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

Showing comments and forms 1 to 30 of 51

Object

Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Representation ID: 19984

Received: 17/02/2020

Respondent: Hainford Parish Council

Representation:

No. We do not support the proposed policy for village clusters.
Most villages are able to continue to access services as they do already without the need to cluster. The policy is intended to enable wider development which will result in the ultimate loss of existing settlement boundaries and the risk of unnecessary development. We are aware that the redefinition of settlement boundaries is to be considered at a later stage in the plan

Full text:

Hainford Parish Council have examined the draft plan in detail and this is their considered response.

GNLP consultation-draft proposals document Feb 2020

POLICY 1 – SUSTAINABLE GROWTH

Q13 Do you agree with the proposed settlement hierarchy?

No. The Parish Council does not support the Village cluster proposal.
Whilst there may be some justification for clusters in ‘remote’ rural areas,
most villages are able to continue to access services as they currently do.
Becoming part of a cluster will result in inevitable exposure to wider and unnecessary development and the ultimate loss of existing settlement boundaries and village identity.

Q14 Do we support the approach to housing numbers?

No. The Parish Council is of the view that the 9 /10% extra allocations as well as additional windfall sites is excessive given that there are sufficient sites allocated to meet predicted demand.


POLICY 7- 4 VILLAGE CLUSTERS

Q45. Do you support or wish to comment on the overall approach for the village clusters? Please identify particular issues.

No. We do not support the proposed policy for village clusters.
Most villages are able to continue to access services as they do already without the need to cluster. The policy is intended to enable wider development which will result in the ultimate loss of existing settlement boundaries and the risk of unnecessary development. We are aware that the redefinition of settlement boundaries is to be considered at a later stage in the plan
Q46. Do you support or wish to comment on the approach for specific village clusters?

We strongly object to the proposed cluster of Hainford with Stratton Strawless or any other village and firmly believe that Hainford should retain its stand alone village status as are other nearby villages. The residents of Hainford value their rural aspect and independence and the reasons for linking Stratton Strawless to Hainford are weak.

a) The majority of family size accommodation in Stratton Strawless is situated west of the A140 where there are other nearby schools which are closer and more accessible than Hainford without the requirement to cross the busy A140 at peak times, Hevingham school is 0.4 miles, Marsham Primary School 1.4 miles and Horsford (with supermarket, Doctors surgery, Post Office,social club, leisure facilities, take away food outlet, library, excellent public transport links etc.) is also closer.
b) The largest concentration of homes on the eastern side of the A140 are on the mobile home park which we understand is for residents over the age of 55. For the residents who may live on the eastern side of the A140 and require primary school facilities there is also nearby Buxton school.

In addition to the above we object to the proposal that there is the potential for the development of 50/60 dwellings because there is insufficient capacity to sustain that level of development due to lack of facilities and infrastructure to support this.

The Officers have already stated that there is no capacity for Hainford school to expand and all 9 proposed sites for Hainford were discounted by planners mainly due to there being no safe pedestrian access to the school ( a crucial underlying criteria for development in the policy) and no feasible way to address this. There were Highways concerns, widespread flooding issues, and visual impact and break out into the country side. Added to which the public transport service is very limited with the last daily service from the city at 18.15 .We understand that the Policy requirements are to avoid development where there is a reliance on the private motor vehicle.

Therefore Hainford Parish council objects to the proposal to become part of a cluster and to the ultimate redefinition of our settlement boundary in order to facilitate wider development and to the proposal that there is the capacity to support a further 50/60 dwellings.

Object

Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Representation ID: 20003

Received: 20/02/2020

Respondent: Miss Sarah Mann

Representation:

The villages in a large number of cases, particularly South Norfolk, can not soak up this additional housing quantity for the same reasons as many of the service areas can not, my village directly relies on the infrastructure (doctors/schools etc) of the Poringland/Framingham Earl area which can not support the developments already ongoing and planned in that area therefore the villages in the immediate area around Stoke Holy Cross, Brooke, Woodton, Kirstead, Shotesham, Bergh Apton, Alpington, Seething, can not support further housing either.

Full text:

The villages in a large number of cases, particularly South Norfolk, can not soak up this additional housing quantity for the same reasons as many of the service areas can not, my village directly relies on the infrastructure (doctors/schools etc) of the Poringland/Framingham Earl area which can not support the developments already ongoing and planned in that area therefore the villages in the immediate area around Stoke Holy Cross, Brooke, Woodton, Kirstead, Shotesham, Bergh Apton, Alpington, Seething, can not support further housing either.

Support

Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Representation ID: 20262

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.

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.

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.

Object

Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Representation ID: 20332

Received: 04/03/2020

Respondent: Su Waldron

Representation:

I have not been able to find the South Norfolk villages cluster plan. I am concerned that the clusters could result in dispersed housing into the countryside.

Full text:

I have not been able to find the South Norfolk villages cluster plan. I am concerned that the clusters could result in dispersed housing into the countryside.

