Question 31: Do you support, object or have any comments relating to the approach to Purpose-built student accommodation?

Showing comments and forms 1 to 13 of 13

Object

Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Representation ID: 21322

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Lanpro Services

Agent: Stephen Flynn

Representation Summary:

Please see our response to question 27.

Full text:

Please see our response to question 27.

Object

Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Representation ID: 21408

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Glavenhill Ltd

Agent: Stephen Flynn

Representation Summary:

Please see our response to question 27.

Full text:

Please see our response to question 27.

Support

Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Representation ID: 21757

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Brown & Co

Representation Summary:

We support the approach to purpose-built student accommodation.
However, we would raise concerns regarding the potential impacts of large numbers of student accommodation units have upon local communities, in particular when students leave outside term-time. We would also highlight that whilst such accommodation counts towards the local five-year housing land supply it does very little to provide housing for local people and meet local need.

Full text:

We support the approach to purpose-built student accommodation.
However, we would raise concerns regarding the potential impacts of large numbers of student accommodation units have upon local communities, in particular when students leave outside term-time. We would also highlight that whilst such accommodation counts towards the local five-year housing land supply it does very little to provide housing for local people and meet local need.

Support

Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Representation ID: 21951

Received: 13/03/2020

Respondent: UEA Estates & Buildings

Agent: Bidwells

Representation Summary:

The UEA are supportive of the recognition in Policy 5 that development proposals for purpose-built student accommodation will be supported in accordance with the UEA DFS. Therefore, the principle of purpose built student accommodation on GNLP0133-C and GNLP0133-E is supported.

As outlined in Question 27, Policy 5 confirms that only purpose-built student accommodation constructed outside of the UEA Campus should provide affordable housing provision. It is supported that purpose-built student accommodation within the UEA Campus should not provide affordable housing.

Accordingly, within each Representation for GNLP0133-C and GNLP0133-E, proposed amendments to both preferred allocation’s are made, omitting reference to affordable housing provision.

Full text:

Please see attached for full submission

Object

Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Representation ID: 22094

Received: 13/03/2020

Respondent: Watkin Jones Group

Representation Summary:

Affordable Student Accommodation

The draft GNLP provides policy to meet the plan’s key ‘Homes’ objective. This policy wording would benefit from increased flexibility within the affordable housing requirements for purpose-built student accommodation. Policy 5- Homes of the draft GNLP states that all residential development proposals and student accommodation must provide affordable housing on site. In the wider Greater Norwich area, 33% affordable housing provision is required, with a reduction to (at least) 28% for sites within Norwich City Centre.

WJG recognise and support the need to ensure that a proportion of PBSA is provided at multiple price points in the Greater Norwich area if Higher Education Institutions (HEI’s) are to continue to attract students from a range of
backgrounds. WJG have direct experience of the impact of affordable student accommodation policy on the overall supply of PBSA especially in locations such as London, where there are similarly prescriptive policies in place. As a consequence of this policy, PBSA delivery in London has significantly contracted in the period since 2017. Bed delivery was c3,500 beds per annum prior to the introduction of the affordable student accommodation policy, but it is understood that c2,000 beds will come to market during 2020; significantly less than the 3,500-target figure. The lack of competition and constrained supply is projected to increase rental growth to the detriment of all students. In turn, this would impact on student desirability to choose HEI’s in the Greater Norwich area which will have wider, negative
effects.

Norwich City Council’s report ‘Purpose Built Student Accommodation in Norwich: Evidence and Best Practice Advice Note’ (November 2019) sets out guidance and requirements for PBSA in Norwich City Centre focussing on the University of East Anglia and Norwich University of the Arts. It is noted that this document should help to inform emerging policy relating to student accommodation in the GNLP. In reviewing this report, it is noted that affordable student accommodation is a national issue for local authorities and for HEI’s alike. The report notes that student accommodation proposals are not required to provide affordable housing, however a commuted sum is encouraged from PBSA developments on sites allocated for residential or residential- led development. This aims to mitigate any
loss of affordable housing provision from PBSA developments and allows for off-site provision. The report provides information relating to the ways that opportunities for affordable housing can be lost due to PBSA developments, however there is very limited evidence analysing the need/ benefits of affordable student accommodation within the Greater Norwich area.

WJG would recommend therefore that the Council commission further analysis before introducing a policy requirement which may have a negative impact upon the supply of PBSA within the Greater Norwich area and which may in turn affect the ability to attract talent to the area and cause a detrimental effect to both the Economy and Homes objectives set out in the draft GNLP.

Should the Council conclude there is a justifiable requirement for PBSA developments to incorporate a proportion of affordable accommodation, WJG would request that there are in-built appropriate levels of flexibility, whereby:
- A reduced level of affordable provision is capable of being justified by reference to a development viability
assessment; and
- A reduced level of affordable provision may be accepted where developments deliver other significant and substantial regeneration benefits.

WJG would also note that the following will assist with addressing issues of affordability:
- A more permissive approach, whereby an uplift in PBSA delivery can be sustained, will ensure a better
balance of demand and supply, which is undoubtedly a key driver of price; and

The policy also states that 10% of the affordable homes should be available for affordable home ownership where this meets local needs. This requirement is not applicable to PBSA. As PBSA is privately rented accommodation, this statement does not apply and is in direct opposition to objectives set out within the NPPF. The NPPF states that student accommodation should be exempt from this requirement. WJG therefore recommend that this section is removed.

Conclusion
We trust that the student accommodation comments within this representation will be considered and incorporated into
any future approved GNLP strategy or planning guidance that may follow from it. We would kindly ask that we retain the opportunity to further engage with yourselves moving forward.

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: 22155

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Pigeon Investment Management Ltd

Agent: Pegasus Group

Representation Summary:

The housing need of students
3.20 The standard method is informed by the 2014-based household projections which assume that the five-year migration trends which were experienced in the period 2009-14 will be maintained. The Higher Education Statistics Authority (HESA) identified that University of East Anglia (UEA) had 16,640 students and the Norwich University of the Arts had 1,485 students in 2009 providing a total of 18,125, but that this had increased to 18,140 by 2014 with 16,265 at UEA and 1,875 at the University of Arts. The 2014-based projections which inform the standard method therefore assumes that the student population will increase by 15 people over five years or 3 per annum.
3.21 Paragraph 45 of the Draft Local Plan however indicates that the Universities in Norwich are expected to expand. In particular, the University of East Anglia (UEA) has announced plans to increase its students from 15,000 to 18,000 in the next decade, an increase of 300 students per annum.3.22 The increased migration of 297 students per annum3, even assuming that the student population of the University of the Arts remains constant, are not taken into account in the projections.
3.23 These additional students at UEA will clearly have an impact on the housing need in Greater Norwich which is not taken into account within the standard method. Either these will generate a need for an additional 2,970 bedspaces which is equivalent to 1,042 houses or if these students are accommodated in the housing stock it will be necessary to deliver an additional 1,042 homes to accommodate them. It will be necessary to deliver such accommodation to meet the objectively assessed needs and to accord with the Vision of the GNLP.
3.24 Once the needs of these additional students are taken into account this would increase the minimum local housing need from either 41,379 or 41,361 to either 42,421 or 42,403 homes over the plan period. This broadly accords with the 42,260 homes necessary to accord with the City Deal.

Full text:

Pegasus Group are pleased to submit representations for Pigeon Investment Management Ltd on behalf of the landowner in support of the proposed development of the site at Land at Rightup Lane, Wymondham.

See attached

Attachments:

Comment

Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Representation ID: 22337

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Pigeon Investment Management Ltd

Agent: Pegasus Group

Representation Summary:

