Question 42. Do you support or object or wish to comment on the approach for specific towns (Aylsham, Diss (with part of Roydon), Harleston, Long Stratton and Wymondham)? Please identify particular issues.
Support
Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy
Representation ID: 22794
Received: 16/03/2020
Respondent: Strutt & Parker LLP
In respect of Aylsham, Diss and Harleston, these settlements are more dispersed lying on the peripheries of the Local Plan area and support wider rural communities in adjoining districts. They have been identified for lower levels of growth than Long Stratton and Wymondham. As such we strongly support the proposed allocations in these towns which will help these rural communities to prosper and thrive. To this extent, in addition to the preferred allocations, we recommend that further consideration should be given to those sites identified as reasonable alternative allocations to further boost housing supply and support a prosperous rural economy. In respect of Diss, as outlined above, we support the approach to allocate the sites located to the north of the town under Policy GNLP0250/0342/0119/0291, Land north of the cemetery, West of Shelfanger Road and East of Heywood Road, Diss. The sites combined comprise approximately 8.91 hectares for residential development and could likely accommodate 200 dwellings. However, it is recommended that the site under reference 0119 is removed from the Draft Strategy as an allocation as it has recently changed ownership and would not be viable to bring forward as part of the allocation.
For full representation, please refer to the attached documents.
Support
Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy
Representation ID: 22811
Received: 16/03/2020
Respondent: Peter Rudd
Agent: Pegasus Planning Group
Our client has a proposed allocation site in Diss (policy GNLP0250/0342/0119/0291) and supports the identification of a housing requirement in Diss but believes that the Plan should allow for greater numbers than has been identified to ensure that the most efficient use of allocated land can be achieved and to allow for additional housing to come forward in locations that are already identified as being sustainable and have access to supporting facilities.
For full representation, please refer to the attached document.
Support
Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy
Representation ID: 22839
Received: 15/03/2020
Respondent: Ms Cecilia Riccardi
I know this is not generally a favoured approach, not least because of the long lead times involved. However, it provides an ideal opportunity to develop something truly ground breaking, visionary and fit for the second half of the 21st century. Any area that can back the RIBA Stirling Prize winner for 2019 surely already has a head-start in the quest for the eco-friendly design that will be required. There must be national grants available to ensure that future communities can be built e.g.to meet climate change targets. It could have a share in the wind-farm bounty Norfolk provides. And simultaneously make a virtue of and preserve sympathetically existing environmental, historical and heritage features. Local authorities must be able to share best practise nationally. Creation of such a village should be standalone, with appropriate infrastructure - roads, healthcare, education - developed and not impinging upon already stretched local towns. Silfield Village, (GNLP2168) if chosen, could be built with all necessary facilities and access onto the A11 growth corridor and not via the Wymondham railway bridge. Such a strategy might also obviate the need for Wymondham to provide for the 1000 homes contingency should e.g. Carrow Road not be available, and thus remove the burden on Wymondham.
General
I support the general approach the team has adopted for the GNLP 2026-38. They are to be commended for all the detailed work that they have put into this exercise.
Infrastructure (Introduction and Draft Strategy Appendix 1 pages 116-7, Q24)
In any future text could the team give greater emphasis to the work that is going on with respective partner organisations to ensure that planning for healthcare and education and transport links is taking place. I appreciate these areas are not in your gift and you are reliant on these partners being broadly in sync with your timescales. However, I note that, when confronted particularly with housing growth in their area, the complaint is often raised that “they” are doing nothing to increase access to GPs or to school places. From a presentational perspective at least, more updates and greater prominence in the report and any press releases, to these aspects, to allay fears, might help to make subsequent housing/ employment development more acceptable. Cecilia Riccardi 12 Abbey Road Wymondham NR18 9BY 3 March 2020 GNLP 1st
Options: Draft Strategy on Growth Options and Main Towns Policy 7.2. p103 onwards, paragraph 329, Q41 and 42)
Option 1: support. Option 2: support.
Garden Village Proposal: Support
I know this is not generally a favoured approach, not least because of the long lead times involved. However, it provides an ideal opportunity to develop something truly ground breaking, visionary and fit for the second half of the 21st century. Any area that can back the RIBA Stirling Prize winner for 2019 surely already has a head-start in the quest for the eco-friendly design that will be required. There must be national grants available to ensure that future communities can be built e.g.to meet climate change targets. It could have a share in the wind-farm bounty Norfolk provides. And simultaneously make a virtue of and preserve sympathetically existing environmental, historical and heritage features. Local authorities must be able to share best practise nationally. Creation of such a village should be standalone, with appropriate infrastructure - roads, healthcare, education - developed and not impinging upon already stretched local towns. Silfield Village, (GNLP2168) if chosen, could be built with all necessary facilities and access onto the A11 growth corridor and not via the Wymondham railway bridge. Such a strategy might also obviate the need for Wymondham to provide for the 1000 homes contingency should e.g. Carrow Road not be available, and thus remove the burden on Wymondham.