Object

Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Representation ID: 20345

Received: 05/03/2020

Respondent: Brockdish & Thorpe Abbotts Parish Council

Representation:

No justification for the cluster plan. No justification for the quantity of development. No criteria relating to suitability for development. SNDC confirm this is a political move to satisfy urban areas. Landowners/builders given initiative in choosing sites. No local community involvement in the plan.
Detailed comments submitted by email

Full text:

No justification for the cluster plan. No justification for the quantity of development. No criteria relating to suitability for development. SNDC confirm this is a political move to satisfy urban areas. Landowners/builders given initiative in choosing sites. No local community involvement in the plan.
Detailed comments submitted by email

Comment

Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Representation ID: 20362

Received: 27/02/2020

Respondent: Sworders

Number of people: 2

Representation:

Paragraph 341 states that village clusters are based on primary school catchments, which provide a
proxy for social sustainability. It is accepted that primary school catchments can provide one measure
of social sustainability. However, to base the housing allocation for each village solely on a single
criterion such as the primary school catchments is, we believe, very limiting. The ability of a primary
school to accept children from new developments can only ever provide a snapshot in time of an
Draft reps to GNLP consultation Jan-Feb 2020 Page 3 of 7
ever-changing situation. The amount of housing allocated on the basis of this criterion alone also only
reflects the existing provision and does not take account of the potential of new housing to fund
growth and improvements to the schools, or to any other community facilities, and therefore
potentially stymies future growth and could contribute to a cycle of stagnation or decline.
Paragraph 83 of the NPPF states that:
‘Planning policies should enable …. The retention and development (my underlining) of accessible local
services and community facilities, such as local shops, meeting places, sports venues, open spaces,
cultural buildings, public houses and places of worship.’
We propose that the amount of housing allocated to village clusters is based on a much wider range
of criteria, including the existence and absence of community facilities and services, such as a village
shop, broadband connection, public house etc, and consideration of the role the village plays in
serving other smaller settlements.
As a case in point, despite there being seven distinct settlements within the grouped ‘Village Cluster’
of Great Witchingham, Lenwade, Weston Longville, Alderford, Attlebridge, Little Witchingham and
Morton on the Hill, as the school located within the cluster (Great Witchingham Primary Academy) is
located within Great Witchingham, this limits any housing allocations to Great Witchingham itself.
Consequently, this means the assessment precludes any housing allocations within any of the other
villages that comprise the cluster and, in this sense, the ‘Village Cluster’ concept is an ineffective
designation when determining housing allocations, resulting in limiting housing distribution rather
than ensuring it is distributed and shared across the ‘cluster’.

Full text:

Please see attachments for full representation

Attachments:

Object

Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Representation ID: 20372

Received: 29/02/2020

Respondent: Mrs Dawn Clayton

Representation:

I have read the response from Hainford Parish Council in regard to policy one, questions 13 & 14 and policy 7, item 4, questions 45 & 46 and I, as a resident of Hainford fully agree with their responses.

I have noted with some despondency that in the published record of flood incidents from June 2017, we have been clustered with Spixworth and Horsham St. Faiths in regard to the number of ‘recorded flood incidents’ totalling 13. Pardon the pun, but this appears to be ‘watering down’ the flood statistics for Hainford, I live in *Redacted* Hainford and this road is almost permanently flooded during the winter months. The last month, this road has been abmissmal for access *redacted*, perhaps someone from Broadland District Council would like to visit to observe what we have to put up with.
And, for future reference, give the flood statistics for Hainford as a stand alone village and not cluster us with other villages to hide the extent of the problems we have.

As we all know statistics can say whatever the statistician wants them to say, but it’s not always correct.

Full text:

I have read the response from Hainford Parish Council in regard to policy one, questions 13 & 14 and policy 7, item 4, questions 45 & 46 and I, as a resident of Hainford fully agree with their responses.

I have noted with some despondency that in the published record of flood incidents from June 2017, we have been clustered with Spixworth and Horsham St. Faiths in regard to the number of ‘recorded flood incidents’ totalling 13. Pardon the pun, but this appears to be ‘watering down’ the flood statistics for Hainford, I live in *Redacted* Hainford and this road is almost permanently flooded during the winter months. The last month, this road has been abmissmal for access *redacted*, perhaps someone from Broadland District Council would like to visit to observe what we have to put up with.
And, for future reference, give the flood statistics for Hainford as a stand alone village and not cluster us with other villages to hide the extent of the problems we have.

As we all know statistics can say whatever the statistician wants them to say, but it’s not always correct.

Object

Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Representation ID: 20425

Received: 06/03/2020

Respondent: Sworders

Number of people: 2

Representation:

Paragraph 341 states that village clusters are based on primary school catchments, which provide a proxy for social sustainability. It is accepted that primary school catchments can provide one measure of social sustainability. However, to base the housing allocation for each village solely on a single criterion such as the primary school catchments is, we believe, very limiting. The ability of a primary school to accept children from new developments can only ever provide a snapshot in time of an ever-changing situation. The amount of housing allocated on the basis of this criterion alone also only reflects the existing provision and does not take account of the potential of new housing to fund growth and improvements to the schools, or to any other community facilities, and therefore, potentially stymies future growth and could contribute to a cycle of stagnation or decline.
Paragraph 83 of the NPPF states that:
‘Planning policies should enable …. The retention and development (my underlining) of accessible local services and community facilities, such as local shops, meeting places, sports venues, open spaces, cultural buildings, public houses and places of worship.’
We propose that the amount of housing allocated to village clusters is based on a much wider range of criteria, including the existence and absence of community facilities and services, such as a village shop, broadband connection, public house, post office, provision of public transport services, and consideration of the role the village plays in serving other smaller settlements.
We note that paragraph 343 of the Plan states that:
‘A separate South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Site Allocations document will be produced. This plan will include sites for a minimum of 1,200 homes in addition to the 1,349 already committed in the village clusters to be identified in South Norfolk.’
We welcome the invitation to submit further sites through this consultation, set out in Policy 7.4, although we consider that the invitation to submit further sites should be made much more clearly on the consultation homepage.

