GNLP2057

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

How many accidents are there in this area on A1066 annually? A terrible site,access would impact dramatically on the traffic and cause more accidents/ impact on traffic flow. There have been flooding issues in this area in the last 12 months, the run off from more development would cause more flooding and damage to the environment.

Concerns about access from the A1066 and possible flooding issues.

A large unspecified number of homes which would have a negative impact on the environment. 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. Current road is heavily used with high traffic speed. ,SchooL is already oversubscribed not enough public transport to support current population which has no medical facilities. Environment will suffer due to increased pollution through invevitable increase in traffic. Also unnecessary loss of natural environment

I object to new residential development on this site.
There have been a number of recent serious accidents on this stretch of the A1066 which is far too fast here at 50mph. More cars and people turning into the road would inevitably lead to more accidents.
The village lacks amenities to support an increased population
The local primary school and Diss secondary school might struggle to cope with increased demand.
The sits is located at the south end and bottom of a sloping field. A flood analysis would need to be carried out.
There are better brownfield sites in Diss.

General: Please see general comment on site GNLP2079, which also applies to this site
Specific: Site GNLP2057, as indicated, will involve access from the A1066, increasing the hazard of this dangerous bend. Persistent regional and local planning policy and plans have kept this section of Bressingham village, despite it being its historic core, outside village guidelines. The development benefits of this site are minimal and no justification of breaching past policy ... however illogical it may be to omit the traditional centre of the village from its plan form.

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.

unsuitable site because of frequent accidents on junction of School Road and A1066. Road floods continually causing more accidents and recent work has not cured it. Speed limit not suitable for more vehicles, potential for more accidents, more cares and more air pollutions.
Lack of amenities such as Doctors, Dentists, High Schools, Small shop with no Post office!
Primary school has limited numbers. The loss of this greenfield site would endanger the habitat for protected hedgehogs but also after the profile of this small village entirely. Noise pollution of the A1066 would become even more unbearable.

I object to this site in that access to/from A1066 is too dangerous. All brown field sites should be developed prior to new green field approvals.Traffic & parking in Diss cannot accommodate additional traffic from more residents and Victoria Road certainly can't accommodate additional traffic pressures from more houses / drivers.Site liable to flooding already and new houses + paved areas on this site will only exacerbate flooding along A1066 and the hazards this brings.

poor access and vision from 1066 added safety risks . flooding risks. environmental impact. ruin rural village charm. added air and noise pollution poor services already in village. school not able to accommodate more pupils

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 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.