GNLP0337

Showing comments and forms 1 to 16 of 16

Object

Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations

Representation ID: 19801

Received: 30/01/2020

Respondent: Mr Damian Jackson

Representation Summary:

Weak leadership by the council will allow developers to build quickly, gain capital and run away.

Full text:

New houses need to be built, I fully agree. Putting 1500 houses which will include 500 ‘affordable’ houses at this site will have a significant impact on Thorpe Marriott. Having moved here from Queen’s Hill, I have seen first hand the damage and impact that such monetarily focussed decisions will have on the local area. Promises are made at the beginning, including recreational areas, shops and other facilities whereas these will never be followed through. The council does not hold developers to account, meaning that sub-standard housing will be built in the shortest timeframe possible at which point the developers move on leaving all of their promises unfulfilled. Queen’s Hill is a prime example of this, meaning that management companies are created to look after local footpaths, roads and lighting with the council standing back and claiming no responding or the mess that they have made. It makes no monetary sense for developers to follow through with their promises and with such a weak council in Norwich, they will be allowed to run away without having completed their projects. Thorpe Marriott’s facilities will be overwhelmed, it’s house prices will plummet and it’s infrastructure overrun. Why doesn’t the council find and area of brown belt where a huge eco-village could be built? It could set a precedent for the future of UK building at the same time as ensuring a decent quality of life for the people who live there. Piling houses in to already established areas is a cop-out and will do nothing but fragment the beautiful communities in which we live.

Object

Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations

Representation ID: 19857

Received: 07/02/2020

Respondent: Mr Darren Ockelton

Representation Summary:

1: Junction at Fakenham, Beech avenue and Fir Covert Road. This junction is already not fit for purpose with the current network demand at rush hours. Although a speed camera is in place to "prevent" accidents, the addition of thousands more vehicle will make the junction unusable and unsafe. A traffic light system or roundabout would alleviate the strain on the network and make the junction safe.

2: School places: I acknowledge that a new medical center is planned for this proposed development but no mention about expanding Taverham High School. Surely with an additional 1400 families moving into the area this must be a consideration, where will these potential children be educated?

3: Environmental impact: What environmental scheme will be implemented as part of this development? The proposed area is not a particular wildlife sanctuary but what measures will be taken to ensure that small mammals and birds can co-exist in this development. Also, will there be upgrades to the current cycling/bus network? A large amount of school pupils use bicycles to attend school but the lack of cycle ways and busyness of Fakenham Road forces children to use the footpaths.

Full text:

I wish to raise the following concerns for the proposed 1400 new dwellings to be constructed between the A1067 and NDR.

Having resided living at ********** for 4 years and now residing in Thorpe Marriott I would like the following issues addressed.

1: Junction at Fakenham, Beech avenue and Fir Covert Road. This junction is already not fit for purpose with the current network demand at rush hours. Although a speed camera is in place to "prevent" accidents, the addition of thousands more vehicle will make the junction unusable and unsafe. A traffic light system or roundabout would alleviate the strain on the network and make the junction safe.

2: School places: I acknowledge that a new medical center is planned for this proposed development but no mention about expanding Taverham High School. Surely with an additional 1400 families moving into the area this must be a consideration, where will these potential children be educated?

3: Environmental impact: What environmental scheme will be implemented as part of this development? The proposed area is not a particular wildlife sanctuary but what measures will be taken to ensure that small mammals and birds can co-exist in this development. Also, will there be upgrades to the current cycling/bus network? A large amount of school pupils use bicycles to attend school but the lack of cycle ways and busyness of Fakenham Road forces children to use the footpaths.

Object

Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations

Representation ID: 20085

Received: 24/02/2020

Respondent: Mr WAYNE YAXLEY

Representation Summary:

Totally Unacceptable in size and area for development. Continually objecting to this development being forced upon us every few years.
The existing residents will have to put up with a building site for up to 15 years. The sweetener of provision for a school and doctors surgery is purely a sweetener. Greedy developers will allocate and probably include a clause so the school or surgery is never completed or is left until the end.
Taverham is already a big village. To tag an extra 1400 houses will have a detrimental effect on the existing population and infrastructure.

