Question 44. Do you support or object or wish to comment on the approach for specific key service centres: (Acle, Blofield, Brundall, Hethersett, Hingham, Loddon / Chedgrave, Poringland / Framingham Earl, Reepham, Wroxham)? Please identify particular issu

Showing comments and forms 1 to 29 of 29

Object

Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Representation ID: 19935

Received: 11/02/2020

Respondent: Miss Jane Pratt

Representation:

I would like to 'voice' my concerns regarding the planning permission for housing that is being submitted for your consideration now and in the near future. One of your colleagues, at County Hall kindly gave me a lot of paperwork - 65 pages in fact - of sites in Poringland, Framingham Earl and in Bixley, Caistor St Edmund, and Stoke Holy Cross, when I came to County Hall for specific information, on the 5th February. I did read and study each page yesterday and felt completely overwhelmed. It is frightening that hundreds of new dwellings could become part of Poringland Village.

I came to Poringland six years ago, having found a bungalow in a cul-de-sac position, not far from the Bungay Road. There is an area of woodland to one side of me, which is home to pheasants and I have seen one deer. This is very special area to me because it still remains as a part of rural Norfolk. However, as I could see that people were using the wild, un-cultivated area to dump their rubbish, I had a six-foot wooden fence erected to give me privacy. There are four or five other homes which also share a border with this wooded site. Some of the new houses at Milestones, opposite the Octagon Barn, are also quite close to the woodland.

There are so many cars using the Bungay Road now, that make getting in to the city quite a tiresome journey. Our agricultural county has developed so quickly in the last five years, that the roads cannot cope with the high volume of vehicles using them.

Poringland Primary School has over three hundred children attending and it is full. The school cannot take any more children.

Poringland has a very good library and community centre, two medical centres, a Post Office within a very busy One-Stop shop and a supermarket. The village cannot cope with hundreds of new houses. I think all the sites should be refused planning permission.

Full text:

I would like to 'voice' my concerns regarding the planning permission for housing that is being submitted for your consideration now and in the near future. One of your colleagues, at County Hall kindly gave me a lot of paperwork - 65 pages in fact - of sites in Poringland, Framingham Earl and in Bixley, Caistor St Edmund, and Stoke Holy Cross, when I came to County Hall for specific information, on the 5th February. I did read and study each page yesterday and felt completely overwhelmed. It is frightening that hundreds of new dwellings could become part of Poringland Village.

I came to Poringland six years ago, having found a bungalow in a cul-de-sac position, not far from the Bungay Road. There is an area of woodland to one side of me, which is home to pheasants and I have seen one deer. This is very special area to me because it still remains as a part of rural Norfolk. However, as I could see that people were using the wild, un-cultivated area to dump their rubbish, I had a six-foot wooden fence erected to give me privacy. There are four or five other homes which also share a border with this wooded site. Some of the new houses at Milestones, opposite the Octagon Barn, are also quite close to the woodland.

There are so many cars using the Bungay Road now, that make getting in to the city quite a tiresome journey. Our agricultural county has developed so quickly in the last five years, that the roads cannot cope with the high volume of vehicles using them.

Poringland Primary School has over three hundred children attending and it is full. The school cannot take any more children.

Poringland has a very good library and community centre, two medical centres, a Post Office within a very busy One-Stop shop and a supermarket. The village cannot cope with hundreds of new houses. I think all the sites should be refused planning permission.

Object

Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Representation ID: 19998

Received: 19/02/2020

Respondent: Hilary Lark

Representation:

I am concerned about the development of housing in Poringland & stoke Holy Cross & surrounding areas. While appreciating the need for more housing, I feel the recent development is enough. Already the roads are very busy with traffics. Many times I find it difficult to get into the main road & the Doctors surgery is overflowing with patients making it difficult to see a doctor. I expect the school is the same. We have no shop & rely on a bus to get us to one, so need a car to get to amenities & doctors etc. The bus service has recently been cut down. I also think that the busy Ipswich Road & Bungay Road is causing us problems in Stoke Holy Cross, as we are becoming a rat run.
No more Housing, please.

Full text:

I am concerned about the development of housing in Poringland & stoke Holy Cross & surrounding areas. While appreciating the need for more housing, I feel the recent development is enough. Already the roads are very busy with traffics. Many times I find it difficult to get into the main road & the Doctors surgery is overflowing with patients making it difficult to see a doctor. I expect the school is the same. We have no shop & rely on a bus to get us to one, so need a car to get to amenities & doctors etc. The bus service has recently been cut down. I also think that the busy Ipswich Road & Bungay Road is causing us problems in Stoke Holy Cross, as we are becoming a rat run.
No more Housing, please.

Object

Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Representation ID: 20041

Received: 22/02/2020

Respondent: Mrs Louise Watkins

Representation:

I wish to object to the proposed development off Snows Lane in Chedgrave. In recent years, Loddon and a Chedgrave have seen an unprecedented amount of housing development, which has already irrevocably changed for the worse our formerly peaceful and rural village communities. Like many of our neighbours, we deliberately purchased our property in order to enjoy its open, countryside views and paid a premium for this. This proposed development would ruin the outlook for many neighbouring properties as well as putting enormous pressure on already busy roads and overused local services. I wish to object strongly.

Full text:

I wish to object to the proposed development off Snows Lane in Chedgrave. In recent years, Loddon and a Chedgrave have seen an unprecedented amount of housing development, which has already irrevocably changed for the worse our formerly peaceful and rural village communities. Like many of our neighbours, we deliberately purchased our property in order to enjoy its open, countryside views and paid a premium for this. This proposed development would ruin the outlook for many neighbouring properties as well as putting enormous pressure on already busy roads and overused local services. I wish to object strongly.

Object

Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Representation ID: 20079

Received: 24/02/2020

Respondent: Mr Geof Bedford

Representation:

Housing development in Hingham, specifically but not only at GNLP 0520, must be preceded by infrastructure improvements to the B1108 road and footpaths. Hingham generally suffers from a long term lack of serious infrastructure investment/improvements. This development could prevent many of these if allowed to access directly on to the present road.

Full text:

Hingham is about to start a 3 months road safety campaign because the busy, and growing busier, B1108 represents an existential hazard to its residents. It bisects the town with no pedestrian right of way to cross it, has one major problem crossroads and numerous minor junctions, is subject to ingrained speeding throughout, has roads and footpaths that are either narrow, poor or missing completely. Hard traffic calming of the B1108 throughout the town, improved footpaths and new pedestrian rights are required before any further housing development. A review of parking is also required.

