Object

Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Representation ID: 22643

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Cllr Julie Neesam

Representation Summary:

NO - Becoming part of a cluster will result in inevitable exposure to wider and unnecessary development and the ultimate loss of existing settlement boundaries and village identity.

Full text:

POLICY 1 – SUSTAINABLE GROWTH
Q13 Do you agree with the proposed settlement hierarchy?
NO - Becoming part of a cluster will result in inevitable exposure to wider and unnecessary development and the ultimate loss of existing settlement boundaries and village identity.
Q14 Do you support the approach to housing numbers?
NO - the 9 /10% extra allocations as well as additional windfall sites is excessive given that there are sufficient sites allocated to meet predicted demand.

POLICY 7- 4 VILLAGE CLUSTERS

Q45. Do you support or wish to comment on the overall approach for the village clusters? Please identify particular issues.

Most villages are able to continue to access services as they do already without the need to cluster. The policy is intended to enable wider development which will result in the ultimate loss of existing settlement boundaries and the risk of unnecessary development.

Q46. Do you support or wish to comment on the approach for specific village clusters?
We strongly object to the proposed cluster of Hainford with Stratton Strawless or any other village and firmly believe that Hainford should retain its stand alone village status as are other nearby villages. The residents of Hainford value their rural aspect and independence and the reasons for linking Stratton Strawless to Hainford are weak.
a) The majority of family size accommodation in Stratton Strawless is situated west of the A140 where there are other nearby schools which are closer and more accessible than Hainford without the requirement to cross the busy A140 at peak times, Hevingham school is 0.4 miles, Marsham Primary School 1.4 miles and Horsford (with supermarket, Doctors surgery, Post Office,social club, leisure facilities, take away food outlet, library, excellent public transport links etc.) is also closer.
b) The largest concentration of homes on the eastern side of the A140 are on the mobile home park which we understand is for residents over the age of 55. For the residents who may live on the eastern side of the A140 and require primary school facilities there is also nearby Buxton school.
In addition to the above we object to the proposal that there is the potential for the development of 50/60 dwellings because there is insufficient capacity to sustain that level of development due to lack of facilities and infrastructure to support this.
The Officers have already stated that there is no capacity for Hainford school to expand and all 9 proposed sites for Hainford were discounted by planners mainly due to there being no safe pedestrian access to the school ( a crucial underlying criteria for development in the policy) and no feasible way to address this. There were Highways concerns, widespread flooding issues, and visual impact and break out into the country side. Added to which the public transport service is very limited with the last daily service from the city at 18.15 .We understand that the Policy requirements are to avoid development where there is a reliance on the private motor vehicle.
Therefore I support Hainford Parish council's objections to the proposal to become part of a cluster and to the ultimate redefinition of our settlement boundary in order to facilitate wider development and to the proposal that there is the capacity to support a further 50/60 dwellings