Full text:

This development site proposal is totally unacceptable. As it was back in 2018 and 2016 and 2014 and before. The same old offering but this time a sweetener of a primary school and doctors surgery. The inclusion of a provision for a Primary school would alleviate some strain on the existing local over subscribed schools but does not take into account the additional intake at the High School which this would inevitably cause.. This may go a small way but it will not fully benefit the rest of Taverham which is already oversubscribed for schools and doctors . This is supposedly a village. Yes a village?? So 1400 houses extra, in lamens terms will increase the population if you average every house with at least 2 people living at each property to 2800 extra residents not forgetting the majority of these new homes will be 3, 4 or 5 bedrooms so 2800 is very conservative figures and realistically we are looking at more nearer 4200 extra residents. Moving on to car movements well as we can see from the existing Thorpe Marriott that most houses have at least 2 cars per family. so we are looking at similar numbers for extra car movements on local roads per day
A new development of 1400 homes on this site would have a detrimental effect on the existing community.
The existing road network already struggles even with the new NDR in place. At least 1400 additional car movements can be expected on local roads if this development was to go ahead adding to the overcrowding already experienced. The extra traffic will bring additional noise and pollution issues.
What impact will this additional land grab have on the environment. The impact on wildlife and the flora and fauna. This is an area that is enjoyed by many residents for its open space easy access to Marriotts Way and able to enjoy the countryside on our doorstep. To lose this is far too important.
This area still has a village feel at present and appeal but any large development means we shall lose our village feel and become even closer to being just another suburb of Norwich. with house upon houses as far as the eye can see.
Why does the development have to be so large? Why does it have to be on Greenfield sites? You only have to look at the development of Queens Hills to see how bad these size of developments can be. Surely several smaller sites would be a better option to be blended in to existing communities instead of such a large development which will be a big blot on our community.
This development would almost double the size and area of the existing area of Thorpe Marriott
This is not the first time the site and development has been proposed and pops up every time there is a development plan. This proposal as last time and was rejected before on the same issues. Nothing has changed so this site proposal should be rejected again based on previous proposals that appear every 2 years.

Object

Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations

Representation ID: 20086

Received: 24/02/2020

Respondent: Mr WAYNE YAXLEY

Representation Summary:

Totally Unacceptable in size and area for development. Continually objecting to this development being forced upon us every few years.
The existing residents will have to put up with a building site for up to 15 years. The sweetener of provision for a school and doctors surgery is purely a sweetener. Greedy developers will allocate and probably include a clause so the school or surgery is never completed or is left until the end.
Taverham is already a big village. To tag an extra 1400 houses will have a detrimental effect on the existing population and infrastructure.

Full text:

This development site proposal is totally unacceptable. As it was back in 2018 and 2016 and 2014 and before. The same old offering but this time a sweetener of a primary school and doctors surgery. The inclusion of a provision for a Primary school would alleviate some strain on the existing local over subscribed schools but does not take into account the additional intake at the High School which this would inevitably cause.. This may go a small way but it will not fully benefit the rest of Taverham which is already oversubscribed for schools and doctors . This is supposedly a village. Yes a village?? So 1400 houses extra, in lamens terms will increase the population if you average every house with at least 2 people living at each property to 2800 extra residents not forgetting the majority of these new homes will be 3, 4 or 5 bedrooms so 2800 is very conservative figures and realistically we are looking at more nearer 4200 extra residents. Moving on to car movements well as we can see from the existing Thorpe Marriott that most houses have at least 2 cars per family. so we are looking at similar numbers for extra car movements on local roads per day
A new development of 1400 homes on this site would have a detrimental effect on the existing community.
The existing road network already struggles even with the new NDR in place. At least 1400 additional car movements can be expected on local roads if this development was to go ahead adding to the overcrowding already experienced. The extra traffic will bring additional noise and pollution issues.
What impact will this additional land grab have on the environment. The impact on wildlife and the flora and fauna. This is an area that is enjoyed by many residents for its open space easy access to Marriotts Way and able to enjoy the countryside on our doorstep. To lose this is far too important.
This area still has a village feel at present and appeal but any large development means we shall lose our village feel and become even closer to being just another suburb of Norwich. with house upon houses as far as the eye can see.
Why does the development have to be so large? Why does it have to be on Greenfield sites? You only have to look at the development of Queens Hills to see how bad these size of developments can be. Surely several smaller sites would be a better option to be blended in to existing communities instead of such a large development which will be a big blot on our community.
This development would almost double the size and area of the existing area of Thorpe Marriott
This is not the first time the site and development has been proposed and pops up every time there is a development plan. This proposal as last time and was rejected before on the same issues. Nothing has changed so this site proposal should be rejected again based on previous proposals that appear every 2 years.

Comment

Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations

Representation ID: 20093

Received: 25/02/2020

Respondent: Ms S Dunlop

Representation Summary:

While I recognise the need for more housing & have no objection on that principal I do feel that the right infrastructure should be put in place to accommodate this. Adequate power & water supply with school(s), doctors, shopping, care & green space. Taking wildlife into account - present & future.
An additional concern is flooding - Thorpe Marriott has a beck which feeds a pond - please can future works include taking the effect of the new infrastructure into account in respect of this with a survey to investigate this - perhaps a green corridor of park/wood along Marriotts Way side of the new housing to reflect the current layout of green space.
Lastly affordable housing - so often this is reduced when the build commences - we need to ensure the right mix of accommodation for all our residents in the area.

Full text:

While I recognise the need for more housing & have no objection on that principal I do feel that the right infrastructure should be put in place to accommodate this. Adequate power & water supply with school(s), doctors, shopping, care & green space. Taking wildlife into account - present & future.
An additional concern is flooding - Thorpe Marriott has a beck which feeds a pond - please can future works include taking the effect of the new infrastructure into account in respect of this with a survey to investigate this - perhaps a green corridor of park/wood along Marriotts Way side of the new housing to reflect the current layout of green space.
Lastly affordable housing - so often this is reduced when the build commences - we need to ensure the right mix of accommodation for all our residents in the area.

Comment

Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations

Representation ID: 20141

Received: 27/02/2020

Respondent: Miss Sue Shepherd

Representation Summary:

GNLP0337 - Whilst I would wish this not to go ahead, I can only hope the building work is NOT allowed to commence until the Northern Broadway (NDR) has been completed, linked directly to the A47 towards King Lynn.

Full text:

GNLP0337 - Whilst I would wish this not to go ahead, I can only hope the building work is NOT allowed to commence until the Northern Broadway (NDR) has been completed, linked directly to the A47 towards King Lynn.

Comment

Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations

Representation ID: 20429

Received: 06/03/2020

Respondent: Mrs Susan Mace

Representation Summary:

GNLP 0337
1400 new homes between Fir Covert Road and Reepham Road

My husband and I believe that 1400 new homes on this one site are just too many. We already have a very large Thorpe Marriott and this new proposed one will be next to it. We think that 500 new houses would be more appropriate. A new primary school/medical facility are already needed in this area without more houses. Also, how will this affect Taverham High School with regard to pupil numbers.

The area is already extremely busy early morning and evening when pupils are about.
.

Full text:

GNLP 0337
1400 new homes between Fir Covert Road and Reepham Road

My husband and I believe that 1400 new homes on this one site are just too many. We already have a very large Thorpe Marriott and this new proposed one will be next to it. We think that 500 new houses would be more appropriate. A new primary school/medical facility are already needed in this area without more houses. Also, how will this affect Taverham High School with regard to pupil numbers.

The area is already extremely busy early morning and evening when pupils are about.
.

Object

Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations

Representation ID: 20510

Received: 08/03/2020

Respondent: Mrs Emma Godwin

Representation Summary:

This is a beautiful area enjoyed by many in the community . Is unnecessary housing more important than preserving natural green spaces for families and children. When do we stop infringing further and further into our beautiful countryside? We are constantly reminding children to look after our beautiful countryside, yet as adults we see fit to destroy the natural habitats of many animals to build unneeded homes, in a local haven for the community, purely for monetary gain. We should be setting positive examples to future generations, not ripping away at the few untouched spaces in our village. Disgraceful.

Full text:

This is a beautiful area enjoyed by many in the community . Is unnecessary housing more important than preserving natural green spaces for families and children. When do we stop infringing further and further into our beautiful countryside? We are constantly reminding children to look after our beautiful countryside, yet as adults we see fit to destroy the natural habitats of many animals to build unneeded homes, in a local haven for the community, purely for monetary gain. We should be setting positive examples to future generations, not ripping away at the few untouched spaces in our village. Disgraceful.

Comment

Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations

Representation ID: 20646

Received: 11/03/2020

Respondent: Mr John Ward

Representation Summary:

My main concern for this development would be the extra traffic on the A140 into Norwich and the A1067 into Norwich. Especially the latter with the Norwich Golf Club development with Persimmon and the smaller one in Drayton by Norfolk Homes.

Full text:

My main concern for this development would be the extra traffic on the A140 into Norwich and the A1067 into Norwich. Especially the latter with the Norwich Golf Club development with Persimmon and the smaller one in Drayton by Norfolk Homes.

Object

Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations

Representation ID: 20899

Received: 13/03/2020

Respondent: NPS Property Consultants Ltd

Representation Summary:

Representing Norfolk Constabulary:

Norfolk Constabulary have the responsibility for policing and making Norfolk a safe place where people want to live, work, travel and invest in. In view of the scale of housing proposed in Taverham, to facilitate this for the existing community and proposed growth, policy GNLP0337 should be revised to require land to be safeguarded for provision of a police station.

Full text:

Representing Norfolk Constabulary:

Norfolk Constabulary have the responsibility for policing and making Norfolk a safe place where people want to live, work, travel and invest in.

Policy GNLP0337 will provide a very large urban extension at the edge of north west Norwich. The allocation extends to 78.36 ha for residential development (to accommodate at least 1,400 homes) associated public open space, new primary school and local medical centre. To ensure that there is the necessary police infra-structure to cater for the existing community and proposed growth, a new police facility is required and should be embedded in this allocation to replace the current facility on Drayton Road. Within allocation GNLP0337, in addition to the need to provide a new primary school and local medical centre, the policy should also include a new police station. Therefore Norfolk Constabulary consider the policy should be revised as follows

POLICY GNLP0337 Land between Fir Covert Road and Reepham Road, Taverham (78.36 ha) is allocated for residential development. The site is likely to accommodate at least 1,400 homes, 33% of which will be affordable, associated public open space, new primary school, police station and local medical centre.

More homes may be accommodated, subject to an acceptable design and layout, as well as infrastructure constraints.

The development will be expected to address the following specific matters:
• Provision of on-site recreation to encourage healthy lifestyles, in accordance with relevant policies.
• Land safeguarded for provision of primary school.
• Land safeguarded for provision of police station.
• Land safeguarded for provision of medical care facility.
• Provision of commercial space adjacent to the Broadland Northway (A1270).
……

Comment

Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations

Representation ID: 20972

Received: 14/03/2020

Respondent: Miss Jane Henderson

Representation Summary:

Development needs to take full account of the contents of the Taverham Neighbourhood Plan and be designed and managed properly to be a positive and welcome addition to the area.

Full text:

This area of land has been put forward for housing on a number of occasions over the last few years and always been turned down. However, persistence appears to have won the day. I made an objection exactly 2 years ago due to lack of promised infrastructure other than a primary school and a 'local centre'. Having attended the recent 'exhibition' of the plans, I note that further infrastructure has been promised, namely a primary school, medical centre, care village, shops and commercial units. I was pleased to see that proper thought has been paid to vehicular access to the site (off Reepham Road and Fir Covert Road). The (draft) Taverham Neighbourhood Plan, (available on Broadland District Council's website) must be adhered to, otherwise several years of effort to try and shape what is needed and wanted for Taverham/Thorpe Marriott will go to waste. The proposed traffic lighted junction at Fir Covert Road/Beech Avenue is long overdue and must be in place before any building on the land takes place. The existing tree belts must be protected, not only as a haven for wildlife but to act as a barrier for those living right up against the land area who will have to endure many years of living next to a building site. Both the primary school and medical centre are needed now by the village, let alone by the time an extra 1400 houses have been built. All that is required is a bit of joined up thinking with far more detail being released so that local residents could be persuaded that this development, if properly designed and managed, would be a positive addition to the area.

Object

Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations

Representation ID: 21477

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Mr Glenn Carter

Representation Summary:

1. Traffic generated by this huge development will adversely impact A1067 making it horrendous especially at rush hour times. Improvements need to be made to A1067 and creation of NDR western link must precede this development.

2. The carbon footprint has been not assessed. Counter measures should be established before permission to go ahead is granted.

3. Agricultural and wooded land should be retained for food production and amenity value.

4. The development is too large for the area creating both a nuisance in the short term and destruction of a valuable green lung of countryside in the longer term.

Full text:

1. Traffic generated by this huge development will adversely impact A1067 making it horrendous especially at rush hour times. Improvements need to be made to A1067 and creation of NDR western link must precede this development.

2. The carbon footprint has been not assessed. Counter measures should be established before permission to go ahead is granted.

3. Agricultural and wooded land should be retained for food production and amenity value.

4. The development is too large for the area creating both a nuisance in the short term and destruction of a valuable green lung of countryside in the longer term.

Comment

Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations

Representation ID: 21573

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Anglian Water Services Ltd

Representation Summary:

Unlike other allocation policies there is no reference to water efficiency forming part of the design of this student accommodation.

Please also see comments relating to Policy 2 of the Sustainable Communities of the Strategy document.

Full text:

Unlike other allocation policies there is no reference to water efficiency forming part of the design of this student accommodation.

Please also see comments relating to Policy 2 of the Sustainable Communities of the Strategy document.

Object

Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations

Representation ID: 21792

Received: 13/03/2020

Respondent: Philip Jordan

Representation Summary:

i) Is there a need for all these new houses! A Massive house building programme is already underway in the greater NE/E Norwich quadrant. with new starts constantly becoming apparent. this 'dash to build' is presumably explained by the previous government:- broad brush estimates (guesses) regarding likely population growth in the Norwich area & resultant 'new build' housing needs. However these estimates must surely have been based on continued UK EU membership with consequent free movement of people. Now that we have left the EU, presumably free movement will cease - local population growth will be much reduced and the need for the number of new houses will be much less. Consequently this potential development land should once again, revert to its previous strategic reserve status only to be used after a fresh post Brexit analysis of likely local population growth has been completed.
(ii) Even if such a building programme is deemed essential after a new analysis; before the land is developed, the following action would need to be taken:-
(a) The NDR (Broadland Northway) WESTERN LINK must be completed first, as to expect the existing road network to cope with all the extra traffic generated (area & 500 vehicles daily) is unrealistic in terms of ease of movement throughout Taverham. In addition to lengthy queues at busy times, existing Taverham residents would be subject to a massive increase in air pollution and vehicular noise. This would make life extremely unhealthy and uncomfortable for local residents, especially those living along the many 'rat runs' throughout the estates. Completing the western link would be a major factor in removing the need for TIDAL traffic from N&E Norfolk to use these 'rat runs' in order to access the A47 & all across the Wensum Valley (partial completion of the NDR has only served to channel even more vehicles onto these roads that was previously the case.)
(b) Any development of this size (population 5000-6000) would need to provide adequate essential community facilities, particularly educational and medical centres. Although the plan has made provision for these in terms of bricks and mortar there appears to have been little consideration given as to exactly how a medical facility would be staffed with fully qualified personnel medical facilities in Taverham are already stretched and it is almost impossible to recruit new GP's due to a serious nationwide shortage (currently the NHS has 10,000 doctor & 43,000 nurse vacancies unfilled). unless this serious problem can be addressed FIRST, a development of this size would be irresponsible, even dangerous in terms of potential residents health & well being.

Full text:

Plan to build at least 1400 new houses on land between Fir Covert Road and Reepham Road, Taverham. My views on the above are as follows;
i) Is there a need for all these new houses! A Massive house building programme is already underway in the greater NE/E Norwich quadrant. with new starts constantly becoming apparent. this 'dash to build' is presumably explained by the previous government:- broad brush estimates (guesses) regarding likely population growth in the Norwich area & resultant 'new build' housing needs. However these estimates must surely have been based on continued UK EU membership with consequent free movement of people. Now that we have left the EU, presumably free movement will cease - local population growth will be much reduced and the need for the number of new houses will be much less. Consequently this potential development land should once again, revert to its previous strategic reserve status only to be used after a fresh post Brexit analysis of likely local population growth has been completed.
(ii) Even if such a building programme is deemed essential after a new analysis; before the land is developed, the following action would need to be taken:-
(a) The NDR (Broadland Northway) WESTERN LINK must be completed first, as to expect the existing road network to cope with all the extra traffic generated (area & 500 vehicles daily) is unrealistic in terms of ease of movement throughout Taverham. In addition to lengthy queues at busy times, existing Taverham residents would be subject to a massive increase in air pollution and vehicular noise. This would make life extremely unhealthy and uncomfortable for local residents, especially those living along the many 'rat runs' throughout the estates. Completing the western link would be a major factor in removing the need for TIDAL traffic from N&E Norfolk to use these 'rat runs' in order to access the A47 & all across the Wensum Valley (partial completion of the NDR has only served to channel even more vehicles onto these roads that was previously the case.)
(b) Any development of this size (population 5000-6000) would need to provide adequate essential community facilities, particularly educational and medical centres. Although the plan has made provision for these in terms of bricks and mortar there appears to have been little consideration given as to exactly how a medical facility would be staffed with fully qualified personnel medical facilities in Taverham are already stretched and it is almost impossible to recruit new GP's due to a serious nationwide shortage (currently the NHS has 10,000 doctor & 43,000 nurse vacancies unfilled). unless this serious problem can be addressed FIRST, a development of this size would be irresponsible, even dangerous in terms of potential residents health & well being.

Comment

Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations

Representation ID: 21877

Received: 12/03/2020

Respondent: Drayton Parish Council

Representation Summary:

Drayton Parish Council does not object to the proposal but wishes to raise concerns on the impact on Drayton. There is no spare capacity in the schools or the doctors surgery in Drayton. Whilst accepting a new school and surgery will be provided as part of any planning approval these facilities will not be provided until the site is substantially developed. The concern is on the detrimental impact on Drayton until these facilities are provided. The Parish Council would like to ensure more robust provision is included within the development so that these facilities are available before 25% of the development is built. The Parish Council would also like to ensure that no vehicular access is granted into the new development area from Felsham Way.

Drayton Parish Council has concerns with the increase in traffic numbers on Reepham Road towards Drayton and Hellesdon from the proposed vehicular access point from the new development. Drayton Parish Council would seek for a left turn only exist to encourage the use of Broadland Northway, the Norwich Western Link and the soon to be delivered dualled A47. Traffic that needed to travel directly into Drayton or Hellesdon wil still be able to do so via the Broadland Northway / Reepham Road roundabout.

Full text:

Drayton Parish Council agree with the GNLP findings that there are no further sites considered suitable or a reasonable alternative for development in the parish of Drayton for the reasons given.

Taverham GNLP 0337.

Drayton Parish Council does not object to the proposal but wishes to raise concerns on the impact on Drayton. There is no spare capacity in the schools or the doctors surgery in Drayton. Whilst accepting a new school and surgery will be provided as part of any planning approval these facilities will not be provided until the site is substantially developed. The concern is on the detrimental impact on Drayton until these facilities are provided. The Parish Council would like to ensure more robust provision is included within the development so that these facilities are available before 25% of the development is built. The Parish Council would also like to ensure that no vehicular access is granted into the new development area from Felsham Way.

Drayton Parish Council has concerns with the increase in traffic numbers on Reepham Road towards Drayton and Hellesdon from the proposed vehicular access point from the new development. Drayton Parish Council would seek for a left turn only exist to encourage the use of Broadland Northway, the Norwich Western Link and the soon to be delivered dualled A47. Traffic that needed to travel directly into Drayton or Hellesdon wil still be able to do so via the Broadland Northway / Reepham Road roundabout.

Support

Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations

Representation ID: 22642

Received: 13/03/2020

Respondent: M Scott Properties Ltd

Number of people: 2

Agent: Bidwells

Representation Summary:

3.1 On behalf of M Scott Properties Ltd (Scott Properties), we strongly support the preferred allocation of GNLP0337 (the Site), Land between Fir Covert Road & Reepham Road, Taverham. The Site is entirely deliverable, and capable of making a significant contribution towards satisfying the Councils’ housing needs during the period to 2038.
3.2 GNLP0337, which covers an area of approximately 78ha., has been identified in the draft GNLP as a preferred allocation for at least 1,400 homes, together with associated public open space, primary school and local medical centre.
3.3 In accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework’s (NPPF) definition of ‘deliverable’, the proposed allocation represents a suitable location for development now, is available immediately, is achievable with a realistic prospect of housing being delivered on the site, and is viable. This is considered in further detail below by way of an Assessment of Delivery. The Assessment has been informed by a substantial amount of technical work, as well as discussions with a variety of key stakeholders, including Broadland District Council, Norfolk County Council (Highways and Education) and Taverham Parish Council. The work undertaken to date is covered in more detail in the Breck Farm Delivery Statement prepared by Scott Properties and submitted in support of this representation (See Appendix 1)

Full text:

On behalf of M Scott Properties Ltd we are instructed to submit representations to the Greater Norwich Local Plan Regulation 18 (c) consultation. The representations are split into two, reflecting the two parts of the Greater Norwich Local Plan; the Strategy Document and the Sites Plan, in respect of GNLP0337.

The attached document provides a complete record of the representations made on behalf of M Scott Properties Ltd.

The various technical studies referred to in the Representation and the Delivery Statement can be accessed in the attachments also.

Attachments: