Site Proposals document

[General comment made in respect of all site proposals commented upon - see also response to Growth Options document question 24]
Burston has been wrongly classified as a service village. Burston does NOT have a village hall. At present the nave of the Church is made available for meetings, but the congregation is dwindling, and if the Church is declared redundant it seems most likely that the present arrangement will stop. There is a bus service to Diss, but the last bus back is shortly after lunch, and so travelling to work in Diss by bus is totally impracticable. Travelling to Norwich takes over an hour and costs £7 a day return. Having Burston as a 'dormitory' for Norwick is ludicrous. We do not have any pre-school facilities. Job opportunities in the village are limited to say the least. The only employers are the pub, who have the odd waiter/waitress job, Tucks Mill, who have just moved all their administration posts to Bury, and Burston House secure hospital, who have the occasional vacancy for a zero hours minimum wage 'bank worker'.
Broadband in the village is not good, and any development will put the present provision under strain. The roads in the village are inadequate for the present number of residents, being relatively narrow, and with very few pavements for pedestrians. The principal road through the village is used by lorries going to and from Tucks Mill - and in a typical day the number of lorry movements is measured in hundreds. Walking along the parts of this road with no pavement is a real risk. The power supply to the village is 'overhead' and prone to failures.

[Other comments on specific sites]
Site GNLP0349
This site is probably one of the better proposals, but is joined to the rest of the village by a 'no pavement' narrow road. The number of houses is excessive bearing in mind the facilities that the village has to offer,


Site GNLP0386
No number of homes has been specified...one imagines 30 to 40...increasing the number of homes in Burston by over 20% in one fell swoop.

There are no real facilities to support this number of additional residents. The site is joined to the village along a single trach no pavement road. The development would infill between Burston and the presently distinct development of Audley End.

Site GNLP0560
The site has no access to the highway apart from along a single track Green Lane which is a footpath but not even a byeway. The site is beyond the present boundary of the village.

GNLP0561
30 homes would increase the number of the houses in the village by 30%. The only access to the village is along a busy road with no footpath that is relatively narrow. People in starter homes may not be wealthy, and so have to rely on the public transport to get anywhere, and the public transport is not sufficient to get to and from work. Starter homes would bring young families to the village, which might swamp the primary school.

GNLP0562
This site is for a single dwelling. It is a 'greenfield' site, whereas the adjacent farmyard might make a better 'brownfield' site.

GNLP1028
This site is really beyond the present village boundary, and the only access is along a relatively narrow no-pavement stretch of road which experiences hundreds of lorry movement a day.

[General comment made in respect of all site proposals commented upon - see also response to Growth Options document question 24]
Burston has been wrongly classified as a service village. Burston does NOT have a village hall. At present the nave of the Church is made available for meetings, but the congregation is dwindling, and if the Church is declared redundant it seems most likely that the present arrangement will stop. There is a bus service to Diss, but the last bus back is shortly after lunch, and so travelling to work in Diss by bus is totally impracticable. Travelling to Norwich takes over an hour and costs £7 a day return. Having Burston as a 'dormitory' for Norwick is ludicrous. We do not have any pre-school facilities. Job opportunities in the village are limited to say the least. The only employers are the pub, who have the odd waiter/waitress job, Tucks Mill, who have just moved all their administration posts to Bury, and Burston House secure hospital, who have the occasional vacancy for a zero hours minimum wage 'bank worker'.
Broadband in the village is not good, and any development will put the present provision under strain. The roads in the village are inadequate for the present number of residents, being relatively narrow, and with very few pavements for pedestrians. The principal road through the village is used by lorries going to and from Tucks Mill - and in a typical day the number of lorry movements is measured in hundreds. Walking along the parts of this road with no pavement is a real risk. The power supply to the village is 'overhead' and prone to failures.

[Other comments on specific sites]
Site GNLP0349
This site is probably one of the better proposals, but is joined to the rest of the village by a 'no pavement' narrow road. The number of houses is excessive bearing in mind the facilities that the village has to offer,


Site GNLP0386
No number of homes has been specified...one imagines 30 to 40...increasing the number of homes in Burston by over 20% in one fell swoop.

There are no real facilities to support this number of additional residents. The site is joined to the village along a single trach no pavement road. The development would infill between Burston and the presently distinct development of Audley End.

Site GNLP0560
The site has no access to the highway apart from along a single track Green Lane which is a footpath but not even a byeway. The site is beyond the present boundary of the village.

GNLP0561
30 homes would increase the number of the houses in the village by 30%. The only access to the village is along a busy road with no footpath that is relatively narrow. People in starter homes may not be wealthy, and so have to rely on the public transport to get anywhere, and the public transport is not sufficient to get to and from work. Starter homes would bring young families to the village, which might swamp the primary school.

GNLP0562
This site is for a single dwelling. It is a 'greenfield' site, whereas the adjacent farmyard might make a better 'brownfield' site.

GNLP1028
This site is really beyond the present village boundary, and the only access is along a relatively narrow no-pavement stretch of road which experiences hundreds of lorry movement a day.

[General comment made in respect of all site proposals commented upon - see also response to Growth Options document question 24]
Burston has been wrongly classified as a service village. Burston does NOT have a village hall. At present the nave of the Church is made available for meetings, but the congregation is dwindling, and if the Church is declared redundant it seems most likely that the present arrangement will stop. There is a bus service to Diss, but the last bus back is shortly after lunch, and so travelling to work in Diss by bus is totally impracticable. Travelling to Norwich takes over an hour and costs £7 a day return. Having Burston as a 'dormitory' for Norwick is ludicrous. We do not have any pre-school facilities. Job opportunities in the village are limited to say the least. The only employers are the pub, who have the odd waiter/waitress job, Tucks Mill, who have just moved all their administration posts to Bury, and Burston House secure hospital, who have the occasional vacancy for a zero hours minimum wage 'bank worker'.
Broadband in the village is not good, and any development will put the present provision under strain. The roads in the village are inadequate for the present number of residents, being relatively narrow, and with very few pavements for pedestrians. The principal road through the village is used by lorries going to and from Tucks Mill - and in a typical day the number of lorry movements is measured in hundreds. Walking along the parts of this road with no pavement is a real risk. The power supply to the village is 'overhead' and prone to failures.

[Other comments on specific sites]
Site GNLP0349
This site is probably one of the better proposals, but is joined to the rest of the village by a 'no pavement' narrow road. The number of houses is excessive bearing in mind the facilities that the village has to offer,


Site GNLP0386
No number of homes has been specified...one imagines 30 to 40...increasing the number of homes in Burston by over 20% in one fell swoop.

There are no real facilities to support this number of additional residents. The site is joined to the village along a single trach no pavement road. The development would infill between Burston and the presently distinct development of Audley End.

Site GNLP0560
The site has no access to the highway apart from along a single track Green Lane which is a footpath but not even a byeway. The site is beyond the present boundary of the village.

GNLP0561
30 homes would increase the number of the houses in the village by 30%. The only access to the village is along a busy road with no footpath that is relatively narrow. People in starter homes may not be wealthy, and so have to rely on the public transport to get anywhere, and the public transport is not sufficient to get to and from work. Starter homes would bring young families to the village, which might swamp the primary school.

GNLP0562
This site is for a single dwelling. It is a 'greenfield' site, whereas the adjacent farmyard might make a better 'brownfield' site.

GNLP1028
This site is really beyond the present village boundary, and the only access is along a relatively narrow no-pavement stretch of road which experiences hundreds of lorry movement a day.

[General comment made in respect of all site proposals commented upon - see also response to Growth Options document question 24]
Burston has been wrongly classified as a service village. Burston does NOT have a village hall. At present the nave of the Church is made available for meetings, but the congregation is dwindling, and if the Church is declared redundant it seems most likely that the present arrangement will stop. There is a bus service to Diss, but the last bus back is shortly after lunch, and so travelling to work in Diss by bus is totally impracticable. Travelling to Norwich takes over an hour and costs £7 a day return. Having Burston as a 'dormitory' for Norwick is ludicrous. We do not have any pre-school facilities. Job opportunities in the village are limited to say the least. The only employers are the pub, who have the odd waiter/waitress job, Tucks Mill, who have just moved all their administration posts to Bury, and Burston House secure hospital, who have the occasional vacancy for a zero hours minimum wage 'bank worker'.
Broadband in the village is not good, and any development will put the present provision under strain. The roads in the village are inadequate for the present number of residents, being relatively narrow, and with very few pavements for pedestrians. The principal road through the village is used by lorries going to and from Tucks Mill - and in a typical day the number of lorry movements is measured in hundreds. Walking along the parts of this road with no pavement is a real risk. The power supply to the village is 'overhead' and prone to failures.

[Other comments on specific sites]
Site GNLP0349
This site is probably one of the better proposals, but is joined to the rest of the village by a 'no pavement' narrow road. The number of houses is excessive bearing in mind the facilities that the village has to offer,


Site GNLP0386
No number of homes has been specified...one imagines 30 to 40...increasing the number of homes in Burston by over 20% in one fell swoop.

There are no real facilities to support this number of additional residents. The site is joined to the village along a single trach no pavement road. The development would infill between Burston and the presently distinct development of Audley End.

Site GNLP0560
The site has no access to the highway apart from along a single track Green Lane which is a footpath but not even a byeway. The site is beyond the present boundary of the village.

GNLP0561
30 homes would increase the number of the houses in the village by 30%. The only access to the village is along a busy road with no footpath that is relatively narrow. People in starter homes may not be wealthy, and so have to rely on the public transport to get anywhere, and the public transport is not sufficient to get to and from work. Starter homes would bring young families to the village, which might swamp the primary school.

GNLP0562
This site is for a single dwelling. It is a 'greenfield' site, whereas the adjacent farmyard might make a better 'brownfield' site.

GNLP1028
This site is really beyond the present village boundary, and the only access is along a relatively narrow no-pavement stretch of road which experiences hundreds of lorry movement a day.

[General comment made in respect of all site proposals commented upon - see also response to Growth Options document question 24]
Burston has been wrongly classified as a service village. Burston does NOT have a village hall. At present the nave of the Church is made available for meetings, but the congregation is dwindling, and if the Church is declared redundant it seems most likely that the present arrangement will stop. There is a bus service to Diss, but the last bus back is shortly after lunch, and so travelling to work in Diss by bus is totally impracticable. Travelling to Norwich takes over an hour and costs £7 a day return. Having Burston as a 'dormitory' for Norwick is ludicrous. We do not have any pre-school facilities. Job opportunities in the village are limited to say the least. The only employers are the pub, who have the odd waiter/waitress job, Tucks Mill, who have just moved all their administration posts to Bury, and Burston House secure hospital, who have the occasional vacancy for a zero hours minimum wage 'bank worker'.
Broadband in the village is not good, and any development will put the present provision under strain. The roads in the village are inadequate for the present number of residents, being relatively narrow, and with very few pavements for pedestrians. The principal road through the village is used by lorries going to and from Tucks Mill - and in a typical day the number of lorry movements is measured in hundreds. Walking along the parts of this road with no pavement is a real risk. The power supply to the village is 'overhead' and prone to failures.

[Other comments on specific sites]
Site GNLP0349
This site is probably one of the better proposals, but is joined to the rest of the village by a 'no pavement' narrow road. The number of houses is excessive bearing in mind the facilities that the village has to offer,


Site GNLP0386
No number of homes has been specified...one imagines 30 to 40...increasing the number of homes in Burston by over 20% in one fell swoop.

There are no real facilities to support this number of additional residents. The site is joined to the village along a single trach no pavement road. The development would infill between Burston and the presently distinct development of Audley End.

Site GNLP0560
The site has no access to the highway apart from along a single track Green Lane which is a footpath but not even a byeway. The site is beyond the present boundary of the village.

GNLP0561
30 homes would increase the number of the houses in the village by 30%. The only access to the village is along a busy road with no footpath that is relatively narrow. People in starter homes may not be wealthy, and so have to rely on the public transport to get anywhere, and the public transport is not sufficient to get to and from work. Starter homes would bring young families to the village, which might swamp the primary school.

GNLP0562
This site is for a single dwelling. It is a 'greenfield' site, whereas the adjacent farmyard might make a better 'brownfield' site.

GNLP1028
This site is really beyond the present village boundary, and the only access is along a relatively narrow no-pavement stretch of road which experiences hundreds of lorry movement a day.

[General comment made in respect of all site proposals commented upon - see also response to Growth Options document question 24]
Burston has been wrongly classified as a service village. Burston does NOT have a village hall. At present the nave of the Church is made available for meetings, but the congregation is dwindling, and if the Church is declared redundant it seems most likely that the present arrangement will stop. There is a bus service to Diss, but the last bus back is shortly after lunch, and so travelling to work in Diss by bus is totally impracticable. Travelling to Norwich takes over an hour and costs £7 a day return. Having Burston as a 'dormitory' for Norwick is ludicrous. We do not have any pre-school facilities. Job opportunities in the village are limited to say the least. The only employers are the pub, who have the odd waiter/waitress job, Tucks Mill, who have just moved all their administration posts to Bury, and Burston House secure hospital, who have the occasional vacancy for a zero hours minimum wage 'bank worker'.
Broadband in the village is not good, and any development will put the present provision under strain. The roads in the village are inadequate for the present number of residents, being relatively narrow, and with very few pavements for pedestrians. The principal road through the village is used by lorries going to and from Tucks Mill - and in a typical day the number of lorry movements is measured in hundreds. Walking along the parts of this road with no pavement is a real risk. The power supply to the village is 'overhead' and prone to failures.

[Other comments on specific sites]
Site GNLP0349
This site is probably one of the better proposals, but is joined to the rest of the village by a 'no pavement' narrow road. The number of houses is excessive bearing in mind the facilities that the village has to offer,


Site GNLP0386
No number of homes has been specified...one imagines 30 to 40...increasing the number of homes in Burston by over 20% in one fell swoop.

There are no real facilities to support this number of additional residents. The site is joined to the village along a single trach no pavement road. The development would infill between Burston and the presently distinct development of Audley End.

Site GNLP0560
The site has no access to the highway apart from along a single track Green Lane which is a footpath but not even a byeway. The site is beyond the present boundary of the village.

GNLP0561
30 homes would increase the number of the houses in the village by 30%. The only access to the village is along a busy road with no footpath that is relatively narrow. People in starter homes may not be wealthy, and so have to rely on the public transport to get anywhere, and the public transport is not sufficient to get to and from work. Starter homes would bring young families to the village, which might swamp the primary school.

GNLP0562
This site is for a single dwelling. It is a 'greenfield' site, whereas the adjacent farmyard might make a better 'brownfield' site.

GNLP1028
This site is really beyond the present village boundary, and the only access is along a relatively narrow no-pavement stretch of road which experiences hundreds of lorry movement a day.