GNLP2018

Showing comments and forms 1 to 30 of 30

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 17444

Received: 27/11/2018

Respondent: Dr Patrick Frew

Representation:

I have previously objected to this proposed development for several reasons : it abuts the Brooke Conservation area ; it will ruin the view north from my house, and adversely affect my quality of life (noise, lighting, traffic etc) ; it is of an inappropriate scale for this small village; the incentive of land for a school is of dubious merit.

I am dismayed that adjacent development has also been proposed: GNLP0432, GNLP0583, GNLP 0584. These were not mentioned by FWWells at the recent public consultations. They represent an even more outrageous abuse of this village by a cynical developer.

Full text:

I have previously objected to this proposed development for several reasons : it abuts the Brooke Conservation area ; it will ruin the view north from my house, and adversely affect my quality of life (noise, lighting, traffic etc) ; it is of an inappropriate scale for this small village; the incentive of land for a school is of dubious merit.

I am dismayed that adjacent development has also been proposed: GNLP0432, GNLP0583, GNLP 0584. These were not mentioned by FWWells at the recent public consultations. They represent an even more outrageous abuse of this village by a cynical developer.

Support

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 17473

Received: 28/11/2018

Respondent: FW Properties

Representation:

Our heritage advisors have advised that the development of this land would have a medium/minor impact on the neighbouring Conservation Area and negligible or no impact at all on the listed buildings in this part of the village. Our drainage advisors have advised that an appropriate surface water drainage strategy could be implemented for the development of this land which would include on site attenuation before using the existing network of ditches to the Well Beck. We believe that this site represents the most appropriate location for the next phase of the village's growth.

Full text:

Our heritage advisors have advised that the development of this land would have a medium/minor impact on the neighbouring Conservation Area and negligible or no impact at all on the listed buildings in this part of the village. Our drainage advisors have advised that an appropriate surface water drainage strategy could be implemented for the development of this land which would include on site attenuation before using the existing network of ditches to the Well Beck. We believe that this site represents the most appropriate location for the next phase of the village's growth.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 17651

Received: 03/12/2018

Respondent: Mrs Brenda Hill

Representation:

The field is heavy clay and properties around this field already suffer waterlogged gardens due to surface water. After a problem with houses built along the Norwich Road suffering waterlogged gardens even though there were drains in place the same company FW Properties now wants to build another 148. I have no trust or confidence in this development company to do things right. I also suffer a waterlogged garden and the fear is real. A roundabout is not the answer on an already heaving road at peak times. Poringland through bad planning and short insight is a bottleneck and this will force even more cars on the rat runs through villages that are not equipped to take this extra traffic. Brooke is a service village and has filled its building quoter + to force these houses on Brooke would be morally wrong, and the provision for a school is not needed it is a carrot to get these houses built!

Full text:

I wish to lodge an objection to this site. The field is heavy clay and properties around this field already suffer waterlogged gardens due to surface water. After a problem with houses built along the Norwich Road suffering waterlogged gardens even though there were drains in place the same company FW Properties now wants to build another 148. I have no trust or confidence in this development company to do things right. I also suffer a waterlogged garden and the fear is real. A roundabout is not the answer on an already heaving road at peak times. Poringland through bad planning and short insight is a bottleneck and this will force even more cars on the rat runs through villages that are not equipped to take this extra traffic. Brooke is a service village and has filled its building quoter + to force these houses on Brooke would be morally wrong, and the provision for a school is not needed it is a carrot to get these houses built!

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 17949

Received: 06/12/2018

Respondent: Mr Peter Tully

Representation:

This is wholly inappropriate for numerous reasons, inter alia:
Truly affordable housing should be concentrated in urban areas.
Development should utilise brownfield sites first not greenfield with the further loss of agricultural land required for food production.
The proposed development is disproportionate and will adversely affect the existing settlement.
Brooke does not have the infrastructure and facilities to cope.
Negative impacts on protected species, extra traffic noise and pollution, and commuters who suffer from B1332 already being snarled up at peak times.
Poor drainage of the land already a problem suffered by nearby residents.
School is a red herring.

Full text:

This is wholly inappropriate for numerous reasons, inter alia:
Truly affordable housing should be concentrated in urban areas.
Development should utilise brownfield sites first not greenfield with the further loss of agricultural land required for food production.
The proposed development is disproportionate and will adversely affect the existing settlement.
Brooke does not have the infrastructure and facilities to cope.
Negative impacts on protected species, extra traffic noise and pollution, and commuters who suffer from B1332 already being snarled up at peak times.
Poor drainage of the land already a problem suffered by nearby residents.
School is a red herring.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 18081

Received: 08/12/2018

Respondent: mr Andrew Gibson

Representation:

Building a large housing estate in a small rural village is not sympathetic development.
The developer states that development of this land would have a medium/minor impact on the neighbouring Conservation Area, which means that it will have a negative impact.
Additional housing developments of this size are having a significant negative impact on roads, Doctors surgeries, Schools and hospitals.

Full text:

Building a large housing estate in a small rural village is not sympathetic development.
The developer states that development of this land would have a medium/minor impact on the neighbouring Conservation Area, which means that it will have a negative impact.
Additional housing developments of this size are having a significant negative impact on roads, Doctors surgeries, Schools and hospitals.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 18093

Received: 08/12/2018

Respondent: Mrs Sara Hurn

Representation:

The proposal is outside the development boundary and is disproportionate to the size of the village which will lead to existing meagre services being severely stretched.
Brooke is a small village and the building of 150 new houses would affect the character, charm and appearance.
Increased traffic would have a significant impact on the already busy B1332.
This estate would cause considerable light pollution in a previously unscathed area.
Brownfield sites in urban areas should be used first not greenfield with a loss of agricultural land.
What a shame another small village is under threat from the greed of developers.

Full text:

The proposal is outside the development boundary and is disproportionate to the size of the village which will lead to existing meagre services being severely stretched.
Brooke is a small village and the building of 150 new houses would affect the character, charm and appearance.
Increased traffic would have a significant impact on the already busy B1332.
This estate would cause considerable light pollution in a previously unscathed area.
Brownfield sites in urban areas should be used first not greenfield with a loss of agricultural land.
What a shame another small village is under threat from the greed of developers.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 18206

Received: 10/12/2018

Respondent: Mrs N Urquhart

Representation:

There are lies being told to the village about the idea of a new primary school that NOBODY has the funds to build. The County Council do not think it's neccessary to build a new school (so they won't be paying for it) so using this as a bargaining chip to bring in mass development that has no chance of coming to fruition is a shocking and underhand tactic.

Full text:

There are lies being told to the village about the idea of a new primary school that NOBODY has the funds to build. The County Council do not think it's neccessary to build a new school (so they won't be paying for it) so using this as a bargaining chip to bring in mass development that has no chance of coming to fruition is a shocking and underhand tactic.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 18241

Received: 10/12/2018

Respondent: Mrs Susan Northeast

Representation:

A new school building is not needed.
Concerns around flood risk and the increased water and sewage requirements.

Destruction of habitat and the effect on wildlife in and around the designated area.

Effect of increased traffic. There is no pedestrian crossing, which makes accessing the amenities difficult.

There is no GP in the village, the nearest is overwhelmed; no NHS dentist.
Public transport consists of a limited bus service

With this number of proposed houses to be built all at one time, there is a risk the community and feel of this small village will be lost.

Full text:

The inclusion of a site for a primary school should not be taken into account, as a new school building is not needed or wanted by the school/community. The current school has sufficient capacity and the school could be updated at lower cost than a rebuild.
There are concerns around the flood risk and there would need to be sufficient consideration given to the increased water and sewage requirements that 150 new houses would bring.
There would be destruction of habitat, with an effect on the wildlife in and around the designated area.
There would be increased traffic, on an already busy road. There is no pedestrian crossing in Brooke, which makes accessing the amenities difficult.
There are issues around health services, as there is no GP in the village and the nearest one is already overwhelmed. There is no NHS dentist, unless you travel into Norwich. This all requires access to a car or relying on public transport.
The public transport system consists of a limited bus service, one bus an hour on both current routes, which are not timed together but appear within 10 minutes of each other.
With this number of proposed houses to be built all at the same time, there is a very real risk that the community and feel of this small village will be lost.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 18244

Received: 10/12/2018

Respondent: Mrs Julie Leddy

Representation:

No infrastructure for development.This site is located on the approach to the village and is inappropriate and out of character for a rural village.The impact on local wildlife and protected/ Amber Alert species is catastrophic.There is limited opportunity for local employment which would mean even more commuter traffic on an already insufficient road.There is flood risk and such a large scale development would adversely affect the local water table for proposed and existing residents.The village is a protected Conservation Area.No evidence to support the view that a development of this size and design is required in this rural, unserviced location.

Full text:


1. The proposed development is outside of the village's permitted development boundary and should be refused as such.

2. The issue of an apparent lack of 5 year land supply should not be reason to expect a Service Village - with no sufficient infrastructure - to shoulder the entire burden of any district housing deficit. Furthermore, it would appear that the issue of the 5 year land supply is also controversial: in some calculations, South a Norfolk would appear to actually have a surplus. Until the issue of a lack of transparency from the district council and its representatives is resolved, this site should not even be discussed.

3. The size of the development (be it the 148 dwellings stated in the initial planning application or the nearly 200 dwellings referred to in the consultation period) is totally disproportionate to the size of the village (which currently only has just over 500 properties). Developments of this size are not sustainable in villages of this type and size. Such a development would lead to a population explosion for a small rural village and existing residents would be victims of its consequences, such as increase in traffic and the associated pollution, additional noise and light pollution from such a density of housing and competition for services such as school places, GP and dentist places.

4. Brooke does not represent a typical service village: there is no shop which sells basic amenities; no healthcare provision; there have been significant cuts to public transport links; very limited opportunities for employment. In fact, Brooke has very few practical and basic amenities for residents which do not require independent travel outside of the area. As such, it cannot support large increases to the population and the main road is insufficient to cope with yet another increase in commuter traffic.

5. There is no appropriate infrastructure to support a development of this size. There has been substantial development in neighbouring Poringland which has already put significant pressure on local services, such as healthcare, highways, schools and utilities.

6. In particular for this specific site and proposal, the issue of residential developments should not be closely entwined with any funding for a new school. They are two separate issues and should be treated as such. The existing school originally had funding for a new building but no school actually materialised during the lifespan of this funding because the preferred land could not be secured at an affordable price. It is outrageous that as soon as the funding is removed, that a developer with familial ties to the owner of the land in question proposes such a catastrophic plan. There are no guarantees that a new school will be built as the developer is merely offering a small parcel of land and some connection to services. The actual new school will need funds secured once again.

7. The requirement for a new school has not been proved and in fact, previous allocated funds have been redistributed so there is currently no funding available for a new school. However, if there was a prior need for a new school without the concession of hundreds of homes, the two issues should not now be conflated for the developer's benefit.

