Object

Representation ID: 21978

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Ms Carol Sharp

This states that it will ‘accommodate 9% more homes than "need… and additional opportunities will be provided, particularly for small scale growth at villages…’ SNGP disagrees that such a high level of sites should be provided within the GNLP and that villages should not have growth until there is suitable sustainable public transport. If they are not served by existing routes, new public transport
infrastructure must be provided for before they are occupied so that, from the outset, residents will
not be reliant on private car ownership.

We would question why there is no mention of phasing as an option within the Draft Plan and Housing Delivery Statement, as this would help to prevent the worst excesses of unnecessary development.

There is no reason why new sites allocated in the GNLP should not be phased. They would then be available for development should building rates increase, but if house completions remain at existing rates, as appears likely, these sites should stay on a reserve list and valuable countryside would be protected.

69 Parish and Town Councils in Broadland and South Norfolk (over 38%) have supported CPRE Norfolk on this issue and have signed a pledge to this effect. With this groundswell of grassroots opinion making such a strong case, we urge the GNDP in producing the GNLP to consider phasing seriously as the most reasonable way forward.

Only 45% of homes are well insulated in Norwich and 41% in South Norfolk. This represents a shocking waste of energy, high greenhouse gas emissions and unnecessarily high energy bills. 12% of households in the area are in fuel poverty, which means they can’t afford to heat their homes properly. Poor insulation contributes to this problem. Upgrading the insulation of 3,309 homes per year within the Norwich area would ensure all homes are properly insulated by 2030, lifting as many people as possible out of fuel poverty.

It would be helpful to quote the Certification schemes that will be used. The TCPA recommends:
The BRE’s Home Quality Mark (HQM) BREEAM for buildings, CEEQUAL for public realm/infrastructure and BREEAM for communities and the Passivhaus Trust’s Passivhaus assessment frameworks

Air pollution impact assessments should be required for applications likely to have a negative impact on air quality.

Developments that create ‘street canyons’ should be avoided. A minimum number of electric vehicle
charging points per 10 dwellings should be stipulated,