Full text:

Please see attachment

Attachments:

Object

Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Representation ID: 20509

Received: 08/03/2020

Respondent: Marlingford and Colton Parish Council

Representation:

The "village clusters" concept is entirely unsustainable in that it relies upon accessing small pockets of geographically disparate infrastructure which will result in the need for increasing numbers of private car journeys and, given the decreasing availability of public transport, clean or otherwise, works directly contrary to the plan's stated environmental objectives.
Additionally, SNDC talk of a "minimum of 1, 200 houses" in these clusters. This should, at least, be corrected to 1, 200 MAXIMUM. If they actually do envisage 1,200 minimum then they are creating a sort of uncontrolled, open-ended 'free for all".

Full text:

The "village clusters" concept is entirely unsustainable in that it relies upon accessing small pockets of geographically disparate infrastructure which will result in the need for increasing numbers of private car journeys and, given the decreasing availability of public transport, clean or otherwise, works directly contrary to the plan's stated environmental objectives.
Additionally, SNDC talk of a "minimum of 1, 200 houses" in these clusters. This should, at least, be corrected to 1, 200 MAXIMUM. If they actually do envisage 1,200 minimum then they are creating a sort of uncontrolled, open-ended 'free for all".

Comment

Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Representation ID: 20516

Received: 05/03/2020

Respondent: Brockdish & Thorpe Abbotts Parish Council

Representation:

Despite extensive consultation on the GNLP South Norfolk District Council (SNDC) has, at the very last minute, decided to embark on a “separate village cluster housing site allocation plan”. It is looking for a minimum of 1200 sites. This wildly exceeds the statement at the SNDC presentation that the GNLP seeks 9% of 7840 (=705 sites) in village clusters for the whole of the GNLP area. There is no explanation or justification offered for this plan or the quantity of housing.

SNDC has informed the Parish Council that the village cluster idea arises from urban areas stating that “rural areas should take their share”. This appears therefore as a purely political move. This view is confirmed by the fact that no planning justification has been advanced by SNDC. The other worrying aspect is that the initiative appears to be handed to landowners and builders to identify sites.

If the cluster exercise is to have any credibility it must contain a number of features:
(a) there must be some reasoning underlying the quantity of housing sites being sought.
(b) there must be a planning rationale for identifying clusters setting out how they will work together.
(c) there must be a set of criteria relating to suitability for development. These to include how they will meet local housing need, proof of sustainability relating to transport etc, provision of infrastructure, availability of services such as schools and doctors, and environmental enhancement.
(d) there must be a process of community consultation.

Brockdish and Thorpe Abbotts Parish Council is not against development but is very concerned that it must be justified and properly planned. The present plan does not meet that requirement.

Full text:

Village Cluster Statement - Greater Norwich Local Plan (GNLP)
Despite extensive consultation on the GNLP South Norfolk District Council (SNDC) has, at the very last minute, decided to embark on a “separate village cluster housing site allocation plan”. It is looking for a minimum of 1200 sites. This wildly exceeds the statement at the SNDC presentation that the GNLP seeks 9% of 7840 (=705 sites) in village clusters for the whole of the GNLP area. There is no explanation or justification offered for this plan or the quantity of housing.

SNDC has informed the Parish Council that the village cluster idea arises from urban areas stating that “rural areas should take their share”. This appears therefore as a purely political move. This view is confirmed by the fact that no planning justification has been advanced by SNDC. The other worrying aspect is that the initiative appears to be handed to landowners and builders to identify sites.

If the cluster exercise is to have any credibility it must contain a number of features:
(a) there must be some reasoning underlying the quantity of housing sites being sought.
(b) there must be a planning rationale for identifying clusters setting out how they will work together.
(c) there must be a set of criteria relating to suitability for development. These to include how they will meet local housing need, proof of sustainability relating to transport etc, provision of infrastructure, availability of services such as schools and doctors, and environmental enhancement.
(d) there must be a process of community consultation.

Brockdish and Thorpe Abbotts Parish Council is not against development but is very concerned that it must be justified and properly planned. The present plan does not meet that requirement.

Object

Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Representation ID: 20679

Received: 11/03/2020

Respondent: CPRE Norfolk

Representation:

CPRE Norfolk does not wish to summarise what are a series of important points into 100 words or less. The consultation should welcome thorough responses, and not imply that only shorter summaries will be reported.

Full text:

“Village Clusters” appear to be an artificial concept, invented to justify the dispersal of housing into the countryside. It is difficult to understand the justification for changing the current settlement hierarchy within the JCS to that proposed in this draft plan, in particular by eliminating the JCS categories of Service Villages, Other Villages, smaller rural communities and the countryside, which provided opportunities for a more nuanced approach to housing allocation, appropriate to each category of community/settlement within their own setting, landscape and context. The “village cluster” approach is a relatively crude one, with much more of a ‘one size fits all’ approach. CPRE Norfolk is particularly disappointed to see that the current JCS settlement hierarchy is not even offered as an ‘alternative approach’ in the draft GNLP, and wishes to see this rectified.