Specifically, GNLP0520 must not be developed up the the B1108 as it will prevent any improvement ever being made to the minimum width (6m) road, single sub-standard footpath or to solve the non-existent road water drainage, which contributes to flooding lower in the town. Pedestrians accessing the town are/will be required to cross this busy road at least twice each way. School and medical practice would require one crossing each way. The footpath is only 4 feet wide in places, totally inadequate for the disabled, school children, etc. HGV and agricultural vehicles fill the available road lanes and intimidate pedestrians. Pedestrians get soaked by speeding drivers.

In truth, there appears to have been no material infrastructure investment in Hingham for several decades. This is well overdue, and this development should be the catalyst for major improvements to bring a well-loved conservation town into the 21st century -co-incidentally the 700th anniversary of St Andrews, our parish church, if indeed a further incentive is needed.

Attachments:

Support

Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Representation ID: 20147

Received: 27/02/2020

Respondent: Mr Graham Abbott

Representation:

I support the conclusions in respect of Brundall, as a village of 4500 residents we have seen several large scale housing developments over the last few years, but the village infrastructure i.e. roads, schools, doctors and dentists are barely able to cope now. This is also considering we have yet to have any new home supplied by Norfolk Homes, which has been granted planning permission for 165 new homes. Brundall is simply bursting and the very long narrow main road, The Street, is seeing much traffic and the resulting noise and pollution that brings. The A47 roundabout is at capacity.

Full text:

I support the conclusions in respect of Brundall, as a village of 4500 residents we have seen several large scale housing developments over the last few years, but the village infrastructure i.e. roads, schools, doctors and dentists are barely able to cope now. This is also considering we have yet to have any new home supplied by Norfolk Homes, which has been granted planning permission for 165 new homes. Brundall is simply bursting and the very long narrow main road, The Street, is seeing much traffic and the resulting noise and pollution that brings. The A47 roundabout is at capacity.

Support

Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Representation ID: 20170

Received: 28/02/2020

Respondent: Mr Chris Smart

Representation:

I support the conclusion that there should not any further housing developments in Brundall. The infrastructure cannot support a development to the east of the Memorial hall: the roundabout on the A47 and Cucumber Lane causes significant hold-ups at peak times.

Full text:

I support the conclusion that there should not any further housing developments in Brundall. The infrastructure cannot support a development to the east of the Memorial hall: the roundabout on the A47 and Cucumber Lane causes significant hold-ups at peak times.

Support

Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Representation ID: 20190

Received: 28/02/2020

Respondent: Mr Graham Abbott

Representation:

I support the conclusions in respect of Brundall, as a village of 4500 residents we have seen several large scale housing developments over the last few years, but the village infrastructure i.e. roads, schools, doctors and dentists are barely able to cope now. This is also considering we have yet to have any new homes supplied by Norfolk Homes, which has been granted planning permission for 165 new homes. Brundall is simply bursting and the very long narrow main road, The Street, is seeing much traffic and the resulting noise and pollution that brings. The A47 roundabout is at capacity.

Full text:

I support the conclusions in respect of Brundall, as a village of 4500 residents we have seen several large scale housing developments over the last few years, but the village infrastructure i.e. roads, schools, doctors and dentists are barely able to cope now. This is also considering we have yet to have any new homes supplied by Norfolk Homes, which has been granted planning permission for 165 new homes. Brundall is simply bursting and the very long narrow main road, The Street, is seeing much traffic and the resulting noise and pollution that brings. The A47 roundabout is at capacity.

Support

Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Representation ID: 20261

Received: 27/02/2020

Respondent: Mr John Henson

Representation:

Response to GNLP -particularly as it affects Poringland and district

I support the overall plan for the area in meeting its duties in providing housing, work spaces and leisure activities in the GNLP area.

I welcome the GNLP in its treatment of Poringland and district. The stress on infrastructure, highways and avoiding further linear development is welcome since we have another 520 - odd homes to be built in the coming period. The stress on infrastructure is evident in a primary school that is heavily oversubscribed and a secondary school that may well have to restrict its 'out of catchment' offers of places.

Highways are already showing signs of inability to cope, with a main through route severely congested at school opening and closing times and a road surface that has been significantly compromised by successive attempts of utilities to keep up with present demand.

it is recognised that development may well result from offers of infrastructure improvement that 'cannot be refused' but I would counsel against further development at either end of the conurbation which would tend to emphasise its linear reputation.

For the future, there is a significant governance issue in extending the built-up area into the neighbouring villages. By doing so the issue of one village supporting the infrastructure and services at a Parish level whilst the surroundings pay nothing, effectively, becomes a real issue to be solved by the Boundary Commission. The inclusion of the areas of neigbouring parishes into 'Poringland' recognises this issue and tacitly accepts that they be treated as one organic whole, no matter what the parish boundaries are at present.

I commend the GNLP and support it - particularly in its approach to Poringland sites that have been offered for development.

Full text:

Response to GNLP -particularly as it affects Poringland and district

I support the overall plan for the area in meeting its duties in providing housing, work spaces and leisure activities in the GNLP area.

I welcome the GNLP in its treatment of Poringland and district. The stress on infrastructure, highways and avoiding further linear development is welcome since we have another 520 - odd homes to be built in the coming period. The stress on infrastructure is evident in a primary school that is heavily oversubscribed and a secondary school that may well have to restrict its 'out of catchment' offers of places.

Highways are already showing signs of inability to cope, with a main through route severely congested at school opening and closing times and a road surface that has been significantly compromised by successive attempts of utilities to keep up with present demand.

it is recognised that development may well result from offers of infrastructure improvement that 'cannot be refused' but I would counsel against further development at either end of the conurbation which would tend to emphasise its linear reputation.

For the future, there is a significant governance issue in extending the built-up area into the neighbouring villages. By doing so the issue of one village supporting the infrastructure and services at a Parish level whilst the surroundings pay nothing, effectively, becomes a real issue to be solved by the Boundary Commission. The inclusion of the areas of neigbouring parishes into 'Poringland' recognises this issue and tacitly accepts that they be treated as one organic whole, no matter what the parish boundaries are at present.

