Supporting Statement for Site GNLP 2179 at Wicklewood

Site GNLP 2179 has been assessed as suitable for development. This short statement considers the issues raised in relation to the assessment and to objections made.

Access to services:

Wicklewood has a small range of services typical of many service villages, and all of these, including bus stops, appear to be within a reasonable walking distance of the site. Access was rated as amber in the site assessment with objections referring to the lack of a footway.

It is true that there is no footway along much of the High Street. However:

This is the case for many rural villages in Norfolk where residents are accustomed to walking along the road;

The High Street is subject to a 30mph limit which means that vehicles should be travelling at a reasonable speed;

There is a wide verge bounding the site potentially available for pedestrians to either walk along, step onto or otherwise improve as a footway;

According to the website CrashMap, there have been no recorded road traffic accidents at all along the whole of the High Street for at least 10 years, suggesting that it is very safe.

To place this in the context of policy, the National Planning Policy Framework makes it clear that, "opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas, and this should be taken into account in both plan-making and decision-making."

With this in mind, it is suggested that access to services should be deemed acceptable.

Highway capacity:

The Highway Authority suggest that there are highway capacity issues. This is mirrored by some objections which claim that the roads are too narrow, especially the bridge over the stream, and that there is severe congestion. At a policy level, the National Planning Policy Framework explains that, "Development should only be prevented......on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe." This provides a useful benchmark against which highway impacts can be considered.

Firstly, it is not the case that there is severe congestion along the High Street and, indeed, no evidence has been presented to support such a claim. The road width does vary and, although it is mostly 5.5m wide, the stretch adjacent to the site is around 5.0m wide. At this point, the carriageway could be widened if deemed necessary. To this extent, the proposal could be viewed by Highway Authority as an opportunity for net gain.

The bridge is a prominent, physical feature that helps to slow the traffic as it enters the village. Even if the bridge were considered narrow, the constraint would be a restriction for any site in Wicklewood for those vehicles heading north towards Kimberley and the A47. That is to say, the bridge is not a feature specific to this proposal.

Historically, there has been no recorded road traffic accident along this stretch of road for a period of at least 10 years.

The High Street is straight and unobstructed by trees or hedges. Accordingly, visibility at the point of access to the proposed site will be more than satisfactory.

In summary, it is unlikely the development of the site would have any severe impact on the road network in terms of congestion, highway safety or visibility.

Flood risk:

The northern part of the site falls within fluvial food risk zones 2 and 3 and to this extent may be considered unsuitable for residential development. The analysis also indicates a modest amount of low risk surface water flooding, particularly on the eastern part of the site. A number of objectors raised concerns about flooding on the highway nearby.

It is therefore suggested that the site be allocated subject to a flood risk assessment and drainage strategy. This would need to demonstrate that flood risk off-site, including the local highway network, is not increased by development on site.

Ecology:

The site assessment indicates that the development of the site will not have an adverse impact on any designated sites of nature conservation. However, a number of objectors expressed concerns for the wildlife that has been observed on the site, although no evidence was presented to support this. It is therefore suggested that the site be allocated subject to an ecological assessment and that the developement delivers a net ecological gain, as required by the National Planning Policy Framework. This could be achieved through the planting of mixed native species hedges and the creation of an aquatic habitat linked to attenuation ponds as part of the drainage strategy. The potential for an aquatic habitat is unlikely to be available for other sites and should be seen as an opportunity peculiar to this proposal.

The need for homes:

Objectors have suggested that new homes are not needed. This suggestion, however, runs contrary to the emerging Greater Norwich Local Plan and the national target of delivering 300,000 new homes per annum.

Loss of public views:

Virtually any site developed for housing will to some extent disrupt public views of the countryside. However, a layout can be designed that allows for some views of the open countryside to be retained.

Capacity of utilities:

The capacity of the water supply and sewerage infrastructure locally has been highlighted. Potentially, the development of the site could involve a contribution to the upgrading of such infrastructure where that is shown to be necessary.