Even if the “village clusters” are adopted it would still be important to limit these to the area within their settlement boundaries and to designate the remaining largely rural areas as “countryside”, which would then require a further policy similar to the current JCS policy 17: smaller rural communities and the countryside. It is a great regret that the Rural Policy Areas of the JCS will be eliminated in the GNLP, as these provided effective protection of the countryside from unnecessary development.

The different approach for “village clusters” in Broadland compared to those in South Norfolk is not acceptable given the emphasis on the GNLP being a strategic plan for the whole of Greater Norwich. The “village clusters” in Broadland and South Norfolk should be treated in the same way if they are to be included in the final GNLP. This means that a maximum number of new housing for both areas should be included in the GNLP rather than the current different approach/wording, by having Broadland’s “village clusters” providing ‘up to 480’ whereas South Norfolk is to provide ‘a minimum of 1,200’: both areas should have the same wording i.e. ‘up to …’. We are concerned that all of the “village clusters” in South Norfolk will not be scrutinised to the same degree as those in Broadland due to the separate South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Site Allocations document.

CPRE Norfolk is concerned by the use of primary school catchments acting as ‘a proxy for social sustainability’, with apparently no other sustainability measures being taken into account when decided on the amount and location of housing within “village clusters”. This does not make the proposed allocated housing within “village clusters” sustainable as required by the NPPF. Other measures should be taken into account within the social, economic and environmental spheres.

Attachments:

Support

Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Representation ID: 20691

Received: 11/03/2020

Respondent: John Long Planning

Representation:

Otley Properties Ltd supports the approach to village clusters in South Norfolk, and wish their sites at Seething to be considered through the Village Clusters Site Allocations document:
GNLP0405 North/South of Brooke Road, Seething (allocation/settlement boundary revision);
GNLP0406 West of Seething Street, Seething (settlement boundary revision);
GNLP0587 West of Seething Street; Seething (settlement boundary revision);
GNLP0588 West of seething street, Seething (site now has pp) (settlement boundary revision); ;
GNLP1035 South of Wheelers Lane, Seething(allocation or settlement boundary revision);
GNLP2148 West of Mill Lane, Seething (12 dwellings) (allocation).
They also wish a further site at Burgh Apton to be considered.

Full text:

Otley Properties Ltd supports the approach to village clusters in South Norfolk, and wish their sites at Seething to be considered through the Village Clusters Site Allocations document:
GNLP0405 North/South of Brooke Road, Seething (allocation/settlement boundary revision);
GNLP0406 West of Seething Street, Seething (settlement boundary revision);
GNLP0587 West of Seething Street; Seething (settlement boundary revision);
GNLP0588 West of seething street, Seething (site now has pp) (settlement boundary revision); ;
GNLP1035 South of Wheelers Lane, Seething(allocation or settlement boundary revision);
GNLP2148 West of Mill Lane, Seething (12 dwellings) (allocation).
They also wish a further site at Burgh Apton to be considered.

Support

Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Representation ID: 20692

Received: 11/03/2020

Respondent: John Long Planning

Representation:

Hibbett & Key Ltd support the approach to village clusters and wish their site at Alpington ref: GNLP0400 Land at Church Meadow to be considered for allocation in the South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Site Allocations document.

Full text:

Hibbett & Key Ltd support the approach to village clusters and wish their site at Alpington ref: GNLP0400 Land at Church Meadow to be considered for allocation in the South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Site Allocations document.

Comment

Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Representation ID: 20797

Received: 12/03/2020

Respondent: Hempnall Parish Council

Representation:

These are detail comments after much research and a summary would not be sufficient to make the necessary points.

Full text:

“Village Clusters” appear to be an artificial concept, invented to justify the dispersal of housing into the countryside. It is difficult to understand the justification for changing the current settlement hierarchy within the JCS to that proposed in this draft plan, in particular by eliminating the JCS categories of Service Villages, Other Villages, smaller rural communities and the countryside, which provided opportunities for a more nuanced approach to housing allocation, appropriate to each category of community/settlement within their own setting, landscape and context. The “village cluster” approach is a relatively crude one, with much more of a ‘one size fits all’ approach. Hempnall Parish Council is particularly disappointed to see that the current JCS settlement hierarchy is not even offered as an ‘alternative approach’ in the draft GNLP, and wishes to see this rectified.

Even if the “village clusters” are adopted it would still be important to limit development to the areas within their development boundaries of settlements and to designate the remaining largely rural areas as “countryside”, which would then require a further policy similar to the current JCS policy 17: smaller rural communities and the countryside. It is a great regret that the Rural Policy Areas of the JCS will be eliminated in the GNLP, as these provided effective protection of the countryside from unnecessary development.

