Object

Representation ID: 21977

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Ms Carol Sharp

120 ‘Most new homes will have been built in and around Norwich and in the Cambridge Norwich Tech Corridor. In Norwich city centre and other highly accessible and sustainable locations’
There is insufficient provision or access to services in many of the settlements within the “village
clusters” so they cannot be described as such. The existence of a primary school is not ‘good access to services and facilities’ and therefore this level of new housing in “village clusters” should not be
permitted within the GNLP.

126 Is an example of why habitations in rural communities would not be sustainable option as it will be a long time before ‘electric vehicles will predominate throughout Greater Norwich.’ The additional journeys will not only add to the “carbon footprint” but will also add to congestion on the road network, affecting air quality and the wellbeing of residents. If the intention of the GNLP is to locate housing close to jobs, which we agree should be a major aim, then any additional allocations of housing should be located in or close to Norwich, where there are realistic opportunities to walk or cycle to work and to services, or to use public transport to do so.

129. We support CPRE’s statement that it is imperative that Per Capita Consumption (PCC) of water is further reduced to below the Government’s prescribed 110 litres per person per day and in order to ensure that the water-supply to existing users is not compromised the number of new houses should be a level that realistically covers actual need, and this fact reinforces our case for phasing of housing and our questioning of the need for a higher than necessary buffer.

132 States that new quality development will be located to minimise the loss of green-field land.
The best way to achieve this is not to allocate additional sites for housing in “village clusters”. Indeed, there are already sufficient allocated sites for housing in the JCS being proposed to be carried forward to the GNLP in the Norwich fringe parishes, main towns and key service centres to keep pace with the likely build rates of development. The exception to this should be any brownfield sites, particularly those within Norwich, which should be prioritised into a “brownfield first” policy. This should form part of a phased approach to new housing, so that existing allocations from the JCS and any brownfield sites should be developed before permitting any additional allocated sites to be built-out.

One effective way to prevent the unnecessary loss of much greenfield land would be to institute a
green belt on the “green wedges” model around Norwich, as requested by 84 respondents and 1,912 petition signatories (currently at 2,200 signatures) calling for this according to the draft statement of consultation, September 2018, for the Stage A Regulation 18 Site Proposals and Growth Options consultation. It is of great concern that this proposal or option has been removed from the current consultation.

So we find that the vision and objectives contain serious flaws, particularly the way in which they
conflict with policies within the current Local Plan, which withstood the rigorous inspection process.