GNLP1055
Object
Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations
Representation ID: 20630
Received: 11/03/2020
Respondent: Mrs Janet Skidmore
Agent: Carter Jonas LLP
No summary provided.
This site is identified for a garden village to the west of Hethel. The number of dwellings is not specified at this stage. It is identified as a reasonable alternative for a new settlement in a future review of the GNLP. These types of development typically take much longer to proceed through the planning processes and deliver housing than originally predicted, largely because they are complex and require significant levels of primary infrastructure to be provided e.g. roads and drainage in advance of housing. Therefore, it is very unlikely that this garden village would be delivered very quickly. It is not clear at this stage whether this garden village would provide policy compliant levels of affordable housing, and it is requested that the site promoter confirms whether it can or not taking into account the costs of providing primary infrastructure in advance of development. It should be noted that the new settlement examples in Cambridgeshire which are under construction (Cambourne, Northstowe and Alconbury Weald), referred to in Paragraph 23 of the New Settlements Topic Paper, are not able to meet local affordable housing policy requirements; there is an additional new settlement example at Waterbeach (in South Cambridgeshire) which is providing no affordable housing in the first phase. The timescales for the delivery of garden villages and the ability of these types of development to provide policy compliant levels of affordable housing need to be fully understood and assessed before they are considered as a realistic option for GNLP.
It is clear that this site is not being considered for allocation in the emerging GNLP, and therefore it requested that this site is deleted as a reasonable alternative site.
Comment
Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations
Representation ID: 21416
Received: 16/03/2020
Respondent: Glavenhill Ltd
Agent: Lanpro Services Ltd
Glavenhill consider that the first phase of a new Garden Village at Hethel should be allocated now. Glavenhill believe that the choice to not allocate the Stanfield Garden Village site at Hethel within this plan period is a missed opportunity. Identification of a first phase of development on this site within the plan period would provide a clear commitment to delivering the plan’s stated Vision and a clear means to meeting that Vision in a sustainable manner.
Glavenhill consider that the first phase of a new Garden Village at Hethel should be allocated now. Glavenhill believe that the choice to not allocate the Stanfield Garden Village site at Hethel within this plan period is a missed opportunity. Identification of a first phase of development on this site within the plan period would provide a clear commitment to delivering the plan’s stated Vision and a clear means to meeting that Vision in a sustainable manner.
Support
Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations
Representation ID: 21788
Received: 16/03/2020
Respondent: Human Nature (Places) and Glavenhill Ltd
Agent: Stephen Flynn
Covering letter and delivery statement made in support of Hethel GNLP1055.
Covering letter and delivery statement made in support of Hethel GNLP1055.
Object
Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations
Representation ID: 21971
Received: 13/03/2020
Respondent: Welbeck Strategic Land III LLP
Agent: Bidwells
Comment objects to site being reasonable
3.9 Two of the Reasonable Alternatives are far in excess of the size required for 1,000 dwellings;
GNLP1055, land west of Hethel and GNLP2168, land at Park Farm. Both are being promoted as
garden villages and would each accommodate in the region of 6,500 new dwellings. The
commentary in the draft GNLP acknowledges this and states that as no new settlement is currently
being proposed in this Plan then these two sites are reasonable alternatives for consideration
through a future review of the Plan. Given that additional housing will be required in the future this
is a sensible strategic approach for the period beyond 2038. Neither of these sites therefore meet
the contingency need and should not be considered as Reasonable Alternatives.
On behalf of Welbeck Strategic Land III LLP, we are instructed to submit representations to the draft 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.
Comment
Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations
Representation ID: 22195
Received: 16/03/2020
Respondent: Environment Agency (Eastern Region)
Wymondham area site allocations
Site allocations around Wymondham (GNLP2168, GNLP0525R, GNLP3013, GNLP0006, GNLP0515, GNLP1055) are all in the headwaters of the River Tiffey and its tributaries, the land allocations are adjacent to the streams. The Tiffey is a chalk stream NERC s41 habitat of conservation importance. We are currently working on several projects to improve the River Tiffey to good WFD status e.g. fish passage and habitat restoration. The developments must not compromise this. There must be a buffer between developed land (including gardens) and the river of 20 metres. A WFD compliance assessment must be undertaken to assess the impacts on the water environment, including but not limited to water quality of run off. We would welcome partnership working opportunities from any development to improve riparian habitats via Broadland Catchment Partnership (NPPF 174).
GNLP1055
There are a couple of ordinary watercourses running through the site with small flood zones associated with them. The flood zones are JFlow so are not accurately modelled. The development must be sequentially sited to avoid developing within these small strips of flood zones adjacent to the watercourses, and the flood zones must be left open for flood storage. If any development was to be located within these flood zones then the river will need to be accurately modelled to determine the precise flood outlines and flood levels. The development will then need to be designed to be safe and not increase flood risk elsewhere, as detailed previously. This should also be mentioned within the site allocation.
Please see attached for full submission