Policy 7.2: The Main Towns - Wymondham – preferred sites
GNLP0354 Land at Johnson’s Farm: preferred site for Wymondham
Position: Oppose access proposals.
The good news is that, subject to a 1000 homes contingency, Wymondham is initially only being required to take 100 new homes in the period up to 2038. This is surely in recognition that it took a disproportionate share in the planning period to 2026.
The 50 (of the 100) homes planned under GNLP0354 are neither here nor there given that we are already taking 335 homes on the B1172 Gonville site opposite. (These 335 are additional to the 2200 originally allocated to Wymondham to 2026). However, as the accompanying explanation makes clear, this is likely to lead to an unacceptable expansion (from 50) of up to 400 homes over time. Given that Johnson’s Farm has for some years been keen for development this is surely likely to be sooner rather than later. I am less than confident that the “protecting heritage aspects”, including any covenants currently in place, arguments, will hold much sway given the Gonville Hall experience.
A Request
Would planners, and especially highways, please reconsider the requirement for access/exit for the 50 homes to be through Abbey Road. There is one narrow entrance/exit to Abbey Road for the currently situated 77 homes. Abbey Road leads directly from the B1172 roundabout and at entry has a crossing point with a light which further restricts access. This estate road bends round to the left past the children’s park and then curves right to a left turn with a narrow access point (two cars width) on to Johnson’s field behind. Unless the plan is to remove the entry, crossing point and install double yellow lines all along this narrow road to prevent parking, further development is NOT feasible by this route. More worrying is the 18 months to 2-year building phase when this narrow road could not take all the JCBs, construction lorries, heavy machinery and low-loaders etc. safely. Surely new developments should not be designing in traffic chaos? I ask for a rethink and on- the- ground inspection. I enclose a map which shows the roundabout and unsuitability of this road for access/exit.
Object
Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy
Representation ID: 23086
Received: 16/03/2020
Respondent: Orbit Homes
Agent: David Lock Associates
We object to the lack of consideration of Wymondham as a strategic growth location. As has been extensively covered elsewhere in these representations, for a variety of reasons Wymondham is an excellent location for accommodating strategic scale growth. In summary:
• It is the largest settlement in the GNLP area outside the Norwich Urban Area;
• It has a prominent location at the heart of the Tech Corridor;
• It benefits from immediate access to the recently improved A11; and
• It is positioned on the Norwich Cambridge Railway line and has a key stopping station subject
to programmed station improvements and programmed (faster and more frequent) service improvements.
These factors suggest that Wymondham is a suitable location for new growth, yet it is subject to only two 50-unit allocations in the GNLP. Whilst Wymondham has some existing commitments this has no bearing as to whether it should continue to be identified as a key location for growth. The existing level of growth within Wymondham is not of such significant scale to suggest further development would inhibit delivery.
As is explained in the SGV Prospectus and in paras 4.16 to 4.21 above, Wymondham has been subject to sustained piecemeal delivery though planned and speculative development to the detriment of delivering necessary town-wide services and amenities.
Given its locational advantages and its position in the settlement hierarchy, the case for continued growth at Wymondham is incontestable. It is therefore imperative that the long-term future of the town is planned for comprehensively and safeguarded from further piecemeal growth which delivers no tangible infrastructure or service benefits for the town.
Furthermore, adopting a whole-town growth strategy for Wymondham – which includes strategic growth at SGV – would allow a more robust policy position to be adopted in respect of other key infrastructure objectives. For example, a whole-town strategy could introduce spatial policies to build on Plan objectives of enhancing existing strategic green infrastructure within/around the town and protecting it from inappropriate development, and/or strengthen policies to define and protect settlement/strategic gaps including between Wymondham and Hethersett.
We would welcome the opportunity to engage with the GNDP and local stakeholders to explore this policy position further as part of plan-making activity between now and the Reg 19 stage LP. In order to inform these discussions, set out below is suggested alternative policy framework which could support strategic-scale growth at SGV.
Alternative Policy – ‘Silfield Garden Village’
Silfield is one of three potential new settlement sites identified in the draft Plan for future consideration. No criteria-based assessment framework is suggested for this consideration, nor any policy protection given to these locations as having any preferred policy status (for example, through an ‘Area of Search’ policy or similar), and considerable uncertainty arises from the naming of growth future growth locations in such isolation.
At the same time, site allocations have been made in the GNLP – or proposed in subsequent documents – in unsustainable and undeliverable locations
We consider that rather than being considered in the next review of the plan, for the reasons set out above the GNLP should pursue a spatial strategy which allocates – and specifically identifies land for – a new settlement at Silfield within the current plan to 2038.
We contend that a policy for an allocation of a new settlement at Silfield Garden Village would comprise:
(a) Identification of the preferred location for a New Settlement south of Wymondham on the Key Diagram;
(b) Allocation of the Silfield Garden Village site (red line) for up to 6,500 homes [plus associated uses] in the Site Allocations document;
(c) Inclusion of a criteria-based New Settlement policy for Silfield GV identifying the key features and policy requirements of the new settlement – this could include the associated provision of a solar Farm and strategic green infrastructure as indicated by the green boundary on the site plan in appendix 2;
(d) Identification of the capacity of the new settlement within Policy 1 and Policy 7.1, reflecting its full capacity of 6,500 new homes plus associated uses, and also identifying the contribution that this allocation will make during the plan period to 2038 (circa 3,700 homes)
Aligned with a new settlement policy would be a redistribution of housing numbers to achieve a more sustainable and deliverable spatial strategy which more closely reflects the wider economic and growth objectives of the Plan. On this basis, we suggest that Policy 1 would be amended to reflect a redistribution of current draft allocations
For full representation, please refer to the attached documents.
Support
Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy
Representation ID: 23147
Received: 16/03/2020
Respondent: Hopkins Homes
Agent: Bidwells
We strongly support the proposed allocation of at least 300 dwellings within Aylsham. As detailed in
our response to Question 41, as one of five Main Towns in the settlement hierarchy, Aylsham is a
suitable and sustainable location for growth. Allocating this quantum of development to the town will
assist in ensuring its continued vitality and viability as a Market Town, serving a wide rural hinterland.
Please see attached for full submission and supporting documents.
As outlined in the attached submission, the site is suitable, available, achievable and viable, and is therefore deliverable within the plan period.
Development in this location would represent sustainable development, as defined within the National Planning Policy Framework. Aylsham, as a Main Town, with the fourth highest level of shops and services outside Norwich, is already acknowledged as a highly sustainable location for residential growth, as evidenced through the significant quantum of development that has been approved in the last decade, and the attached text demonstrates that this specific site is a suitable location for further development in all respects.
Economically, residential development here in the plan period would help sustain and enhance local
services and facilities, and would also provide employment opportunities during the construction period.
Socially, the scale of development envisaged is such that it will enable the creation of a strong, vibrant and
healthy community, with easy access to existing and planned local services and facilities, as well as onsite
open space. A wide mix of dwelling types, sizes and tenures will be provided to meet local needs, and
CIL payments will ensure the provision of the necessary health and cultural facilities. The site is located
in close proximity to established communities in Aylsham, which should assist in achieving social
integration between the existing and new residents.
Environmentally, the site is located close to a range of services and facilities, and enjoys good access to
sustainable transport options providing access to the extensive array of facilities and services available
within Norwich and further afield. Residents will be able to meet their day-to-day needs easily and without
the need to use their car, assisting in reducing pollution and minimising the contribution to climate change.
On this basis, the site should be taken forward as an allocation, and is capable of making an important
contribution to the planned growth of the Greater Norwich Area in the period to 2036.
Object
Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy
Representation ID: 23200
Received: 16/03/2020
Respondent: Orbit Homes
Agent: Armstrong Rigg Planning
Orbit Homes objects to the approach to development in Long Stratton, which proposes to allocate no additional dwellings above existing commitments to the town. The supporting text to the policy explains the reasoning for this decision at paragraph 326:
“Due to the scale of the existing commitment in Long Stratton, which will both provide a by-pass and the growth of services supporting its classification as a main town, this plan does not make further allocations in addition to Long Stratton’s Area Action Plan (AAP). Evidence shows that the scale of the commitment means that parts of the site allocated in the AAP will not be
delivered until after 2038. There may be further potential capacity for development within the existing allocation, beyond the 1,875 homes that are the subject of current planning applications; however, these would be unlikely to be delivered until late in the plan period, or beyond.”
The justification provided is therefore that because Long Stratton is allocated to grow by c.1,800 homes in the current Joint Core Strategy (2011) and Area Action Plan (2016), it should not be allocated any additional dwellings. This is not a justifiable approach as it fails to accept the failure of the 1,800 home allocation to deliver any new homes despite being a key component of the current development plan and not the emerging Local Plan. The reality of the situation is that the 1,800 home allocation is likely to continue to be much delayed and its failure to progress has meant that Long Stratton has had very little growth over the last 10 years and certainly below the level of growth appropriate for an aspiring new town. Growth is needed now to meet current pent up needs, including a critical need for affordable housing, and deliverable sites should not be prevented from coming forwards to meet this need just because a large housing allocation that remains fundamentally stalled may at some point start to deliver dwellings in the town. The unreasonableness of this justification is further demonstrated by the fact that Wymondham, which was similarly allocated significant growth in the JCS, but where a significant proportion of this growth has been delivered, is proposed to accommodate a further 100 dwellings and a potential 1,000 dwelling contingency site in the GNLP. Long Stratton by comparison is prevented from being allocated further much needed growth due to the failure of the existing allocation.
The key issue with the delivery of the 1,800 allocation in Long Stratton is that it is reliant on the delivery of a new bypass before the occupation of the 250th new dwelling, but the development is unable to viably deliver this bypass without significant government funding and no decision on this funding has yet been made. Planning applications have been submitted for the allocation, but they cannot be approved until the bypass has been secured. It was initially predicted that the site would have delivered 420 dwellings by the end of 2019/20 (and would now be delivering 230 dwellings per year) 1 and yet it has so far failed to deliver any dwellings and is highly unlikely to start delivering for several years (if at all). In this context, it is essential that the GNLP recognises the need for growth in Long Stratton and takes the opportunity to allocate additional growth to the town to help meet the increased housing requirement identified in Orbit Homes’ representation to Policy 1.
The need to identify an additional deliverable housing site is therefore particularly acute in Long Stratton and as set out in Orbit Homes’ representations to the Site Document for Long Stratton, Land south of St Mary’s Road, Long Stratton (ref. GNLP0509) is the only option that has been consistently assessed as suitable by the Council. It therefore essential that it is allocated to meet current local needs as soon as possible.
On behalf of our client Orbit Homes (2020) Limited we wish to make representations to the Greater Norwich Local Plan (GNLP) Regulation 18 Draft Plan Consultation.
These representations comprise Orbit Homes’ comments on the policies contained in the Draft Strategy document and on the Draft Sites document for Long Stratton.
Please see attached document comprising a cover letter, response from and separate enclosures providing comments on the following policies / sites:
• Enclosure 1. Response Form
• Enclosure 2. Policy 1 – Growth Strategy
• Enclosure 3. Policy 2 – Sustainable Communities
• Enclosure 4. Policy 5 – Homes
• Enclosure 5. Policy 7.2 – The Main Towns
• Enclosure 6. GNLP0509 – Land south of St Mary’s Road, Long Stratton
• Enclosure 7. Policy 7.4 – Village Clusters, including:
• Land to the north of Ransome Avenue, Scole; and
• Land north of Church Road, Tasburgh
We trust that these comments will be given due consideration and look forward to participating further as the Greater Norwich Local Plan progresses. If you require any further information in respect of our client’s site then please do not hesitate to contact me or my director Geoff Armstrong whose details provided in the attached letter.
Comment
Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy
Representation ID: 23205
Received: 08/09/2020
Respondent: Starston Parish Council
Late Response:
GNLP Regulation 18 Draft Consultation – Starston Parish Council response
The Parish Council unanimously supported policy 7.5 in principle and for the number of additional houses to be linked to “made” Neighbourhood Plans, rather than limited to 3.
After a lengthy discussion, points we would like planners to take into consideration in terms of the proposed housing growth in Harleston, the market town adjacent to Starston village, and its impact on neighbouring village communities include:-
- Housing density & road widths in new housing developments - is the density of housing too high and roads too narrow on the new housing estate near Harleston Industrial Estate, such that this model should not be repeated for additional housing developments?
- Town infrastructure to support new housing developments – is there sufficient for the number of new homes proposed eg rain water drainage; sewage treatment?
- Impact of increased traffic on the rural/single track roads around Harleston from the increased number of dwellings in Harleston. From a planning perspective, the expectation may be for traffic to use the A143/A140, but in fact significant additional traffic comes through Starston from Harleston to join the A140 at the Pulham or Morningthorpe roundabouts.
Late Response:
GNLP Regulation 18 Draft Consultation – Starston Parish Council response
The Parish Council unanimously supported policy 7.5 in principle and for the number of additional houses to be linked to “made” Neighbourhood Plans, rather than limited to 3.
After a lengthy discussion, points we would like planners to take into consideration in terms of the proposed housing growth in Harleston, the market town adjacent to Starston village, and its impact on neighbouring village communities include:-
- Housing density & road widths in new housing developments - is the density of housing too high and roads too narrow on the new housing estate near Harleston Industrial Estate, such that this model should not be repeated for additional housing developments?
- Town infrastructure to support new housing developments – is there sufficient for the number of new homes proposed eg rain water drainage; sewage treatment?
- Impact of increased traffic on the rural/single track roads around Harleston from the increased number of dwellings in Harleston. From a planning perspective, the expectation may be for traffic to use the A143/A140, but in fact significant additional traffic comes through Starston from Harleston to join the A140 at the Pulham or Morningthorpe roundabouts.