GNLP2119

We object to the proposed Brooke development (GNLP2119) on this site for the multiple reasons detailed below. We also wish to reference the previous proposal submitted in 2012 that was rejected as the site at was not considered suitable for development, and the situation has not changed since.
* Access from High Green to proposed site GNLP2119 would be extremely dangerous as it is just as you are leaving the village and on a dangerous bend, so visibility of other traffic would be extremely poor
* Proposed development GNLP2119 is at the far end of the of the village and is away from the village centre and its main services - Post Office, farm shop, garage, pub, bus stop, school, village hall
* Any further development near High Green would add more traffic to this road. It is already used as a rat run for cars wishing to avoid traffic jams caused by Framingham Earl school in the mornings
* More traffic on High Green would pose additional danger to school children going to and from Brooke Primary School
* Site GNLP2119 is near a small copse/wood at the end of a cul de sac in Astley Cooper Place, this is used by bats, tawny owls, woodpeckers and other birds and so any development would be detrimental to nature.
* The fields and woodland at site GNLP2119 is also the home to other wildlife - deer, hares, barn owl
* The woodland on site GNLP2119 and the copse presently acts as a sound barrier to the mini industrial area at Spurgeon's farm comprising of garage, cabinet maker and firewood trader
* The site shape would result in a very linear type of development, and would cause a greater impact on open countryside.
* Additional housing and roads on site GNLP2119 would create additional noise and disturbance to what is currently a quite area of the village
* The houses in Astley Cooper Place that back onto site GNLP2119 already have restricted daylight and sunlight and therefore any housing would impact those houses & gardens further
* Drainage of gardens within the Astley Cooper House development is poor, and so the drainage of the proposed site is also likely to be poor and cause problems to the existing developments
* The view across the fields from houses in Astley Cooper Place and High Green would be impeded by the development on site GNLP2119, leading to loss in value

This, and the adjacent proposal GNLP2122, are expansions into unspoiled countryside to the west of Brooke. I cycle daily on the roads and bridlepath next to this land. Development here would adversely affect the rural landscape of South Norfolk.

As an existing resident of Astley Cooper Place I object for the following reasons:
1)The proposal will involve cutting down part of a small wood/copse adjacent to no's 8 and 9 at the end of our cul-de-sac. This contains Tawny owl,woodpeckers,bats and occasional barn owl and deer,and so a haven for nature.
2)The site exit onto High Green is on a bend and so dangerous to traffic.
3)The new development overlooks existing housing-on High green and Astley Cooper place.And changes the current outlook over fields and wood.
4)The disruption to residents at this end of the village would be very significant as a result of the building works from noise,lorries,and in constructing amenity links.
The construction of the Mallows slightly lower on High Green is a useful comparison as the road was closed for weeks, we had temporary traffic lights,and a disgusting mess on the road during the construction of only 12 houses!

Proposed site GNLP2119 is a long way from the amenities of the village. The nearest bus route is on the Norwich road, over half a mile away. There is no public footpath between Astley Cooper Place and the proposed site with little opportunity to provide one. The road at that point is strongly curved and there would be insufficient splay to provide an adequate view to make a safe exit from the site. This would be particularly dangerous for children and older people.
There is no utilities infrastructure on the site and this will require mains reinforcement, an upgrade to the sewerage system and the water recycling centre. High Green is already subject to areas of floding on the road during periods of heavy or sustained rainfall due to inadequate drainage. This can only be exacerbated by further areas of tarmac and concrete preventing absorption of water by the land.
Development on this site would require the destruction of a large number of specially planted trees and an area of mature grassland resulting in loss of habitat for many varieties of wild life including bats, dragonflies, barn owls and newts.
The site narrows sharply towards its Northern end and buildings in this area, together with a suitable access road would be very cramped. This would lead to an inevitable compromise in the form and character of the properties and would not fit in with the existing tenor of the rest of the village.
A number of dwellings already situated on the boundary of the site will be closely overlooked and will therefore suffer loss of privacy and severe curtailment of their long term, existing views.

