Comment

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 18911

Received: 10/12/2018

Respondent: MDPC Town Planning

Representation Summary:

With regard to the above (see attached GNLP New Sites Para 3.36 Strumpshaw Sites GNLP 2071 & GNLP0006) - a planning application covering this combined area has just been submitted to Broadland District Council for 7 dwellings , so please find attached the Planning Design & Access Statement which demonstrates the merits of developing this brown field site which otherwise will remain inefficiently underutilised ; and is an anomaly given the surroundings and the present Settlement Boundary.

I also attach the proposed Site Layout Plan Dwg. No. 1183/01 rev M which demonstrates how development could be accommodated ,avoiding the use of the narrow access referred to in the text at para 3.36.
With regard to reference at Para 3.36
* Local road network -the proposed development would be accessed via the access to serve on going development to the immediate west (by the building company also interested in this site )
* ground instability -this is not an issue demonstrated by ongoing development
* Sewerage infrastructure -again as demonstrated by on going development this is not an issue
* Ecology - there is only a short conifer hedge within this area together with unkempt private garden and car parking (for No 33 Norwich Rd)

Full text:

With regard to the above (see attached GNLP New Sites Para 3.36 Strumpshaw Sites GNLP 2071 & GNLP0006) - a planning application covering this combined area has just been submitted to Broadland District Council for 7 dwellings , so please find attached the Planning Design & Access Statement which demonstrates the merits of developing this brown field site which otherwise will remain inefficiently underutilised ; and is an anomaly given the surroundings and the present Settlement Boundary.

I also attach the proposed Site Layout Plan Dwg. No. 1183/01 rev M which demonstrates how development could be accommodated ,avoiding the use of the narrow access referred to in the text at para 3.36.
With regard to reference at Para 3.36
* Local road network -the proposed development would be accessed via the access to serve on going development to the immediate west (by the building company also interested in this site )
* ground instability -this is not an issue demonstrated by ongoing development
* Sewerage infrastructure -again as demonstrated by on going development this is not an issue
* Ecology - there is only a short conifer hedge within this area together with unkempt private garden and car parking (for No 33 Norwich Rd)

To extend the Settlement Boundary to cover this area would be sensible on several levels without impact on any greenfield land in a sustainable location.In this connection I also attach the LPA informal advice dated 13th Nov 2018 ,received as part of pre application discussions, which reinforces the merits of the proposal to extend the SB.

The facts that this is a small site to be developed by a local builder presently working in the vicinity, will ensure seamless early delivery , all attributes which conform with the Governments aims through the revised NPPF.

It is therefore requested that the extension to the SB is supported and included in the final JCS when adopted

Attachments: