designation is largely ignored. To add further to the traffic volume would only exacerbate an already unsatisfactory situation.
* Connectivity is very poor in the area both for phones and for wifi
* Specifically with regard to the School Lane site, while access to the A1066 would be easy significant improvements to the road system would need to be considered as already at School dropping off and collecting times it is both chaotic and dangerous.
* Finally, any development on the sites mentioned would seriously detract from the rural nature of the village and consequently of it peaceful enjoyment by villagers. I believe that this would significantly change the nature of the village with the result that established members of our community would seriously consider moving elsewhere.

For the sake of impartiality/clarity i confirm that none of the proposed sites are adjacent to my own property and as such i would not be directly affected by such a development, however my neighbours and our broader village community would be and it is for this reason that i wish to lodge the above representations for your consideration before the next step in the process is taken.

I have one minor amendment to make as on closer inspection it has been pointed out to me that one of the site proposals does in fact back onto a small part of my property.
My objections and representations remain the same.

A major problem lies with the capacity of School Road which is, at times, congested causing traffic safety problems. The road width quite often prohibits cars and HGVs passing and is almost impassable at school drop off/pick up times with cars parking along School Road and up to 200 metres along High Road. Any development will need to consider road improvements including taking into account the regular flooding which occurs in wet weather, particularly in Winter and, and the access/egress onto the A1066. There are also well established mature trees adjacent to the road.

School road is already congested during school hours a development of this many houses would have a high impact on the traffic flows on this narrow lane. Surface water drainage issues on this road have been identified in the last 12 months, this development would have further detrimental impact on this.Too many houses proposed for the size of the village/plot.

This site adjoins a water course which runs parallel to School Road. The latter is frequently flooded and in a poor state of repair owing to water damage. School Road is of a narrow single track standard, serves as the main access to Bressingham Village and contains our primary school and is therefore a constant concern regarding parking. At its southern end where it opens onto the busy A1066 the junction is a poor one with restricted vision.

A large unspecified number of homes which would have a negative impact on the village infrastructure . Developers often reapply on planning for increased site numbers again causing negative impact.
Parking always under stated with congested roads through lack of onsite parking.
Development will increase traffic flow on existing roads where no footpaths exist. Not enough road width to,provide pavements. SchooL is already oversubscribed not enough public transport to support current village population which has no medical facilities. Bressingham subject to flooding. Environment will suffer due to increased pollution through invevitable increase in traffic. Also unnecessary loss of natural environment

I don't think this is a particularly good location for new housing. School road is very narrow and could not take an increase in traffic without widening. This would impact the existing residents.
Bressingham does not offer much in the way of amenities (which is the beauty of the village). New housing would create demand for new amenities. The local village primary school would potentially struggle to take increased intake without significant investment. The nearest senior school is in Diss and there may be capacity issues here too. In addition the additional traffic would have an impact on all and spoil the character of the village.

General: Please see general comments on site GNLP2079, which also apply here
Specific: This proposal for development along the whole eastern flank of School Road makes nonsense of he Joint Core Strategy policy and would make unsound the previous decision to refuse permission for a single dwelling adjacent to The Spinney on the west side of the road. It massively would extend the 'physical run' of the village and not its character or sense of place. It is well outside existing village guidelines and any approval would bring into question the validity of all previous planning policy and decisions. Refuse.

GNLP2054 - I strongly object to the proposed site.
Reason:
1. Congestion all day long particularly at school times
2. Nowhere to park
3. Traffic safety - PTO
Bottom of school road has very poor visibility in both directions so -
4. Accident Black SPOT
5. Flooding all the time particularly at the bottom of the road
6. Greenfield site
7. Opposite an existing housing estate
8. Childrens cycling proficiency area carried out frequently by the social.
9. Possible removal of a lovely old house

GNLP2079
1. Site is opposite school road
2. Congestion
3. Traffic black spot due to school traffic, farm vehicles and speeding
4. Nowhere to park
5. Flooding
6. greenfield site
7. Children's cycling proficiency tests
8. Folly Lane is a poor and narrow road.
Fersfield road also narrow

Could the council please look at Brownfield sites in Diss e.g.
1. The old Victorian school buildings
2. The old Lloyds Bank building
3. The Christopher Hill site Roydon Road and Shelfanger Road and many more.
All sites have been empty for between 20 and 40 years

GNLP2079:
This is a greenfield site sloping towards a very narrow road bordered by deep ditches for occasional flooding. Any development would have serious impact on the respectful ambience of the war memorial.

GNLP2054
There should be no development on this greenfield site either. It is beside a narrow road liable to flooding, evidenced by the wide deep ditch bordering the poor condition of the narrow road. The beautiful trees would have to be felled, destroying the countryside.

Both proposed developments are damaging environmentally.
There is poor public transport.
There is no doctors surgery or dental practices
There is inadequate space for school development.

We are writing to object to the proposed housing development in Bressingham. This land has been used for growing crops on so why now houses? The roads in this area are struggling to cope and the amenities (doctors, dentists and schools) are also stretched to breaking point. The environmental and ecological harm is out of proportion with size the village will become if this goes through and the aged population will find the increased traffic exceptionally hard to cope with. We know we have to move forward but this scheme is like trying to pour a litre into a pint pot.

I have lived here 14 years, my garden floods every year, due to the angle of the land opposite where GNLP2079 is planned. We get snowed in each time there is a significant snow fall. Early 2018 it was impossible to enter or exit mine or my neighbour's properties for 10 days due to snow. To cover the land in concrete will have dire consequences for us who live in bungalows directly opposite. Less natural drainage we would be flooded each time there was significant rain/snow. We would also lose a high amount of our natural light. A town planner advised us, should houses be built on the land opposite, for us it would be like having tower blocks a few feet from our front door. As a number of these bungalows are occupied by physically disabled people, myself included, the bungalows have been substantially adopted to the resident's needs, therefore moving to another property would be incredibly difficult if not impossible. Being disabled, 'ones' life is enormously compromised, many daily tasks, most take totally for granted, are either not within a disabled persons ability or one has huge struggles with them.
Now, on top of the lesser life we already endure, GNLP expects us to be even further compromised by blocking our light, overloading the tiny road system we rely on, putting us under threat of flood, damage to our homes etc. etc.
All for a few houses which if they are anything like the last development. 'Pascue Place' - local housing for local people' all not be occupied by local people.
Fersfield Road is barely wide enough for two cars to pass each other, at least twice a day, most of this end of fersfield road is partly blocked by cars, trucks etc. using the little school on school road. The pathways are insufficient for children to walk to school, most have to cross two roads to get to school, the roads in our village are not fit to bare any extra traffic. This is blatantly evident when there are problems on the main A1066, Roads get jammed with too much traffic sign posts get knocked down and ran over by vehicles trying to squeeze through, the mess after one of the diversions is immense, these proposed developments except GNLP2057 would permanently glue up these tiny village roads. Many of which are already in a bad state of repair, cannot cope.
As bressingham is a rural village a tremendous amount of large agricultural vehicles and oil delivery lorries squeeze down all these little roads which the developments would affect. During school time tractors or vehicles larger than a small car cannot proceed up Fersfield Road with school traffic parked along the verges. Delivery vans/lorries can block the road completely. We have minimal public transport so far most living in Bressingham requires you to drive, each new property would bring at least 1 if not 2 extra vehicles, putting far too much strain on these rural roads and vastly increasing the possibility of fatal accidents. The junction at the bottom of School Road, where it joins the main A1066, is an accident black spot, there are often accidents there. Already there are few safe spaces for the Mobile Library to park, to many residents, this is a vital life-line. Many came to live in Bressingham because of its rural location but there are very few amenities.
South Norfolk Council and its associated housing association stated 'it is always very difficult renting out our properties here, as with other rural villages, people want to live in the town'/
These development sites are all fields, home to huge variety of wildlife, some of which, aoccording to country file, are endangered, what becomes of these living creatures should their habitat be decimated by construction? We also have more than our fair share of power- cuts, some lasting 10hrs or more. This fragile system could not possibly cope with the extra demand new builds would bring. Out of the 6 proposed sites in Bressingham possibly the safest is the Low Road site but this is very close to school road/ A1066 junction, the A1066 is a fast moving road and very busy, there are many horrible accidents already.
Bressingham is a village, not a town, any of these developments would destabilise its fragile existence and be totally dangerous for road users and pedestrians. As for the wildlife, who is fighting their corner?

GNLP2079 - I'm in my 70's, have a pacemaker and trouble with my legs, have lived here most of my life. Already its difficult getting my car in and out of my drive with all the school and farm vehicles on this road. My bedroom window faces the field here GNLP2079 is. Any home on the field would look directly over me because we are on a hill. My peaceful private home would be like living a gold fish bowl. There would be far too much traffic for these country lanes to bare. Extra light from street lights and houses would affect me terribly, the noise from traffic and people would have a bad effect on my health. A lot of my neighbours have terrible problems with their drains, any extra work for these really old drainage systems would impact on us awfully. Already school traffic blocks up the roads, the footpaths are not safe enough for the children, there is hardly any pathway on Fersefield Rd. We don't have any street lights, we don't need them all that extra false light would affect us residents badly.
Already we have loads of power cuts, far more than any other surrounding villages and towns, bad 7 or 8 this year. This road is under water a lot of the winter/autumn months, where would water go if houses were built at the bottom of a field that is on a steep hill. My neighbours is in a wheelchair, his garden slops down to his bungalow, he would be in a right muddle if extra water went his way.

GNLP2054/GNLP0241/GNLP2113- School road was impossible to use, only tractors and 4x4's can get down or up when we had all that snow early this year. Then the melting snow/ice crumbled that road. It was single track for months. In parts dangerous to put extra traffic on this road, as with High Road.
All these fields soak up water/snow, as the entire village is on a slope all these roads would flood. None of them are in a strong state, they would collapse under pressure, like school road did. The bus times have been cut right down, if you don't drive you're in a muddle. KEEP BRESSINGHAM SAFE FOR PEOPLE AND THE WILDLIFE.

My bungalow is directly opposite the field where GNLP2079 is proposed. My home is half way up a hill, the development site is up the hill in front of me. My home would be overlooked, almost from above due to being on a hill. As a young disabled person who uses a wheelchair, when leaving my home to get to my parking place on the side of Fersefield Road, those people in them houses would be literally looking down on me. All the privacy I am used to, and need for my sanity, would be gone. Having P.T.S.D. I was advised to move to a rural, private, quiet village to help my recovery. I am worried I won't be able to go out if, every time, I'm being looked down on. Then there's the rain and snow, last time it snowed I couldn't get out for near 2 wks, Fersefield Rd was impassable. We who live in these bungalows will be getting flooded. Will I be able to get in and out of my parking bay when I need to, if there is extra traffic along these tiny roads. Us who have to go in and out a lot for medical appointments will have a nightmare, it's bad enough now with all the school traffic parking everywhere. Another huge worry is my natural light being less, as an S.A.D. sufferer, natural lights is so very important to me. Then there's all the extra noise, this is a quiet little place, that is why I live here. I cannot move, I have to live here, there is no choice.

GNLP2054
School Rd collapsed in the snow in Feb/March 2018, this road is not fit to get extra traffic, it totally crumbled away then got washed away by snow melt. What about the wildlife, a lot of our natural little creatures and birds are already struggling for survival. This is a massive area of nature to lose.

GNLP2113
GNLP0241
We are a tiny village with tiny country roads, not a town or city, you cannot squeeze houses into any of these GNLP proposed sites without a huge negative impact on us. I repeat, I need my privacy, I need to enter and exit my home in safety and without fear. So do the animals and birds. Bressingham is a safe place to live and to drive in, it needs to keep that way.

Roads: GNLP0241, GNLP2113

Inadequate infrastructure

Access poor. High Road - narrow - main thoroughfare. Constant heavy farm traffic.


GNLP2054
GNLP2079

Very narrow road - floods. Near a very dangerous junction on 1066. Abuts a "quiet lane". Will limit school parking. Narrow - too near junction.


Amenities

* Bressingham school not capable of accommodating new influx. No school transport for Secondary School.
* Parking a problem exacerbated by new development.


Doctors

* Already stretched.


*I have never been informed of any proposed development. Would appear to be a lack of transparency on behalf of the council like you hoping to 'BURY' the GNLP plan hoping everyone will be preoccupied with Xmas!

*Why have the local residents not been informed and consulted.

The above proposals in Bressingham and Roydon will lead to untold problems.

ROADS - SCHOOLS - DOCTORS

NOT feasible or sustainable.

I object to developing this site as the lane is too narrow for additional traffic that would come with new housing.The Lane IS ALREADY OVER CONGESTED DURING SCHOOL DELIVERY/ COLLECTION TIMES. Flooding of this lane WOULD BE WORSENED FROM RUN off generated by additional houses & associated paved areas. Diss traffic flows & parking already over crowded and Victoria Road certainly can't accommodate more cars. All brown field sties in the district should be developed prior to approval of new green field sites for development.

School Road already suffers significant congestion during 'school runs' with parts of the road wide enough for one car to pass safely. A residential development would have a catastrophic effect on this very narrow road.
Additional residential properties would have a disastrous impact on an existing issue with flooding along School Road.
The village school's capacity is 104 pupils however the school website shows 111 pupils on roll. Clearly the school cannot accommodate additional pupils a residential development would bring.
Any development of the type proposed will have a detrimental effect on the character and charm of the village.

GNLP2054
I strongly appose any large development of this site. There are no large housing estates in the village and this would remove the 'village' feel of our Parish.
Limited development on land fronting school Road only could be acceptable
The road would be widening and a footpath provided as it is very busy and congested at times accessing the school.

Any approval should include 50% affordable homes.

Please ensure the school, water/sewage services and surface water disposal can be coped with. The already cause problems in the village.

GNLP2113
I strongly oppose the development of a 15.8 acre site. There are no large housing estates in the village and this destroys the 'village' feel for our parish, I have no objection to housing limited to land fronting High Road ONLY.

The road would need widening and a footpath provided on at least one side.

Any housing approved should include 50% affordable homes.

Please ensure the schools, water/sewage services and surface water disposal can be coped with. These already cause problems in the village.

This site alongside School Road is unsuitable for housing for the following reasons:
1. The field and its hedgerows currently provides nesting sites for skylarks and yellow hammers which are declining species in our farmlands and should be protected. The hedge and in particular the Oak trees alongside the road are rich in wildlife.
2. The road itself is unsuitable. It is too narrow and the edges are unstable with the verges/ditches being compacted by heavy traffic frequently leading to flooding.
3. It would create a ribbon of development which would adversely alter the current footprint of the village.

Poorly kept narrow track roads. Heavy congestion at drop off and pick up times.Flooding issues along the road. poor vision to 1066' poor pavements and lighting in village added safety issue. ruin rural village charm. school not big enough to cope with added pupils. added air and noise pollution. poor road condition and access to village either way using school road or high road.

GNLP2113 & 2054 - Road unsuitable for more traffic as its only just wide enough for 2 cars to pass now and no pavement for people to walk on.
School is full now and doctors (nearest doctors Diss).
Loss of greenfield sites and wildlife.

GNLP2057 - Access bad on to main road A1066

I have only just been told about the Plans and have written in haste.

I am writing to express my deep concern over these proposals for two of these sites. The first adjacent to my property to the west on Low Road, GNLP2057, and School road site GNLP2054.

The land GNLP2057, and the fields to the back of my property are a constant source of flood water in heavy rain, which renders our toilet on the ground level unusable for several periods in winter. It has also been the cause of constant flooding into our ditch, neighbouring properties, and has caused considerable nuisance and damage over the years including claims for thousands of pounds of damaged flooring.

The site in School Road is no better and the natural stream along the boundary of the roads channels rain water into the triangle of the bottom of School Road which carries the ditch water from our ditch.

The flood water has been known to run like a tide over the complete field and into our garden. Last winter the flood at the front of the field at Low Road aquaplaned a car into a field and telegraph pole.

The second issue is the danger of the road access. The lower field sited on Low Road has no road access. The track on the map for the Old Hall belongs only to the Old Hall properties and no access has been granted, as is the line of trees and the ditch to the front.

The site is of great historic importance. The Old Hall is dated C1468, and of timber construction.

The field to the front and the field for planning request were involved in the battle of the roundheads and cavaliers and the Old Hall holds a fine beam branded with the Wolsey arms, branded by the parliamentarians who occupied the house. To the rear of the field for planning, on old maps and documents is a large building C1100, which was sacked.

This site should be archaeologically dug, before building on, as was our property when planning work was submitted.

The field feeds the local drain system which houses rare orchids in Church Lane and on the farm land to the front.

The village has no pub or social amenities nor has it an open church. The village shop is quite far from the site. There is little or no public transport and trips to hospital by taxi cost about £60.00.

This may be a site for cheap housing but the rates are high and this is a very expensive area to live in.

There is no mains drainage in this area to the best of my knowledge and septic tank and treatment plants are used. Drains on the road are for surface water and in high rain don't cope.

The field GNLP2057 is, while standing at the back of my property, 20ft higher than the ground floor of my house and up to the eaves. The surface water has been known to reach the back of the house. However the land to the front towards the river is 1ft above sea level.

Development in the past on this site has not improved the safety of the road, which has been closed several times this year from accidents.

I hope this makes matters clearer. I personally would not support or recommend this proposal on this site, further into the village would be safer.

I am writing to object to to possible development in Bressingham. Namely GNLP2054 & GNLP2079. The points apply to both sites.

They are on or near School Road which I believe is totally unsuitable. This is the main route into the village, is narrow and already congested particularly during school pick-up/drop off. Parents park on the road making it difficult to pass and dangerous for children. Large vehicles regularly go off the road into the ditch.

School road is subject to flooding and there is often a large pool at the bottom leading on to the A1066 which has a 50 mph speedlimit with cars approaching from Thetford direction on a bend past the Chequers pub. There was a serious accident there this year.

These developments will be extremely detrimental to the character of this village.

Mr Leslie James Dumbell

Proposed building on School Road Bressingham.

My wife and I would like to object based on the following.

Trees will have to be cut down in order to access School Road, these trees provide homes and shelter to various bird species, grey squirrels as well as wild fauna.

The field is used by deer to roam through their natural habitat.

The field is used by birds of prey as a feeding site and it has now has also seen the arrival of heron.

Further, hedgerows will have to be cut down as well in order for access on to School Road

The ditch that runs down School Road frequently floods especially on the ditch on the field for the proposed site.

There is also an issue with rats not helped by the continual flooding and poor maintenance of the ditch that runs from the top of School Road down to the A1066 where often water floods on to the road.

There are issues enough with utilities on School road such as electricity, water and broadband frequently being interrupted.

School Road barely copes with the amount of daily traffic as it is without extra traffic adding to the chaos especially from 8.30am to 9.am

I write to point out the sites proposed for development in Bressingham are inappropriate for the following reasons
1 Common Road/ High Road -too large for the village.
2 Memorial cross road -this would increase congestion near to the school.
3 School Road -this would be further linear development..
4 A 1066 -dangerous entrance and exit on to a fast major road.