GNLP0335

Showing comments and forms 1 to 5 of 5

Object

Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations

Representation ID: 20549

Received: 10/03/2020

Respondent: Mr Henry Isotta

Representation Summary:

(Changed from support to object as the respondent is actually objecting to categorisation of the site as unreasonable in the GNLP, stating instead it should be considered as a preferred site)

This site should be re-considered as a preferred site or as a later staged allocation following GNLP 0298. Since submission the site is now under the same ownership (A local Developer with an in-house Chartered Architects Practice) as 0298 and is available and deliverable. The site is reliant on 0298 coming forward and the majority of the HELAA ratings are applicable to both sites. It scores more favourably than the draft allocated sites on the HELAA categories. (6 ambers compared to 7 for a preferred site)

Further technical reports and information have been submitted which prove the site;

Full text:

This site should be re-considered as a preferred site or as a later staged allocation following 0298. Since submission the site is now under the same ownership as 0298 and is available and deliverable. The site is reliant on 0298 coming forward and the majority of the HELAA ratings are applicable to both sites. It scores more favourably than the draft allocated sites on the HELAA categories. (6 ambers compared to 7 for a preferred site)
Further technical reports and information have been submitted which prove the site;
1. Can achieve a safe site access through 0298 and allows for possible future links to the Attleborough road and other allocated sites. (see Highway Statement)
2. Can provide a beneficial new pedestrian crossing point to the Sports Centre plus a new length of Highways Footpath without impacting upon any TPO trees. (see Highway Statement)
3. Enhances Ecology & Biodiversity (PEA report) with associated Proposed New Community Woodland Area and Mitigation Measures.
4. Will not detract from the landscape due to retained mature hedging and further verdant screening offered by the New Community Woodland.
5. Is located near a recreational area which compliments a residential site usage rather than an Industrial area where noise, pollution and large vehicles cause potential conflict and safety issues.
6. Is located further from listed buildings and the Conservation Area than draft preferred sites.
7. Is nearer to the centre of the town than draft preferred sites, where the majority of the shops and services are located, all accessible via footpath.

In addition to these positive factors we understand The Town Council and Hingham Society favours development of this site over others, and we will continue to work with them on the details of the allocation going forward.

The site is highly deliverable being owned by a local award-winning developer with an in-house Chartered Architects Practice. This ensures the houses are both individual in character but also meet the highest levels of sustainable design.

Object

Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations

Representation ID: 21326

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Miss Dawny Christien

Representation Summary:

GNLP 0335 Is deliver able and preferred. It carries benefits for Hingham, unlike the unwanted alternatives. It has been deamed unresonable based on the site assesment document which is incorrect, inconsistent and false in it grounds.

Full text:

I object to GNLP 0335 being condidered unreasonable, as it IS deliverable and preferable for the sustainable growth of Hingham is a way which benefits the community, business and employment prospects of the Town.

Deliverability:
Significant amounts of local opposition to GNLP-0520, local people preferring a dispursed housing model using sites which “balance” housing development preventing a “massive housing estate” aesthetic approach from Norwich when combined with The Hops.
GNLP-0298: Clayland Homes is landowner, developer, promoter and housebuilder with all relevant flooding, drainage and highways assessments are complete. GNLP-0298/0501/0502 ARE DELIVERABLE AND REASONABLE.
Footpath along small section of Watton Road IS deliverable. Footpath along Norwich road is NOT due to TPOs.

Highways:
The developers for GNLP0520 assert that traffic emerging from the site will “turn right to work in Norwich” focussing traffic along the B1108 toward Norwich - people in Hingham work in all areas of Norfolk, as it is a “rural town” and not ostensibly a Norwich suburb (some 14 miles distant).
B1108/Norwich Road already mixes significant frequencies of long wheel-base HGVs emerging slowly from a standstill from Ironside Way/ACBacon onto the B1108/Norwich Road whilst encountering oncoming domestic traffic within 300metres of a national speed limit and entering from a blind bend.
Local residents frequently note near misses with domestic and industrial vehicles at the Ironside Way/ACBacon junctions. Speed compliance along this road is very poor, hower enforcement is the answer NOT housing development, and there is NO EVIDENCE BASE to suggest, despite Abel Homes assertions, that this would be the case.

Environmental Health:
GNLP-0520 is opposite a mixed industrial estate with current B1-B8 use and future intended use allocated as B1, B2 and B8; B2 being ‘general industrial’ including chemical treatment and incineration, and B1(c) uses could change or be restricted by a higher concentration of residential housing (due to noise and use of acetylene and solvents as restricted under HSE).
This will effect the sustainability of this employment area AND the future residents of GNLP-0520.

Flood risk:
Historic poor compilation of the issues raised by agencies and residents regarding flooding due to The Hops development.
Surface water flooding run-off area to the south of GNLP-0520 is likely to be insufficient and ineffective, just as the run off south of The Hops has been.
Topography of GNLP-0520 is FAR MORE EXTREME than The Hops, is a far larger site and flooding will impact a larger number of homes, including listed buildings. Recreating the same failed run-off strategy will not prevent the same flooding issue in this instance.

Financial and Land Blight:
Houses along Seamere Road, including listed buildings, will be negatively affected and financially blighted by flooding and decimation of rural situation.
Arable land south of both The Hops and GNLP-0520, designed to assist with surface water flooding will be financially blighted and become unusable, inaccessible and waterlogged - as has the land south of The Hops.
Land south of The Hops/GNLP0520 has no road access for agricultural vehicles.

Visual:
No development is without visual impact - preference for dispursed and low visual impact sites is vastly preferred by local people
GNPL-0520 will be visible for over 4 miles around, especially to the South and East, where one of Hingham’s few walks will be able to see the site almost continuously.
The arguments put forward in favour of The Hops development in 2014 maintained that the site’s sloping nature would cause “minimised visual impact” on the approach to Hingham from the East and “preserve the visual of the tree line with the church tower ablove”. This argument and necessity seems to have been abandoned.

Leisure and Wellbeing:
Added value for Hingham - GNLP-0520 offers no benefit to Hingham as a community, is UNIVERSALLY UNWANTED, and will be a draw on local infrastructure, creating further ‘dormitory town’ issues and not benefiting local commerce/retail. A staged and staggered low-density, dispursed model, including GNLP-0298, will potentially balance housing for retired people, be closer situated to Hingham’s commerce/retail centres (the Co-Op is NOT the centre of Hingham!) and increase Hingham’s populations which can easily make use of, and contribute to, our leisure facilities (Sports Centre, Lincoln Hall Social Centre and Hingham Bowls Club). GNLP-0298 will likely connect a new woodland area with circular walks to the west and centre of the town, and GNLP-0501/0502 could create significant facilities enhancements at the Sports Centre.

Additional:
The singular comment in favour of GNLP-0520 is from an agent of the proposed developer. This is not an admissible comment, especially in view of the numbers of objections against.
Inaccuracies, inconsistencies and contradictions within the Site Assessment Document casts a long shadow over the information contained within, and calls into question it’s usefulness and efficacy as the basis of any planning decision making.
GNLP

Object

Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations

Representation ID: 21360

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Hingham Town Council

Representation Summary:

Hingham Town Council object to this site being deemed as unsuitable. Information has been provided by the developer promoting the site (in conjunction with GNLP0298) that (according to their plan) demonstrates the feasibility of a provision of a footway link to Hingham Town Centre.
the site has few or no flood constraints
To be developed in phased approach with GNLP0298 (although house numbers questionable)
GNLP0298 and GNLP0335 would be likely to have a less detrimental visual impact on the approach to Hingham.
Proposed benefits to community , woodland and links to land for possible carpark/possible cemetery extension.
Needs further investigation/consultation

Full text:

HINGHAM TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS - GNLP0335
Hingham Town Council object to any new sites being allocated for house building in revised local plans to 2038 until all existing allocations in current core strategies have been developed.

Hingham Town Council object to this site being deemed as unsuitable. Information has been provided by the developer promoting the site (in conjunction with GNLP0298) that (according to their plan) demonstrates the feasibility of a provision of a footway link to Hingham Town Centre. It is considered that this footway link would be more adequate than the footway link from GNLP0520 (Norwich Road) although the need for a pedestrian priority crossing point would need to be addressed (this point highlights inconsistencies and contradictions in the site assessment process).
The site assessment also states that GNLP0335 has few or no flood constraints.
The developer has advised that this site would be developed in conjunction with GNLP0298 in a phased approach with an approximate total of 150 houses. The Town Council, having concerns regarding the sustainability and impact on local amenities and facilities of such a large number of homes would like to see this number reduced. Hingham Town Council (if Hingham is forced to accept more development) would prefer to have smaller scale/phased development that that proposed by the promotor of GNLP0520
A development in this location (GNLP0335) would give better pedestrian access (than GNLP0520) to the towns sports facilities, village hall, library and small businesses in the Fairland and Market Place.
GNLP0335 is documented as being within the 3000m buffer zone to SSSI. In the context of the climate emergency, where several species of wildlife native to Britain are becoming extinct or at risk of extinction the Council are concerned to ensure that housing developments are not built on areas where rare species of wildlife may exist, or indeed, where extension of the urban area will contribute to the depletion of wildlife. Should housing development take place wildlife habitat should be preserved, protected, enhanced and improved.
The developer has also indicated that the development would include provision for wildlife, a community woodland and could incorporate an access point from GNLP0335 (from an adopted road ) to GNLP0395, which the Town Council consider should be allocated for the provision of a cemetery extension and car park (with pedestrian access to the Fairland through Rectory Gardens)
A development on GNLP0298 and GNLP0335 would be likely to have a less detrimental visual impact on the approach to Hingham than GNLP0520, although the development would need to provide a range of housing (to suit varied needs) but be in keeping with the Town.
The Town Council consider that this site and the proposals made by the developer should be more fully explored as a preferred option/feasible alternative to GNLP0520 , to which there are vehement objections

Object

Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations

Representation ID: 22117

Received: 13/03/2020

Respondent: Mr Henry Isotta

Representation Summary:

6.1. The Sites offer an attractive extension to Hingham which would meet the housing need for
the Greater Norwich Area whilst providing high-quality, energy efficient homes.
6.2. This statement assesses the deliverability of The Sites and finds them to be Suitable, Available
and Achievable.
6.3. The applicant has worked with the Town Council to gain their support and intends to work
with them on delivery phases and the types of homes they wish to see.
6.4. The Sites are under the applicant’s ownership and are ready for immediate delivery. The
applicant is a local housebuilder and is proven in delivering homes in the region.
6.5. The Sites are in a sustainable location near to the centre of a Key Service Centre. Residents
would be in short walking distance of community facilities, the primary school, key services
and public transport.
6.6. Crucially, The Sites can achieve acceptable access onto the highway and provide pedestrian
pathways/crossing to allow safe walking to the town centre and beyond.
6.7. A new 4.2ha woodland offers a significant benefit to the local community and will enhance
biodiversity on The Sites, as well as support the wider ecology network.
6.8. The existing frontage hedge will be retained, helping to maintain biodiversity and to screen
the new development from the western approach to Hingham.
6.9. The Indicative Plan demonstrates that a low-density scheme can be achieved which is in
keeping with the existing development pattern of the area. The design is naturalistic and
assimilates with the existing grain of development and follows the organic layout of the new
community woodland.
6.10. Although the homes would be new build, they will utilise traditional materials, craftmanship
and staggered rooflines to create a visually attractive development. The layout is non-
‘formulaic’ and would add to the form and character of the historic town.
6.11. The Sites have a plethora of benefits, can achieve a safe access, and will have a low impact on
the significant landscapes.
6.12. Furthermore, from dialogue with local residents, the Town Council and the Hingham Society,
it has been established that the preference is for any new development in the town to be on
the western side of Hingham, and specifically on The Sites submitted in this statement.
6.13. The Sites achieve the ‘Green’ criterion as set out in the HELAA Comparison Table and should
be reconsidered as a Preferred Site Option.

Full text:

Please see attached full submission and additional information to accompany this site allocation. I have included the full set of documents and plans which describes all 3 of the sites put forward for allocation in this location as they are all relevant.

As you may be aware we had previously submitted a full planning application on a small part of the site, so know the site well. We have also prepared master plans and indicative site plans to demonstrate the site is highly deliverable.

We have had input and support from the Town Council and believe this site and the information submitted with it should now demonstrate it as a preferable site. The reasons given for the draft allocations appeared to have inconsistencies in the same criteria being differently interpreted for different sites which should be reviewed. I also note that the site area you have listed for the site is incorrect. The site is 2.02ha as previous submission stated not 1.87ha.

Attachments:

Object

Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations

Representation ID: 23063

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Hingham Town Council

Representation Summary:

Hingham Town Council object to any new sites being allocated for house building in revised local plans to 2038 until all existing allocations in current core strategies have been developed.
Hingham Town Council object to this site being deemed as unsuitable. Information has been provided by the developer promoting the site (in conjunction with GNLP0298) that (according to their plan) demonstrates the feasibility of a provision of a footway link to Hingham Town Centre. It is considered that this footway link would be more adequate than the footway link from GNLP0520 (Norwich Road) although the need for a pedestrian priority crossing point would need to be addressed (this point highlights inconsistencies and contradictions in the site assessment process).
The site assessment also states that GNLP0335 has few or no flood constraints.
The developer has advised that this site would be developed in conjunction with GNLP0298 in a phased approach with an approximate total of 150 houses. The Town Council, having concerns regarding the sustainability and impact on local amenities and facilities of such a large number of homes would like to see this number reduced. Hingham Town Council (if Hingham is forced to accept more development) would prefer to have smaller scale/phased development that that proposed by the promotor of GNLP0520
A development in this location (GNLP0335) would give better pedestrian access (than GNLP0520) to the towns sports facilities, village hall, library and small businesses in the Fairland and Market Place.
GNLP0335 is documented as being within the 3000m buffer zone to SSSI. In the context of the climate emergency, where several species of wildlife native to Britain are becoming extinct or at risk of extinction the Council are concerned to ensure that housing developments are not built on areas where rare species of wildlife may exist, or indeed, where extension of the urban area will contribute to the depletion of wildlife.

Should housing development take place wildlife habitat should be preserved, protected, enhanced and improved.
The developer has also indicated that the development would include provision for wildlife, a community woodland and could incorporate an access point from GNLP0335 (from an adopted road) to GNLP0395, which the Town Council consider should be allocated for the provision of a cemetery extension and car park (with pedestrian access to the Fairland through Rectory Gardens)
A development on GNLP0298 and GNLP0335 would be likely to have a less detrimental visual impact on the approach to Hingham than GNLP0520, although the development would need to provide a range of housing (to suit varied needs) but be in keeping with the Town.
The Town Council consider that this site and the proposals made by the developer should be more fully explored as a preferred option/feasible alternative to GNLP0520 , to which there are vehement objections

Full text:

For full representation response, please refer to the attached document.

Attachments: