GNLP2079

This site was suggested and evaluated in 2006 as part of SNDC drive for 9 affordable homes. It was rejected and alternative site on school road now has the required 9 homes. From this experience I would like to make the following objections:
1. Bressingham is prized as a quiet Village location. It has already had new house developments and numerous in-fill properties. Further development will only add to urban sprawl currently taking place from Diss through to Roydon. We should endeavour to keep Bressingham as a Village and not risk it developing into another suburb.
2. This is a Greenfield unspoilt site with no previous development. It is not in-fill. Any development would expose a completely new area, to the detriment of the village characteristic.
3. The plot (GNLP2079) is high ground and any new houses would be significantly higher than properties already in the area. Unless much of the surface is removed it would be visually flawed or be a costly development.
4. The large rising open field behind the plot gathers a large amount of water, which runs downhill to the proposed site. Run off would be restricted and therefore a possible risk of flooding behind or under any properties.
5. The 4-way junction next to the site and near the school is very congested, due to school traffic, farm machinery and sugar-beet lorries. Additional roads with vehicle and pedestrian access would be a safety concern near the school.

Due to the existing infrastructure in the area including the current lack of amenities within a 3 mile radius of Bressingham expanding the village further will put more strain on the village, the schools and shop are already undersized.The roads in the area would need to be greatly improved as in many sections it is tight for cars to pass. The services in the region are weak at best with half the village on septic tanks etc. Bressingham is a village with a good rural heritage and by building further housing developments this will ensure the village loses this

There may be some long term validity in this site but the current Joint Core Strategy would need to redesignate Bressingham as a service village. Consequently considerable strategic planning will be required.

This development runs contrary to Bressingham's "Other Village" category and seems to owe more to opportunism than carefully planned development. It would change the character and setting of this part of the village and alter the aspect of the much respected and cherished War Memorial for which the parish council has responsibility.

Specifed number of homes often increased by Developers once planning received increasing density out of step with the village structure. Parking always under stated with congested roads through lack of onsite parking. Existing road already has on road parking which impacts junction.
Development will increase traffic flow on existing roads where no footpaths exist. Not enough road width to,provide pavements. SchooL is already oversubscribed not enough public transport to support current village population which has no medical facilities. Bressingham subject to flooding. Environment will suffer due to increased pollution through invevitable increase in traffic. Also unnecessary loss of natural environment

I do not think this is a good location for a new residential development.
Bressingham lacks amenities.
More housing would potentially put strain on the local primary school and the secondary school in Diss.
Increased traffic flow up School Road is not ideal. The road is very narrow and it is hard for 2 cars to pass.
This would also lead to more potential accidents as cars exit/enter onto A1066.
The building work would be disruptive to local residents.
A flood analysis would need to be carried out, this field slopes downwards and water would be carried into the site.

General: Bressingham, under the 2009 Joint Core Strategy, is designated as an 'Other Village'; therefore growth options, if any are permitted, are strictly limited. If Bressingham and/or Fersfield are now to be designated 'growth satellites' of Diss a formal amendment of the strategic plan is first required. The entails a new process of public consultation around a proposal for a proper village plan. Identifying random sites offered up under Regulation 18 (New & Revised and Small Sites) opening the opportunity to expand the village on not basis other than land owners seeking private benefit puts the cart before thee horse. It is not planning. It makes the 'LP' in GNLP better read as 'Local Profit' than 'Local Plan'. With no village plan as a starting concept the continual adding of peripheral sites to settlements becomes, not place making, but a rag-tag process of land use obesity with development primarily directed at allocating benefit to the successful land owner, not the community.
Specific: Site GNLP2079 would radically change the visual character of the west end of the High Street element of Bressingham village, channelling and extending and emphasising its already long run of ribbon development. If Bressingham's JCS 'Other Village' category is to be scrapped and extensive village development permitted it wuld be better more centrally located and for the village to be expanded in depth rather than length. Whilst there may some minor logic in strictly limited building of a fourth corner of this end junction it will affect and change the look and historic setting of the war memorial (a fact not mentioned in the applicant's submission) adversely converting its established character and sense of rural openness to one of an enclosed cross roads. For this reason alone development of the site should not be accepted.