8 If there is a need for a larger school in Brooke to cope with the overflow from neighbouring villages (due to over-zealous and short-sighted developments in these areas which have lacked school places for children), this should be without the 'price' of a disproportionate housing estate in Brooke- and a greater density of population which may well further exacerbate the problem of limited school places for residents. The current school is very well supported in the local community and achieves excellent results, both academically and in sporting pursuits. It is not a failing school which would fulfil any criteria for replacement by an academy or free school.

9. The proposed development site is currently designated agricultural land and is indeed actively farmed. The proposed development encroaches on open land to an unacceptable degree with an 'estate' that is not in keeping with a rural village of this type; it is not conducive to the village and is too intrusive.

10. There is a significant risk of flooding to this area of land- being predominantly clay- should it be developed for residential housing. Indeed, at least one of the 12 recently built properties on abutting land have suffered poor drainage and flooding of outside areas. There are known flood risks in this area and properties surrounding the development site who currently experience problems, would likely see these magnified. In addition, it was reported that soil and drainage investigations were planned to take place during a time of unseasonable drought- thus skewing the required data submitted for plans.

11. The encroachment onto open land in the village risks a significant adverse impact on local wildlife. In close proximity to the proposed site, there are designated ancient woodland which play host to a variety of species- some of which are birds of prey on Amber Alert such as buzzards and kites. The habitat also has a population of Great Crested Newts which are a protected species.

12. The proposed development is in direct sight of an existing Conservation Area and as such intrudes into an area of high landscape character. This makes it contrary to the principal of protection within a Conservation Area.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 18254

Received: 10/12/2018

Respondent: Mrs Brenda Hill

Representation:

This is just part of a block of sites. None of which should be considered due to the existing waterlogging in gardens surrounding this field... Who is going to do the yearly upkeep of the ditches? What happens for four years if these are built to the protected Great crested newts? The noise pollution, air pollution and lack of infrastructure is NOT roundabout that is going to cause a problem for other junctions in the village. The NHS cannot cope, the few amenities we have will be rendered inadequate if the village is cut off. The school is not needed

Full text:

This is just part of a block of sites. None of which should be considered due to the existing waterlogging in gardens surrounding this field... Who is going to do the yearly upkeep of the ditches? What happens for four years if these are built to the protected Great crested newts? The noise pollution, air pollution and lack of infrastructure is NOT roundabout that is going to cause a problem for other junctions in the village. The NHS cannot cope, the few amenities we have will be rendered inadequate if the village is cut off. The school is not needed

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 18359

Received: 10/12/2018

Respondent: Mrs Caroline Hayes

Representation:

This large scale development will completely change the character of Brooke. Currently there is no money allocated for a new primary school to be built.

Full text:

This large scale development will completely change the character of Brooke. Currently there is no money allocated for a new primary school to be built.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 18371

Received: 10/12/2018

Respondent: Mr Iain Slade

Representation:

This kind of speculative development is the blight of many communities and should be stopped. This is a rural village and we would like it to stay that way. Whilst I don't mind the village evolving over time with one or two house built here and there this kind of development will destroy the village.

If this or other large developments are accepted then the village will disappear as this and other developers will just keep on adding to it.

Full text:

I object to this development.

This kind of speculative development is the blight of many communities and should be stopped. This is a rural village and we would like it to stay that way. Whilst I don't mind the village evolving over time with one or two house built here and there this kind of development will destroy the village. I give more details below.

Such a development is out of proportion in relation to the number of properties in the village
It is outside the development boundary for the village, This will set a precedence for further development ensuring the destruction of the village and it's rural nature and feel.
There is no requirement for the village of Brooke to take on this number of houses as I believe we have met our quota and gone beyond the required amount.
The addition of a roundabout to ease access to and from the development will encourage the development of the other fields surrounding the roundabout.
The increase in traffic will increase pollution (given that more vehicles will be on the road) and all the vehicles on the main road will have to slow down and accelerate again after the roundabout therefore significantly increasing pollution.
There are insufficient services in the local area to support the number of people that may be expected to reside in said properties. Doctors appointments in my local surgery(Poringland) are 3 weeks from the date of booking and a simple blood test is 10 days! This, while they are still building many more houses there, many completed ones are unsold. That will only make matters worse.
The area is completely waterlogged for at least 6 months of the year and adding more concrete and less natural drainage will exacerbate the issue. See the site just north of Poringland that is flooded with just a small amount of rain.
There is no requirement for a new primary school. The current one is not fully occupied and is rated as good by OFSTED. If there was a need then you would have built one when you had the funding back in 2014.
The negative effect on wildlife will be unacceptable as we are already losing wildlife variety and an astounding rate.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 18382

Received: 10/12/2018

Respondent: Miss Julia Franklin

Representation:

Development out of proportion in size.
A new Primary school is not required currently by the village - the existing one is good and has spaces.
Rural nature of the village will be ruined by a roundabout and large estate.
Increase in traffic and pollution.
Destruction of agricultural land used by a variety of wildlife including protected species.
Brooke is a conservation village and should remain so.
Flooding risk.
Lack of amenities.

Full text:

Such a development is out of proportion in relation to the number of
properties in the village and will mean an increase of around 30% which is unacceptable and unsustainable. Also it will completely alter the character of what is a beautiful village to the detriment.
The proposed development is outside the development boundary for the village, which will set a precedence for further development ensuring the destruction of the village and it's rural nature and feel.
There is no requirement for the village of Brooke to take on this number of
houses as I believe we have met our quota and gone beyond the required
amount.
The addition of a roundabout to ease access to and from the development
will encourage the development of the other fields surrounding the
roundabout.Also a roundabout is totally out of character for the village and this plus the housing development will ruin the approach into the village.
The increase in traffic will increase pollution (given that more vehicles
will be on the road) and all the vehicles on the main road will have to
slow down and accelerate again after the roundabout therefore significantly
increasing pollution.
There are insufficient services in the local area to support the number of
people that may be expected to reside in said properties. Doctors
appointments in my local surgery(Poringland) are 3 weeks from the date of
booking and a simple blood test is 10 days! This, while they are still
building many more houses there, many completed ones are unsold. That will
only make matters worse.NHS England have actually stated that they are currently unable to meet the extra demand that will be placed on local doctors by this proposed development.
The area is completely waterlogged for at least 6 months of the year and
adding more concrete and less natural drainage will exacerbate the issue.
See the site just north of Poringland that is flooded with just a small
amount of rain.
There is no requirement for a new primary school. The current one is not
fully occupied and is rated as good by OFSTED. If there was a need then you
would have built one when funding was available back in 2014.If Poringland Primary is struggling with pupil numbers, build an additional school there as this village has already been completely ruined by over development.
The negative effect on wildlife will be unacceptable as we are already
losing wildlife variety and an astounding rate.The presence of Great Crested Newts alone should be reason enough to stop this development going ahead.

SUMMARY

This kind of speculative development is the blight of many communities and
should be stopped. This is a rural village and we would like it to stay
that way. Whilst I don't mind the village evolving over time with one or
two house built here and there this kind of development will destroy the
village.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 18491

Received: 11/12/2018

Respondent: Mrs Claire Stevens

Representation:

This is very large development for a small village with few services. A new school is not required. Large developments are better suited on the A140, and A11 corridor. This is not in the local plan and this should be respected.

Full text:

This is very large development for a small village with few services. A new school is not required. Large developments are better suited on the A140, and A11 corridor. This is not in the local plan and this should be respected.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 18541

Received: 11/12/2018

Respondent: Edward Jinks

Representation:

This would be a major encroachment into open countryside and well beyond the traditional boundary of the village, which should be respected.
Development on this scale would be totally out of keeping with the character and scale of the village, most of which is a Conservation area, which directly adjoins this site.
Growth of the village should be limited to a modest number of new dwellings over the period to 2036.
The proposal includes a new school which is not required. There is a very good and popular existing school in the village with capacity for another 40-50 children.

Full text:

This would be a major encroachment into open countryside and well beyond the traditional boundary of the village, which should be respected.
Development on this scale would be totally out of keeping with the character and scale of the village, most of which is a Conservation area, which directly adjoins this site.
Growth of the village should be limited to a modest number of new dwellings over the period to 2036.
The proposal includes a new school which is not required. There is a very good and popular existing school in the village with capacity for another 40-50 children.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 18725

Received: 12/12/2018

Respondent: miss michala warner

Representation:

This is an utterly ridiculous proposal, annexing a housing estate of 148 houses onto a small conservation village in rural Norfolk.

The infrastructure cannot support such large scale development, Doctors surgeries are full, the high school in Poringland is pretty much already at capacity. The N&N hospital already has some of the worst A&E waiting times in the country. The roads into Norwich are becoming clogged with traffic, there is no alternative as there are no footpaths or cycle lanes into Norwich. Hence the only option is to use a car or a very infrequent bus service.

Full text:

This is an utterly ridiculous proposal, annexing a housing estate of 148 houses onto a small conservation village in rural Norfolk.

The infrastructure cannot support such large scale development, Doctors surgeries are full, the high school in Poringland is pretty much already at capacity. The N&N hospital already has some of the worst A&E waiting times in the country. The roads into Norwich are becoming clogged with traffic, there is no alternative as there are no footpaths or cycle lanes into Norwich. Hence the only option is to use a car or a very infrequent bus service.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 18810

Received: 13/12/2018

Respondent: Brooke Parish Council

Representation:

1. Would be a significant encroachment beyond the current village development boundary

2. Would have a severely adverse impact on the scale, form and character of the village

3.would be development in open countryside, removing high quality agricultural land

4. Would have a negative impact on the setting of the Conservation area (which directly adjoins the site) and its Listed buildings

5. The site is within 3 km of a Special Area of Conservation and a Site of Special Scientific interest, which would be adversely impacted by its development

6. The proposal includes a new school which is not required

Full text:

1. Would be a significant encroachment beyond the current village development boundary

2. Would have a severely adverse impact on the scale, form and character of the village

3.would be development in open countryside, removing high quality agricultural land

4. Would have a negative impact on the setting of the Conservation area (which directly adjoins the site) and its Listed buildings

5. The site is within 3 km of a Special Area of Conservation and a Site of Special Scientific interest, which would be adversely impacted by its development

6. The proposal includes a new school which is not required

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 18994

Received: 13/12/2018

Respondent: Mrs Laura Fawke

Representation:

I object to this proposed development. A development of this size for a small village is ridiculous.
The village does not have the local amenities or infrastructure to support such a development.
The local plan has been completely disregarded.

Full text:

I object to this proposed development. A development of this size for a small village is ridiculous.
The village does not have the local amenities or infrastructure to support such a development.
The local plan has been completely disregarded.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 19076

Received: 13/12/2018

Respondent: Mrs Clemence Dunleavy

Representation:

The site is outside the village boundary. It backs on to listed buildings and boarders Brookes conservation area, these will be gravely affected by the development.

There are species that need to be protected and of high scientific value.

The site will have a detrimental affect on traffic. The road through to poringland is already gridlocked at peak times.

There is NO funding and NO need for a school in Brooke.

NHS services are at capacity in this area.

There is no need for this housing scale in this area on a prime agricultural site.

Full text:

The site is outside the village boundary. It backs on to listed buildings and boarders Brookes conservation area, these will be gravely affected by the development.

There are species that need to be protected and of high scientific value.

The site will have a detrimental affect on traffic. The road through to poringland is already gridlocked at peak times.

There is NO funding and NO need for a school in Brooke.

NHS services are at capacity in this area.

There is no need for this housing scale in this area on a prime agricultural site.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 19078

Received: 13/12/2018

Respondent: Mrs Angela Garner

Representation:

1. Inappropriate scale of development for village the size of Brooke.
2. Inappropriate location abutting long established Conservation Area.
3. Flood risk to existing properties.
4. Additional and excessive traffic generation.
5. Creation of light pollution in village with minimal existing light pollution.
6. Need to preserve this land for existing abundance of wildlife.
7. Inappropriate loss of agricultural land.
8. Inadequate existing local services to support increased population generated by proposed development.

Full text:

1. Whether there are 50 or 150 dwellings, with or without a school, it is an inappropriate scale of development on a single site for a village the size of Brooke and the precedent would be set for permitting future similar inappropriate large scale housing development on the West side of the B1332 at a later date.
2. Inappropriate development on land immediately adjacent to the long established Conservation Area of Brooke and would impact on that Conservation Area.
3. Flood risk to existing properties as evidenced by the existing problems encountered due to the topography and geology of the undeveloped agricultural site at present.
4. Additional and excessive traffic generation for a small village.
5. Light pollution from an assumed street lighting scheme for the housing estate in a village that currently has minimal light pollution.
6. The need to protect this land for the abundance of wildlife that frequently makes use of these fields and surrounding areas.
7. Loss of agricultural land.
8. Brooke Village does not have sufficient local services to support a population of this size - no surgery, dentist, secondary school etc.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 19097

Received: 13/12/2018

Respondent: Select Judith Dixon

Representation:

Brooke has already exceeded it's required quota for housing.
The proposal is outside the development boundary of the village.
It is totally inappropriate for such a small village and will ruin the character of Brooke.
The infrastructure is not in place. Massive development in Poringland has made access to Norwich very difficult at peak times leading to 'rat runs' on the back lanes and through the neighbouring villages of Shotesham and Stoke Holy Cross. This development would increase this further leading to increased pollution and accident risk.
A new school is not required and there is no money for one.

Full text:

Brooke has already exceeded it's required quota for housing.
The proposal is outside the development boundary of the village.
It is totally inappropriate for such a small village and will ruin the character of Brooke.
The infrastructure is not in place. Massive development in Poringland has made access to Norwich very difficult at peak times leading to 'rat runs' on the back lanes and through the neighbouring villages of Shotesham and Stoke Holy Cross. This development would increase this further leading to increased pollution and accident risk.
A new school is not required and there is no money for one.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 19155

Received: 14/12/2018

Respondent: Mrs Anna Toulson

Representation:

This proposal represents the over-development of a beautiful conservation village that will result in significant harm to the local flora and fauna, as well as have a detrimental effect on the appearance and character of the conservation area. The road network will be significantly impacted by this proposal with a knock on effect being felt throughout the local village network into Norwich.
Land available for a school is irrelevent and a very misleading claim to justify a grossly oversized housing development.

Full text:

This proposal represents the over-development of a beautiful conservation village that will result in significant harm to the local flora and fauna, as well as have a detrimental effect on the appearance and character of the conservation area. The road network will be significantly impacted by this proposal with a knock on effect being felt throughout the local village network into Norwich.
Land available for a school is irrelevent and a very misleading claim to justify a grossly oversized housing development.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 19173

Received: 14/12/2018

Respondent: Sally Metcalf

Representation:

The scale of this development would severely effect the form and character of this village and open it up to future large scale development.Development on Agricultural land should be the last option, development in open countryside should not be allowed.This developer has applied for Outline Planning Permission which should be refused, the site has been put forward for 'consultation' for the New Local plan therefore it should not be considered at this time as there are more than enough sites to hit the councils targets if developers and builders are made to 'build' out the sites that have permission.

Full text:

The scale of this development would severely effect the form and character of this village and open it up to future large scale development.Development on Agricultural land should be the last option, development in open countryside should not be allowed.This developer has applied for Outline Planning Permission which should be refused, the site has been put forward for 'consultation' for the New Local plan therefore it should not be considered at this time as there are more than enough sites to hit the councils targets if developers and builders are made to 'build' out the sites that have permission.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 19303

Received: 14/12/2018

Respondent: mr Peter Ryland

Representation:

Ruin the village for no perceived gain to the village.

Full text:

This proposal(2018) and the linked block 0432 are :
1. outside the village boundary.
2. Will change the character of the village completely on the main approaches to the village from either Norwich or Bungay.
3.Are unnecessary.
4. Opposed by the parish council
5. On poor , often waterlogged land as discovered by the developers of the last extension to the village built recently in between 0432 and the village hall.
6. Has a spurious and unwanted "new school", whereas the parents want the old scholl kept but improved and the Education Committee have withdrawn proposed funding for any new school.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 19329

Received: 14/12/2018

Respondent: B.R.A.I.D.