Site has poor drainage
Proposed site on a bend with poor visibility, no pedestian access
ACP and Burgess Way is the East/West boundary for urban developement in Brooke.
The small Copse/Wood was provided with taxpayers money to protect and enhance the local enviroment. Let us not defile this area and the wildlife habitat.
Trojan Horse developement. Plan indicates future sprawl ahead.
No services in this area. The Mallows has demonstrated this.
No footpath
We have endured months of disruption.The recent works has necessitated walking in the traffic flow most days as the temporarary footpath is usually blocked by service vehicles.

Access from the site is on a dangerous concave bend, a splay would not improve the view.
Half a mile from the main road down a narrow country lane would mean almost everyone would use their car.
25 houses could add up to 50 additional cars.
The development would have a significant detrimental impact on wildlife as the site borders established woodland.

This site is on a bad corner on a road already used as a rat run through B1332 being congested at peak times. There are birds of prey, many protected that live in the ancient wood bordering this site. Air pollution, noise and lack of infrastructure. Lack of amenities to cope in bad weather. No public transport at this end of the village. Unwanted destruction of our countryside.

1. Brooke has already seen more development than advised in the previous plan which lasts until 2026. In these circumstances, there is no need for any 'reasonable alternatives' to be considered at this point in time.

2. Developments of this size are not sustainable in villages of this type and size. Such a development would lead to a significant increase in population 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.

3. 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.

4. There is no appropriate infrastructure to support larger developments. There has been substantial development in neighbouring Poringland which has already put significant pressure on local services, such as healthcare, highways, schools and utilities.

5. The existing sewerage systems on High Green are unable to cope with the demand for the existing properties and there are frequently drainage and foul smell issues throughout the year. Further connections onto this system would only cause more, significant issues.

6. The encroachment onto open land in the village risks a significant adverse impact on local wildlife. In very 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. Like other similar habitats in the village, there could also be a population of Great Crested Newts and bats, which are protected species.

7. This site intrudes into an area of high landscape character. The village is a Conservation area.

8. The site is located on a narrow, sweeping, blind bend which already proves perilous to navigate, particularly at times of poor visibility such as darkness and poor weather. Building on this area would cause even greater significant risk to the public- both during construction and once completed.

9. Access from and onto High Green would be dangerous, given the nature of the road.

10. There is no safe pedestrian access available on a road with a speed limit of 60mph.

11. There is no evidence that such a development is required or in demand in an unserviced, rural village.

This is not an appropriate site for development for the following reasons;
-It is a long distance from the services in the village and from the main road
-It will increase traffic on High Green and in to Shotesham and Stoke Holy Cross as people try to avoid the rush hour bottlenecks in Poringland caused by the massive developments in Poringland.
-The road is bendy and unsuitable for an access road increasing the likelihood of accidents.
-There is already a problem with speeding traffic on this road. There is no footpath and constructing one would narrow an already narrow road also increasing the risk of accidents.
-It involves destruction of a wooded area and the wildlife habitats therein e.g. barn and tawny owls, deer and woodpeckers.
-There are many unsold houses in this end of the village indicating no need for more housing.
-Brooke has already fulfilled it's quota to build having already built 30 house when 20 were required.
-Increasing housing in Brooke will fundamentally alter the nature of the village turning Brooke in to part of the urban sprawl which is ruining our countryside and is at odds with the choices people make to live in rural locations .
-Both High Green and the field area are prone to flooding (the information in the submission is inaccurate) and building on this land would increase the risk of flooding for nearby residents.
-There will be a significant impact on residents on High Green and Astley Cooper Place who back on to this proposed site.

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 houses 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 development will encourage the development of the other fields surrounding the village.

The site location on a narrow road and located on a bend is dangerous if ingress and egress is taken into account.
The increase in traffic will increase 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.
The negative effect on wildlife will be unacceptable as we are already losing wildlife variety and an astounding rate. I have seen numerous struggling species including owls, sparrowhawk and hedgehogs to name a few at this site location and they are already losing habitat at an alarming rate.

Such a development is out of proportion in relation to the number of
properties in the village. 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 increase in traffic will increase pollution (given that more vehicles
will be on the road) and encourage people to drive through neighbouring small villages, such as Shotesham. Not to mention that the area is on a blind bend which will be very dangerous for cars pulling in and out of the development, children walking and cycling to school. I am doubtful there is even room for a footpath down what is a narrow road.
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 similar proposed developments.
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.
The negative effect on wildlife will be unacceptable as we are already
losing wildlife variety at an astounding rate. The area is currently inhabited by a large array of wildlife and birds, hares, deer, owls, buzzards etc. If we keep developing land like this there will be no where for these creatures to exist, which is shameful.

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.

access to the site is on a very bad bend with very poor visibility.
It is too far away from the village amenities.
There is no footpath
The whole area is a haven for wildlife, bats are often seen at dusk.
proposed development off the main road in Brooke makes more sense as access is much better and it is close to all amenities.
drainage in the whole area is poor, there are extra land drains in Astley Cooper place already and any further development would potentially cause major flooding problems
Our garden has standing water in wet periods already.

Totally out of keeping with the character and scale of the village, most of which is a Conservation area.
Would encroach into open countryside and extend the village well beyond the traditional boundary, which should be respected.
Growth should be limited to a modest number of new dwellings over the period to 2036.
Proposal would adversely impact nearby ancient woodland and County Wildlife Site (Brooke Wood)
Winding country lane is unsuitable for access into a residential development.

Access into and out of the site would be on a very dangerous bend with a very high potential for accidents.

Drainage in this area is very poor due to the heavy clay soil, any additional development will only make the risk of flooding worse.

The proposed site is down a very narrow country lane and half a mile from the main road, this would result in a significant increase in traffic volume and associated accident risk.

Developing this site would have a significant adverse impact on wildlife as the site would encroach on well established and mature woodland.

This site would contravene various planning policies and any application should be refused. The JCS identifies Brooke as a Service Village within the Rural Area where allocations will provide small-scale housing growth to meet a range of local needs, including affordable housing, and it is envisaged that allocations will be within a range of 10-20 dwellings in each Service Village.Brooke has already exceeded this quota. Truly affordable housing should be concentrated in urban areas where the infrastructure and services required can cope. Brooke has neither and the B1332 can scarcely cope with traffic levels now.

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

This site is not allocated for housing and there are sufficient allocated sites within the current GNLP to meet targets for about 20 years given current completion rates, so there is no need to grant more permissions on unallocated sites. Truly affordable housing should be concentrated nearer Norwich where the infrastructure and services can cope, and any development should utilise brownfield sites first not greenfield with the further loss of agricultural land required for food production. The B1332 can scarcely cope with the traffic levels now. Poor drainage of the land is already a problem suffered by nearby residents.

Access to this site is on a very dangerous bend with potential for high accident risk if traffic levels increase due to this development.It is totally unnecessary and out of keeping with the village needs. Potential for flooding due to heavy clay soil could impact established surrounding property and road stability. We don't want to lose any further natural wildlife habitat!

Access to this site is on a very dangerous bend with potential for high accident risk if traffic levels increase due to this development.It is totally unnecessary and out of keeping with the village needs. Potential for flooding due to heavy clay soil could impact established surrounding property and road stability. We don't want to lose any further natural wildlife habitat!

I object to this proposal. It is out of character for a rural location, there are also not the amenities and infrastructure locally to support this development. It goes against the local plan.

Site is outside the development boundary in open countryside and would cause the loss of quality agricultural land. The impact on Brooke Wood which is a Country Wildlife Site would be catastrophic and it would have significant adverse impact on the historic character and form of the village. Housing estates should not be built on the edge of 'Service Villages'.

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

environmental impact destruction of wildlife habitat
adversely affect the rural landscape
many unsold houses no need for new houses
increased traffic to small rural road and other villages access from High Green dangerous bend
poor drainage generally here
outside of village boundary
Brooke has exceeded its quota of new housing until 2026
removal of high quality agricultural land
negative impact on Conservation area
adversely impact the character and form of the village

The road network on and connecting to High Green is comprised of narrow, rural lanes not suitable for larger housing developments. It is already used extensively as a 'rat run' for commuters driving to Norwich and a development of this size would place an unbearable traffic burden on this quiet, agricultural area.

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. This site in particular is on a bend with poor visibility and is away from the main village centre which would make a linear sprawl into what is now countryside.

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.

See Attachment for full details of the response

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.