Support

Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Representation ID: 20261

Received: 27/02/2020

Respondent: Mr John Henson

Representation Summary:

Response to GNLP -particularly as it affects Poringland and district

I support the overall plan for the area in meeting its duties in providing housing, work spaces and leisure activities in the GNLP area.

I welcome the GNLP in its treatment of Poringland and district. The stress on infrastructure, highways and avoiding further linear development is welcome since we have another 520 - odd homes to be built in the coming period. The stress on infrastructure is evident in a primary school that is heavily oversubscribed and a secondary school that may well have to restrict its 'out of catchment' offers of places.

Highways are already showing signs of inability to cope, with a main through route severely congested at school opening and closing times and a road surface that has been significantly compromised by successive attempts of utilities to keep up with present demand.

it is recognised that development may well result from offers of infrastructure improvement that 'cannot be refused' but I would counsel against further development at either end of the conurbation which would tend to emphasise its linear reputation.

For the future, there is a significant governance issue in extending the built-up area into the neighbouring villages. By doing so the issue of one village supporting the infrastructure and services at a Parish level whilst the surroundings pay nothing, effectively, becomes a real issue to be solved by the Boundary Commission. The inclusion of the areas of neigbouring parishes into 'Poringland' recognises this issue and tacitly accepts that they be treated as one organic whole, no matter what the parish boundaries are at present.

I commend the GNLP and support it - particularly in its approach to Poringland sites that have been offered for development.

Full text:

Response to GNLP -particularly as it affects Poringland and district

I support the overall plan for the area in meeting its duties in providing housing, work spaces and leisure activities in the GNLP area.

I welcome the GNLP in its treatment of Poringland and district. The stress on infrastructure, highways and avoiding further linear development is welcome since we have another 520 - odd homes to be built in the coming period. The stress on infrastructure is evident in a primary school that is heavily oversubscribed and a secondary school that may well have to restrict its 'out of catchment' offers of places.

Highways are already showing signs of inability to cope, with a main through route severely congested at school opening and closing times and a road surface that has been significantly compromised by successive attempts of utilities to keep up with present demand.

it is recognised that development may well result from offers of infrastructure improvement that 'cannot be refused' but I would counsel against further development at either end of the conurbation which would tend to emphasise its linear reputation.

For the future, there is a significant governance issue in extending the built-up area into the neighbouring villages. By doing so the issue of one village supporting the infrastructure and services at a Parish level whilst the surroundings pay nothing, effectively, becomes a real issue to be solved by the Boundary Commission. The inclusion of the areas of neigbouring parishes into 'Poringland' recognises this issue and tacitly accepts that they be treated as one organic whole, no matter what the parish boundaries are at present.

My final issue is to do with development of villages to the south which predominantly use the B1332 (formerly A146) through the village for
commuting. I support the stand of SNC in looking at permitting
development in clusters of villages - it can be seen that these villages are becoming unsustainable with their populations becoming aged, pale and affluent, bereft of shops, schools and pubs. There will be resistance to SNC's approach but, no matter what resistance to the strategy, this may well be the only method of preventing the villages becoming 'ghosts'.

I commend the GNLP and support it - particularly in its approach to Poringland sites that have been offered for development.