The different approach for “village clusters” in Broadland compared to those in South Norfolk is not acceptable given the emphasis on the GNLP being a strategic plan for the whole of Greater Norwich. The “village clusters” in Broadland and South Norfolk should be treated in the same way if they are to be included in the final GNLP. This means that a maximum number of new housing for both areas should be included in the GNLP rather than the current different approach/wording, by having Broadland’s “village clusters” providing ‘up to 480’ whereas South Norfolk is to provide ‘a minimum of 1,200’: both areas should have the same wording i.e. ‘up to …’. We are concerned that all of the “village clusters” in South Norfolk will not be scrutinised to the same degree as those in Broadland due to the separate South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Site Allocations document.

Comment

Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Representation ID: 20931

Received: 14/03/2020

Respondent: Bunwell Parish Council

Representation:

We do not accept that the basis for Village Clusters should be primary schools. A village strategy should satisfy the housing needs for all generations. Norfolk villages have different attractions and benefits and is why many people chose to live in a certain village or a certain part of a village. Many families dislike block development, so why is GNLP/SNC adopting a single site approach for Clusters? A development convenient to a school doesn’t guarantee a young family purchase or a walk to school. All village sites submitted should be considered on their own merit and a quality decision made.

Full text:

We do not accept that the basis for Village Clusters should be primary schools. A village strategy should satisfy the housing needs for all generations. Norfolk villages have different attractions and benefits and is why many people chose to live in a certain village or a certain part of a village. Many families dislike block development, so why is GNLP/SNC adopting a single site approach for Clusters? A development convenient to a school doesn’t guarantee a young family purchase or a walk to school. All village sites submitted should be considered on their own merit and a quality decision made.

Object

Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Representation ID: 20981

Received: 14/03/2020

Respondent: Mr Andrew Cawdron

Representation:

I consider that the free for all, hands off approach to Village clusters of 4024 dwellings or 9% of growth will negatively damage the character and scale of many of our villages and lead to further transportation issues, without achieving "social sustainability" by supporting rural life and services.
It is just spreading the dormitory everywhere.
Add in some windfall development, 3 dwellings a parish and the Plan ticks all the boxes for a free for all !

Full text:

I consider that the free for all, hands off approach to Village clusters of 4024 dwellings or 9% of growth will negatively damage the character and scale of many of our villages and lead to further transportation issues, without achieving "social sustainability" by supporting rural life and services.
It is just spreading the dormitory everywhere.
Add in some windfall development, 3 dwellings a parish and the Plan ticks all the boxes for a free for all !

Support

Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Representation ID: 21178

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Robert Gower

Representation:

The Policy 7.4 approach to allowing additional housing development within settlement boundaries is supported.

Full text:

The Policy 7.4 approach to allowing additional housing development within settlement boundaries is supported.

Object

Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Representation ID: 21218

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Saving Swainsthorpe Campaign

Representation:

The concept of 'village clusters' has the virtue of being novel but the plan seems to assume that it is an accepted concept and has some legitimacy. One this basis it is proposed that additional housing development (very attractive to developers) is permitted without any concomitant infrastructure to support such development. The use of primary school catchment areas as a proxy for sustainability is neither explained or justified and in our view represents a crude measure for planning. The production by SNDC of a separate (possibly unconnected) plan typifies the disjointed approach indicative of this draft plan

Full text:

The concept of 'village clusters' has the virtue of being novel but the plan seems to assume that it is an accepted concept and has some legitimacy. One this basis it is proposed that additional housing development (very attractive to developers) is permitted without any concomitant infrastructure to support such development. The use of primary school catchment areas as a proxy for sustainability is neither explained or justified and in our view represents a crude measure for planning. The production by SNDC of a separate (possibly unconnected) plan typifies the disjointed approach indicative of this draft plan

Comment

Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Representation ID: 21224

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Mrs S Bygate

Agent: Mrs Jayne Cashmore

Representation:

The policy should make mention of prioritising brownfield development.

Full text:

The policy should make mention of prioritising brownfield development.

Object

Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Representation ID: 21349

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Reedham Parish Council

Representation:

The concept of " Village Clusters" appears to be entirely invented to justify the dispersal of housing into the countryside. It is a change from the settlement hierarchy in the JCS that is not explained.
Why are the "Village Clusters" in Broadland being treated differently from those in South Norfolk? This seems grossly unfair to both areas.
Why are a range of sustainability measures not being used to calculate the level of housing required in the "Village Clusters" over and above the current one that solely uses the availability of primary school places.

Full text:

The concept of " Village Clusters" appears to be entirely invented to justify the dispersal of housing into the countryside. It is a change from the settlement hierarchy in the JCS that is not explained.
Why are the "Village Clusters" in Broadland being treated differently from those in South Norfolk? This seems grossly unfair to both areas.
Why are a range of sustainability measures not being used to calculate the level of housing required in the "Village Clusters" over and above the current one that solely uses the availability of primary school places.

Comment

Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Representation ID: 21352

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Lanpro Services

Agent: Stephen Flynn

Representation:

Lanpro offer their support to the concept of village clusters, agreeing that there is a need to allocate new housing in accessible, rural locations to help support sustainable patterns of growth. However, we do not support the significant amount of growth to be directed to village clusters, potentially allowing a significant number of new homes (1200, 15% of all new allocations) to be located in small settlements in the rural area of South Norfolk (outside of the old Norwich Policy Area).

