Question 6: Do you support or object to the vision and objectives for Greater Norwich?

Support

Representation ID: 22872

Received: 13/03/2020

Respondent: Bidwells

Number of people: 2

Support, with comments.
The objective of delivering high quality homes that contribute to the delivery of mixed, inclusive, resilient and sustainable communities that are supported by appropriate economic and social infrastructure is fully supported. The approach is fully consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework.

Support

Representation ID: 22892

Received: 13/03/2020

Respondent: Bidwells

Number of people: 2

Support, with comments.
The UEA are fully supportive of the Vision for Greater Norwich, which seeks to support a diverse low carbon economy which will compete globally though its
world class knowledge-intensive jobs in the Cambridge Norwich Tech Corridor. Moreover, the UEA are supportive of the plan’s economic objectives of
supporting the expansion of internally important knowledge-based industries in the Cambridge Norwich Tech Corridor, as part of an entrepreneurial,
enterprising, creative economy.

Support

Representation ID: 22930

Received: 13/03/2020

Respondent: Bidwells

Number of people: 2

Support, with comments.
The UEA are fully supportive of the Vision for Greater Norwich, which seeks to support a diverse low carbon economy which will compete globally though its world class knowledge-intensive jobs in the Cambridge Norwich Tech Corridor. Moreover, the UEA are supportive of the plan’s economic objectives of supporting the expansion of internally important knowledge-based industries in the Cambridge Norwich Tech Corridor, as part of an entrepreneurial, enterprising, creative economy.

Support

Representation ID: 22949

Received: 13/03/2020

Respondent: Bidwells

Number of people: 2

Support, with comments.
The UEA are fully supportive of the Vision for Greater Norwich, which seeks to support a diverse low carbon economy which will compete globally though its world class knowledge-intensive jobs in the Cambridge Norwich Tech Corridor. Moreover, the UEA are supportive of the plan’s economic objectives of supporting the expansion of internally important knowledge-based industries in the Cambridge Norwich Tech Corridor, as part of an entrepreneurial, enterprising, creative economy.

Support

Representation ID: 22984

Received: 13/03/2020

Respondent: Bidwells

Support, with comments.
The UEA are fully supportive of the Vision for Greater Norwich, which seeks to support a diverse low carbon economy which will compete globally though its world class knowledge-intensive jobs in the Cambridge Norwich Tech Corridor. Moreover, the UEA are supportive of the plan’s economic objectives of supporting the expansion of internally important knowledge-based industries in the Cambridge Norwich Tech Corridor, as part of an entrepreneurial, enterprising, creative economy.

Support

Representation ID: 23012

Received: 13/03/2020

Respondent: Bidwells

Support, with comments.
The objective of delivering high quality homes that contribute to the delivery of mixed, inclusive, resilient and sustainable communities that are supported by appropriate economic and social infrastructure is fully supported. The approach is fully consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework.

Object

Representation ID: 23070

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Orbit Homes

Agent: David Lock Associates

We support and agree with the Vision insofar as it provides a sound basis for the Local Plan and
focuses on the pertinent issues that are key to the success of the area. The Vision and Objectives,
however, need to be effectively translated into policies and allocations within the Plan. There are
a number of important areas where there is a risk of misalignment, as evidenced below:

• The first paragraph of the Vision relates to a ‘low-carbon’ economy and to competing
globally through world class knowledge intensive jobs in the Cambridge–Norwich Tech
Corridor. To realise this ambition and economic objective of the Plan requires policies
that will encourage and support the success of the Corridor by ensure that it has the jobs,
homes and infrastructure it needs to flourish. This is not evident in the current draft Plan
allocations and policies.
• The GNDP rightly envision that there will be a variety of new homes that will cater for the
needs of all and that most homes will be built in and around Norwich and in the Cambridge
Norwich Tech Corridor. We do not consider that the allocations within the draft plan will meet the needs of all, or be in the right place to do so in a sustainable way: the current
draft plan results in 69% of the housing growth in the plan period coming from the Norwich
Urban area. We do not dispute that the Urban Area should be a focus for growth but with
almost 70% of the identified need relying on the urban area, the spatial strategy simply
does not align with the Vision and Objectives and thus risks not meeting the requirements
of those for whom the new housing is designed to satisfy. Whilst we acknowledge that
Norwich itself is understood to be included within the Tech Corridor, it is clear that in
spatial and policy terms Norwich Urban Area and the Corridor are considered as two
separate growth areas. With so much growth focused at Norwich, it is unclear how the
Plan meets its own objective of making provision for significant growth in in the Corridor.

Object

Representation ID: 23100

Received: 31/03/2020

Respondent: Salhouse Parish Council

A major concern is that the draft plan largely consists of a wish list, but lacks real targets or actions, particularly on the environment and climate change. For example, our environment is lauded but the draft plan notes in paragraph 37 that life expectancy for men in Norwich is 10.9 years lower in the most deprived areas compared to the least deprived. We cannot see any specifics within the draft plan as to how this shocking fact is to be addressed.
Paragraph 120 stresses the need for ‘good access to services and facilities’ for ‘our suburbs, towns and villages’. While this is provided in the first two categories of settlement there is insufficient provision or access to services in many of the settlements within the “village clusters”. The decision to allocate additional new housing beyond what is already allocated within the JCS is based almost solely on the existence of a primary school with available places or potential for expansion within the “cluster”. This does not amount to the provision of ‘good access to services and facilities’ and therefore this level of new housing in “village clusters” should not be permitted within the GNLP.
Paragraph 125 is perhaps the strongest argument for not allocating additional housing to “village clusters” within the GNLP. Clearly, there will be a major need for journeys from and to work for many of those living in any such new housing, in addition to additional journeys by delivery vehicles to this new housing. This paragraph states the need for ‘a radical shift away from the use of the private car, with many people walking, cycling or using clean public transport.’ For the majority of the plan period it is highly wishful thinking to think that ‘electric vehicles will predominate throughout Greater Norwich’. These additional journeys will not only add to the “carbon footprint” but will also add to congestion
on the road network, affecting air quality and the wellbeing of residents. If the intention of the GNLP is to locate housing close to jobs, which we agree should be a major aim, then any additional allocations of housing should be located in or close to Norwich, where there are realistic opportunities to walk or cycle to work and to services, or to use public transport to do so. The existing allocations of housing within the JCS and to be carried forward to the GNLP will provide sufficient new accommodation close to other places of work in main towns and key service centres.
Paragraph 129 states: ‘greater efficiency in water and energy usage will have minimised the need for new infrastructure, and further reductions in carbon emissions will be delivered through the increased use of sustainable energy sources. New water efficient buildings will have also contributed to the protection of our water resources and water quality, helping to ensure the protection of our rivers, the Broads and our other wetland habitats.’ We strongly feel that it is imperative that Per Capita Consumption (PCC) of water is further reduced to below the Government’s prescribed 110 litres per person per day in order to deliver this statement in paragraph 129. East Anglia is the driest region in the UK: our aquifers, rivers and wetlands are already at breaking point, as are many of the region’s farmers, who are seeing their abstraction licences reduced or revoked. If more demanding standards to reduce PCC water consumption are not set as part of the GNLP, this will further adversely impact upon the environment, impacting on the Broads and wetlands, which in turn will impact the region’s aspirational growth for tourism and will severely impact the regional agricultural economy. To ensure that the water-supply to existing users is not compromised it is sensible to restrict the number of new houses to a level that realistically covers actual need, and this fact reinforces our case for phasing of housing and our questioning of the need for a higher than necessary buffer.
Paragraph 132 makes the claim that new quality development will be located to minimise the loss of green-field land. CPRE Norfolk strongly suggests that the best way to achieve this is not to allocate additional sites for housing in “village clusters”. Indeed, there are already sufficient allocated sites for housing in the JCS being proposed to be carried forward to the GNLP in the Norwich fringe parishes, main towns and key service centres to keep pace with the likely build rates of development. The exception to this should be any brownfield sites, particularly those within Norwich, which should be prioritised into a “brownfield first” policy. This should form part of a phased approach to new housing, so that existing allocations from the JCS and any brownfield sites should be developed before permitting any additional allocated sites to be built-out.
One effective way to prevent the unnecessary loss of much greenfield land would be to institute a green belt on the “green
wedges” model around Norwich, as requested by 84 respondents and 1,912 petition signatories (currently at 2,200 signatures) calling for this according to the draft statement of consultation, September 2018, for the Stage A Regulation 18 Site Proposals and Growth Options consultation. CPRE Norfolk is very concerned that this proposal or option has been removed from the current consultation.
In conclusion for this question, we find that the vision and objectives contain serious flaws, especially in regard to the way in which they conflict with policies within the current Local Plan, which withstood the rigorous inspection process.

Support

Representation ID: 23129

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Hopkins Homes

Agent: Bidwells

The objective of delivering high quality homes that contribute to the delivery of mixed, inclusive, resilient
and sustainable communities that are supported by appropriate economic and social infrastructure is
fully supported. The approach is fully consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework

Comment

Representation ID: 23163

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Pigeon Investment Management Ltd

Agent: Pegasus Group

VISION AND OBJECTIVES
2.1 The Vision for Greater Norwich identifies that the GNLP will stimulate the creation of a strong, enterprising, productive and broad-based economy including through the provision of smaller scale employment sites within the market towns and villages to provide access to jobs for all. This accords with the economic objective of sustainable development which is to be welcomed. It will require that an appropriate distribution of jobs and homes is achieved through the plan.
2.2 The Vision aims to ensure that people of all ages will have good access to services and facilities including schools, health care, and community facilities which will reduce the need to travel. This accords with the economic, social and environmental objectives of sustainable development which is supported. It will require that housing which supports the needs of all age groups is delivered in locations which have good access to community facilities particularly with good access to sustainable transport connections.
2.3 The Vision seeks to ensure that a range of types, tenures and sizes of homes will have been built to respond to the needs of the area, including those of the older population and those in affordable need. Again, this accords with the social objective of sustainable development and is supported.
2.4 The Vision then indicates that the need to travel will have reduced including through a better alignment of the distribution of homes and facilities, an increase in home working, as well as an increase in the use of sustainable modes of transport. This will require that new housing is provided at locations where there is a shortage of workers and/or that housing is provided in locations with sustainable transport connections to major employment hubs.
2.5 The Vision also identifies that educational and healthcare facilities will have been expanded or new facilities provided which again accords with the social objective of sustainable development and is to be welcomed.