Representation:

This development will cause unacceptable harm to Brooke, its residents and the residents of neighbouring villages( impact of traffic).
Brooke is a service village within the rural area, policy 15 of JCS identifies Brooke as a village in which land will be allocated for small scale housing growth. This is not small scale. It does not meet local needs including affordable housing.
There will be noise and lighting issues, would increase the size of the village immensely. HARM would result to change of land use and the conservation area not to mention drainage and darker skies and the environment.

Full text:

This development will cause unacceptable harm to Brooke, its residents and the residents of neighbouring villages( impact of traffic).
Brooke is a service village within the rural area, policy 15 of JCS identifies Brooke as a village in which land will be allocated for small scale housing growth. This is not small scale. It does not meet local needs including affordable housing.
There will be noise and lighting issues, would increase the size of the village immensely. HARM would result to change of land use and the conservation area not to mention drainage and darker skies and the environment.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 19339

Received: 13/12/2018

Respondent: Brooke Parish Council

Representation:

GNLP2018 (9.1 hectares east of Norwich Rd)
Not recommended for the following reasons:
1. would be a significant encroachment beyond the current village development boundary
2. would have a severely adverse impact on the scale, form and character of the village
3. would be development in open countryside, removing high quality agricultural land
4. would have a negative impact on the setting of the Conservation area (which directly adjoins the site) and its Listed buildings
5. the site is within 3 km of a Special Area of Conservation and a Site of Special Scientific interest, which would be adversely impacted by its development
6. the proposal includes a new school which is not required

Full text:

The existing South Norfolk Local Plan provides for 20 new dwellings in Brooke in the period to 2026. Planning permissions have already been granted for 30 new dwellings. The Parish Council is dedicated to preserving the unique character and scale of the village, most of which is within the Conservation area, which was first designated in 1975. This has been achieved over the last 43 years by careful and sensitive management of the village, including allowing, where appropriate, complementary new development on a modest scale within a tightly defined development line. The PC strongly believes that this principle is even more important in the future, bearing in mind the pressure nationally for new housing, which we believe must not be allowed to damage the unique qualities of the village. In accordance with this principle the PC believes that the allocations for new development in Brooke in the new Plan period to 2036 should not exceed 10 new dwellings. This would result in a total of 40 new dwellings in the combined periods of the existing and new local Plans, being an increase of 20 from the current Local Plan. The PC feels that any higher allo-cation would be inappropriate for a Conservation village surrounded by open countryside compris-ing ancient woodlands (Brooke Wood and Kirstead Wood) and high quality agricultural land, and unsustainable due to the limited range of services and very limited employment opportunities in the village. The PC's resistance to large-scale expansion of the village is supported by the vast majority of residents, as evidenced by the overwhelming weight of public opinion against the proposed de-velopment of 148 dwellings on land to the east of Norwich Rd.

Comments on the individual sites

GNLP2018 (9.1 hectares east of Norwich Rd)
Not recommended for the following reasons:
1. would be a significant encroachment beyond the current village development boundary
2. would have a severely adverse impact on the scale, form and character of the village
3. would be development in open countryside, removing high quality agricultural land
4. would have a negative impact on the setting of the Conservation area (which directly adjoins the site) and its Listed buildings
5. the site is within 3 km of a Special Area of Conservation and a Site of Special Scientific interest, which would be adversely impacted by its development
6. the proposal includes a new school which is not required

GNLP0432 (1 hectare Norwich Rd)
Not recommended for the following reasons:
1. would be development in open countryside, removing high quality agricultural land
2. would reduce the separation of the village from Brooke Lodge (Listed building) and adversely impact its setting
3. would adversely impact the character and form of the village
4. would be ribbon development, which is contrary to national and local planning policies


GNLP2122 (2.7 hectares east of Wood farm, High Green)
Not recommended for the following reasons:
1. would be a significant encroachment beyond the current village development boundary
2. would be development in open countryside, removing high quality agricultural land
3. would impact on nearby ancient woodland and County Wildlife Site (Brooke Wood)
4. would have a negative impact on the setting of the Conservation area
5. would adversely impact the character, scale and form of the village
6. the proposal includes a new school which is not required
7. access issues on a winding stretch of road

GNLP2119 (1.9 hectares north of High Green)
Not recommended for the following reasons:
1. would be a significant encroachment beyond the current village development boundary
2. would be development in open countryside, removing high quality agricultural land
3. would impact on nearby ancient woodland and County Wildlife Site (Brooke Wood)
4. would have a negative impact on the setting of the Conservation area
5. would adversely impact the character and form of the village
6. access issues on a winding stretch of road


GNLP0490 (1.7 hectares, land off Mereside)
Not recommended for the following reasons:
1. would be a significant encroachment beyond the current village development boundary
2. land is within the Conservation area which would be severely adversely impacted by develop-ment
3. development on this land has been rejected in the recent past following a public enquiry
4. would be development in open countryside, removing high quality agricultural land
5. would impact on nearby County Wildlife Site (Kirstead Wood)
6. would adversely impact the character and form of the village

GNLP0583 (6.7 hectares north of the Street and Laurel Farm)
Not recommended for the following reasons:
1. would be a significant encroachment beyond the current village development boundary
2. would be development in open countryside, removing high quality agricultural land
3. would have a negative impact on the setting of the Conservation area
4. would adversely impact the character, scale and form of the village
5. no suitable vehicular access

GNLP0584 (0.75 hectare west of Burgess Way)
Not recommended for the following reasons:
1. would be development in open countryside, removing high quality agricultural land
2. would have a negative impact on the setting of the Conservation area
3. would adversely impact the character and form of the village

GNLP0579 (0.19 hectare, Waldor Cottage, High Green)
Not recommended for the following reasons:
1. would severely impact an area of ancient woodland
2. development would be unsustainable due to its isolation from the village and its services
3. sporadic and ribbon development, which is contrary to national and local planning policies

GNLP0077 (0.4 hectare, Howe Lane)
* planning permission already granted for development of three self-build dwellings

GNLPSL0020 (0.11 hectare, High Green)
* would expand the settlement boundary to include land with no direct access to a public high-way
* would adjoin the recent development at 49 High Green

Attachments:

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 19377

Received: 14/12/2018

Respondent: Mr Paul Tholen

Representation:

This site is already the subject of formal planning permission (2018/1780) about which I have already objected. I do not believe such an application should be allowed when it is also included on a plan intended to cover a period from 2026-2036. It implies that developers are seeking planning permission outside the strategic timeframe of the GNLP, and if one succeeds, it will create an unwelcome precedent for others in the area.

Full text:

This site is already the subject of formal planning permission (2018/1780) about which I have already objected. I do not believe such an application should be allowed when it is also included on a plan intended to cover a period from 2026-2036. It implies that developers are seeking planning permission outside the strategic timeframe of the GNLP, and if one succeeds, it will create an unwelcome precedent for others in the area.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 19403

Received: 14/12/2018

Respondent: Ms Alison Harvey

Representation:

Brooke is a small village with a wonderful sense of community, where neighbours look out for each other. I have seen Poringland turned into a dormitory village, with residents lacking respect for each other. Imposing this sort of scale development on Brooke risks losing the very qualities which make it so special as a rural community. Rather than letting it evolve over time.

Full text:

Brooke is a small village with a wonderful sense of community, where neighbours look out for each other. I have seen Poringland turned into a dormitory village, with residents lacking respect for each other. Imposing this sort of scale development on Brooke risks losing the very qualities which make it so special as a rural community. Rather than letting it evolve over time.

Comment

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 19429

Received: 14/12/2018

Respondent: Alison Bolster

Representation:

We have been aware of several agricultural sites in Brooke offered for potential development under the GNLP, and wish to make the following comments.
All the suggested sites fall outside the village development boundary and break out into open country. Brooke has always been valued as a rural village surrounded by farmland, and its setting is important to the contribution it makes to South Norfolk's landscape and character. Norfolk's wildlife sites in the area, such as Brooke Wood, with Culyers Grove, and Kirstead Wood are vulnerable and need protection from any future building.
The conservation area includes the historic centre of the village, and the development boundary has been designed particularly to protect it. All the proposed sites constitute some kind of threat, especially site no. 0 J8K which is the last remaining mediaeval toft belonging to the tenements along The Street.
We recognise that some development to provide reasonable rental accommodation may be necessary, but not on the scale suggested which is much larger than the village can support. Such a large expansion of houses and population would overwhelm the present community, and totally transform one of South Norfolk's most treasured villages into another Poringland dormitory.
Brooke has already exceeded by 50% the development required of it in the most recent local plan
(20 required, 30 built), and as the representative of the local Conservation Group, we feel that our local roads, services and village facilities cannot cope with any further large scale incursions.

Full text:

We have been aware of several agricultural sites in Brooke offered for potential development under the GNLP, and wish to make the following comments.
All the suggested sites fall outside the village development boundary and break out into open country. Brooke has always been valued as a rural village surrounded by farmland, and its setting is important to the contribution it makes to South Norfolk's landscape and character. Norfolk's wildlife sites in the area, such as Brooke Wood, with Culyers Grove, and Kirstead Wood are vulnerable and need protection from any future building.
The conservation area includes the historic centre of the village, and the development boundary has been designed particularly to protect it. All the proposed sites constitute some kind of threat, especially site no. 0 J8K which is the last remaining mediaeval toft belonging to the tenements along The Street.
We recognise that some development to provide reasonable rental accommodation may be necessary, but not on the scale suggested which is much larger than the village can support. Such a large expansion of houses and population would overwhelm the present community, and totally transform one of South Norfolk's most treasured villages into another Poringland dormitory.
Brooke has already exceeded by 50% the development required of it in the most recent local plan
(20 required, 30 built), and as the representative of the local Conservation Group, we feel that our local roads, services and village facilities cannot cope with any further large scale incursions.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 19629

Received: 02/01/2019

Respondent: W Walker

Representation:

GNLP2018 (9.1 hectares east of Norwich Rd)
Reasons for OBJECTING to this site:
1. Currently a controversial application in progress. Tax payers money is being wasted as this site would not be considered if it were not linked to a dubious gift of land for a farcical new school that is not required.
2. Site is too large for a service village. 150 houses would increase the village by approx. 30%.
3. Significant encroachment into open countryside.
4. Outside the village development boundary.
5. Totally out of scale and character of the village.
6. Removal of high quality agricultural land.

Full text:

The current local plan states Brooke, as a service village, is to have 10 to 20 new houses to 2026. So far Brooke has had 32. The Rural South Norfolk Policy area has a 62.5 year land supply although SNC often quote they cannot demonstrate a five year land supply. There is enough land in the RSN policy area already with permission to not require any sites offered in this or the previous consultation. There appears to be a relentless attack on the Rural areas to build irrespective of the views of existing residents, Parish Councils and organizations trying to protect the environment. Little heed is given to drainage, ecology and the environment and in a high percentage of cases build quality is appalling. Urban style executive estates are being built in small villages and ruining the very beauty we all associate with the countryside. In 2017 South Norfolk Council planners permitted building on double the amount of Greenfield sites than on Brownfield sites. All of the larger sites in the list below are on prime agricultural land. As the GNDP state "We aim to produce a plan which will help to meet local housing and economic growth needs, whilst also protecting and enhancing the environment". I would like to see more emphasis the 'protection' and 'enhancement' of the environment which would most definitely include building large estates in rural villages.

Land banking is now a major problem and requires looking into as our rural landscape is being eaten away at an alarming rate.
There is currently an unprecedented response from the residents of Brooke objecting to the current application for the site GNLP2018 listed below. This is a typical example of a speculative developer calling the shots although from the information that has surfaced during this year it appears the council is being particularly accommodating. It is apparent that the practice of dealing with developers to provide infrastructure and facilities that our council should be funding, is open to abuse.

Comments on the individual sites
GNLP2018 (9.1 hectares east of Norwich Rd)
Reasons for OBJECTING to this site:
1. Currently a controversial application in progress. Tax payers money is being wasted as this site would not be considered if it were not linked to a dubious gift of land for a farcical new school that is not required.
2. Site is too large for a service village. 150 houses would increase the village by approx. 30%.
3. Significant encroachment into open countryside.
4. Outside the village development boundary.
5. Totally out of scale and character of the village.
6. Removal of high quality agricultural land.
7. Directly adjoins the conservation area and Listed buildings.Would cause severe impact on the setting.
8. This site is near Special Area of Conservation and a Site of Special Scientific interest.
9. Recently build houses on same field by owner/developer have had bad flooding issues.
GNLP0432 (1 hectare Norwich Rd)
Reasons for OBJECTING to this site:
1. Significant encroachment into open countryside.
2. Outside the village development boundary.
3. Removal of high quality agricultural land.
4. Would cause the village to link with the grounds Brooke Lodge which is a Listed building causing an adversely impact its setting.
5. It would adversely impact the character of the Northern approach to the village.
6. Ribbon style development, which is contrary to national and local planning policies.

GNLP2122 (2.7 hectares east of Wood farm, High Green)
Reasons for OBJECTING to this site:
1. Significant encroachment into open countryside.
2. Outside the village development boundary.
3. Removal of high quality agricultural land.
4. Would impact the ancient woodland and County Wildlife Site of Brooke Wood which is only one field away. This would need mitigating.
5. Negatively impact on the setting of the Conservation area.
6. Out of character with scale and form of village.
7. Yet another site linked to a farcical school new school which is not required.
8. School site would become another 20+ houses. The mention of a school is being used to increase chances of obtaining planning permission.
9. Site fronts road which consists of a series of bends. Dangerous access.
10. Highways have stated no room on existing road to provide a footpath to the site.

GNLP2119 (1.9 hectares north of High Green - Adjacent to GNLP2122)
Reasons for OBJECTING to this site:
1. Significant encroachment into open countryside.
2. Outside the village development boundary.
3. Removal of high quality agricultural land.
4. Would impact the ancient woodland and County Wildlife Site of Brooke Wood which is only one field away. This would need mitigating.
5. Negatively impact on the setting of the Conservation area.
6. Out of character with scale and form of village.
7. Site fronts road which consists of a series of bends. Dangerous access.
8. Highways have stated 'no room on existing road to provide a footpath to the site'.

GNLP0490 (1.7 hectares, land off Mereside)
Neutral:
1. 17 houses is too many for a site in a conservation service village but a lower number might be acceptable. This site would have the least visual impact over all put forward in this and the last consultation.
2. Development on this land has been rejected in the recent past following a public enquiry with the main reasons given being as: a. Outside the development boundary. b. There being a five year land supply within the rural policy area. The RSN policy area has always had a five year land supply and it has just been recently confirmed. c. Unsustainable form of development. d. Development into open countryside. If the above items a, b, c and d are justification for refusing this site for 17 houses in the past then they are more than enough to justify why sites GNLP2018, GNLP0432, GNLP2122 and GNLP2119 should not be accepted into the future plan.
3. This site would also impact very few other dwellings and there is a readymade access from the existing small development of Mereside to the site. Although it is in a conservation area our Council Leader explained at a PC meeting in 2018 that "it is not impossible to build in a conservation area, there are just a few more hurdles to jump".
GNLP0583 (6.7 hectares north of the Street and Laurel Farm)
Reasons for OBJECTING to this site:
1. Significant encroachment into open countryside.
2. Removal of high quality agricultural land.
3. Negatively impact on the setting of the Conservation area.
4. Out of character with scale and form of village.
5. No access for vehicles.
GNLP0584 (0.75 hectare west of Burgess Way)
Reasons for OBJECTING to this site:
1. Significant encroachment into open countryside.
2. Removal of high quality agricultural land.
3. Negatively impact on the setting of the Conservation area.
4. Out of character with scale and form of village.
GNLP0579 (0.19 hectare, Waldor Cottage, High Green)
Reasons for OBJECTING to this site:
1. Would severely impact the ancient woodland and County Wildlife Site of Brooke Wood which is neighbouring. This would need mitigating.
2. Unsustainable
3. Random development which is contrary to national and local planning policies

GNLP0077 (0.4 hectare, Howe Lane)
Why are we being asked to consult on a site that has already (recently) been given planning permission for three self-build houses. This is irresponsible of the district council and brings the local plan into disrepute.
GNLPSL0020 (0.11 hectare, High Green)
Reasons for OBJECTING to this site:
1. This site at present has no direct access to the highway although a new access could be created through the grounds.
2. It adjoins a development in progress at 49 High Green for 15 houses which raises concerns about the possibilities with linking up which in turn may lead to yet further development of the site currently under construction.