Response to: Greater Norwich Local Plan Regulation 18 Consultation

1. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the next stage of the Greater Norwich Local Plan (GNLP). I would be grateful if you would take my views into consideration.

2. As an overarching point it is clear that the submissions received would greatly exceed the target allocation for housing defined under the outlines for the Plan. This offers planners the opportunity to select the most appropriate places from within the suite of sites and the scope to guide developers to achieve the most beneficial solutions for the economic, social and environmental well-being of the area. My detailed observations follow.

Page 214 Section 5.42. Harleston

3. May I suggest that there are two further constraints to be added. The first is neglected every time a plan is produced and that is the physical impact of traffic generated on a tightly constrained town centre. Vehicular pressure and parking capacity are a significant issue in Harleston and a material consideration when judging the impact of development on the current settlement and should be acknowledged and assessed as such. The second constraint is the need to ensure that the separation from the adjacent village and parish of Needham is maintained on the Harleston side of the by-pass.

4. The community in Harleston has worked extremely hard over recent years to give real meaning to South Norfolk Council's Market Town's Initiative and has produced some spectacular contributions towards enhancing the tourism and resident commitment to the town and its hinterland.

5. A present project of the town council working with Norfolk County Highways and South Norfolk Council with the support of Harleston's Future is investigating trial phases of a Roads Traffic and Pedestrians Safety initiative to seek to lessen the impact of traffic in the town centre. Inadequately constrained additional development and failing to take this into account will only frustrate this long-running initiative, but no-one seems willing to acknowledge and incorporate this into true, rather than cosmetic strategic planning. The GNLP is an opportunity to do so.

Additional Site Proposals

General - Importance of character in relation to Tourism

6. Much store is placed on tourism as an economic driver for the district. Good strategic planning should therefore fully take into account the 'bigger picture' of the visual appearance of the Town as approached and the need to ensure that new developments do not diminish the character of the area.

7. It is appreciated that harmonising development with a town's rural setting is not easy to achieve if the style and density of modern houses is to continue as at present and especially where the houses have no meaningful gardens, within which trees and shrubbery would soften and enhance the appearance.

8. Today development seems to shroud existing historic rural towns with suburban sprawl in the countryside. Careful consideration is therefore needed to ensure that the town blends well into the surrounding landscape and presents an attractive face to those visiting. Solid blocks of insensitively placed high density housing seriously diminish the character of an area. I have already commented on the need to protect the approach to Harleston along Rushall Road, which can be achieved with imagination. Such an approach is also needed on a whole-town scale.

9. Taking a wider look at the setting of the town as viewed from the by-pass it can be seen that until recently Harleston sat well into its depression in the landscape and past developments rather nestled into the land form. However, very recent developments onto higher ground are significantly breaching this and with three-storey houses forming parts of development schemes these are radically eroding the appearance and adversely affecting the character of the town to such a degree that it feels rather hollow to think of Harleston as a market own, as opposed to the ubiquitous appearance of a dormitory semi-urban settlement.

10. It is therefore suggested that as a generality, moves are set in place now to ensure that whichever sites are accepted that where these might abut the bypass and perhaps other main access roads into town, a buffer corridor, ideally 20 meters wide of public amenity space is planted. This needs to be started now and to be incorporated into existing approved sites when any detailed planning applications are submitted.
11. The reason for suggesting 20 metres is to allow sufficient room for mature forest tree species, such as oak, to have room to fully develop, without consequential problems in years to come of broad and tall trees immediately on a narrow boundary line. It is only necessary to look at the line of trees planted in Spirketts Lane as screening for industrial units to see that oak trees 2 metres from the carriage way and close to a site boundary cannot flourish to full effect without impinging severely in very few years on the highway or neighbouring property.
12. As inevitably further sites contiguous to the by-pass are proposed in coming years, each part of the jigsaw can be completed to give a corridor right round the south/eastern aspect to the town, which will provide an excellent health walk and pleasant recreational facility while screening the urbanisation of the town to tourists and visitors alike. This is of economic relevance to the future of the town and quality of life and the character of the Waveney Valley. I note that there is no significant public space provision suggested in the proposals. In a town where 94% of its town centre public space is dominated by the needs of the motor vehicle something needs to be done to provide breathing space close to home for such dense concentrations of housing as are being built.

Site specific comments
13. It is good planning practice to ensure that distinct settlements are not allowed to 'join up' through allowing development which erodes the separation. This comment was made by planners over Local Plan submissions in the past and is a good and sound policy especially applicable to the boundary between Needham and Harleston.
14. It is my view that sites GNLP2115, GNLP2116, GNLP2088 should not be accepted. 2115 and 2116 actually join up the parishes of Needham and Redenhall with Harleston in areas which play important parts in maintaining historic distinction between the two communities. Additionally, the views to either side of Needham Road having climbed from the by-pass towards the town offer long views which enhance the perception of the town's position in its wider rural setting. To allow these sites to be developed would render the principal tourist approach to the town, the first vision to greet the visitor, as nothing more than a massing of housing visited on the countryside, far from the concept of a historic settlement. A robust approach to maintaining this separation would show an appreciation of the bigger picture setting, not just the pursuit of a numbers quota for houses.
15. For similar reasons I suggest that proposal GNLP2099 be not considered acceptable as it is rising ground and housing here on an elevated position would have a major and overbearing impact on the second most important approach to the town.
16. Thank you for taking the time to read my submission. I hope that you will find these comments helpful and that you are able to take them into account when finalising the next stages of the plan process.