Purchased property Dec 1989, Having recently retired I look forward to my view of the countryside I certainly DO NOT want to look out of my windows, doors and garden to a load of concrete and people intruders into our private space.
The traffic with the local school is a nightmare and certainly we cannot cope with anymore traffic
The school, roads and village would not cope. We are a quiet village with no street lights and should not be compromised. The road Fersfield and Folly Lane only cope with single traffic. It will cause unacceptable increase in traffic in our small village without safe, practical alternatives - the proposed development on the drainage system in our village.
I feel I am entitled to a quality time of life and this will be severely comprised. I m entitled to key beautiful view. I do not want people able to look into our bedrooms windows. It is a human right to privacy.
We have horses walking along narrow lanes which will also be affected.
Broadband here is very poor as is the water system - this will worsen.

GNLP2054 - I strongly object to the proposed site.
Reason:
1. Congestion all day long particularly at school times
2. Nowhere to park
3. Traffic safety - PTO
Bottom of school road has very poor visibility in both directions so -
4. Accident Black SPOT
5. Flooding all the time particularly at the bottom of the road
6. Greenfield site
7. Opposite an existing housing estate
8. Childrens cycling proficiency area carried out frequently by the social.
9. Possible removal of a lovely old house

GNLP2079
1. Site is opposite school road
2. Congestion
3. Traffic black spot due to school traffic, farm vehicles and speeding
4. Nowhere to park
5. Flooding
6. greenfield site
7. Children's cycling proficiency tests
8. Folly Lane is a poor and narrow road.
Fersfield road also narrow

Could the council please look at Brownfield sites in Diss e.g.
1. The old Victorian school buildings
2. The old Lloyds Bank building
3. The Christopher Hill site Roydon Road and Shelfanger Road and many more.
All sites have been empty for between 20 and 40 years

GNLP2079:
This is a greenfield site sloping towards a very narrow road bordered by deep ditches for occasional flooding. Any development would have serious impact on the respectful ambience of the war memorial.

GNLP2054
There should be no development on this greenfield site either. It is beside a narrow road liable to flooding, evidenced by the wide deep ditch bordering the poor condition of the narrow road. The beautiful trees would have to be felled, destroying the countryside.

Both proposed developments are damaging environmentally.
There is poor public transport.
There is no doctors surgery or dental practices
There is inadequate space for school development.

We are writing to object to the proposed housing development in Bressingham. This land has been used for growing crops on so why now houses? The roads in this area are struggling to cope and the amenities (doctors, dentists and schools) are also stretched to breaking point. The environmental and ecological harm is out of proportion with size the village will become if this goes through and the aged population will find the increased traffic exceptionally hard to cope with. We know we have to move forward but this scheme is like trying to pour a litre into a pint pot.

I have lived here 14 years, my garden floods every year, due to the angle of the land opposite where GNLP2079 is planned. We get snowed in each time there is a significant snow fall. Early 2018 it was impossible to enter or exit mine or my neighbour's properties for 10 days due to snow. To cover the land in concrete will have dire consequences for us who live in bungalows directly opposite. Less natural drainage we would be flooded each time there was significant rain/snow. We would also lose a high amount of our natural light. A town planner advised us, should houses be built on the land opposite, for us it would be like having tower blocks a few feet from our front door. As a number of these bungalows are occupied by physically disabled people, myself included, the bungalows have been substantially adopted to the resident's needs, therefore moving to another property would be incredibly difficult if not impossible. Being disabled, 'ones' life is enormously compromised, many daily tasks, most take totally for granted, are either not within a disabled persons ability or one has huge struggles with them.
Now, on top of the lesser life we already endure, GNLP expects us to be even further compromised by blocking our light, overloading the tiny road system we rely on, putting us under threat of flood, damage to our homes etc. etc.
All for a few houses which if they are anything like the last development. 'Pascue Place' - local housing for local people' all not be occupied by local people.
Fersfield Road is barely wide enough for two cars to pass each other, at least twice a day, most of this end of fersfield road is partly blocked by cars, trucks etc. using the little school on school road. The pathways are insufficient for children to walk to school, most have to cross two roads to get to school, the roads in our village are not fit to bare any extra traffic. This is blatantly evident when there are problems on the main A1066, Roads get jammed with too much traffic sign posts get knocked down and ran over by vehicles trying to squeeze through, the mess after one of the diversions is immense, these proposed developments except GNLP2057 would permanently glue up these tiny village roads. Many of which are already in a bad state of repair, cannot cope.
As bressingham is a rural village a tremendous amount of large agricultural vehicles and oil delivery lorries squeeze down all these little roads which the developments would affect. During school time tractors or vehicles larger than a small car cannot proceed up Fersfield Road with school traffic parked along the verges. Delivery vans/lorries can block the road completely. We have minimal public transport so far most living in Bressingham requires you to drive, each new property would bring at least 1 if not 2 extra vehicles, putting far too much strain on these rural roads and vastly increasing the possibility of fatal accidents. The junction at the bottom of School Road, where it joins the main A1066, is an accident black spot, there are often accidents there. Already there are few safe spaces for the Mobile Library to park, to many residents, this is a vital life-line. Many came to live in Bressingham because of its rural location but there are very few amenities.
South Norfolk Council and its associated housing association stated 'it is always very difficult renting out our properties here, as with other rural villages, people want to live in the town'/
These development sites are all fields, home to huge variety of wildlife, some of which, aoccording to country file, are endangered, what becomes of these living creatures should their habitat be decimated by construction? We also have more than our fair share of power- cuts, some lasting 10hrs or more. This fragile system could not possibly cope with the extra demand new builds would bring. Out of the 6 proposed sites in Bressingham possibly the safest is the Low Road site but this is very close to school road/ A1066 junction, the A1066 is a fast moving road and very busy, there are many horrible accidents already.
Bressingham is a village, not a town, any of these developments would destabilise its fragile existence and be totally dangerous for road users and pedestrians. As for the wildlife, who is fighting their corner?

GNLP2079 - I'm in my 70's, have a pacemaker and trouble with my legs, have lived here most of my life. Already its difficult getting my car in and out of my drive with all the school and farm vehicles on this road. My bedroom window faces the field here GNLP2079 is. Any home on the field would look directly over me because we are on a hill. My peaceful private home would be like living a gold fish bowl. There would be far too much traffic for these country lanes to bare. Extra light from street lights and houses would affect me terribly, the noise from traffic and people would have a bad effect on my health. A lot of my neighbours have terrible problems with their drains, any extra work for these really old drainage systems would impact on us awfully. Already school traffic blocks up the roads, the footpaths are not safe enough for the children, there is hardly any pathway on Fersefield Rd. We don't have any street lights, we don't need them all that extra false light would affect us residents badly.
Already we have loads of power cuts, far more than any other surrounding villages and towns, bad 7 or 8 this year. This road is under water a lot of the winter/autumn months, where would water go if houses were built at the bottom of a field that is on a steep hill. My neighbours is in a wheelchair, his garden slops down to his bungalow, he would be in a right muddle if extra water went his way.

GNLP2054/GNLP0241/GNLP2113- School road was impossible to use, only tractors and 4x4's can get down or up when we had all that snow early this year. Then the melting snow/ice crumbled that road. It was single track for months. In parts dangerous to put extra traffic on this road, as with High Road.
All these fields soak up water/snow, as the entire village is on a slope all these roads would flood. None of them are in a strong state, they would collapse under pressure, like school road did. The bus times have been cut right down, if you don't drive you're in a muddle. KEEP BRESSINGHAM SAFE FOR PEOPLE AND THE WILDLIFE.

My bungalow is directly opposite the field where GNLP2079 is proposed. My home is half way up a hill, the development site is up the hill in front of me. My home would be overlooked, almost from above due to being on a hill. As a young disabled person who uses a wheelchair, when leaving my home to get to my parking place on the side of Fersefield Road, those people in them houses would be literally looking down on me. All the privacy I am used to, and need for my sanity, would be gone. Having P.T.S.D. I was advised to move to a rural, private, quiet village to help my recovery. I am worried I won't be able to go out if, every time, I'm being looked down on. Then there's the rain and snow, last time it snowed I couldn't get out for near 2 wks, Fersefield Rd was impassable. We who live in these bungalows will be getting flooded. Will I be able to get in and out of my parking bay when I need to, if there is extra traffic along these tiny roads. Us who have to go in and out a lot for medical appointments will have a nightmare, it's bad enough now with all the school traffic parking everywhere. Another huge worry is my natural light being less, as an S.A.D. sufferer, natural lights is so very important to me. Then there's all the extra noise, this is a quiet little place, that is why I live here. I cannot move, I have to live here, there is no choice.

GNLP2054
School Rd collapsed in the snow in Feb/March 2018, this road is not fit to get extra traffic, it totally crumbled away then got washed away by snow melt. What about the wildlife, a lot of our natural little creatures and birds are already struggling for survival. This is a massive area of nature to lose.

GNLP2113
GNLP0241
We are a tiny village with tiny country roads, not a town or city, you cannot squeeze houses into any of these GNLP proposed sites without a huge negative impact on us. I repeat, I need my privacy, I need to enter and exit my home in safety and without fear. So do the animals and birds. Bressingham is a safe place to live and to drive in, it needs to keep that way.

Roads: GNLP0241, GNLP2113

Inadequate infrastructure

Access poor. High Road - narrow - main thoroughfare. Constant heavy farm traffic.


GNLP2054
GNLP2079

Very narrow road - floods. Near a very dangerous junction on 1066. Abuts a "quiet lane". Will limit school parking. Narrow - too near junction.


Amenities

* Bressingham school not capable of accommodating new influx. No school transport for Secondary School.
* Parking a problem exacerbated by new development.


Doctors

* Already stretched.


*I have never been informed of any proposed development. Would appear to be a lack of transparency on behalf of the council like you hoping to 'BURY' the GNLP plan hoping everyone will be preoccupied with Xmas!

*Why have the local residents not been informed and consulted.

The above proposals in Bressingham and Roydon will lead to untold problems.

ROADS - SCHOOLS - DOCTORS

NOT feasible or sustainable.

On behalf of our client we welcome and support the Council's decision and consideration that the site represents a suitable site for future residential development as identified within the Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA). To supplement this though and address some of the points raised in the site appraisal we would wish to make the following comments.

Suitability

We would reiterate that the site is very suitable for residential development being located adjacent to the village boundary and within close proximity to services and facilities in the village. With regards to the comments in the HELAA assessment with respect to the landscape impacts, we would highlight that this site remains the only undeveloped corner of the junction of Fersfield Road, High Road, Folly Lane, School Road. There is built development immediately to the south and east and the site forms a very logical continuation of the built form. As seen on the adjacent sites a soft landscaped approach to the highway junction could provide for an open setting to the war memorial.

We would also highlight that there are no insurmountable technical constraints to the sites development. Therefore, the site represents a very suitable site for development to be included in the emerging plan.

Availability

The site is available and owned by our client and there are no known legal restrictions to bringing the site forward in the short term and indeed that would prevent an immediate delivery of new homes.

Achievability

It is noted that the HELAA assessment of the site indicates a yield of approximately 9 dwellings. This is based on recent planning permission and completed development on the nearby site at Pascoe Place and therefore provides a realistic and achievable figure for this site. The site could therefore begin to deliver new homes within the next 1-3 years.

I object to more houses being built here due to the fact there will be increased traffic there is already a problem here at school times and due to volumes of cars at dropping off and collection this area get very congested as it is and is nightmare to to get in and out off the village. Also there are added noise & air pollution. poor facilities in the village already with out having more housing and people to accommodate.

I am writing to object to to possible development in Bressingham. Namely GNLP2054 & GNLP2079. The points apply to both sites.

They are on or near School Road which I believe is totally unsuitable. This is the main route into the village, is narrow and already congested particularly during school pick-up/drop off. Parents park on the road making it difficult to pass and dangerous for children. Large vehicles regularly go off the road into the ditch.

School road is subject to flooding and there is often a large pool at the bottom leading on to the A1066 which has a 50 mph speedlimit with cars approaching from Thetford direction on a bend past the Chequers pub. There was a serious accident there this year.

These developments will be extremely detrimental to the character of this village.

Mr Leslie James Dumbell

I write to point out the sites proposed for development in Bressingham are inappropriate for the following reasons
1 Common Road/ High Road -too large for the village.
2 Memorial cross road -this would increase congestion near to the school.
3 School Road -this would be further linear development..
4 A 1066 -dangerous entrance and exit on to a fast major road.