The inclusion of a second site put forward in Reg 19 should be withdrawn.

The proposed second site was randomly deposited in Aylsham in Reg 19 to meet an arbitrary target. The impact of Covid and Brexit will almost certainly lead to an increase in the number of town centre sites becoming available for development.

Response to GNLP Regulation 19

The Local Planning Authority has failed to engage with Aylsham District Councillors, Aylsham Town Council and the local community except through the formal Regulation 18 BLP Consultation which considered only one site for development. There has been radio silence since then until the release of the Reg 19 plan, in spite of the Council recognising a need to alter the way they communicate with interested parties through the publication of the “Temporary update in response to Covid-19 guidance (July 2020)”. The Covid-19 pandemic can not be used as an excuse for lack of consultation. Aylsham Town Council continued to meet over Zoom and Councillors were still available. The LPA also uses the Facebook social media platform via the page ‘Aylsham and the Surrounding Villages’ to promote its services to the residents of Aylsham. This could have been one way of consulting the community.

Lack of consultation is contrary to the LPA’s own Statement of Community Involvement which says under “Standards for effective community involvement” at 1.15 that the Council will;

- Adopt an inclusive approach, ensuring that those who have an interest in the topic have the opportunity to contribute from an early stage and throughout the process.

And under “Planning and community involvement”

1.6 Paragraph 155 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012), where it discusses plan making, states: 'Early and meaningful engagement and collaboration with neighbourhoods, local organisations and businesses is essential. A wide section of the community should be proactively engaged, so that Local Plans, as far as possible, reflect a collective vision and a set of agreed priorities for the sustainable development of the area, including those contained in any neighbourhood plans that have been made.'

And

1.7 This sets out a firm, national directive that local planning authorities should be seeking the views of communities and other stakeholders from an early stage in the development of their local planning documents.

As the Council appears not to have followed its own procedures or met its own standards, the decision to pursue two large housing development sites instead of only one, is not sound. There will be no evidence of how the Council complied with this duty.

Any further development must be in keeping with the points laid out in the Aylsham Neighbourhood Plan.

Aylsham has recently expanded with the addition of at least 500 homes over a few years. Certainly, even one more development over the coming 15 years will add strain to the community, facilities, services and infrastructure. What is the hurry? As a rural Norfolk market town, Aylsham now needs time to adapt and integrate the residents of the two new housing developments at Willow Park and Bure Meadows. Whichever ONE further site is selected for development before 2038, more homes can be provided if a reasonable number of small, one bedroom properties are included. The type of homes built should reflect the actual need in our community.