Object
Publication
Representation ID: 24308
Received: 22/03/2021
Respondent: Mr Richard Hawker
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
I know that others have submitted very well-argued and detailed responses to the GNLP, viz. Bryan Robinson and Andrew Boswell. From reading them, and the GNLP documents, it seems that there are many aspects of planning which the GNLP has not addressed, or addressed incorrectly.
1) The latest plan has taken into account projected housing need figures produced in 2018, whereas it is stated clearly that those from 2014 should have been used.
2) The 2018 figures are higher, and do not take into account the already-stated ‘windfall’ house numbers which inevitably arise.
3) This is made worse by the fact that the later figures do not adequately reflect the fact that Britain has left the EU, and immigration figures are reducing. It simply does not make sense to plan to build houses which are unlikely to be lived in. Even now, there are plenty of permissions for houses which have not been taken up. These surely should be used before looking to increase dramatically the numbers of extra houses planned to be built.
4) The development of the area should be about more than simply building dwellings. Norfolk should be preserving its precious countryside, not planning to put it under bricks an
5) The numbers in the new proposals are not justified, and thus not consistent with the NPPF. It is doubtful whether the numbers proposed could ever be served adequately by local services as they stand. Also, the plans are not sustainable, in that they will negatively affect the freedom future generations will have to determine the development of the area.
6) Following the COVID pandemic, the whole plan should be looked at afresh, bearing in mind changed working practices. Transport, in particular, needs to be assessed now that the rush-hours appear to be less ‘peaky’ and the government’s stated aim of bringing about a modal shift to greener forms, mainly public transport, should mean that new and upgraded big roads are removed from the plan.
Please think again about making such a huge change to our rural county. We need a reasonble-length time of stability, consolidation and improvement of what we have.
I know that others have submitted very well-argued and detailed responses to the GNLP, viz. Bryan Robinson and Andrew Boswell. From reading them, and the GNLP documents, it seems that there are many aspects of planning which the GNLP has not addressed, or addressed incorrectly.
1) The latest plan has taken into account projected housing need figures produced in 2018, whereas it is stated clearly that those from 2014 should have been used.
2) The 2018 figures are higher, and do not take into account the already-stated ‘windfall’ house numbers which inevitably arise.
3) This is made worse by the fact that the later figures do not adequately reflect the fact that Britain has left the EU, and immigration figures are reducing. It simply does not make sense to plan to build houses which are unlikely to be lived in. Even now, there are plenty of permissions for houses which have not been taken up. These surely should be used before looking to increase dramatically the numbers of extra houses planned to be built.
4) The development of the area should be about more than simply building dwellings. Norfolk should be preserving its precious countryside, not planning to put it under bricks an
5) The numbers in the new proposals are not justified, and thus not consistent with the NPPF. It is doubtful whether the numbers proposed could ever be served adequately by local services as they stand. Also, the plans are not sustainable, in that they will negatively affect the freedom future generations will have to determine the development of the area.
6) Following the COVID pandemic, the whole plan should be looked at afresh, bearing in mind changed working practices. Transport, in particular, needs to be assessed now that the rush-hours appear to be less ‘peaky’ and the government’s stated aim of bringing about a modal shift to greener forms, mainly public transport, should mean that new and upgraded big roads are removed from the plan.
Please think again about making such a huge change to our rural county. We need a reasonble-length time of stability, consolidation and improvement of what we have.