GNLP2113

low surface water flood risk across southern part of site
depths below 300mm for all events

Stongly Object. Have lived here for 23 years did not want to live in built up area and wished to overlook open fields & countryside. Traffic on high rd has already increased over recent years & not suitable for anymore. school is already full. development of 4 new dwellings in high road next to our property already under way and feel more in high road would lose Bressingham the village feeling we bought into. area is not suitable for housing estate should be for town not small village. proposal has gone under radar of local community, were informed by friends.

This proposal surrounds our property, this is a loss of amenity as we would lose all privacy. Our views over an open field would be eradicated. This would reduced the quality of life of my children and our family. The value of our property would significantly be reduced. High Road could not cope with this additional traffic, at school times it is very unsafe, we have no pavements. Our local primary school could not cope. I am concerned and stressed about this huge proposal. We have no large estates anywhere in Bressingham and this would spoil our village.

The proposed site would create mass loss of amenity to a large number of surrounding dwellings, Overlooking into private gardens and ergo potential devaluation.

As a resident of Bressingham which is a lovely village, i feel that this development would ruin the lovely countryside we currently enjoy. It would also put more pressure on the village school and also the road structure in Bressingham isn't up to the amount of traffic this would add to the village. I feel that this is an unnecessary development.

An'unspecified'amount of houses is extremely concerning for safety/health, environmental and impact on services.
Access:High Rd.is narrow, congestion happens regularly for a variety of reasons. No pavements (and no room for same) between Common Rd and the Village Shop. Speed limits often not adhered to,its already dangerous for walkers inc. parents with pushchairs. Need to encourage people to walk not deter them. Increased number of vehicles = negative impact on environment
The Councils'comment that the site is close to services - which ones? School is oversubscribed, increasing population in Roydon & Diss already impact on Health Services.

This area is privately submitted (not through a contractor) with the intention to provide low density, low impact, low level, affordable housing with as little impact on the environment and demand on utilities as possible. A maximum of ten high quality, sympathetic, single family dwellings across the whole landscaped site is envisaged. It is not intended to create a high density housing development that might better suit a town, not a village.

Strongly Object. This site surrounds my family home where we have lived for 12 plus years. Loss of amenity, loss of privacy, significant reduction in value of our property. I am personally very stressed and anxious about this proposal especially as it seems to have been conducted in a very underhand and low key way. Why were we not personally consulted as it surrounds our house. High road nor the school could cope. Loss of beautiful field views and habitat for wildlife.

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.

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

As this has only just come to my attention, I feel that it has been done in a very underhand way. This sort of development is out of character for this village. The already very poor road network will not support the increase traffic that this development will generate. High Road is already a dangerous road to walk on with the amount of speeding traffic and very large farm machines.The habitat of deer, squirrels,newts(including great crested) and many other animals will be badly reduced and affected.

People live here and move here because they like the village AS IT IS.

Further housing development in this area should not be considered without the provision of suitable, safe pedestrian access to the village hall, shop and school. Without this access further car journeys will be generated along High Road which already has safety problems with cars, HGVs, tractors, etc. sharing the road with pedestrians, prams and schoolchildren. This in addition to the occasional "rat run" traffic caused by problems on the A1066.

An unspecified number of houses, if fully developed too many houses in ratio to current size of village. Poor access from site & increased traffic on small,already busy lane. High impact on current residents loss of views/ green space/habitats etc. Too big a development for this village. Land adjacent to road already under development this addition would make this area of the village too frenetic.What other services would SNCC provide to support this level of development, expand school, health centers?

Disbelief in comment Rep ID: 17409: Contrary to application of owner to provide "further commuter housing to benefit Diss". Unlikely that only 10 "affordable" houses on 15.8 acres will be built. "Envisaged" implies further development as per application.

This site is inappropriate as per the Sustainability Appraisal: Poor infrastructure, lack of services including education and health, increased traffic and pollution and destruction of natural habitat. There is an abundance of wildlife, including great crested newts, small mammals and a variety of birds.

High Road would become a 'rat run' via Snow Street to Roydon; Common Road to Attleborough and beyond.

The application provides no benefit to a well established village. The application could result in 100 plus houses, creating a concrete jungle, congested village acting as a commuter belt. The only gain is financial to the owner and developer.

This development will lead to loss of trees, hedgerows and natural habitat for many species such as great crested newts, hedgehogs and other mammals. Over 30 varieties of birds including protected cuckoos and owls are seen across the site.

It would be irresponsible not to consider all services such as lack of Doctors, overstretched hospitals, schools, local transport and unreliable trains.

I object to this proposal for a large development which is totally unsuitable and not in keeping with our village.
The site entrance on High Road will create problems with traffic safety, congestion and air pollution, all major concerns.
The lack of amenities such as Doctors and Dentists will add to existing long waiting times for appointments, as well as difficulty in securing places at the village school which is oversubscribed.
This proposal will cause loss of habitat to wildlife, create ecolocigal damage, and possible flooding issues.

I question the councils comment that the site is close to services. What services? The school is oversubscribed. Increased population in Roydon Diss already impacts seriously on Health Services and High School.. Access to A1066 is via narrow at times single track roads.
The already poor roads will not cope with extra traffic. High Road is already dangerous for walkers inc Parents and pushchairs with no pavement from development site to small village shop.
I am extremely concerned by 'unspecified' amount of houses on grounds of safety / health, detriment to the environment and negative impact on already inadequate services.

infrastructure/amenities in the village and surrounding area do not support this development. There is already significant traffic going along small roads and increased traffic would be of grave concern.

More houses will change the character of the village completely. There are no pavements, no street lights, the school is already full. The bus service does not connect to the railway station, doctors or dentists surgeries or large supermarkets therefore any new houses will need at least one car increasing traffic on narrow roads. There is no employment in the area to justify more housing, again increasing traffic in order to access work. Local roads are already used by heavy farm traffic throughout the year.
Environmentally important habitat will be lost if this development were to go ahead.

Traffic safety issues for pedestrians, cyclists, elderly and disabled. Speeding area by site where many families attempt to walk to village shop and junior school. Not safe so many residents already drive creating air pollution and damage to the environment. To access senior schools, supermarkets, doctors and dentists residents use cars to drive to Diss on already congested roads...too narrow to support volume of traffic. Increased developments in Bressingham will create environmental damage as traffic accesses Diss. Greenfield site when many brownfield sites available for development.

Unnecessary development on Greenfield site. Increased air pollution due to remoteness from employment and services Unsuitable road network to support development.

No Contractor! In all probability there will be one later. Only 10 houses on
a site this size is unbelievable, especially if they are "affordable" housing.
Access to the site from all directions is along very narrow roads with lack of footpaths. Increased traffic means more pollution and High Road is unsafe to walk along.

This site is adjacent to a very large pond which supports much wildlife, great crested newts and other mammals.

There would be a loss of hedges and trees and large open spaces. Turtle doves
have been heard at the edge of the site.

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

This is a large site and the number of homes is unspecified but conceivably the potential is for a number that would adversely impact the character of the village. The lack of amenities in the village is an issue. Additional numbers at the village primary school and Diss secondary school would require investment in those schools.
There would be increased traffic flow on narrow village lanes. This traffic would enter/exit via the A1066 which is dangerously fast already and there have been a number of serious accidents. A flood analysis would be required. Also analysis on potential for environmental damage.

I oppose this development as Bressingham High Road is almost a single lane with no pavement. Extra cars will make it impossible for pedestrians. Parents and children will no longer be able to walk or cycle to school. There will be a loss of social cohesion as it becomes impossible to walk around the village. The school will be badly overstretched.
I am concerned about the potential effect of construction activities on two mature willow trees in my garden adjacent to the proposed site. There will need to be constraints on potential development here to ensure they are not damaged.

Understood a covenant was in place to keep to only ribbon development.
Village community has gradually absorbed small development including 2 affordable housing sites we need modest housing to keep local families together - not 5 bed commuter houses that will not benefit the community.
Amenities in Diss already under strain. Village School is over subscribed and roads congested - only wide enough for a lorry or a tractor.

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.

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.

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?

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.