5. POLICY 5 – HOMES
5.1 Policy 5 identifies that proposals should address the need for homes for all sectors of the community having regard to the latest evidence which is to be supported.
Space Standards
5.2 The Policy requires all housing development to meet the Government’s Nationally Described Space Standard for internal space (NDSS)5.
5.3 NDSS are not currently a mandatory requirement of Building Regulations and therefore should a Council wish to introduce them they are required to accord with the tests of NPPF 2019 paragraph 127f and Footnote 46 which requires the use of the NDSS to be ‘justified’.
5.4 The Councils also need to demonstrate that the costs associated with implementing the NDSS have been subject to whole plan viability appraisal as required by planning practice guidance6.
5.5 The Council’s NDSS Study (August 2019) is attached at Appendix B of the Interim Viability Appraisal (2019). The Councils have not identified harm that may be arising to residents as a result of dwellings not being built to the NDSS. Nor is there any evidence that houses not built to the NDSS are not selling as well as those that are, or that such homes are considered inappropriate by purchasers.
5.6 If the Government considered it appropriate to make the NDSS mandatory, as proposed by draft Policy 5, then this could quickly and easily be introduced through Building Regulation legislation rather than through the Development Plan process.
5.7 Introducing the NDSS in the GNLP will have an impact on the cost of construction of dwellings and therefore on their affordability to consumers, as well as on the density of development that can be achieved at development sites, thereby affecting the efficient use of land. It will also have a knock-on effect on the viability of the GNLP which may translate into impact on the deliverability of dwellings and therefore on the delivery of the emerging plan.
Accessible and Specialist Housing
5.8 The Policy then proceeds to support the delivery of accessible and specialist housing providing they have good access to local services which is welcomed.
5.9 However, as identified in response to Policy 1 there is a need for 1,826 bedspaces in residential institutions for older people across the plan area which would be best addressed, at least in part, through the identification of specific allocations to meet this need. In the absence of such allocations, the GNLP cannot demonstrate and more importantly may not meet the objectively assessed needs of this population contrary to paragraphs 35a and 61 of the NPPF.
5.10 There is a need for 1,081 bedspaces in Broadland, 57 in Norwich and 679 in South Norfolk over the plan period. In 2018/19, 8 were built in Broadland leaving a residual need for 1,072 and 83 were built in Norwich meaning that there is no residual need in this LPA. None were built in South Norfolk leaving a residual need for 679. In order to ensure that these needs are addressed it would therefore be appropriate to allocate sites in both Broadland and South Norfolk to meet these needs.
5.11 In addition to the need for residential institutions (including care homes and nursing homes) there will also be a need for independent living units including those which offer communal facilities and/or a level of care (such as sheltered housing or extra care) to accommodate older households.
5.12 Norfolk County Council has assessed the need for such accommodation in Living Well, July 2018 and identify a need for 3,376 such homes in Broadland, 122 in Norwich and 3,257 in South Norfolk. Owing to the scale of this need, it would again be appropriate to identify specific allocations to ensure that the needs of communities are addressed.
5.13 Any such allocations for residential institutions or independent living units should be primarily within Broadland and South Norfolk where the need arises on sites which have good access to local facilities and to public transport infrastructure. 5.14 The site at Land off Station Road, Hethersett offers a suitable location for such provision and provides sufficient scope to address a significant element of the residual need for bedspaces in a care home and/or sheltered/extra care accommodation within a care village.
5.15 The Policy requires proposals for major housing development to provide;
“...at least 20% of homes to the Building Regulation M4(2)(1) standard or any successor.”
5.16 This implies that any development of 10 or more dwellings will need to provide upwards of two dwellings that meet the accessibility standard to enable people to stay in their homes longer, however there is no evidence provided that such a high percentage of adaptable dwellings will be required over the life time of the plan. While it is long recognised that many affordable homes are built to such a standard, this is an additional policy requirement that developers are being requested to meet which will have a knock on impact on the cost of new homes and therefore their accessibility in terms of cost to those seeking to enter the housing market.
5.17 It is considered that the requirement for the delivery of adaptable and specialist accommodation should be specific to individual allocations which will ensure that the needs can be met across the GNLP area and that these will be met at appropriate locations in close proximity to services and facilities.
Self/Custom-Build
5.18 There does not appear to have been any assessment of the need for self/custombuild housing to justify the requirement in Policy 5 for 5% self/custom-build on sites of 40 or more homes.
5.19 The Councils have not published evidence to justify their policy requirement to self-build plots either with regard to the percentage of plots sought or the size of site from which they are to be sought. As written sites of 40 or more homes will be required to provide at least two plots as self/custom build.
5.20 Notwithstanding the above, concern is expressed that the policy as written is not adequately evidenced. The self-build register of each Council is not publicly available to validate the policy approach being pursued. Generally, many of those seeking to build their own homes wish to do so on plots in rural areas or villages, not in urban locations, therefore there is no certainty over the delivery of the policy approach being proposed.
5.21 Therefore, it is considered that the requirement for the delivery of self-build plots should be specific to individual allocations to ensure that the needs will be met across the GNLP area and that these will be met at locations and at scales which are likely to be attractive to the self-build market. In addition, the policy could be expanded to allow self-build schemes to come forward where they are well related to settlement boundaries and have access to a range of services and facilities.

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: 22374

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Pigeon Investment Management Ltd

Agent: Pegasus Group

Representation Summary:

5. POLICY 5 – HOMES
5.1 Policy 5 identifies that proposals should address the need for homes for all sectors of the community having regard to the latest evidence which is to be supported.
Space Standards
5.2 The Policy requires all housing development to meet the Government’s Nationally Described Space Standard for internal space (NDSS)5.
5.3 NDSS are not currently a mandatory requirement of Building Regulations and therefore should a Council wish to introduce them they are required to accord with the tests of NPPF 2019 paragraph 127f and Footnote 46 which requires the use of the NDSS to be ‘justified’.
5.4 The Councils also need to demonstrate that the costs associated with implementing the NDSS have been subject to whole plan viability appraisal as required by planning practice guidance6.
5.5 The Council’s NDSS Study (August 2019) is attached at Appendix B of the Interim Viability Appraisal (2019). The Councils have not identified harm that may be arising to residents as a result of dwellings not being built to the NDSS. Nor is there any evidence that houses not built to the NDSS are not selling as well as those that are, or that such homes are considered inappropriate by purchasers.
5.6 If the Government considered it appropriate to make the NDSS mandatory, as proposed by draft Policy 5, then this could quickly and easily be introduced through Building Regulation legislation rather than through the Development Plan process.
5.7 Introducing the NDSS in the GNLP will have an impact on the cost of construction of dwellings and therefore on their affordability to consumers, as well as on the density of development that can be achieved at development sites, thereby affecting the efficient use of land. It will also have a knock-on effect on the viability of the GNLP which may translate into impact on the deliverability of dwellings and therefore on the delivery of the emerging plan.
Accessible and Specialist Housing
5.8 The Policy then proceeds to support the delivery of accessible and specialist housing providing they have good access to local services which is welcomed.
5.9 However, as identified in response to Policy 1 there is a need for 1,826 bedspaces in residential institutions for older people across the plan area which would be best addressed, at least in part, through the identification of specific allocations to meet this need. In the absence of such allocations, the GNLP cannot demonstrate and more importantly may not meet the objectively assessed needs of this population contrary to paragraphs 35a and 61 of the NPPF.
5.10 There is a need for 1,081 bedspaces in Broadland, 57 in Norwich and 679 in South Norfolk over the plan period. In 2018/19, 8 were built in Broadland leaving a residual need for 1,072 and 83 were built in Norwich meaning that there is no residual need in this LPA. In order to ensure that these needs are addressed it would therefore be appropriate to allocate sites in both Broadland and South Norfolk to meet these needs.
5.11 In addition to the need for residential institutions (including care homes and nursing homes) there will also be a need for independent living units including those which offer communal facilities and/or a level of care (such as sheltered housing or extra care) to accommodate older households.
5.12 Norfolk County Council has assessed the need for such accommodation in Living Well, July 2018 and identify a need for 3,376 such homes in Broadland, 122 in Norwich and 3,257 in South Norfolk. Owing to the scale of this need, it would again be appropriate to identify specific allocations to ensure that the needs of communities are addressed.
5.13 Any such allocations for residential institutions or independent living units should be primarily within Broadland and South Norfolk where the need arises on sites which have good access to local facilities and to public transport infrastructure.
5.14 The Policy requires proposals for major housing development to provide; “..at least 20% of homes to the Building Regulation M4(2)(1) standard or any successor.”
5.15 This implies that any development of 10 or more dwellings will need to provide upwards of two dwellings that meet the accessibility standard to enable people to stay in their homes longer, however there is no evidence provided that such a high percentage of adaptable dwellings will be required over the life time of the plan. While it is long recognised that many affordable homes are built to such a standard, this is an additional policy requirement that developers are being requested to meet which will have a knock on impact on the cost of new homes and therefore their accessibility in terms of cost to those seeking to enter the housing market.
5.16 It is considered that the requirement for the delivery of adaptable and specialist accommodation should be specific to individual allocations which will ensure that the needs can be met across the GNLP area and that these will be met at appropriate locations in close proximity to services and facilities.
Self/Custom-Build
5.17 There does not appear to have been any assessment of the need for self/custombuild housing to justify the requirement in Policy 5 for 5% self/custom-build on sites of 40 or more homes.
5.18 The Councils have not published evidence to justify their policy requirement to self-build plots either with regard to the percentage of plots sought or the size of site from which they are to be sought. As written sites of 40 or more homes will be required to provide at least two plots as self/custom build.
5.19 Pigeon are supportive of providing self-build plots and their proposals at Diss allow for such development. Indeed, the Diss site allows for a discrete area of 10 self-build plots allowing for mutual support amongst the self-build community and bespoke design solutions to come forward.
5.20 Notwithstanding the above, concern is expressed that the policy as written is not adequately evidenced. The self-build register of each Council is not publicly available to validate the policy approach being pursued. Generally, many of those seeking to build their own homes wish to do so on plots in rural areas or villages, not in urban locations, therefore there is no certainty over the delivery of the policy approach being proposed. 5.21 Therefore, it is considered that the requirement for the delivery of self-build plots should be specific to individual allocations to ensure that the needs will be met across the GNLP area and that these will be met at locations and at scales which are likely to be attractive to the self-build market. As such, provision for approximately 10 self-build plots is made as part of the proposal on land to the east of Walcot Green Lane. In addition, the policy could be expanded to allow self-build schemes to come forward where they are well related to settlement boundaries and have access to a range of services and facilities.

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: 22681

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Mrs Nicole Wright

Representation Summary:

Policy 5: Homes

We support this policy except for the part on Self/ Custom- Build Homes

This part of the policy does not address the real need to respond to the demand and choice of bespoke homes in the locations where they are needed.

It does not show a positive, sound and justified approach in the spirit of the NPPF. (Paragraph 16 of the NPPF)

An approach more akin to the Breckland strategy and consistent with the NPPF would be more appropriate.

Paragraph 251 of the Draft GNLP states that: “In line with the Right to Build and the NPPF, self and custom-build housing delivery is promoted through the GNLP on a range of sites. This policy sets a requirement for larger sites to provide self and custom-build plots. The thresholds have been set to ensure that plots are provided across Greater Norwich. Policies 7.4 and 7.5 also promote self and custom-build on smaller scale windfall sites. Overall, this comprehensive approach will both increase the supply of housing in urban and rural areas and provide opportunities for small and medium enterprises to build houses, as well as for self-build.”

However, Draft Policy 7.4 provides no guidance or criteria in relation to self-build and custom housebuilding.

Draft Policy 7.5 needs to allow for consideration of new self/custom-built homes being adjacent to what it describes as “a recognisable group of dwellings”. Please refer to the new Breckland Local Plan (adopted November 2019)



(For refrence:
Policy HOU 05 of the Breckland Local Plan (adopted November 2019)

Policy HOU 05 - Small Villages and Hamlets Outside of Settlement Boundaries
Development in smaller villages and hamlets outside of defined settlement boundaries will be limited, apart from where it would comply with other policies within the development plan* and if all of the following criteria are satisfied:
1. The development comprises of sensitive infilling and rounding off of a cluster of dwellings with access to an existing highway;
2. It is of an appropriate scale and design to the settlement;
3. The design contributes to enhancing the historic nature and
4. connectivity of communities; and
5. The proposal does not harm or undermine a visually important gap that
6. contributes to the character and distinctiveness of the rural scene.
Opportunities for self-build dwellings which meet the criteria set out above will be supported.
Farmsteads and sporadic small scale groups of dwellings are considered as lying in the open countryside and are not classed as small villages and hamlets. These, and isolated locations in the countryside, are unlikely to be considered acceptable.)

The GNLP Homes Objective is defined in the Draft Plan - To enable delivery of high-quality homes of the right density, size, mix and tenure to meet people's needs throughout their lives and to make efficient use of land.

We support this objective

However, the Monitoring Framework, Indicator Code GNLP 39 and indicator demonstrates the shortcomings of this Draft Policy in identifying the sole indicator for monitoring custom housebuilding as:
‘Percentages of sites of 40 dwellings or more (excluding flats) where 5% of plots are provided for custom build.’

Full text:

The site is ideally situated at the Thickthorn Junction
Gateway Zone on a Green Infrastructure Corridor and the Cambridge Norwich tech corridor. It is adjacent to the
proposed park and ride extension and the planned
Highways England A47/A11 Thickthorn Junction
improvement works.
This proposed allocation was originally put forward for a
larger scale allocation. This is proposed to be reduced in
scale as per the attached plan.

The Stage 2 HELAA Comparison Table identifies the
following potential issues with the site:
 Flood Risk and Heritage
However, a recent feasibility study found that there were no insurmountable constraints to development in relation to the above or the following:
 Compatibility with neighbouring issues
 Site access and transport
 Access to services
 Utilities infrastructure
 Contamination
 Ground stability / contamination
 Landscape
 Townscape
 Biodiversity/ Geodiversity
The trustees of the land commissioned a Strategic Gap
Appraisal to assess whether the recent and planned
interventions in the Strategic Gap in any way undermined its function and purpose and whether as a result, there is a need to modify its boundaries or progress a strategy to mitigate the harm and enhance its function and purpose.

The site is ideally located to mitigate the impact of the
neighbouring strategic growth allocations through provision of additional community infrastructure in providing a small number of accessible homes for older people, new permissive footpaths and cycleways to encourage outdoor recreation, and a community hub.
A copy of the Sustainability Appraisal, Revised Site Plans and Strategic Gap Appraisal are enclosed.
The proposals have been modified to ensure that they do not conflict in any way with proposed allocations at
Colney, Cringleford or Hethersett. They will instead serve to mitigate their impact in providing additional community and social infrastructure to address the additional need generated.

Attachments:

Support

Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Representation ID: 22913

Received: 13/03/2020

Respondent: Bidwells

Number of people: 2

Representation Summary:

Support, with comments.
The UEA are supportive of the recognition in Policy 5 that development proposals for purpose-built student accommodation will be supported in accordance with the UEA DFS. Therefore, the principle of purpose built student
accommodation on GNLP0133-C and GNLP0133-E is supported. As outlined in Question 27, Policy 5 confirms that only purpose-built student accommodation constructed outside of the UEA Campus should provide affordable housing provision. It is supported that purpose-built student
accommodation within the UEA Campus should not provide affordable housing. Accordingly, within each Representation for GNLP0133-C and GNLP0133-E, proposed amendments to both preferred allocation’s are made, omitting reference to affordable housing provision.

Full text:

Please find attached a Regulation 18 Stage C Consultation Representation, in relation to GNLP0133-E, Land at UEA Grounds Depot Site, Bluebell Road.

Attachments:

Support

Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Representation ID: 22945

Received: 13/03/2020

Respondent: Bidwells

Number of people: 2

Representation Summary:

Support, with comments.
The UEA are supportive of the recognition in Policy 5 that development proposals for purpose-built student accommodation will be supported in accordance with the UEA DFS. Therefore, the principle of purpose built student accommodation on GNLP0133-C and GNLP0133-E is supported.
As outlined in Question 27, Policy 5 confirms that only purpose-built student accommodation constructed outside of the UEA Campus should provide affordable housing provision. It is supported that purpose-built student accommodation within the UEA Campus should not provide affordable housing.
Accordingly, within each Representation for GNLP0133-C and GNLP0133-E, proposed amendments to both preferred allocation’s are made, omitting reference to affordable housing provision.

Full text:

Please find attached a Regulation 18 Stage C Consultation Representation, in relation to GNLP0133-D, Land between Suffolk Walk and Bluebell Road.

Attachments:

Support

Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Representation ID: 22965

Received: 13/03/2020

Respondent: Bidwells

Number of people: 2

Representation Summary:

Support, with comments.
The UEA are supportive of the recognition in Policy 5 that development proposals for purpose-built student accommodation will be supported in accordance with the UEA DFS. Therefore, the principle of purpose built student accommodation on GNLP0133-C and GNLP0133-E is supported.
As outlined in Question 27, Policy 5 confirms that only purpose-built student accommodation constructed outside of the UEA Campus should provide affordable housing provision. It is supported that purpose-built student accommodation within the UEA Campus should not provide affordable housing.
Accordingly, within each Representation for GNLP0133-C and GNLP0133-E, proposed amendments to both preferred allocation’s are made, omitting reference to affordable housing provision.

Full text:

Please find attached a Regulation 18 Stage C Consultation Representation in relation to GNLP0133-C, Land North of Cow Drive (the Blackdale Building, adjoining Hickling House and Barton House).

Attachments:

Support

Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Representation ID: 23001

Received: 13/03/2020

Respondent: Bidwells

Representation Summary:

Support, with comments.
The UEA are supportive of the recognition in Policy 5 that development proposals for purpose-built student accommodation will be supported in accordance with the UEA DFS. Therefore, the principle of purpose built student accommodation on GNLP0133-C and GNLP0133-E is supported.
As outlined in Question 27, Policy 5 confirms that only purpose-built student accommodation constructed outside of the UEA Campus should provide affordable housing provision. It is supported that purpose-built student accommodation within the UEA Campus should not provide affordable housing.
Accordingly, within each Representation for GNLP0133-C and GNLP0133-E, proposed amendments to both preferred allocation’s are made, omitting reference to affordable housing provision

Full text:

Please find attached a Regulation 18 Stage C Consultation Representation in relation to GNLP0133-B, Land adjoining the Enterprise Centre at Earlham Hall (walled garden and nursery).

Attachments: