Question 7: Are there any factors which have not been covered that you believe should have been?

Showing comments and forms 1 to 16 of 16

Comment

Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Representation ID: 19939

Received: 15/02/2020

Respondent: Mr Christopher Yardley

Representation Summary:

As mentioned in question 6 - there is a fundamental need to support the flowery and unsubstantiated statements in the vision and objectives with well reasoned, balanced and peer reviewed empirical evidence

Full text:

As mentioned in question 6 - there is a fundamental need to support the flowery and unsubstantiated statements in the vision and objectives with well reasoned, balanced and peer reviewed empirical evidence

Comment

Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Representation ID: 20040

Received: 21/02/2020

Respondent: Mr John Leech

Representation Summary:

I have 2 issues relating to what is not covered in the report.
1 there has for many years been a desperate shortage of 3 bedroom detached bungalows in the Taverham Drayton area...none are currently being built.
2 there are too many sites with planning permission which are not being built out by the builders who own the land. This creates a housing shortage, forcing up prices and increasing the book value of building companies, whilst defying the need for housing to be built...permissions should be conditional on a build by date, and on building the type of properties needed

Full text:

I have 2 issues relating to what is not covered in the report.
1 there has for many years been a desperate shortage of 3 bedroom detached bungalows in the Taverham Drayton area...none are currently being built.
2 there are too many sites with planning permission which are not being built out by the builders who own the land. This creates a housing shortage, forcing up prices and increasing the book value of building companies, whilst defying the need for housing to be built...permissions should be conditional on a build by date, and on building the type of properties needed

Support

Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Representation ID: 20878

Received: 13/03/2020

Respondent: Town and Country Planning Association

Representation Summary:

Under Paragraph 117, the TCPA would encourage including ‘employment’ under access to services. It is noted that employment is often allocated separately from residential allocations, however the co-location of different uses increases pedestrian movements and therefore contributes to healthier lifestyles. We would encourage the wording: "…new communities will be designed to make active travel and public transport the easiest travel choice and therefore reduce the need to travel by private vehicle."

Under the Communities objective, we would recommend using the wording: "…with good access to jobs, services and facilities, helping to reduce health inequalities in disadvantaged parts of the community."

Full text:

Under Paragraph 117, the TCPA would encourage including ‘employment’ under access to services. It is noted that employment is often allocated separately from residential allocations, however the co-location of different uses increases pedestrian movements and therefore contributes to healthier lifestyles. We would encourage the wording: "…new communities will be designed to make active travel and public transport the easiest travel choice and therefore reduce the need to travel by private vehicle."

Under the Communities objective, we would recommend using the wording: "…with good access to jobs, services and facilities, helping to reduce health inequalities in disadvantaged parts of the community."

Comment

Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Representation ID: 21261

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Lanpro Services

Agent: Stephen Flynn

Representation Summary:

The objectives for growing vibrant and healthy communities should include good access to education as well as jobs, services and facilities.

Full text:

The objectives for growing vibrant and healthy communities should include good access to education as well as jobs, services and facilities.

Comment

Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Representation ID: 21378

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Glavenhill Ltd

Agent: Stephen Flynn

Representation Summary:

The objectives for growing vibrant and healthy communities should include good access to education as well as jobs, services and facilities.

Full text:

The objectives for growing vibrant and healthy communities should include good access to education as well as jobs, services and facilities.

Comment

Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Representation ID: 21418

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Active Norfolk

Representation Summary:

Linking inclusive growth principles to the system approach to healthy placemaking recommended in Marmot's most recent review of health equity in England.

Small amendments to language about reducing the need to travel, and inclusion of Active Design principles in the design of new homes.

Full text:

Inclusive growth cannot be achieved by simply growing the economy (Marmot 2010), it requires a system approach attributes to the 3 outcomes described above.
Marmot's most recent publication (10 years On) highlights some particularly important observations that highlight the importance of 'place' in peoples health:
- People can expect to spend more of their lives in poor health
- Improvements to life expectancy have stalled, and declined for the poorest 10% of women
the health gap has grown between wealthy and deprived areas, place matters.

para 117: '-which will in turn reduce the need to travel' - this statement is misleading; the needs to travel remains; the rest of the paragraph explains this better but the opening statement should be changed. Suggested amendment 'the promotion and implementation of Active Design principles (Sport England) will reduce dependence on motor vehicle travel and improve active travel options.

Para 121 - a reference to Active Design is recommended: 'Homes will have been built at appropriate densities, Active Design principles will be applied to promote active lifestyles, function and style will respect and enhance local character and to meet the needs of all in mixed communities.'

Support and agree with comments in para 126.

Comment

Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Representation ID: 21717

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Brown & Co

Representation Summary:

Greater emphasis should be placed on the need to direct housing away from areas at risk of flooding, both fluvial and surface water, in light of the predicated effects of climate change and increased flooding and extreme weather events.
Reference should be made for the need for measures to tackle surface water flooding to form part of a multi-functional network, for example as part of the green infrastructure and biodiversity measures.

Full text:

Greater emphasis should be placed on the need to direct housing away from areas at risk of flooding, both fluvial and surface water, in light of the predicated effects of climate change and increased flooding and extreme weather events.
Reference should be made for the need for measures to tackle surface water flooding to form part of a multi-functional network, for example as part of the green infrastructure and biodiversity measures.

Comment

Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Representation ID: 21725

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: RSPB (East of England Regional Office)

Representation Summary:

More detail is required to on the type of measures required by the Council's to achieve net zero and protect the environment to determine if they will be effective and ensure the plan will be sound.

Full text:

Paragraph 126 highlights the future modes of transport. We suggest the plan needs to be considered in collaboration with plans for adjacent authorities such that facilities (such as charging points for electric vehicles) are provided at the start and end of a journey, with information promoting an enjoyable experience. This could align with provision of charging points in rural areas/hotspots.

Paragraph 133 describes making improvements to and linking habitats as a means of helping communities mitigate for and adapt to climate change, but no mention is made of what these habitats are and where connections will be made. In order to allow comment these points need to be described. Tree planting at scale in the right locations to capture carbon, SuDS to cope with surface water run-off, collection reservoirs within developments providing a source of grey water leading to reduced demand. The scale of ambition should be outlined, even if the details need to work out in Supplementary Planning Documents.

A fuller description needs to be provided showing how access to the countryside have been improved/provided and which, where and how will the quality of environmental assets have been achieved? How will decisions be made when selecting where to improve?

Mention is made of protecting the environment but the focus in the plan is on new build. The greatest level of beneficial impact/change would be realised in existing housing and infrastructure with poor quality build characteristics. What is the link between new and old? What plan is to be in place to apply lessons learned from new build to, for example, retrofit or upgrade? The Local Plan needs to focus on improving existing development if it is to support carbon neutrality.

Comment

Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Representation ID: 21830

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Natural England

Representation Summary:

For the Local Plan to deliver actual sustainable development and significantly address climate change, the vision needs to be better balanced. Otherwise, the vision as set out in (109) - (111) appears to be heavily focussed on growth at the expense of the other two pillars of sustainable development.

In our response (dated 21 March 2018 ref:235617) to a previous consultation on the Local Plan, we considered that the vision would be improved by the inclusion of the following words under (110):
‘… and an a protected and enhanced environment’.
Page 3 of 11
We maintain that this wording is important to include as it sets the tone for the Local Plan and signals the commitment of the local authorities to safeguard their natural assets.
We also consider that under (110) the text should be amended as follows:
‘Growth will make the best of Greater Norwich’s distinct built, natural and historic assets whilst protecting and enhancing them.’

In relation to the Plan’s objectives, Natural England expects GI to feature prominently in the objectives as it has a crucial role in delivering the following objectives: economy, communities, homes, infrastructure and environment and as highlighted in our comments to (101) above. We strongly recommend that the text is amended to reference GI under each of the objective headings (112) – (134) as well as in the wording of these objectives as listed under (135).

We emphasised the role and importance of GI in the new Local Plan in our previous consultation response and would like to re-emphasise its importance in this response. Unless GI is given central prominence in the policies, which need to clearly explain in detail how and where GI will be delivered and the timescale for it, the Plan is unlikely to deliver sustainable development, or adaptation to the impacts of climate change, across the Greater Norwich area.

Full text:

Natural England is a non-departmental public body. Our statutory purpose is to ensure that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced, and managed for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development.
We support Broadland District, Norwich City and South Norfolk Councils’ preparation of a joint Local Plan to ensure a consistent approach to planning across the Greater Norwich area, with policies aligned with the revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

We have made detailed comments in this letter in relation to the following Greater Norwich Local Plan (GNLP) consultation documents:
 Draft Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy
 Draft Sites Document
 Habitats Regulations Assessment of GNLP, December 2019
 Sustainability Appraisal and Strategic Environmental Assessment, January 2020

Natural England acknowledges that the findings of supporting documents including the draft Greater Norwich Water Cycle Study (WCS) (AECOM 2019) and the emerging Green Infrastructure and Recreational Impact Avoidance and Mitigation Strategy (GIRAMS) will need to be incorporated in the policies of the Local Plan and supporting documents, once these are finalised.
To summarise our response briefly, we broadly welcome the progress and development of aspects of the Local Plan and supporting documents to date, though Natural England is not yet satisfied that the relevant Plan polices will provide sufficient mitigation to ensure that there will be no adverse impacts to designated sites alone, and in-combination, through changes in water quality and resources and in regard to recreational disturbance, and to demonstrate that policies are sustainable.

Comment

Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Representation ID: 22272

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Barton Willmore

Representation Summary:

Q6, Q7 & Q8 – Vision & Objectives for Greater Norwich
2.12 The vision is broadly supported, but the means of achieving it and how growth is distributed
is not supported by our client. For reasons set out in responses to latter questions, the
number of homes to be delivered should be increased, to improve affordability, particularly
in context of shortfalls to date. To reduce emissions and enhance green infrastructure,
development needs to be planned for in a means that minimises the number of trips
undertaken. People will always need to travel for work, and for various other purposes, and
it is important therefore to locate growth in areas where public transport is accessible.
However, it is also essential to minimise the number of small trips – i.e. to a convenience
store; to a local school etc. particularly for those less affluent who may not be able to afford
electric and hybrid vehicles in the short-medium term. The plans for NE Wymondham
presented will provide immediate day to day convenience needs and a primary School serving
in excess of circa. 1,000 homes within walking distances of the Site, alongside access to bus
stops within walking distances with services into Norwich and the train station, as well as
dedicated cycle access to Norwich.
2.13 Paragraph 114 of the Strategy advises that jobs growth will be delivered on strategic sites in
and around Norwich, with good access to the public transport and the major road network.
However, the Cambridge – Norwich tech corridor represents the most sustainable option to
achieve such growth, but equally it is essential that new homes are made available in the
same corridor to cater for those that may be employed by the new jobs. Strong cycle links
into the City Centre are also essential, and this highlights the need to focus development in
locations where public transport, major roads and cycle access is readily available.
Wymondham is one such location within the Tech Corridor. The Authorities’ desire to locate
up to 1,200 homes in villages – based on allocations that would support no more than 25
homes, would in most instances mean that none of these three criteria would apply. To
actively set aside an arbitrary number of homes (1,200) potentially in areas where there are
limited services, no cycle facilities and limited public transport, would be contradictory to the
principles of sustainable development, and thus contrary to the NPPF and the NPPG. It would
fail all 4 tests of soundness contained in Paragraph 35 of the NPPF.2.14 Paragraph 117 highlights that sustainable communities will be where people have good access
to “services and facilities including schools, health care, shops, leisure, and community
facilities and libraries – which in turn reduce the need to travel”. Accordingly, irrespective of
previous allocations, this Local Plan should undertake services audits of each settlement
(including the villages), outside the obvious case of the city centre, and identify a hierarchy
of centres. Those centres with the greatest variety of services and accessibility should then
be identified as the priority for accommodating future growth. There appears to be no suchassessment within the Local Plan or its supporting evidence base, and thus the soundness of
the strategy for growth is brought immediately into question. Indeed the Growth locations
identified in Map 7 appear to have no rationale, aside from simply carrying forward allocations
from the previous plan period irrespective of whether they have delivered, or meet the tests
of soundness for compliance with national policy in 2020, as opposed to when the previous
iteration of the Plan was prepared.
2.15 Similarly, our client wholly supports the sentiment of Paragraph 126, seeking to achieve a
radical shift away from the use of the private car. Locations with good quality footpath and
cycle links, as well as access to public transport are the most likely locations to achieve such
a shift. This is the case for land to the northeast of Wymondham, which has footpath links to
the town centre, and dedicated cycle routes into Norwich City Centre. However, achieving
this shift will be far more difficult in rural locations and small settlements, where roads are
narrow and cannot accommodate cycle/footpaths.
2.16 The Plan’s Objectives are set out on Page 34, with reference to promoting the ‘delivery’ of
housing, jobs and infrastructure to meet needs. The word delivery being key, as it is a key
test of the NPPF. The previous Plan period has failed to deliver the needs of the Greater
Norwich Area, particularly in respect of housing as set out in our response to Question 9.
This has impacted on affordability and access to housing. The Plan should recognise the
shortfalls of over 6,100 homes across the Norwich Policy Area and seek to remedy it through
directing growth to locations that have delivered successfully.

Full text:

Full representations (with appendices) submitted in response to the current Regulation 18 consultation of the Greater Norwich Local Plan on behalf of Landstock Estates Ltd and Landowners Group Ltd.

Comment

Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Representation ID: 22321

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Pigeon Investment Management Ltd

Agent: Pegasus Group

Representation Summary:

2. 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.

Full text:

Pegasus Group are pleased to submit representations for Pigeon Investment Management Ltd on behalf of the landowners in support of the proposed development of the site at Land at Hethersett. Please find attached the response form, the representations and a Delivery Statement

Comment

Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Representation ID: 22362

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Pigeon Investment Management Ltd

Agent: Pegasus Group

Representation Summary:

2. 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.

Full text:

Pegasus Group are pleased to submit representations for Pigeon Investment Management Ltd on behalf of the landowners in support of the proposed development of the site at Land at Walcot Green Lane, Diss.

Comment

Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Representation ID: 22388

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Norwich Green Party

Representation Summary:

Economy: plan target to build thousands of new homes should act as a stimulus to developing local manufacture of zero carbon construction materials;

Homes: include requirement to build to maximum energy efficiency standards such as Passivhaus. For example, the Reading Local Plan is making zero carbon housing mandatory for major residential developments unless demonstrated as unviable. On-site renewable energy standards should be set as well as carbon offsetting scheme to secure off-site carbon reductions.

Infrastructure: urgent need to address smaller Transforming Cities grant than anticipated. If funds can't be identified for sustainable transport required to serve thousands of new homes and jobs, quantum of development should be reduced, to prevent car-dependency.

Environment: need for Green Belt/wedges to prevent coalescence of communities eg Hethersett and Wymondham; protect river valley settings and protect setting of NDR similar to Southern Bypass.

Full text:

For full representation and additional information submitted, please refer to the attached documents.

Comment

Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Representation ID: 22509

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Broadland Green Party

Representation Summary:

Para 123: does not reference local rail transport links. need to improve local rail services on the Bittern and Wherry lines to encourage rail use. E.g. more routes between Norwich Brundall Reedham and Gt Yarmouth.

The growth of Norwich Intl Airport is not consistent with reducing carbon emissions.

The Norwich Western Link should focus on improving existing road links rather than building a new road across the Wensum Valley.

Para 126 references ““a radical shift away from the use of the private car”. But this will only happen if there are clear plans on how this can be achieved and there is insufficient detail in the GNLP on this.

Para 129: “…our proactive approach to co-ordinating development providers, organisations and agencies as well as through interventions in cases where the market cannot deliver infrastructure.” Comment: there will need to be much more active intervention and co-ordination of infrastructure development than has hitherto been seen if this ambition is to be realised. It cannot simply be aspirational but clear plans need to be established to achieve this in practice.

Full text:

I attach the feedback from Broadland Green Party members on the GNLP Consultation.

Each section is identified but not all questions have been answered. However, all questions are included to maintain the numbering.

See attached

Attachments:

Comment

Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Representation ID: 22717

Received: 12/03/2020

Respondent: Mrs Janet Hill

Representation Summary:

Question 7.
As mentioned in question 6 - there is a fundamental need to support the unsubstantiated statements in the vision and objectives with well reasoned, balanced and peer reviewed empirical evidence

Full text:

Question 6.
The projected vision is based on the premise that growth will deliver all sorts of wonderful good things - enhance the environment, the economy and peoples lives. The problem with this is that the received experience of all development in all parts of Britain and certainly in Norfolk since at least the 1970s is that it does not do this. Development brings more pollution, traffic, worsened services, more environmental damage, loss of countryside and lower quality lives. Unless the statements made can be proved by empirical evidence they are nothing more than mis-selling advertising, and should not be included in any statement related to the policies being suggested. It is important that the public should not be mislead and the statement clearly does so at present based on the past experience of 40 years of 'growth policy'.

Summary
The vision is misleading and does not represent the impacts of the proposed growth realistically or in a balanced way.
The vision is contrary to received experience of the impacts of development and therefore should be removed

Question 7.
As mentioned in question 6 - there is a fundamental need to support the unsubstantiated statements in the vision and objectives with well reasoned, balanced and peer reviewed empirical evidence

Question 11.
The delivery of housing and employment growth is predicated on the provision of 'sustainable' infrastructure - as stated in the Delivery Statement.
However, experience of the past 20 years has shown that the GNDP have totally failed to provide for the ability of infrastructure and services to keep pace with the projected and actual growth. Traffic numbers and congestion is increasing massively, public transport is failing to offer viable alternatives, air pollution issues are increasing, water demand is placing massive and unsustainable pressures on ground and surface water provision (low flows in rivers/ drying wetlands), and the services associated with our society (health, education, social services, older persons needs, younger persons services) are all failing. The prescription of more development will not solve this as it is excessive population growth that underlies the unsustainable stresses that have been placed on our society, environment and lives. The statement on infrastructure should reference that past performance has failed to deliver sustainable infrastructure and that the policies being promoted are based on 'more of the same' so that a 'health warning' on the ability of the GNDP policies to deliver sustainable and good infrastructure to support and improve lives, the environment and society is at best 'an intent', but with very little likelihood of success, and that the probable effect will be continuing decline in all measurable areas of infrastructure delivery as a result of policies proposed. This needs to be clearly stated in the proposed development plan
Summary
Experience of the past 20 years suggests that in all respects, infrastructure has failed to be delivered appropriately by the GNDP to support the existing growth in population. More of the same is unlikely to achieve the aims and statement set out in the document, and therefore this needs to be changed to reflect the past performance (failures) and a realistic and justified expectation of future performance in years ahead based on probable continuing decline in all areas of infrastructure delivery. To do otherwise is to mis lead the public
The fundamental problem that this plan has is that it is suggesting that the 'more of the same' mass development and large scale migration into the County, is in some way 'sustainable'. The experience of the previous 30+ years of significant development in and around Norwich has proved to be exactly the opposite -that it is NOT sustainable. The impacts on traffic numbers, air pollution, water resources, loss of countryside and open space, damage to biodiversity, extreme and dangerous pressure on the health services and social services - all of which are now in crisis - emphasises that this policy of 'growth' has not worked. Sustainability is the golden thread that runs through the planning system and is emphasised in the NPPF - to fail this test is to fail to justify the proposals and they should not proceed. - Clearly by any reading of the term sustainability, the current model and policies have failed, and the proposals in this new plan which continue on the same route, must therefore be deemed to fail the basic test of sustainability.

Question 14.

The statements throughout the document indicate time and again that the new proposed development will somehow bring improvements to peoples lives, their environment and their social and employment welfare. However, there does not appear to be any evidential justification for any such statements. Without any empirical evidence to support such statements, and in the light of past experience, to state that 'more of the same' will actually bring different results is clearly misleading and wrong. All such statements and allusions should be struck from the plan and in their place, it needs a clear indication of the effects and results of the development of the past 30 years -not dressed up and partially chosen bits of statistics that cover up the real truth of what people know to have happened in their county and to their lives, but an independently undertaken review of all the above areas of the functioning of the GNDP area (by at least two teams of independent academics from universities not in the region - who will allow peer review and accountability to their reports) this will then provide the basis for a new plan and a new set of objectives with information to allow reasoned judgement.

In the meantime, the proposals in the report to continue to add further development to the GNDP area should be halted as it is clearly unsustainable to propose more development when the existing development has failed to produce a sustainable, good society, economy and environment. There is already a vast amount of consented development potential which has yet to be realised in the current Plans - and which will no doubt continue to contribute to the decline in the quality of life of the County. There is therefore NO justification for more until proven evidence is available and presented to the Public in a manner which is not partisan and biased, and which will allow real assessment of the true effects of such development to be understood balanced against any benefits.

Summary
The evidence of the past 30 years of a growth strategy similar to that which is being proposed, has been unsustainable in terms of its adverse impacts on the environment (traffic density, air pollution, water resource impacts, loss of countryside, damage to biodiversity), society (increased crime, reduced social cohesion, failing schools, failing health services, failing social services) and the lowering in the quality of life for residents resulting from this and other related factors. More of the same is therefore unsustainable and fails the NPPF test in relation to suitable development. The plan should be completely re-thought
It cannot even be stated that 'growth' has brought about real increases in peoples incomes - with income levels for the median and lower incomes (the vast majority) lower in real terms than 10 years ago.

Comment

Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Representation ID: 23101

Received: 31/03/2020

Respondent: Salhouse Parish Council

Representation Summary:

Are we building houses to support jobs growth or providing jobs for people moving into houses? Different paragraphs in the document seem to support both views on whether housing growth or jobs growth is driving development.

Full text:

Please see attached for full submission
Note that Salhouse Parish Council largely endorses the comments by CPRE, and so we have integrated these comments into our response.

Attachments: