GNLP2122

We object to the proposed Brooke development (GNLP2122) on this site for the multiple reasons detailed below.
* Access from High Green to proposed site GNLP2122 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 GNLP2122 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
* The site 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 GNLP2122 is also the home to other wildlife - deer, hares, barn owl
* 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 GNLP2122 would create additional noise and disturbance to what is currently a quite area of the village
* Drainage of gardens within the Astley Cooper House and High Green 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 GNLP2122, leading to loss in value
* The school development on this site should not be considered as it is too far outside the village, meaning it is not very accessible and will be dangerous for those pupils needing to walk to school

As with the adjacent proposal GNLP2119, this is an extension west of Brooke into unspoiled farmland. This would adversely affect the rural landscape of South Norfolk. I have cycled the roads and bridlepaths affected by this proposal for over 25 years.

I strongly object to this proposal for the following reasons:
1)There is no pavement past Astley Cooper Place,so no safe means for residents to walk down High Green for Public transport and for mothers to take children to and from school.
2)This proposal and GNLP2119 if adopted would significantly increase the size of the village(currently 300 houses)and therefore straining amenities.
3)The construction of a school at this end of the village would generate an intolerable increase in traffic along High green with mothers taking children too and from school on what is becoming an already very busy road.
4)The development would exit High Green on a series of bends and so is dangerous to traffic.
5)The disruption of existing residents of such a development would be significant as a result of construction traffic,noise and adding water and power facilities.
We have recently been made aware of this disruption during the Construction of the Mallows on High Green where road closure has caused distress to elderly residents.
I believe this proposal for a school on this site is ridiculous for the reasons above and that there may be potentially better,safer and less intrusive sites on the main B1332 road!

Proposed site GNLP2122 has many of the problems that I have listed in relation to the proposed site GNLP2119. Further problems would arise due to the number of dwellings and the possible provision of a school. A school this far from the centre of the village and main Norwich road, together with a higher number of houses, would generate a much greater volume of traffic accessing this strongly curved section of High Green, particularly at the times of the school run. Difficult to provide adequate splay to access the road leading into Brooke would be even more hazardous for children. As with site GNLP2119, this site is situated close to a conservation area and listed buildings and would be plainly visible when approaching from Shotesham. This will detract from the rural aspect of the village and its surrounding area. Further destruction of wildlife habitat. There is no public transport availability for over half a mile and no public footpath on this section of High Green. There is no utilities infrastructure on the site requiring mains reinforcement, an upgrade to the sewerage system and the water recycling centre. Additional tarmac and concrete would create a higher risk of flooding.

One of my objections is the inclusion of land for a primary school. The school currently has spaces and has declared they have no wish for new buildings,the provision of this in the plan appears to be supporting the number of dwellings they are proposing.
The second objection is transport. There is a limited bus service and stating extra householders would increase the viability of the bus service is something that would not necessarily happen. The road access to High Green is narrow in parts and the amount of traffic using the crossroads at the centre of the village would increase. No pedestrian crossing is provided and increased traffic would increase the risk to pedestrians.
The building of new homes in the village needs to be viewed holistically, so the current village is not overwhelmed with new builds, which would affect the nature and form of the village.
Current health services are struggling, including GP and dental services (there are no NHS dentists available in the near area)

Access to/from the site would be on a dangerous S shape bend.
Half a mile from the main road down a narrow country lane would mean almost everyone would use their car.
30 houses could add up to 60 additional cars.
The development would have a significant detrimental impact on wildlife as the site borders mature established woodland.

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

2. 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.

3. 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.

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 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.

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. This site was not deemed acceptable for a school and as such was rejected by the council.

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 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 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.

10. 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, which are a protected species.

11. This site intrudes into an area of high landscape character.

12. The site is located on a sweeping, blind bend which can already prove 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.

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

14. Further large development in Brooke and any potential street lighting to enable safe access to this site, would adversely impact the village's dark sky.

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

We do not need the first school applied for, let alone another? Bad corner in the road for highway access. No public transport and lack of infrastructure makes this area quite isolated. it is outside the settlement boundary of the village. This road is used as a rat run at peak times because of an already congested B1332. This could push more cars through villages that cannot cope with this rise in traffic

The proposed application comes with a promise of a new school that is neither required (currently rolls are falling) nor needed (the existing school has received a 'good' Ofsted report, and is in a good state of repair). Further, there is no guarantee that funding will be found to build the new school, and therefore it should not be considered as pertinent in judging this application.

