Question 26: Are there any topics which have not been covered that you believe should have been?

Showing comments and forms 1 to 12 of 12

Comment

Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Representation ID: 20060

Received: 23/02/2020

Respondent: Mr Norman Castleton

Representation Summary:

Defences against flooding from the sea should also be consideration given the important nature of the Broads.

Full text:

Defences against flooding from the sea should also be consideration given the important nature of the Broads.

Comment

Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Representation ID: 20451

Received: 07/03/2020

Respondent: Dr Iain barr

Representation Summary:

Past performance should feed into future projects. The NDR has been a disaster. Expensive, poorly designed and terrible for the environment. The council has lied about its effects on wildlife and tried to cover it up. They cannot be trusted to build roads in a way that mitigates environmental effects. The past performance ( eg bat gantry failure) should inform the future. NCC should not go ahead with any infrastructure projects until they correct and honestly report past failures.

Full text:

Past performance should feed into future projects. The NDR has been a disaster. Expensive, poorly designed and terrible for the environment. The council has lied about its effects on wildlife and tried to cover it up. They cannot be trusted to build roads in a way that mitigates environmental effects. The past performance ( eg bat gantry failure) should inform the future. NCC should not go ahead with any infrastructure projects until they correct and honestly report past failures.

Object

Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Representation ID: 20895

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. It is essential that the requirements of Norfolk Constabulary are included within the strategic infrastructure element of policy 4 (mirroring the priority given to health requirements) and the policy should be worded accordingly.

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.

The importance and priority to wider strategic infrastructure in the GNLP area is welcomed.

Norfolk Police have significant pressure on resources because of new development and need to ensure that its strategic infrastructure reflects the increased pressure on their resources as a result on growth. Whilst a new strategic site has been identified east of Norwich to address pressures in this part of the Plan area, further pressure has been identified in north Norwich. As a result, a key element of police infra-structure required to serve the Greater Norwich area is a new response facility to serve north Norwich (and the associated growth which will come forward to 2038 and beyond). It is essential to meet operational needs that this is provided close to the NDR to deliver response policing, plus foster a safe and secure environment and quality of life (and limit crime and disorder and the fear of crime). This will meet the clear aspirations of Policy 2 to ensure the delivery of ‘inclusive, resilient and safe communities’

It is therefore essential that the requirements of Norfolk Constabulary are included within the strategic infrastructure element of policy 4 (mirroring the priority given to health requirements). Therefore, the policy should be revised to read as follows

The Greater Norwich local authorities and partners will lobby for the timely delivery of improvements to infrastructure, including that set out in appendix 1 and to:
• The energy supply network including increased capacity at primary substations at Cringleford, Peachman Way, Sprowston and Earlham Grid Local and/or innovative smart solutions to off-set the need for reinforcement;
• the waste water network, at Whitlingham water recycling centre and the Yare Valley sewer, to protect designated habitats;
• police infra-structure
• health care infrastructure.

This would address the strategic needs of Norfolk Constabulary. Furthermore, this would complement the approach adopted by Norfolk Police, when working with communities on Neighbourhood Plans, where the inclusion of clear reference to the use of developer contributions and / or CIL monies to deliver local initiatives that create safer communities (and reduce crime) is encouraged.

Comment

Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Representation ID: 21278

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Anglian Water Services Ltd

Representation Summary:

The Greater Norwich Local Plan should include a policy which ensures that development proposals fully consider the risk of pollution to existing groundwater sources for public water supply.

Full text:

Reference is made to groundwater sources utilised for potable (clean) water to supply Anglian Water's customers.

There are a number of sources and SPZs close to proposed developments:
• Aylsham - Aylsham and Coldham Hall sources
• Cawston – Salle Bridge
• Norwich – Costessey Pits,Marlingford, Bowthorpe, Colney, Thorpe St Andrew, Trowse Newton, Caistor St Edmund, Postwick
• Wicklewood – High Oak
• Kirby Cane – Kirby Cane

However there is no policy to ensure that development proposals explicitly give full consideration to the risk of pollution to groundwater sources as set above. Including the documentation to be provided at application stage including mitigation where required.

Comment

Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Representation ID: 21572

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Hingham Town Council

Representation Summary:

Pedestrian Priority within communities – Policy 4 has no mention of providing improvement to the pedestrian network for communities, outside of Norwich.
Public Parking facilities – it is unrealistic to conceive that in a rural area with a limited bus service, businesses within the “Key Service Centre” can flourish without the provision of adequate public parking
Parking facilities for existing community buildings – within Hingham these are insufficient to support growth and to enable these facilities to thrive. It is of concern that venues will lose bookings and revenue if they cannot provide adequate parking facilities for their potential customers.

Full text:

Pedestrian Priority within communities – Policy 4 has no mention of providing improvement to the pedestrian network for communities, outside of Norwich. With particular reference to Hingham, nowhere in the town is there a crossing point giving pedestrian priority over the busy B1108 (or any other road within the town).
Public Parking facilities – it is unrealistic to conceive that in a rural area with a limited bus service, businesses within the “Key Service Centre” can flourish without the provision of adequate public parking. It is essential that businesses can encourage and obtain support from visitors to the town from nearby villages. If the small independent businesses within the Hingham cannot flourish, they will close and residents of Hingham will also have to travel further afield to shop. Adequate public parking must be addressed, not only for visitors to the town but those residents that need to access local services and businesses using a car due to ill health or mobility issues.
Town like Hingham to construction of large housing estates on the outskirts of town tend to mean that the people live on those estates to become a separate community. We would suggest therefore that developers provide finance to further develop existing facilities or provide new facilities for the whole community like a car park
Parking facilities for existing community buildings – within Hingham these are insufficient to support growth and to enable these facilities to thrive. The Lincoln Hall/Bowls Club/Library and the Sports Centre parking areas are inadequate in size to accommodate visitors to these venues during busy times, and it is of concern that the venues will lose bookings and revenue if they cannot provide adequate parking facilities for their potential customers.

Comment

Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Representation ID: 21626

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Aylsham TC

Representation Summary:

There is nothing in the plan regarding connecting the market towns to Norwich and onward sites through long-distance all-weather cycle paths. This would appear to be an opportunity missed

Full text:

There is nothing in the plan regarding connecting the market towns to Norwich and onward sites through long-distance all-weather cycle paths. This would appear to be an opportunity missed

Support

Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Representation ID: 21999

Received: 13/03/2020

Respondent: Redenhall with Harleston Town Council

Representation Summary:

The Town Council supports Policy 4 (Strategic Infrastructure), especially the emphasis on "timely delivery"

Full text:

please find attached the report which was agreed by resolution by Harleston Town Council on March 11th 2020.

Attachments:

Support

Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Representation ID: 22038

Received: 13/03/2020

Respondent: East Suffolk Council

Representation Summary:

We support the approach in the Strategic Infrastructure policy.

Full text:

The Council would like to take the opportunity to express its support for the Greater Norwich Local Plan Draft Strategy.

Section 1 – Introduction
Paragraph 15 refers to a plan period to 2036. This needs amending to 2038, as noted elsewhere in the document.

Section 2- Greater Norwich Spatial Profile
Paragraph 70 notes that the A146 forms part of the Government’s Major Road Network (MRN) of local non-trunk roads of national importance. East Suffolk is pleased that the importance of the A146 has been recognised as it is a key link between Lowestoft, Beccles and Norwich. The Suffolk County Transport Model (SCTM) – Preferred Option Traffic Forecasting Report (March 2018) notes that the A146 Norwich Road/Loddon Road and the A146 Norwich Road/A143 Yarmouth Road are two junctions that will reach 90-99% capacity by end of the Waveney Local Plan period, 2036. The two junctions are close to Beccles but fall within the South Norfolk Council/Greater Norwich area. Measures to address traffic issues on the A146 near Beccles are likely to be necessary in future reviews of Local Plans. (See page 36 of The Suffolk County Transport Model (SCTM) – Preferred Option Traffic Forecasting Report (March 2018) https://www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk/assets/Planning/Waveney-Local-Plan/Background-Studies/Suffolk-County-Council-Forecast-Highway-Modelling.pdf)

It may be of interest to the Greater Norwich Planning Policy Team to know that the Barnby Bends bypass Major Route Network improvement proposal has progressed to the next stage with funding to prepare an outline business case. Improvements to the section of the A146 near Barnby, commonly known as the Barnby Bends, would benefit the whole A146 route between Lowestoft and Norwich, and the A143 link to Diss and Bury St Edmunds.

Paragraph 73. The Norwich rail service provides direct access to Lowestoft. Please update the text to include Lowestoft in the list of rail destinations accessible from Norwich.

Section 3 – The Vision and Objective for Greater Norwich
Paragraph 108. The Council supports the overall vision and objectives of the Greater Norwich Local Plan.

Paragraph 111 would benefit from explaining what the term ‘clean growth’ means. The terms ‘clean growth’, ‘clean transport’, ‘clean pubic transport’, ‘clean energy’ and ‘clean water’ are used through the document without explanation. It should not be assumed the audience is already familiar with specific terms and jargon. The terms should be explained in the text or included in the glossary in Appendix 2.

Policy 1 – The Sustainable Growth Strategy
We support the Greater Norwich Local Plan’s preferred option to support growth, including the use of the Government’s standard methodology for assessing housing numbers and delivery, use of a settlement hierarchy, and approach to the economy. We are pleased the strategy for growth can meet the area’s need for housing, including a buffer, and need for employment land.

Policy 2 – Sustainable Communities
Issue No.2 in Table 8 would benefit from more specific and detailed information to facilitate electric and low-emission vehicles and their ancillary infrastructure needs. Developers should be encouraged to provide electric charging points for dwellings with on-plot parking spaces, and to provide ducting and electricity supply to communal and public parking spaces to enable future installation of charging points. This would complement policies for East Suffolk (contained in the adopted Waveney Local Plan and the emerging Suffolk Coastal Local Plan) on facilities for electric charging points, by enhancing provision in the wider network.

A Housing Design Audit for England by Place Alliance (see http://placealliance.org.uk/research/national-housing-audit/) found that lower building densities on projects away from the urban core scored poorly in design and there were clear benefits to designing at higher densities with the best schemes averaging 56 dwellings per hectare. This research may be of interest regarding the minimum densities specified in point 4 of the policy.

The Royal Town Planning Institute has produced detailed guidance on how developments can be designed to support people with dementia by creating familiar, legible, distinctive, accessible, comfortable and safe environments. The application of dementia friendly design principles is considered to result in a higher quality environment for all users. Considering the aging population in the Greater Norwich area, and the surrounding area, and rise in dementia, it is advisable to incorporate dementia friendly design principle where appropriate, especially in larger housing developments. (See https://www.rtpi.org.uk/media/1312/dementiatownplanning-practiceadvice2017.pdf) Issue No.7 in Table 8 would benefit from specifically referencing dementia friendly design principles. This would complement the policies in the adopted Waveney Local Plan and the emerging Suffolk Coastal Local Plan.

Overall, we support the approach of the sustainable communities policy and requirement for a sustainability statement.

Policy 3 – Environmental Protection and Enhancement
We support the approach to the built and historic environment as it is in accordance with the NPPF.

Policy 4 – Strategic Infrastructure
We support the approach in the Strategic Infrastructure policy.

Policy 5 – Homes
We are pleased that the Greater Norwich area can meet the housing need, including a buffer, as identified using the Government’s standard methodology, and support the approach in the Homes policy.

Policy 6 – The Economy
We support the approach in The Economy policy.

Policy 7.1 – The Norwich Urban Area including the fringe parishes
We support the approach in The Norwich Urban Area policy.

Policy 7.2 – The Main Towns
We support the approach in The Main Towns policy.

Policy 7.3 – The Key Service Centres
We support the approach in The Key Service Centres policy.

Policy 7.4 – Village Clusters
The Waveney Local Plan identifies Beccles and Bungay as two of the five Market Towns for housing growth in the former Waveney area. The total growth from homes built, existing commitments and allocations in the Waveney Local Plan for 2014-2036 are 1,458 dwellings for Beccles and Worlingham and 557 dwellings for Bungay. Both Beccles and Bungay boarder the South Norfolk/Greater Norwich area. Any housing development in villages close to the former Waveney area is highly likely to impact high schools, medical centres, shops and other services and facilities in Beccles and Bungay. Housing development in the wider South Norfolk area is highly likely to impact traffic on the A146, which is an important link between Lowestoft and Norwich. Junctions on the A146 close to Beccles will be close to capacity by the end of the Waveney Local Plan period in 2036.

The future allocation of 1,200 new dwellings in village clusters in a South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Document should take into consideration the impact on services and facilities in East Suffolk and the overall combined impact of proposed development in South Norfolk and the former Waveney areas on the A146. The Council would wish to be notified of progress on the South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Document.

We support the overall approach of allocating housing growth in villages to promote their social sustainability and support rural life and services.

