GNLP2113

I strongly object to this development which surrounds my family home on 2 boundaries.
The traffic on High Road is already very dangerous at peak times, there are no paths or lighting and it is not wide enough for 2 cars to pass in many areas. It is already difficult for our school aged children to walk to the primary school or the High School bus stop. Its is dangerous to exit our driveway on high road at peak times.
There are no services in our village that could support this development.The school does not have capacity for more pupils

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 unspecified number of houses will lead to high density housing 'to be economic to develop necessary internal infrastructure for this large site'. High Road is too narrow and access will be difficult & dangerous.All brown field sites should be developed prior to approval for new green field developments in the district. Diss traffic flows and parking ARE ALREADY UNDER CAPACITY AND ANY ADDITIONAL HOUSING WILL WORSEN THIS PROBLEM (Victoria ROAD CONGESTION?). Developing this site will only worsen the problem of over-speeding heavy traffic flows during school collection times - especially for pedestrians along this narrow piece !

Heavily object. What a massive negative effect a development like this would have on our beautiful village. The infrastructure is already overloaded with doctors/dentists over stretched and the local schools over subscribed.. The increased number of vehicles this would bring would make the narrow road dangerous for our children to walk to school and to use the popular surrounding footpaths. We live within a stones throw from the proposed site and we have a large number of Red Brested Newts+bats in our garden and I'm sure this development would have a massive impact on them and all other wildlife.

I am very concerned that although the site submission is dated last March I have not received any official or unofficial notification of this even though the proposed site borders our garden. Another concerned neighbour brought this to my attention otherwise I would still be completely unaware.
The submission does not specify the number of houses but mentions affordable housing. A later informal comment proposes only ten high quality detached houses on a site of 12 acres. This is not affordable housing and with no number on the submission villagers fear the objective is to build many more.

Bressingham infrastructure cannot support more vehicles, High Rd, Bressingham Rd,Hall and Baynards Lanes are too narrow for vehicles to pass each other comfortably and these are the access routes to Diss. I fail to see how adding another 20 plus commuters cars from 10 executive houses can be beneficial and this number of houses is not limited by the submission, its only an added comment. The roads have no lighting or pavements making them a serious hazard for all especially pedestrians and cyclists with no potential for widening.
Finally, the risk of negatively impacting local wildlife is saddening

I object to large scale development in the village, particularly the 15.8 acre site adjoining High Road.
Our narrow roads barely cope with local and agricultural traffic - congestion near the school has resulted in accidents and collapsed verges.. Such development with resulting traffic and population increase would worsen this situation. Local Doctors, dentists and schools are already overload
Such large development on green field land would have a detrimental effect - loss of habitat for wildlife and cause far-reaching ecological damage and change the rural character of the village I have lived in for over 50 years.

The site of 6.41Ha is to support an unspecified number of houses. The land owner states ten houses. The GNLP has to come up with 39,000 homes by 2036. This increases the potential for more houses than has been declared.
There is a limited bus service in the village and amenities would need to be increased and improved.
The narrow High Road would constitute more hazards to pedestrians from increased traffic flow.
Had the villagers been informed of the proposals sooner, discussions could have been had in a timely manner, with less feeling of being "railroaded".

Other specified sites in the village are for ten to fifteen houses. This site is considerably bigger, potentially for many more houses than has been stated by the land owner. If ten large properties were built, it wouldn't address issues around affordable housing.
At 6.4Ha, this site would alter the footprint of the village and compromise the rural feel. It would also increase the damage to the environment and local wildlife.
High Road is narrow and lacks footpaths,thus increasing the danger to its users from increased traffic. There are potential risks of damage to the area from heavy construction vehicles.

I very strongly object to the proposed site. We walk every day to the village shop with our animals, the amount of traffic is already a problem for us and the animals at certain times of the day. Our neighbours children often walk or cycle to the school and the increased traffic that this proposal will generate will make it even more dangerous than it is already for them. High Road is also a rat run for people to get to the A1066.
This is an absolutely ridiculous proposal for this village.

This site shares the dominant constraint common to all Bressingham/Fersfield sites: an absence of essential infrastructure, services and transport. which render it completely unsuitable for a project of this dimension. Its development would also impact adversely on this part of the village, particularly in relation to safety and use of the nearby roads, for example, High Road, which could not cope with additional traffic flow. The policy of serial addition of small areas at village peripheries would be corrupted should a re-classification of Bressingham as a 'Service Village' within Joint Core Strategy terms be necessarily attempted.

Villages have evolved over time by the addition of one or two houses at any one times in different styles not by large developments. The village infrastructure including drains, sewers, roads and the school is overcrowded.
Local doctors and dentists have long waiting lists.
The proposed exit from this development is on to a very narrow road.
None of the houses would be affordable for people born in the area.
there are bats and newts.
The turtle dove is high on the list of bird's facing extinction and they come to the area near the site every year.

I object to any houses being built on this site, there is no decent road access to and from village, no street lights or pavements the village is not capable of dealing with large volumes of traffic which will cause air & noise pollution the roads are small pot holed country lanes not purpose built for a small town. there are no facilities in the village for a large volume of people & whats there doesn't always serve the village, we were unable to get our son in the school when we moved here.It will ruin the villages rural feel.

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.

We strongly object to this ridiculous proposal.High road is already unsafe for my wife &child to walk to school without the worry of extra traffic!There are no pathways,barely no room for two cars to pass safely in places. The village is not capable of dealing with larger volumes of traffic.The school is already over subscribed &certainly in no way could be expanded.This sort of development is so out of character for our village &would cause a great negative effect.From a personal nature,living next to this proposed development(field level sits over 2 foot taller then us)we are concerned about our privacy.

This site doesn't comply with the Joint Core Strategy for South Norfolk,nor does it fit with the linear structure of the village. The roads are too narrow, there is no room for footpaths, the school is full, it would also impact on an already struggling health centre, congested main road through Diss and High school.
10 houses(per acre)?

A lack of utilities in around this site and also falls within a known flooding area.
The road is majorly congested by HGVs and agricultural machinery already causing road safety issues for children, the disabled & elderly.
A concern for raised levels of CO2 from additional traffic and the loss of yet more greenbelt sites when other sites are more suitable

The above sites for consideration for affordable housing would not be viable in these areas due to the following: -
HGV vehicles using this road are already a danger to the local residence and further congestion would cause more issues as there are a lack of pavements.
Lack of amenities to support additional housing including Doctors & public transport.
Open space loss & Greenbelt loss when other brown field sites have been identified

I have no objection to well located small scale development in the village. However, I cannot believe that if a plot of this size gets permission that there will only be 10 houses on it in the future.

Almost inevitably a developer will increase the density, and, or puchasers of proposed houses with plots in excess of an acre each will try to achieve a planning gain.

As stated I am not against development, but the sheer scale of the site and how many houses may sit on it in the future is a concern.

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 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.

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.