Full text:

Lanpro offer their support to the concept of village clusters, agreeing that there is a need to allocate new housing in accessible, rural locations to help support sustainable patterns of growth. However, we do not support the significant amount of growth to be directed to village clusters, potentially allowing a significant number of new homes (1200, 15% of all new allocations) to be located in small settlements in the rural area of South Norfolk (outside of the old Norwich Policy Area). Other small sites are identified within the rural parts of Broadland. Without knowing where the South Norfolk sites are and whether they are accessible and sustainable in all respects, we are concerned that the approach is neither sustainable or compatible with the objectives in relation to tackling climate change.

We consider that a more sustainable approach, that would be in line with the overall objectives and vision set out for the Growth Strategy would be to allocate 400 of the South Norfolk 1200 to cluster villages and key service centres within the old NPA parts of South Norfolk and 500 as the first phase of a new settlement at Hethel in the Cambridge – Norwich Tech corridor. There is scope for a some more rural dispersal to contribute to the vitality of small rural villages and therefore, the remaining 300 should only be allocated to small cluster villages in the more rural parts of South Norfolk (outside the old NPA) where there is walkable access to a primary school and good public transport links to other key services. Any Broadland allocations outside of the old NPA should also only remain if the same applies.

Allocating 500 of the homes to a new settlement at Hethel would also provide land to expand the opportunity for hi-tech engineering jobs within the growth corridor. In this location the homes would help to ensure that the plan “will support growth of a diverse low carbon economy which will compete globally through its world class knowledge-intensive jobs in the Cambridge Norwich Tech Corridor” (paragraph 108).

They will also:
“strengthen Greater Norwich’s role as a key part of the national economy with the Cambridge Norwich Tech corridor becoming an increasingly important axis linking to two other nationally significant growth corridors” (Delivery Statement page 36).

The current strategy allows significant dispersal to small rural village clusters and without further explanation and justification, we are concerned that this may not make a positive contribution to these key threads of the plan. It could have negative impacts in terms of increasing the number of private car and other journeys and it will place greater demand on small local schools and services. These demands are more difficult and costly to address within a spread of small rural villages rather than within a new settlement where social infrastructure can be properly planned and funded from the outset with corresponding economies of scale.

As currently proposed, the settlement hierarchy presents an unambitious variation on the previous Joint Core Strategy (JCS) with an unjustified increase in rural dispersal. The draft plan states that 82% of the new housing requirement to 2038 is made up of existing JCS allocations that have been carried forward (paragraph 156). This means that including the proposed uplift on existing allocations, 36,503 homes out of a total housing figure of 44,343 are carried forward.

Comment

Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Representation ID: 21419

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Glavenhill Ltd

Agent: Stephen Flynn

Representation:

Glavenhill Ltd offer their support to the concept of village clusters, agreeing that there is a need to allocate new housing in accessible, rural locations to help support sustainable patterns of growth. However, we do not support the significant amount of growth to be directed to village clusters, potentially allowing a significant number of new homes (1200, 15% of all new allocations) to be located in small settlements in the rural area of South Norfolk (outside of the old Norwich Policy Area).

Full text:

Glavenhill Ltd offer their support to the concept of village clusters, agreeing that there is a need to allocate new housing in accessible, rural locations to help support sustainable patterns of growth. However, we do not support the significant amount of growth to be directed to village clusters, potentially allowing a significant number of new homes (1200, 15% of all new allocations) to be located in small settlements in the rural area of South Norfolk (outside of the old Norwich Policy Area). Other small sites are identified within the rural parts of Broadland. Without knowing where the South Norfolk sites are and whether they are accessible and sustainable in all respects, we are concerned that the approach is neither sustainable or compatible with the objectives in relation to tackling climate change.

We consider that a more sustainable approach, that would be in line with the overall objectives and vision set out for the Growth Strategy would be to allocate 400 of the South Norfolk 1200 to cluster villages and key service centres within the old NPA parts of South Norfolk and 500 as the first phase of a new settlement at Hethel in the Cambridge – Norwich Tech corridor. There is scope for a some more rural dispersal to contribute to the vitality of small rural villages and therefore, the remaining 300 should only be allocated to small cluster villages in the more rural parts of South Norfolk (outside the old NPA) where there is walkable access to a primary school and good public transport links to other key services. Any Broadland allocations outside of the old NPA should also only remain if the same applies.

Allocating 500 of the homes to a new settlement at Hethel would also provide land to expand the opportunity for hi-tech engineering jobs within the growth corridor. In this location the homes would help to ensure that the plan “will support growth of a diverse low carbon economy which will compete globally through its world class knowledge-intensive jobs in the Cambridge Norwich Tech Corridor” (paragraph 108).

They will also:
“strengthen Greater Norwich’s role as a key part of the national economy with the Cambridge Norwich Tech corridor becoming an increasingly important axis linking to two other nationally significant growth corridors” (Delivery Statement page 36).

The current strategy allows significant dispersal to small rural village clusters and without further explanation and justification, we are concerned that this may not make a positive contribution to these key threads of the plan. It could have negative impacts in terms of increasing the number of private car and other journeys and it will place greater demand on small local schools and services. These demands are more difficult and costly to address within a spread of small rural villages rather than within a new settlement where social infrastructure can be properly planned and funded from the outset with corresponding economies of scale.

As currently proposed, the settlement hierarchy presents an unambitious variation on the previous Joint Core Strategy (JCS) with an unjustified increase in rural dispersal. The draft plan states that 82% of the new housing requirement to 2038 is made up of existing JCS allocations that have been carried forward (paragraph 156). This means that including the proposed uplift on existing allocations, 36,503 homes out of a total housing figure of 44,343 are carried forward.

Object

Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Representation ID: 21498

Received: 12/03/2020

Respondent: Hempnall Parish Council

Representation:

“Village Clusters” appear to be an artificial concept, invented to justify the dispersal of housing into the countryside. It is difficult to understand the justification for changing the current settlement hierarchy within the JCS to that proposed in this draft plan, in particular by eliminating the JCS categories of Service Villages, Other Villages, smaller rural communities and the countryside, which provided opportunities for a more nuanced approach to housing allocation, appropriate to each category of community/settlement within their own setting, landscape and context. The “village cluster” approach is a relatively crude one, with much more of a ‘one size fits all’ approach. Hempnall Parish Council is particularly disappointed to see that the current JCS settlement hierarchy is not even offered as an ‘alternative approach’ in the draft GNLP, and wishes to see this rectified.

Even if the “village clusters” are adopted it would still be important to limit development to the areas within their development boundaries of settlements and to designate the remaining largely rural areas as “countryside”, which would then require a further policy similar to the current JCS policy 17: smaller rural communities and the countryside. It is a great regret that the Rural Policy Areas of the JCS will be eliminated in the GNLP, as these provided effective protection of the countryside from unnecessary development.

The different approach for “village clusters” in Broadland compared to those in South Norfolk is not acceptable given the emphasis on the GNLP being a strategic plan for the whole of Greater Norwich. The “village clusters” in Broadland and South Norfolk should be treated in the same way if they are to be included in the final GNLP. This means that a maximum number of new housing for both areas should be included in the GNLP rather than the current different approach/wording, by having Broadland’s “village clusters” providing ‘up to 480’ whereas South Norfolk is to provide ‘a minimum of 1,200’: both areas should have the same wording i.e. ‘up to …’. We are concerned that all of the “village clusters” in South Norfolk will not be scrutinised to the same degree as those in Broadland due to the separate South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Site Allocations document.

Full text:

Please see attached for consultation response from Hempnall Parish Council.

Please see also the Hempnall Parish Council Position Statement on sites in Hempnall proposed by landowners for inclusion in the GNLP - included with this submission. This Position Statement, which deals directly with the detail of what Hempnall Parish Council wants for Hempnall, should be considered alongside our consultation response which makes a number of more general comments about the Draft GNLP.

Attachments:

Object

Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Representation ID: 21694

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Mrs Elaine Parkinson

Representation:

The amount of housing especially in South Norfolk is too much. By definition the housing will be on greenfield sites, further reducing arable land and amenity of the countryside. This attempt through the GNLP to remove the protection of 'other villages' from the JCS by joining villages up to create larger and larger communities without any infrastructure is unfortunate and misplaced. One of the things Norfolk is known for are the unspoilt villages and countryside, this will be lost as more and more space is taken up in the name of 'economic development'

Full text:

The amount of housing especially in South Norfolk is too much. By definition the housing will be on greenfield sites, further reducing arable land and amenity of the countryside. This attempt through the GNLP to remove the protection of 'other villages' from the JCS by joining villages up to create larger and larger communities without any infrastructure is unfortunate and misplaced. One of the things Norfolk is known for are the unspoilt villages and countryside, this will be lost as more and more space is taken up in the name of 'economic development'

Support

Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Representation ID: 21780

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Brown & Co

Representation:

It is considered that further work is required to ensure that the levels of development proposed in these areas is deliverable, and would not result in students needing to be transported to other areas to attend school as this would be counter-intuitive.

Full text:

We would support the distribution of some growth to smaller settlements in order to support their vibrancy and sustainability. These clusters are predicated on school catchment areas and justification for the proposed scale of development is based on the school’s ability to expand, however in a number of villages the schools are either at capacity or landlocked, thus preventing their expansion. It is considered that further work is required to ensure that the levels of development proposed in these areas is deliverable, and would not result in students needing to be transported to other areas to attend school as this would be counter-intuitive.

Object

Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Representation ID: 21825

Received: 12/03/2020

Respondent: Barford Parish Council

Representation:

• Please see many of the points made above (See attached for full submission) which are not being repeated here other than to re-iterate the following:
• Barford and Wramplingham Parish Council STRONGLY OBJECT to
o the lack of consideration of the village cluster locations in South Norfolk district in this GNLP consultation process with special reference to those areas around Barford and Wramplingham.
o The fact that many of the proposed village cluster locations are on green belt and outside the current development areas, and in our case often in flood plain and GI corridor areas.
o The lack of transparency in the consideration of these village clusters.
o The way village clusters seem to be a route to getting around normal planning conditions. We fully agree with the comment made in the CPRE response: ““Village Clusters” appear to be an artificial concept, invented to justify the dispersal of housing into the countryside.”

Full text:

Please see attached for full submission

Object

Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Representation ID: 21856

Received: 12/03/2020

Respondent: Hempnall Parish Council

Representation:

“Village Clusters” appear to be an artificial concept, invented to justify the dispersal of housing into the countryside. It is difficult to understand the justification for changing the current settlement hierarchy within the JCS to that proposed in this draft plan, in particular by eliminating the JCS categories of Service Villages, Other Villages, smaller rural communities and the countryside, which provided opportunities for a more nuanced approach to housing allocation, appropriate to each category of community/settlement within their own setting, landscape and context. The “village cluster” approach is a relatively crude one, with much more of a ‘one size fits all’ approach. Hempnall Parish Council is particularly disappointed to see that the current JCS settlement hierarchy is not even offered as an ‘alternative approach’ in the draft GNLP, and wishes to see this rectified.

Even if the “village clusters” are adopted it would still be important to limit development to the areas within their development boundaries of settlements and to designate the remaining largely rural areas as “countryside”, which would then require a further policy similar to the current JCS policy 17: smaller rural communities and the countryside. It is a great regret that the Rural Policy Areas of the JCS will be eliminated in the GNLP, as these provided effective protection of the countryside from unnecessary development.

The different approach for “village clusters” in Broadland compared to those in South Norfolk is not acceptable given the emphasis on the GNLP being a strategic plan for the whole of Greater Norwich. The “village clusters” in Broadland and South Norfolk should be treated in the same way if they are to be included in the final GNLP. This means that a maximum number of new housing for both areas should be included in the GNLP rather than the current different approach/wording, by having Broadland’s “village clusters” providing ‘up to 480’ whereas South Norfolk is to provide ‘a minimum of 1,200’: both areas should have the same wording i.e. ‘up to …’. We are concerned that all of the “village clusters” in South Norfolk will not be scrutinised to the same degree as those in Broadland due to the separate South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Site Allocations document.

Full text:

Please see attached for full submission

Attachments:

Object

Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Representation ID: 21895

Received: 12/03/2020

Respondent: Barton Willmore

Representation:

(Representations made on behalf of KCS Developments)

Our Client does not support the overall approach to village clusters. Firstly, our Client objects to the grouping together of several settlement sizes into one level within the hierarchy for the reasons discussed earlier within these representations. There are clear differences between settlements within the village clusters and if the proposed hierarchy is to be adopted there needs to be clear recognition that larger villages such as Spooner Row should accommodate more growth than smaller villages which were previously lower in the settlement hierarchy.
Secondly, our Client has concerns regarding the note within Policy 7.4 which states that sites between half a hectare and 1 hectare will be “particularly welcomed”. Sites of this size are likely to be more appropriate within other villages or smaller rural communities however there is no recognition that settlements which are currently categorised as service villages could accommodate a greater level of housing growth.

Full text:

Please find attached representations.
These representations are made on behalf of KCS Developments in respect of the Greater Norwich Local Plan to 2036.
Our Client is promoting five sites within Spooner Row which can deliver between 173 and 246 dwellings along with community facilities. Spooner Row is proposed to fall within the lowest tier of the settlement hierarchy within the GNLP – the “village clusters” – despite previously being identified as a service village within the Core Strategy. These representations demonstrate that this approach is flawed and underplays the significance of settlements such as Spooner Row.

Attachments:

Support

Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Representation ID: 21937

Received: 13/03/2020

Respondent: MDPC Town Planning

Representation:

Happy with the general approach.
It is understood that SNDC will embark on their own Cluster Policy consultation and this response has been made with that in mind and the opportunity to make further comments at the appropriate time.

Full text:

Policy 7.4 Village Clusters
Q 45/Q46
Happy with the general approach.
It is understood that SNDC will embark on their own Cluster Policy consultation and this response has been made with that in mind and the opportunity to maker further comments at the appropriate time.

Comment

Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Representation ID: 22004

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Ms Carol Sharp

Representation:

SNGP are concerned as to why JCS current settlement hierarchy categories of Service Villages, Other Villages, smaller rural communities and the countryside have been removed in favour of “Village Clusters” appear to be an artificial concept, invented to justify the dispersal of housing into the countryside and is not even offered as an ‘alternative approach’ in the draft GNLP.

The entire purpose of a settlement heirachy is to determine the definitions that can be used to assess their sustainability for growth. Rural communities are very different from service villages and adding to these villages means more car journeys to their nearest service villages.

Housing should be allocated appropriate to each category of community/settlement within their own setting, landscape and context rather than lumping them together in a “village cluster”.

Even if the “village clusters” are adopted it would still be important to limit these to the area within their settlement boundaries and to designate the remaining largely rural areas as “countryside”, which would then require a further policy similar to the current JCS policy 17: smaller rural communities and the countryside. It is a great regret that the Rural Policy Areas of the JCS will be eliminated in the GNLP, as these provided effective protection of the countryside from unnecessary development.

We are concerned that the “village clusters” in Broadland and South Norfolk are being dealt with in a different way as the GNLP is a strategic plan for the whole of Greater Norwich, and that “village clusters” in South Norfolk will not be scrutinised to the same degree as those in Broadland due to the separate South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Site Allocations document.

The maximum number of new housing for both areas should be included in the GNLP rather than the current different approach/wording, by having Broadland’s “village clusters” providing ‘up to 480’ whereas South Norfolk is to provide ‘a minimum of 1,200’: both areas should have the same wording i.e. ‘up to …’.

Full text:

Please see attached for full submission

Attachments: