GNLP2056

Showing comments and forms 1 to 13 of 13

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 17052

Received: 14/11/2018

Respondent: South Norfolk Council

Representation:

Site on a surface water flood flow path affecting approx. 60% of the eastern side of the site and approx. 80% of frontage.
Depths generally below 300mm but ponding above 300mm for the low risk event.

Full text:

Site on a surface water flood flow path affecting approx. 60% of the eastern side of the site and approx. 80% of frontage.
Depths generally below 300mm but ponding above 300mm for the low risk event.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 17293

Received: 24/11/2018

Respondent: Dr Amanda Mcmurray

Representation:

SERVICES, INFRASTRUCTURE AND AMENITIES do not exist to support additional housing or attract occupants. The scale of housing existing and proposed is insufficient to make any such services sustainable.
SOCIAL: potentially reduction in local employment by removing agricultural land and employment. So, more people may look for work outside the village and are less likely to set up home in the village.
(2) the population and location of schools and employment outside the village does not warrant additional housing on the scale proposed.
ENVIRONMENTAL: The site proposed here increases CO2 emissions by 26.5tonnes/year, with no obvious benefit offsetting the increase.

Full text:

SERVICES AND AMENITIES do not exist to support additional housing or attract occupants. There are no shops, schools, public houses, public transport. The scale of housing proposed is insufficient to justify them being created.

HOUSING NEEDS: Fersfield's population~290; no of households~110 (average 2.9xpeople/household). If 50% of households have children and 10% of those choose to set up home in the village, demand for affordable housing for local people could be for 5 additional homes and not the 30-40 proposed across the 3 fersfield sites.
SOCIAL application potentially REDUCES local employment and need for housing by removing agricultural land and any employment associated with it.

ENVIRONMENTAL: There is no public transport serving the village and the housing proposed is unlikely to make new services economically viable. Therefore, each new home will require 1-2 vehicles = up to 20 additional vehicles. Assuming that each one travels 20 miles/day on 5 days/week and an average, modern, medium-sized car emits 250g CO2/mile (carfueldata.dft.gov.uk) the site proposed here will lead directly to increasing CO2 emissions by 26.5tonnes/year, with no obvious benefit offsetting the increase.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 17527

Received: 30/11/2018

Respondent: Mr Shaun Collins

Representation:

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

Full text:

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

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 17616

Received: 02/12/2018

Respondent: Mr Paul Sumpter

Representation:

Please see my comments on GNLP 2052 and 2053

Full text:

Please see my comments on GNLP 2052 and 2053

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 17617

Received: 02/12/2018

Respondent: Mr Paul Sumpter

Representation:

Please see my comments on GNLP 2052 and 2053

Full text:

Please see my comments on GNLP 2052 and 2053

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 17734

Received: 21/11/2018

Respondent: Mr Paul Sumpter

Representation:

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 giving 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.
*Already significant traffic, 'quiet lane' designation is largely ignored
* Connectivity poor for phones and wifi
* School dropping off and collecting times chaotic and dangerous
* Development would detract from rural nature of village

Full text:

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.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 18088

Received: 08/12/2018

Respondent: Bressingham and Fersfield Parish Council

Representation:

We endorse your view of its unsuitability.

Full text:

We endorse your view of its unsuitability.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 18151

Received: 09/12/2018

Respondent: mrs hazel dormer

Representation:

The site floods and is completely unsuitable for housing. Amenities are too far away so private cars are used for access to schools, doctors and shops contributing to air pollution.

Full text:

The site floods and is completely unsuitable for housing. Amenities are too far away so private cars are used for access to schools, doctors and shops contributing to air pollution.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 18226

Received: 10/12/2018

Respondent: Mrs. Christine Crawley

Representation:

An obvious lack of amenities, sewage and drainage issues make these sites unsuitable for proposed development. There are no pavements and the roads are already dangerous, especially for pedestrians. Increased number of cars and therefore pollution will create more issues for residents .

Full text:

An obvious lack of amenities, sewage and drainage issues make these sites unsuitable for proposed development. There are no pavements and the roads are already dangerous, especially for pedestrians. Increased number of cars and therefore pollution will create more issues for residents .

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 18318

Received: 06/12/2018

Respondent: MRS KAY BROCK

Representation:

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.

Full text:

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.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 19065

Received: 13/12/2018

Respondent: Mr Christopher Lawrence

Representation:

This site has many of the same issues as GNLP2053 and GNLP2052.

Full text:

This site has many of the same issues as GNLP2053 and GNLP2052.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 19067

Received: 13/12/2018

Respondent: Ms Kim Burr

Representation:

The proposed site is unsuitable for development as it is in a High Risk area for surface water flooding. Furthermore, there is no infrastructure or amenities in the area.

Full text:

The proposed site is unsuitable for development as it is in a High Risk area for surface water flooding. Furthermore, there is no infrastructure or amenities in the area.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 19658

Received: 17/12/2018

Respondent: G Harvey

Representation:

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.

Full text:

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.