My final issue is to do with development of villages to the south which predominantly use the B1332 (formerly A146) through the village for
commuting. I support the stand of SNC in looking at permitting
development in clusters of villages - it can be seen that these villages are becoming unsustainable with their populations becoming aged, pale and affluent, bereft of shops, schools and pubs. There will be resistance to SNC's approach but, no matter what resistance to the strategy, this may well be the only method of preventing the villages becoming 'ghosts'.

I commend the GNLP and support it - particularly in its approach to Poringland sites that have been offered for development.

Comment

Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Representation ID: 20412

Received: 04/03/2020

Respondent: Great Melton Parish Council

Representation:

Great Melton has already experienced a surge in traffic volume through the village within the last eighteen months or so.
This was bound to happen with the amount of development that has taken place in the last few years, on the edge of Wymondham and Hethersett.
Infra structure additions and repairs will have to be undertaken, but it is hoped that any such work will be done in a sympathetic way with regard to the Parish of Great Melton.

Full text:

Great Melton has already experienced a surge in traffic volume through the village within the last eighteen months or so.
This was bound to happen with the amount of development that has taken place in the last few years, on the edge of Wymondham and Hethersett.
Infra structure additions and repairs will have to be undertaken, but it is hoped that any such work will be done in a sympathetic way with regard to the Parish of Great Melton.

Support

Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Representation ID: 20418

Received: 04/03/2020

Respondent: Framingham Earl Parish Council

Representation:

Framingham Earl Parish Council strongly endorses the recommendation in the GNLP not to develop the Poringland/Framingham Earl Key Service Centre beyond the existing site allocations. The infrastructure has reached saturation point and is at full capacity. In addition Framingham Earl Parish Council recommends building on existing allocations before new allocations are considered.

Full text:

I am writing to you in my position as Parish Clerk on behalf of Framingham Earl Parish Council. With reference to the GNLP Regulation 18 Draft consultation Framingham Earl Parish Councils response is as follows;

Framingham Earl Parish Council strongly endorses the recommendation in the GNLP not to develop the Poringland/Framingham Earl Key Service Centre beyond the existing site allocations. The infrastructure has reached saturation point and is at full capacity. In addition Framingham Earl Parish Council recommends building on existing allocations before new allocations are considered.

Comment

Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Representation ID: 20786

Received: 10/03/2020

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Keith & Deborah Wilson

Number of people: 2

Representation:

We would like to make the point that you describe Poringland/Frams as a Key Service Centre using the existence of a Post Office/ Doctors/ Schools etc as a justification. The reality is that the schools are full, the doctors cannot provide a suitable service because they are full and the infrastructure is buckling under the weight of the population growth.
The massive development of the last 35+ years has wrecked this 'village' and the homes that are being built are not exactly selling whilst all they do is blight the countryside and put strain on all aspects of Poringland life.

We are pleased that many plans now are being classed as unsuitable, but fighting continually to preserve what is here is a great drain on us as residents. As our campaign says 'Enough is Enough'!!!

Full text:

We would like to make the point that you describe Poringland/Frams as a Key Service Centre using the existence of a Post Office/ Doctors/ Schools etc as a justification. The reality is that the schools are full, the doctors cannot provide a suitable service because they are full and the infrastructure is buckling under the weight of the population growth.
The massive development of the last 35+ years has wrecked this 'village' and the homes that are being built are not exactly selling whilst all they do is blight the countryside and put strain on all aspects of Poringland life.

We are pleased that many plans now are being classed as unsuitable, but fighting continually to preserve what is here is a great drain on us as residents. As our campaign says 'Enough is Enough'!!!

Comment

Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Representation ID: 21338

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Hardingham Farms Ltd

Agent: Lanpro Services Ltd

Representation:

We support the allocation of 100 new homes to Hingham. Hingham is a well serviced key service centre that can accommodate additional growth. We consider that it would be capable of accommodating more than 100 new dwellings in line with its position within the growth hierarchy. A sensible approach would be to allocate some of the growth earmarked for small cluster villages within South Norfolk, to Hingham.

Full text:

We support the allocation of 100 new homes to Hingham. Hingham is a well serviced key service centre that can accommodate additional growth. We consider that it would be capable of accommodating more than 100 new dwellings in line with its position within the growth hierarchy. A sensible approach would be to allocate some of the growth earmarked for small cluster villages within South Norfolk, to Hingham.

Comment

Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Representation ID: 21491

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Dr Sarah Morgan

Representation:

The development proposal includes 28 “affordable” homes lower than Broadland District Council’s target of 30% affordable homes out of all housing completions.
The company said it uses sustainable products “wherever possible” in building homes. Should be 100% eco-green building, as demonstrated in Norwich Council development.
The housing development could add around 320 residents to the town’s existing population of just over 2,700 – an increase of almost 12%, however the schools and doctors’ surgery, as well as the water treatment works are already oversubscribed
Destruction of wildlife habitat both by direct development and the indirect human impact eg cat predation

Full text:

The development proposal includes 28 “affordable” homes lower than Broadland District Council’s target of 30% affordable homes out of all housing completions.
The company said it uses sustainable products “wherever possible” in building homes. Should be 100% eco-green building, as demonstrated in Norwich Council development.
The housing development could add around 320 residents to the town’s existing population of just over 2,700 – an increase of almost 12%, however the schools and doctors’ surgery, as well as the water treatment works are already oversubscribed
Destruction of wildlife habitat both by direct development and the indirect human impact eg cat predation

Comment

Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Representation ID: 21634

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Hingham Parish Council

Representation:

Hingham has several services/facilities that are inadequate to support growth within the town.
It is has substandard and narrow footways in places. There is no pedestrian priority crossing places, no public car park and no high school, no commitment to increase the capacity at the primary school/Drs surgery,
The policy document notes that Hingham has "good transport links". The Joint Core Strategy 6.53 describes Hingham as having a limited bus service”,

No benefit to the residents of Hingham (the Community), of being deemed a “Key Service Centre”, just the burden of additional housing development.

Full text:

Hingham has been designated as a Key Service Centres, at no point in the document is there a definition for a “Key Service Centre”. The lack of concrete criteria for a “Key Service Centre” renders the designation of such an entity meaningless.
Hingham was not deemed important enough by South Norfolk Council for them to continue to provide such a basic facility as public toilets. The public toilets were under threat of closure by South Norfolk Council, and would have been permanently closed had the Town Council not take over the ownership of them.
Hingham has several services/facilities that are inadequate to support growth within the town. The Library is not housed within a purpose built facility however, it provides a range of valuable roles to the local community, as well as access to education for children and adults through books and use of the internet, the library supports health and wellbeing with books on prescription and is a valuable community resource for social get togethers such as knit and natter, coffee mornings, sessions for parents and babies and IT support.
The historic nature of Hingham means that is has substandard and narrow footways in places. There is no pedestrian priority crossing places. There is no public car park and no high school. There is no commitment to increase the capacity at the primary school and Drs surgery, and increased capacity would come with the additional problems with lack of parking.
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.
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.

The policy document notes that Hingham has "good transport links". This is not an accurate description. The Joint Core Strategy 6.53 describes Hingham as having a limited bus service”, since the JCS was adopted there has been a reduction in bus services and threats of loss of the already severely limited direct bus service to Dereham .

In terms of employment the policy document states Hingham is "well located to benefit from additional employment opportunities in the Cambridge Norwich Tech Corridor" - this does not seem an accurate description in the context of reliance on public transport when there is one bus an hour to the Research Park and a bus to the Hethel Innovation Centre (which is a 20 minute drive) would take 2 hours via Norwich.
This description is akin to calling Hingham a “commuter town” which is not indicative to the ethos of “Growing Stronger Communities Together”

There is no evidence in the policy of commitment to provide improved infrastructure in Hingham to enable the town to sustain the quoted 120 new homes, in particular additional primary school places and improvements to the road and footway network in the town.
With no commitment to improving infrastructure within the town, there seems to be no benefit to the residents of Hingham (the Community), of being deemed a “Key Service Centre”, just the burden of additional housing development.

Comment

Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Representation ID: 21866

Received: 13/03/2020

Respondent: Caistor St Edmund Parish Council

Representation:

I am writing to you in my position as Parish Clerk on behalf of Caistor St Edmund and Bixley Parish Council. With reference to the GNLP Regulation 18 Draft consultation Caistor St Edmund and Bixley Parish Councils response is as follows;

Six new sites have been proposed within Caistor St Edmund, and one within Bixley all of which are recommended for rejection. The Parish Council strongly supports the recommendations for rejection for the reasons given in the Draft local plan.

The Parish Council strongly endorses the recommendation in the GNLP not to develop the Poringland/Framingham Earl Key Service Centre beyond the existing site allocations. The infrastructure has reached saturation point and is at full capacity

Full text:

I am writing to you in my position as Parish Clerk on behalf of Caistor St Edmund and Bixley Parish Council. With reference to the GNLP Regulation 18 Draft consultation Caistor St Edmund and Bixley Parish Councils response is as follows;

Six new sites have been proposed within Caistor St Edmund, and one within Bixley all of which are recommended for rejection. The Parish Council strongly supports the recommendations for rejection for the reasons given in the Draft local plan.

The Parish Council strongly endorses the recommendation in the GNLP not to develop the Poringland/Framingham Earl Key Service Centre beyond the existing site allocations. The infrastructure has reached saturation point and is at full capacity.

With regards to site 0485 (Glavehill, Land North of Caistor Lane), the Parish Council has studied the detailed proposals that have been made and has spoken to Glavenhill, but despite the community benefits that are offered, it does little to address the impact on already-overloaded local roads and services, and indeed will probably worsen matters.


The Transport Note produced by LANPRO sets out three access points on Caistor Lane and outlines the various roadway and footpath widths, however it does not address the major issue of the junction with Norwich Road, Poringland. It is already a major problem getting out of Caistor Lane at peak times, especially if you are wanting to turn right. The magnitude of this problem with the potential of additional cars from 180 homes, and traffic movements generated at peak times needs to be taken into serious consideration. The only car parking spaces appear to be allocated on the proposed community building next door to the school but this is only for 30 vehicles, the question needs to be raised as to what users of the community building do if the car parking spaces are taken up by school parents? Will this result in cars parking in Caistor Lane, adding to the existing cars that park here at peak times to collect children from the High School around the corner. Consideration also needs to be taken in relation to the 200 houses at Brickle Wood Road, a cul-de-sac estate, who all have to access their homes via Caistor Lane.

Comment

Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Representation ID: 21871

Received: 17/03/2020

Respondent: Hemblington Parish Council

Representation:

1. GNP Pleased to note no further housing planned for Hemblington
2. Concerned that Hemblington is linked with Blofield Heath in this proposal. Hemblington is a distinct administrative unit and for planning purposes is a rural village, not part of Blofield which has a quite different status as a settlement village.
3. We were unsure of the extent, meaning and status of the Hemblington School 'catchment area'.
4. Steven Ford, Hemblington parish clerk.

Full text:

1. GNP Pleased to note no further housing planned for Hemblington
2. Concerned that Hemblington is linked with Blofield Heath in this proposal. Hemblington is a distinct administrative unit and for planning purposes is a rural village, not part of Blofield which has a quite different status as a settlement village.
3. We were unsure of the extent, meaning and status of the Hemblington School 'catchment area'.
4. Steven Ford, Hemblington parish clerk.

Support

Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Representation ID: 21953

Received: 13/03/2020

Respondent: Mr Chris Walker

Representation:

Poringland, Framingham Earl and Framingham Pigot (incl well-related parts of Bixley, Caistor St Edmund and Stoke Holy Cross

I fully support the conclusion in the GNLP that no new allocations should be proposed for the above area. As mentioned there are already over 500 dwellings with planning permission but not yet built.

Although there is reference to the range of services available in the locality, those services are used by residents of a much larger area than referred to above.

Yes there is a primary school in Poringland but it was oversubscribed for entry last September with the result such that 5 year old children of families in Poringland and Framingham Earl were going to have to travel several miles at peak time to primary schools in other "nearby" villages.

There is mention of surface water and ground water drainage difficulties and the height of the perched water table lead, for example. to the closure of Poringland Cemetery for new burials.

Broadband and mobile phone coverage are also issues in the areal. Not what you might expect in a "key service centre"

All of the above reinforces the need for new and improved infrastructure of all sorts before any more allocations are granted in the area.

Full text:

Poringland, Framingham Earl and Framingham Pigot (incl well-related parts of Bixley, Caistor St Edmund and Stoke Holy Cross

I fully support the conclusion in the GNLP that no new allocations should be proposed for the above area. As mentioned there are already over 500 dwellings with planning permission but not yet built.

Although there is reference to the range of services available in the locality, those services are used by residents of a much larger area than referred to above.

Yes there is a primary school in Poringland but it was oversubscribed for entry last September with the result such that 5 year old children of families in Poringland and Framingham Earl were going to have to travel several miles at peak time to primary schools in other "nearby" villages.

There is mention of surface water and ground water drainage difficulties and the height of the perched water table lead, for example. to the closure of Poringland Cemetery for new burials.

Broadband and mobile phone coverage are also issues in the area as we have to step outside our house and walk down our drive to get a mobile phone signal. Not what you might expect in a "key service centre"

All of the above reinforces the need for new and improved infrastructure of all sorts before any more allocations are granted in the area.

Object

Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Representation ID: 21955

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Hopkins Homes Limited

Representation:

The attached document addresses technical points in the Council’s evidence base on landscape and traffic and sets out why land submitted by Hopkins Homes at South Wroxham is deliverable and should be allocated.

Full text:

Hopkins Homes objects to the Draft GNLP because it does not allocate any new homes at Wroxham. It is considered that land at south Wroxham has potential to deliver new homes in a highly sustainable manner. There is no technical justification for the omission of new allocations at Wroxham. The current approach will not meet the identified needs in the recently adopted Wroxham Neighbourhood Plan, including needs for older people. Hopkins Homes’ land at south Wroxham presents a logical and sustainable location for new housing provision and meets the tests of soundness set out in the NPPF. The Wroxham Site assessment published as part of the GNLP consultation conclude that these sites are not suitable for development citing landscape and traffic impacts as being reasons for restricting growth in Wroxham. The conclusion is not consistent with the Council’s evidence base. The Council’s Housing Employment Land Availability Assessment (HELAA) do not identify issues which would preclude development on the sites and conclude that the development is suitable.

Object

Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Representation ID: 22097

Received: 13/03/2020

Respondent: Quantum Land

Agent: Barton Willmore

Representation:

We object to the spatial strategy for housing and the various linked policies associated with delivering that spatial strategy – Policy 1 and Policies 7.1-4. Our main objections are:
1.The lack of focus and housing allocations proposed for the “Key Service Centres” in comparison tolower settlement hierarchy tiers; and
2.The allocation of no housing growth to Brundall;
The settlement hierarchy is defined as:
1.Norwich Urban Area
2.Main Towns
3.Key Service Centres
4.Village Clusters
Of the 7,840 dwellings proposed for new allocations, they are distributed as follows:
1.Norwich Urban Area 56% (4,395 units)
2.Main Towns16% (1,250 units)
3.Key Service Centres 7% (515 units)
4.Village Clusters21% (1,200 units)
Whilst the focus on the urban area of Norwich Urban Area is appropriate, we consider that the balance across the settlement hierarchy is not optimal or justified. The “Main Towns” and “Key Service Centres” have individually less housing directed to them than the bottom of the settlement hierarchy, the “village clusters”, which has more dwellings. In fact, the second and third tiers of the settlement hierarchy have almost the same number in totality as the bottom tier. This seems unjustified given that they are the least sustainable locations for growth.
This if illustrated in that of the 9 key Service Centres only 4 have any new dwellings proposed and 1 of those 3 have only 15 units. Brundall has no housing allocated to it all despite being one of the closest and well-connected settlements to Norwich.
It is acknowledged that in both the Main Towns and Key Service Centres there are many “reasonable alternatives” that exist and so under alternative spatial approaches, a different spatial pattern could be achieved more sustainably. This is acknowledged in the consultation questions asked which notes:
“The 8% proportion of new housing in key service centres could be increased as many reasonable alternative sites have been proposed in key service centres. However, overall the preferred option is considered to provide a suitable amount of growth in relation to the settlement hierarchy, infrastructure and local constraints. The Sites document sets out the preferred option and reasonable alternative sites.”
We consider the spatial distribution should be reconsidered.

Full text:

SENT ON BEHALF OF ROBIN MEAKINS

We write on behalf of Quantum Land (Brundall) Ltd in respect of both the above consultation documents. We have an interest in Land off of Links Avenue to the East of the Memorial Hall, Brundall. The site is capable of delivering 175 C3 dwellings and 10ha of formal and informal open space. The site is subject to an undetermined appeal and an officer recommendation to approve

We object to the emerging Local Plan on the grounds that the spatial strategy is not reasonable, since it does not reflect the sustainability credentials of the settlement hierarchy by not allocating sufficient dwellings to Main Town Centres and Key Service Centres. There is too much growth focused on inferior village cluster settlements.

We object to the emerging Site Plans because no sites are allocated to Brundall and site GNLP0436 is not allocated.

We consider that less housing should be allocated to village clusters and Brundall should have housing allocations proposed for it. This should include a new allocation of 175 dwellings and associated open space with the inclusion of site GNLP0436.

Please find attached full submission

Attachments:

Comment

Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Representation ID: 22295

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Barton Willmore

Representation:

Q43 - 44) Consultation Questions for Policy 7.3 – The Key Service Centres

2.88 We support the identification of the Key Services Centres as locations which have an important role to play within the overall settlement hierarchy, providing facilities and services to serve the settlement and its hinterland.

2.89 Of these, the Draft Strategy only seeks to allocation additional land in Acle, Blofield, Hingham and Loddon/Chedgrave for housing, totalling 515 dwellings. 2.90 With the exception of Hethersett, which has a significant existing deliverable commitment, none of the Key Service Centres are located within the Cambridge Norwich Growth Corridor. However, Poringland, Hethersett, Brundall and Blofield are located within the Norwich Policy Area and, additional to these, Acle is located within the SHMA Core Area.

2.91 Whilst we do not object to the approach to allocating a limited level of development to the Key Service Centre, in line with our comments in respect of the Main Towns, the strategy needs to be justified, including ensuring it aligns with the Plan’s Vision and Aims. As currently drafted, it is unclear why settlements outside of the NPA/Core Area (the area with the strongest functional connection to Norwich) have been chosen in place of those within it. Q45 - 46) Consultation Questions for Policy 7.4 – The Village Clusters

2.92 We object to the approach advocated for the village clusters. Whilst it is acknowledged that these can make a vital contribution towards meeting housing and other growth requirements across the Plan Period, to arbitrarily allocate 1,200 additional homes is not justified or supported by clear evidence. We would argue it conflicts with the principles of sustainable development, and that growth should be focused on larger settlements, particularly those in more sustainable locations, such as the A11 corridor, served by rail and within the Cambridge – Norwich Tech Corridor.

2.93 Paragraph 25 of the Draft Strategy acknowledges that whilst the GNLP promotes housing choice and supports economic activity within the rural parishes, South Norfolk has decided to progress a separate development plan document to meet the overall housing numbers for its village clusters set out in the plan.

2.94 The decision to delay allocation of these sites until a further Development Plan document has been drafted, consulted on, and Examined separately risks serious impeding delivery of a substantial element of housing growth to be delivered by the Plan. Further, the current approach would support up to 80 separate small allocations if it is based on sites of no more than a hectare in size.

2.95 To ensure the Plan is positively prepared, effective and consistent with national policy, the GNLP should be seeking to allocate all housing to achieve its total growth needs in the GNLP, and distributed in a clearly evidenced manner that reflects the principles of sustainable development.

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: 22327

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Hopkins Homes Limited

Representation:

As previously outlined under Question 13, Hopkins Homes considers that the village of Mulbarton should be formally identified as a Key Service Centre, Mulbarton, given the existing population in excess of 3,500 is higher than that of over half of the designated Key Service Centres, as confirmed by the data contained in Table 1 on Page 11 of the Draft Plan, whilst the village also benefits from a proportionately good range of services and facilities.

Full text:

Hopkins Homes are providing this consultation response in reply to the Regulation 18 Draft Local Plan Consultation by the requested submission deadline of 16th March 2020.

Hopkins Homes Ltd is the largest independent house building company in East Anglia with a reputation for delivering well designed, high quality residential and mixed-use development harmonising with its local context. In the past decade the company has succeeded in delivering sustainable developments which improve neighbourhoods, improve local infrastructure and add to local distinctiveness throughout the Greater Norwich area.

In respect of the content of the Draft Plan, Hopkins Homes wish to make the following comments:-

SECTION 5 – THE STRATEGY POLICY 1 THE SUSTAINABLE GROWTH STRATEGY

Consultation Questions for Policy 1 – The Sustainable Growth Strategy

13. Do you agree with the proposed Settlement Hierarchy and the proposed distribution of housing within the hierarchy?

Whilst Hopkins Homes agrees with the broad strategy outlined, we do consider that a number of the existing villages within the wider Greater Norwich Area, both within and beyond the defined ‘Norwich Policy Area’ benefit from sufficient sustainability credentials so as to be able to accommodate greater levels of housing growth than are currently proposed.

Notably, Hopkins Homes have proposed sites on the periphery of the villages of Mulbarton and Scole within South Norfolk, both of which settlements benefit from facilities and good connections with nearby higher-order market towns which enable them to accommodate higher levels of growth than are currently envisaged through the proposed Strategy.

In respect of Mulbarton, the existing population in excess of 3,500 is higher than that of over half of the designated Key Service Centres, as confirmed by the data contained in Table 1 on Page 11 of the Draft Plan, which therefore further confirms the appropriateness of higher levels of proportionate housing growth than currently proposed within the Draft Plan.

POLICY 5 – HOMES

Consultation Questions for Policy 5 – Homes

32. Do you support, object or have any comments relating to the approach to Self/Custom-Build ?

Whilst Hopkins Homes understands the Government’s desire to promote the development of housing via Self and Custom-Build, it is common knowledge that the vast majority of demand for such housing is upon smaller and individual development sites in predominantly rural locations, rather than as a small portion of a larger development site.

To this end, it is suggested that specific smaller sites in rural locations should be allocated for such uses, rather than seeking to require such provision as a portion of larger sites.

POLICY 7.3 – THE KEY SERVICE CENTRES

Consultation Questions for Policy 7.3 – The Key Service Centres

43. Do you support or object or wish to comment on the approach for the key service centres overall? Please identify particular issues.

44. Do you support or object or wish to comment on the approach for specific key service centres: (Acle, Blofield, Brundall, Hethersett, Hingham, Loddon / Chedgrave, Poringland / Framingham Earl, Reepham, Wroxham)? Please identify particular issues.

As previously outlined under Question 13, Hopkins Homes considers that the village of Mulbarton should be formally identified as a Key Service Centre, Mulbarton, given the existing population in excess of 3,500 is higher than that of over half of the designated Key Service Centres, as confirmed by the data contained in Table 1 on Page 11 of the Draft Plan, whilst the village also benefits from a proportionately good range of services and facilities.

POLICY 7.4 - VILLAGE CLUSTERS

Consultation Questions for Policy 7.4 – The Village Clusters

45. Do you support or object or wish to comment on the overall approach for the village clusters? Please identify particular issues.

46. Do you support or object or wish to comment on the approach for specific village clusters? Please identify particular issues.

Whilst Hopkins Homes support the identification of village clusters to accommodate additional residential development to support the sustainable growth of rural areas, there should be no defined numerical restraint upon the size of site area or the number of dwellings proposed for allocation in this way. Instead, any such allocations should be made so as to be proportionate to the size of settlement cluster within which they are located and the range of facilities available, in order that they successfully meet local housing needs.

Attachments:

Comment

Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Representation ID: 22347

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Pigeon Investement Management Ltd

Agent: Pegasus Group

Representation:

Policy 7.3 Key Service Centres
7.17 According to the GNLP, the Key Service Centres have a relatively good range of services, access to public transport and employment opportunities and play a vital role in serving the rural areas. It also identifies that these roles are intended to continue to be supported by appropriate levels of development.
7.18 Policy 7.3 identifies the growth to come forward at Key Service Centres in the plan period up to 2038. The Reg 18 GNLP identifies 3,253 homes and 11.79 hectares of employment land to come forward in the plan period across the Nine Key Service Centres.
7.19 Of the 3,253 homes to be allocated only 515 are new allocations with all other homes being derived from existing allocations or commitments.
7.20 Of particular concern is the fact that Hethersett is not identified for any additional allocations in the GNLP, other than an uplift at HET1 (which will not increase the rate of delivery but will simply elongate the development phase owing to be controlled by two housebuilders), despite being a Key Service Centre that provides a sustainable location where growth has previously been considered to be appropriate.
7.21 In failing to consider additional growth at such locations the Councils are missing opportunities provided by the Land at Hethersett to provide the required additional community facilities and a better range of uses at the Key Service Centres.
7.22 Land is proposed for a new educational campus at Land off Burnthouse Lane, Hethersett to provide a new primary school, thereby future proofing primary education in the village, and accommodation for Key Stage 3 students of Hethersett Academy, alleviating pressure on the existing school campus. This new campus will include a range of new recreation and sports facilities as well as providing the opportunity for new green infrastructure linkages for the benefit of existing and new residents alike. It is also proposed that a care home/care village will be provided to respond to the significant need for such accommodation across the GNLP area at Land off Station Road in close proximity to local services and with regular bus services to Norwich. The proposed provision of employment land will also be of significant benefit to the residents of Hethersett as it will enhance the opportunity for residents to be employed within the settlement and thereby reduce the need to travel.
7.23 In not providing an appropriate mix of uses through allocations at these locations the GNLP fails to provide flexibility and choice in the GNLP and risks the sustainability of the Key Service Centres as well as the timely delivery of market and affordable homes if allocated sites stall. Land at Hethersett is available and deliverable and provides not only for market and affordable homes but also for specialist accommodation to meet identified requirements.
7.24 The GNLP states that Hethersett is close to Norwich and within the Cambridge Norwich Tech Corridor. Paragraph 337 of the GNLP states the services and facilities that the settlement provides and the fact that it has good access to employment opportunities at a range of strategic and more local sites.
7.25 Land at Hethersett can provide for new market and affordable homes, new employment land, a new educational and sports campus and a new care home/care village. The attached Delivery Statement is based on technical evidence and clearly illustrates the sites and uses now promoted. We would welcome the opportunity to come and discuss these matters further with the Councils.
7.26 Whilst there is an existing allocation for the provision of 40 extra care units in Hethersett, this is insufficient given the identified need for 3,257 such homes across South Norfolk alone. Furthermore, following the allocation of this site in 2015, no planning application has been submitted in the subsequent 4 years which provides an indication that this site may not be attractive to the market or that there is a site-specific constraint which is acting as a barrier to development given the significant need for such accommodation.
7.27 The GNLP has not taken the opportunity that plan making provides to balance the delivery of new homes across the Key Service Centres and to consider how the delivery of new homes can also release land to provide new social and community infrastructure that the evidence base states is required at each settlement.

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: 22500

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Highways England

Representation:

With regard to Blofield the proposed sites may have a significant impact on the A47 and it is suggested early assessment on the junction and the A47 at this location is required to ensure that these sites are deliverable.

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

Object

Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Representation ID: 22684

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Mrs Nicole Wright

Representation:

Policy 7.3 :
Key Service Centres
We object to this Policy Reason With respect to Hethersett: Hethersett is the Key Service Centre nearest to the Norwich urban area and Norwich fringe. It has the highest existing deliverable commitment (including uplift and delivery 2018/19). This is a total of 1369 homes and amounts to just over 40% of the total new homes planned in Key Service Centres (3,353 homes). Furthermore, this Key Service Centre is between Wymondham and Cringleford where further major growth is planned. This will result in significant pressure on social and community infrastructure. Insufficient new supporting infrastructure is planned. In addition, small allocations for new employment sites are required in this location. This will help to fulfil the objectives of Policy 1 and help to reduce journeys by car to further afield. There is a recognised growth in SMEs nationally with 95% of business employing less than 10 staff. The modified proposed site GNLP 0177-BR would help to offset the additional need generated by the strategic housing and employment allocations in this part of the district in providing a new community hub which would promote social inclusion and support the delivery of new permissive paths and outdoor recreational and leisure facilities beyond the proposed allocation sites’ boundaries. Such allocations would help Hethersett better fulfil its role in continuing ‘to enhance its function as a place to live and provide employment and services to serve the settlement and its hinterland’ (Draft Policy 7.3 of the Reg 18 Draft GNLP). Three sites are now proposed as follows: Sites A & B: low density commercial office use Site C: care village with integrated community facilities There is a marked shortage of community and social infrastructure planned to address the demand to be generated and support the expected levels of growth. The pressure on existing services, amenities and infrastructure needs to be offset by additional community and social infrastructure. An allocation at the eastern end of site GNLP0177-BR is recommended being situated on the edge of the Norwich urban area with easy access to both the City centre, strategic employment locations and the Cambridge Norwich Tech Corridor. This proposed allocation site is located near the Thickthorn Park & Ride and its planned extension, the A47/A11 planned junction improvement works and is on a strategic bus corridor, close to the main Cambridge Norwich Tech Corridor area (Paragraph 169 of the Reg 18 Draft GNLP). Such an allocation would help to deliver the objectives of Draft Policy 6 in promoting local working and support individuals working from home who need flexible office space on an occasional basis, accessible by public transport, walking + cycling.
6
[Supporting the principles and objectives expressed at paragraph 202 of the Reg 18 Draft GNLP and ensure consistency with the NPPF Paragraphs 8, 16(a), 80, 84, 103, 104, 150 and 151).

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:

Comment

Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Representation ID: 22733

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Pegasus Group

Representation:

Our client, Halsbury Homes Ltd wishes to comment specifically on the Key Service Centre of Loddon/Chedgrave, given that they are actively promoting a site in the village (Land off Norton Road). The Draft GNLP strategy, notes that Loddon / Chedgrave has a good range of services, good public transport links and is well located between Norwich and Lowestoft to benefit from employment growth, including in the offshore energy sector.
The GNLP Draft Strategy outlines that the Councils would consider increasing the number of allocated sites in ‘Key Service Centres’ and as there are many reasonable alternative sites in these locations. Our client suggests that the Councils should consider additional small and medium-sized sites, across these sustainable locations, which are well related to the form and character of the settlement and are capable of accommodating housing growth. The need to deliver sites in ‘Key Service Centres’ has become more prominent as outlined above with the miscalculation of the standards method figure, and due to the Councils historic under-delivery of strategic sites.
Loddon has one new proposed housing allocation in the Draft GNLP Strategy, which is to the south-east of the settlement (Policy GNLP0312, Land to the east of Beccles Road) for the development of over 180 homes. According to the Draft GNLP Strategy, the proposed site allocation is considered to be “well related to the form and character of the settlement and is less constrained than other sites promoted, which raise access or townscape and heritage concerns.” Land off Norton Road is also well
8
related to the form and character of the settlement and is less constrained than other proposed sites to townscape and heritage concerns, given that this proposed allocation would adjoin onto the north western boundary of ‘Land to the east of Beccles Road.’ In addition to this our client’s site is available and deliverable within the plan period, as site access can be secured to the North of the site from Norton Road. There is also some scope to create through access from the proposed allocation of Land to the east of Beccles Road (GNLP0312) to the west. Thereby, the allocation of our client’s would lead to a natural extension of the eastern settlement boundary of Loddon and would crucially assist in providing the Councils with greater certainty over housing delivery over the next plan period.

Full text:

See summaries for responses

- GNLP Regulatory 18 Consultation Questions- Land off Norton Road, Loddon
- GNLP Regulatory 18 Consultation Questions- Dairy Farm, Thorpe End

Introduction
These representations are submitted on behalf of our client Halsbury Homes Ltd in response to the Greater Norwich Local Plan (GNLP) Regulation 18 Consultation.
Our client is promoting Land off Norton Road, for residential development in the GNLP.

Object

Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Representation ID: 22864

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Crown Point Estate

Agent: Miss Kate Wood

Representation:

Poringland / Framingham Earl. The lack of new allocations in the policy fails to acknowledge the need for settlements to continue to grow. We are promoting Octagon Farm for mixed use development on the northern edge of Poringland. This will consolidate existing development in the vicinity, including Octagon Barn and the residential development on the opposite side of Bungay Road. The mixed use nature of the site will facilitate homes and employment that will contribute to the vitality of this high order sustainable settlement.

Without new site allocations, Poringland will be unable to meet ongoing needs for affordable housing and community-related contributions that arise from housing applications. Restricting new sites to 3 units (under the windfall policy) will not produce the contributions that would otherwise support the vitality of the community. The opportunity to allocate Octagon Farm for mixed use development should therefore be grasped.

Full text:

For full representation, please refer to the attached documents.

Support

Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Representation ID: 23030

Received: 13/03/2020

Respondent: Bidwells

Representation:

Support, with comments
As recognised in Question 1, the overall approach for Key Service Centres is fully supported. The identification of Hingham as a Key Service Centre is fully supportive of the approach for Key Service Centres, as Hingham is a location which has a range of services and amenities to support day to day life, including a primary school, Co-op Food, White Hart Pub, library, a doctor’s surgery, alongside a range of employment uses. Accordingly, the identification of Hingham as a Key Service Centre supports the GNLP’s aspirations of focusing growth in locations with access to jobs and services, whilst supporting a vibrant rural economy.
In addition, the suitability and sustainability of Hingham for growth has been demonstrated through The Hops, a development of 88 dwellings. The Hops, which was allocated under Policy HIN 1 of the Adopted Development Plan, which had a delivery rate of three and a half years (from submission of planning application to completion).
Therefore, we support the identification of a 21% increase in growth for Key Service Centres, which will result in them occupying 8% of total housing growth.

Full text:

Please find attached a Regulation 18 Stage C Consultation Representation in relation to GNLP0520, Land South of Norwich Road, Hingham.

Attachments:

Object

Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Representation ID: 23055

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Hingham Parish Council

Representation:

Hingham was not deemed important enough by South Norfolk Council for them to continue to provide such a basic facility as public toilets. The public toilets were under threat of closure by South Norfolk Council, and would have been permanently closed had the Town Council not take over the ownership of them.

Hingham has several services/facilities that are inadequate to support growth within the town. The Library is not housed within a purpose built facility however, it provides a range of valuable roles to the local community, as well as access to education for children and adults through books and use of the internet, the library supports health and wellbeing with books on prescription and is a valuable community resource for social get togethers such as knit and natter, coffee mornings, sessions for parents and babies and IT support.

The historic nature of Hingham means that is has substandard and narrow footways in places. There is no pedestrian priority crossing places. There is no public car park and no high school. There is no commitment to increase the capacity at the primary school and Drs surgery, and increased capacity would come with the additional problems with lack of parking.

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.

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.

The policy document notes that Hingham has "good transport links". This is not an accurate description. The Joint Core Strategy 6.53 describes Hingham as having a limited bus service”, since the JCS was adopted there has been a reduction in bus services and threats of loss of the already severely limited direct bus service to Dereham .

In terms of employment the policy document states Hingham is "well located to benefit from additional employment opportunities in the Cambridge Norwich Tech Corridor" - this does not seem an accurate description in the context of reliance on public transport when there is one bus an hour to the Research Park and a bus to the Hethel Innovation Centre (which is a 20 minute drive) would take 2 hours via Norwich.

This description is akin to calling Hingham a “commuter town” which is not indicative to the ethos of “Growing Stronger Communities Together”
There is no evidence in the policy of commitment to provide improved infrastructure in Hingham to enable the town to sustain the quoted 120 new homes, in particular additional primary school places and improvements to the road and footway network in the town.

With no commitment to improving infrastructure within the town, there seems to be no benefit to the residents of Hingham (the Community), of being deemed a “Key Service Centre”, just the burden of additional housing development.

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: 23178

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Pigeon Investement Management Ltd

Agent: Pegasus Group

Representation:

In particular, the Key Service Centre of Reepham is proposed to receive no additional growth beyond the 142 homes which are currently committed. This represents 13% of the dwelling stock at 2011 and provides for one of the lowest proportional rates of growth of any of the Key Service Centres. It is therefore apparent that the GNLP is likely to compromise the vitality of Reepham.
8.22 Reepham is well located to receive new development including expansion of the doctor’s surgery which can be provided for by the provision of land to facilitate future expansion on Land north of Dereham Road in association with new employment development to meet the existing needs of a local firm providing support to the leisure industry across the wider area.
8.23 In failing to consider additional growth at such locations the Councils are missing opportunities provided by our client to provide the required additional community facilities identified in the GNLP Infrastructure Study at the Key Service Centres.
8.24 The GNLP has not taken the opportunity that plan making provides to balance the delivery of new homes across the Key Service Centres and to consider how the delivery of new homes can also release land to provide new social and community infrastructure that the evidence base states is required at each settlement.

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.