Policy 7.5 – Small Scale Windfall Housing Development
We support the approach in the Small Scale Windfall Housing Development policy

Attachments:

Support

Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Representation ID: 22091

Received: 13/03/2020

Respondent: Watkin Jones Group

Representation Summary:

WJG support these objectives for creating a vibrant and inclusive area that is enhanced by new homes, infrastructure
and environment.

Full text:

See attached for full submission by Clare Droog on behalf of WJG

Attachments:

Comment

Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Representation ID: 22491

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Highways England

Representation Summary:

Wind power is a key element in the delivery of sustainable energy. This is not mentioned in the plan and should be considered for inclusion. The Strategic Road Network provides the opportunity to facilitate and deliver on and off shore wind installations through good connectivity with the ports. A number of proposed development are which are currently subject to planning consent consideration.

Infrastructure to support the charging of electric cars

Full text:

Thank you for inviting Highways England to comment on the Regulation 18 Draft Review of the Greater Norwich Local Plan (GNLP), which is prepared jointly by three local authorities - Broadland District Council, Norwich City Council and South Norfolk Council through the Greater Norwich Development Partnership (GNDP). This document expresses our views on the Draft Strategy and Site Allocations for future development as mentioned in this GNLP.
Highways England is responsible for the operation, maintenance and improvement of the Strategic Road Network (SRN) in England on behalf of the Secretary of the State. In the area within and surrounding Norfolk, this relates to the A11 and A47 trunk roads.
Consequently, our comments on the draft Local Plan which are set out below are limited to those aspects/strategies which may have impacts related to these two trunk roads.

See attached

Comment

Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Representation ID: 23041

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Hingham Town Council

Representation Summary:

Pedestrian Priority within communities – Policy 4 has no mention of providing improvement to the pedestrian network for communities, outside of Norwich. With particular reference to Hingham, nowhere in the town is there a crossing point giving pedestrian priority over the busy B1108 (or any other road within the town).

Public Parking facilities – it is unrealistic to conceive that in a rural area with a limited bus service, businesses within the “Key Service Centre” can flourish without the provision of adequate public parking. It is essential that businesses can encourage and obtain support from visitors to the town from nearby villages. If the small independent businesses within the Hingham cannot flourish, they will close and residents of Hingham will also have to travel further afield to shop. Adequate public parking must be addressed, not only for visitors to the town but those residents that need to access local services and businesses using a car due to ill health or mobility issues.

Town like Hingham to construction of large housing estates on the outskirts of town tend to mean that the people live on those estates to become a separate community. We would suggest therefore that developers provide finance to further develop existing facilities or provide new facilities for the whole community like a car park

Parking facilities for existing community buildings – within Hingham these are insufficient to support growth and to enable these facilities to thrive. The Lincoln Hall/Bowls Club/Library and the Sports Centre parking areas are inadequate in size to accommodate visitors to these venues during busy times, and it is of concern that the venues will lose bookings and revenue if they cannot provide adequate parking facilities for their potential customers.

Full text:

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

Attachments:

Comment

Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Representation ID: 23169

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Pigeon Investment Management Ltd

Agent: Pegasus Group

Representation Summary:

POLICY 4 – STRATEGIC INFRASTRUCTURE
5.1 Policy 4 facilitates the Vision and Objectives of the GNLP by supporting the delivery of strategic infrastructure to meet the needs of the area. This ambition is to be welcomed. However, the GNLP is largely silent upon how this strategic infrastructure will be delivered and, in some cases, the GNLP does not make provision for this required infrastructure as described below.
5.2 Policy 4 also identifies that the authorities will lobby for the delivery of infrastructure including in the health care sector. Whilst any lobbying is to be welcomed, this does not provide for an effective policy to guide development. The wording should be revised to indicate that proposals that assist the delivery of infrastructure improvements will be supported.
5.3 The Infrastructure Needs Report demonstrates the particular importance of the delivery of healthcare infrastructure in a number of areas, including at Reepham and Aylsham where the medical practice is of an insufficient size to accommodate the number of registered patients.
5.4 The medical practice at Reepham can be readily expanded through the allocation of the site at Land at Dereham Road, Reepham with provision of land for the extension of the existing facility as detailed in the Delivery Statement and Concept Plan that accompany these representations.

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 Dereham Road, Reepham. Please find attached the response form, the representations and a Delivery Statement.