Object

Representation ID: 24259

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Hingham Town Council

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The plan is unsound as the landowner of site GNLP0503 has requested that is be withdrawn from the GNLP therefore the site and its allocated housing commitment
is undeliverable.

During the Regulation 18C consultation there were concerns raised regarding the numbers of housing proposed for Hingham and push to deliver housing
development “en masse” which could potentially overwhelm the town’s facilities and infrastructure. Housing figures are not discussed in line with actual need
within the community or taking into account the number of vacant properties already in existence.
The GNLP runs until 2038 and the Town Council are of the opinion that a phased approach to delivering smaller developments, as and when needed, with a higher
focus on affordability for local people would be a more acceptable and appropriate approach, these concerns have not been addressed.

The policy wording for GNLP0520 states “Land south of Norwich Road, Hingham (approx. 6.92 ha) is allocated for residential development. This will accommodate
approximately 80 homes. More homes may be accommodated, subject to an acceptable design and layout being achieved, and any infrastructure issues
addressed”.
Policy wording states “5.36 Two sites are allocated providing for at least 100 new homes in the key service centre (one for 80 homes, one for 20 homes)”

Aside from GNLP0520 being objected to as being included in the plan, the policy wording itself is unsound and allows for more homes, without a maximum number
being stipulated. If GNLP0503 were to remain in the plan, this would have the effect of potentially increasing the number of homes built and increasing density
beyond that portrayed during public consultations, to enable absorption of undelivered housing numbers through other sites. This could lead to inappropriate
housing numbers and densities arising, contrary to the recommendations made by “Authorities” such as Highways etc during the consultation process.

It is concerning to read that in the Bidwells submission for GNLP052050 the developer is already suggesting that the site can accommodate more than the suggested
80 homes and indeed above the housing numbers allocated for Hingham in the GNLP, and is anticipating GNLP0520 accommodating the 20 homes allocated to
GNLP0503.
“3.11 …… it is evident that the site can comfortably accommodate the minimum number of units identified by the proposed allocation, it has the potential, if
required, to accommodate all of the growth proposed for Hingham (i.e. 100 dwellings). This is particularly relevant given that, as detailed in the Note to Policy
GNLP0503, the second site in Hingham has potential access and amenity constraints. Given the suitability of the GNLP0520, as is demonstrated by this and previous
Representations, it is recommended that, if GNLP0503 cannot demonstrate that it is deliverable, all of the growth afforded to Hingham is allocated on the site.
3.12 In addition, the site could accommodate additional growth, above the 100 dwellings allocated to Hingham, should it become evident that other sites across
the GNLP area are undeliverable”.

There has been no consideration to the cumulative impact of housing numbers delivered in Hingham over the past decades, during which time no infrastructure
improvements have been made. The housing numbers in excess of 100 will dramatically increase the population of Hingham, with no investment in infrastructure
or services to support the growing community. The impact on vital services such as the Doctors Surgery is of particular concern. See Representation 6

The allocation of GNLP0520 (along with the inference that it will deliver more than the 100 homes allocated to Hingham), adjacent to The Hops removes the
element of choice for potential new residents wishing to purchase a new build home, being that the development allocations in 2 successive local plans are in the
same location, provided by the same developer and will be (it is assumed) to the same style. Resulting in an over prominent overbearing large development not
in keeping with the overall character of the town.
This is contrary to NPPF 12 Achieving well-designed places para 127

Please see the document :
HTC Greater Norwich Local Plan Regulation 19 Consultation Response
for detailed representations and evidence