The strategic vision and objectives for the Local Plan are set out in the Joint Core Strategy.

The key objectives relevant to this application are:

Objective 3 - To promote economic growth and diversity and provide a wide
range of jobs. No new jobs will be created in the Village.

Objective 6 - To make sure people have ready access to services. The Village of Brooke has minimal services. It has no medical centre or dental surgery, one small(farm)shop, a petrol station, three places of worship, a primary school, a small parish hall, a small post office, two public houses and one café. These are sufficient services for a small village.

Objective 7 - To enhance transport provision to meet the needs of existing
and future populations while reducing travel need and impact. The creation of a new estate and possible school to service surrounding areas will create a need to travel and increase traffic on a narrow C-class road.

Objective 8 - To positively protect and enhance the individual character and
culture of the area. Building estates outside of the development plan, on greenfield sites, and close to the conservation boundary (that contains at least one grade 11 listed building close to the development) does not appear to be a positive act that will enhance the character of the Village. Brooke has not been identified in South Norfolk's Local Plan as a key growth location nor a key service centre, and therefore smaller, infill developments, are more likely to increase the housing to a level more in keeping with size, current services, and character of the village.

Objective 9 - To protect, manage and enhance the natural, built and historic
environment, including key landscapes, natural resources and areas of natural
habitat or nature conservation value. Brooke is a Village of historic interest and much of which lies within a conservation area. The proposed application to develop agricultural land lying outside of the development envelope and on the edge of a conservation areas appears to be more of a destructive then protective act.

More specifically, the present application, does not appear to be in line with the following South Norfolk Development Management Policies:

DM 1.4 Environmental Quality and local distinctiveness. It is difficult to see how this application will positively improve 'the quality of the built, natural and historic environment, and reflecting of local circumstances (paragraph 10 of the National Policy Planning Framework) or is "making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness" (paragraph 15 of the National Policy Planning Framework).

DM 3.10 Promotion of Sustainable Transport. The creation of an estate and a school that does not service the local needs of the village will create not reduce the need to travel and associated emission of greenhouse gases.

DM 3.11 Road Safety and the free flow of traffic. The proposed development will increase traffic to and from the village. Proposed access to the school and estate is on a corner of a narrow road with restricted visibility. The lane already has high traffic flows at peak times as it is being used as an alternative route to Norwich.The problem could be compounded, if during school drop-off and pick-up times, there is an increase of onroad parking that will affect both the safety and flow of traffic. High Green also attracts cyclists, walkers and horse riders, all of whose safety could be adversely affected by increased traffic along the lane.

DM3.12 Provision of vehicle parking. The application does not appear to adequately address the parking requirements for the new school. Failure to take school parking requirements into account could result in inappropriate, unsightly, and unsafe parking.

DM3.16 Improving the level of local community facilities. The proposed new primary school lies outside of the development boundary. There is no business case or available funding for a new school and therefore building it in the 'countryside' cannot be justified.

DM4.8 Protection of Trees and Hedgerows. The impact on trees and significant hedgerows is unclear in the application. The unnecessary destruction of trees and hedgerows should be avoided.

It is therefore difficult to see how this new development is a sustainable one (DM 1.1) for the village as it makes limited economic, social and environmental improvements for the current and future generations. The "presumption in favour of sustainable development" as required by the National Planning Policy Framework is brought into question by this application, and therefore on this account alone it should be rejected.

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.
Brooke already has a good primary school and it has spaces available. We do not need a new school.
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.
Proposed new school is not required. There is a very good and popular existing school with capacity for another 40-50 children.
The 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 very dangerous bends with a 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, 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

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.

This site 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 nearby 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.
This unnecessarily encroaches into open countryside. More appropriate, small scale infill development should be the preference.

The proposal will have a detrimental effect on this rural location. Valuable arable land will be destroyed forever, and would be devastating wildlife. there is no need for a new school in this area. The village does not have the amenities or infrastructure to support this development.

This site would have an unacceptable impact on the ancient woodland and County Wildlife Site of Brooke Wood and would also have a negative effect on the entrance to the village from the West approach. It is outside the development boundary and is quality agricultural land which should only be used for development as a last resort when all other possibilities have been exhausted. When the size of a village is increased to this level, the 'village' is lost forever. The Norfolk countryside brings £3 billion in tourism revenue each year, they won't come to see a housing estate.

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

please refer to comments made re 2119 apply equally to 2122

Please refer to comments on site reference GNLP2119.

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. It's a poor site for a school

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.