Question 46. Do you support or object or wish to comment on the approach for specific village clusters?

Reedham
Reedham is an isolated village that has no employment locally. It already has a significant amount of holiday homes reflecting its particular attraction. Any new development is not well located to main employment centres and involves travelling significant distances on already congested routes. Its public transport is limited and often does not travel at suitable times for working people. Any large development sites in this remote village are unlikely to attract working people with young families that would appear to be the intended aim of the two large sites which have been included as preferred options.

Reedham
Reedham is not a well connected village and on this basis further significant development of the scale proposed is a flawed concept which seems mainly to be based on the fact that its longterm underperforming Victorian and cramped school has capacity. This school is under-subscribed due to Reedham's remote location which does not attract working families. Further housing here, of the type suggested on large development sites, will necessitate increased car use in accessing employment locations some distance away on already congested and tortuous routes. Public transport which runs infrequently and at unsuitable times is not a viable alternative.

Comments on small site in Moulton St Mary, south of Acle (GNLP0450):

I would like to bring to your attention the fact that we have no mobile phone signal and no wi fi signal in my village. We have nothing.
In the city's you are talking about 5G and how hard it is in places to get 4G well in my village theres no G.
I lived in a remote village in France with a full Wi Fi and phone signal and most houses had no bathroom or in door toilet.
In the UK this is outrageous

Felthorpe Parish Council supports your conclusion that there are no sites within the parish that are suitable for development, due to the lack of facilities within the village.

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.

I live in Woodton, the school is already at capacity with children also being sent to it from other local areas that are already full (Poringland) as a village we directly rely on the infrastructure of Poringland/Framingham Earl which is already bursting with doctors not taking on anymore patients therefore we can not take anymore housing ourselves. We additionally have flooding risks which many of the sites in the original stages will exacerbate for those already at risk which seems to pass everyone in the planning decision by leaving home owners to pick up the pieces down the line.

We write in response to your latest consultation (Regulation 18) on the Greater Norwich Local Plan. We note that the Partnership has decided not to allocate any sites smaller than 0.5ha, including Site GNLP2151, and understand that these small sites will only be considered now as extensions to the development boundary, rather than as site allocations.

However, we do not feel that this method reflects Paragraph 68 of the NPPF, which seeks to allocate at least 10% of the housing requirements on small and medium sites under one hectare. Rather, it ensures that only medium and large sites between 0.5+ ha are allocated.

The draft plan only allocates sites for 12 or more dwellings with a minimum target density of 25 dwellings per hectare and at least 0.5ha. This will ensure that allocated sites will only deliver major development. It also limits the overall mix of sites, meaning that small sites are likely to only be considered acceptable if immediately adjacent to the existing adopted development boundary, whereas medium and large sites could potentially be allocated some distance apart from the development boundary.

Taken together, this proposed method would inadvertently ensure that all small sites and minor residential developments are excluded from the allocation process entirely, despite the fact that it is well known that smaller sites both support smaller builders and are built out more quickly, having a large impact on ensuring a consistent and adequate housing supply is maintained.

We feel this method is not in line with the spirit and intention of Paragraph 68 of the NPPF and seek for the GNDP to reconsider its position on small sites and consider providing them with allocation status.

With regard to Site GNLP2151 specifically, we draw your attention to the fact that this site is brownfield land and although set apart from the current Reedham development boundaries, it provides quick and easy sustainable access to the village’s services and facilities.

The larger sites submissions (GNLP1001 and GNLP 3003) both propose estate scale housing of 20-30 dwellings. Reedham is a quiet village near the Broads National Park and this type of large-scale housing development is inappropriate to the character and appearance of the village. Instead, the GNDP should consider allocating small sites, such as site GNLP2151 and GNLP2175, to ensure that more modest development that is able to retain the village character is delivered.

(Comment on small site GNLP0104)

Regarding the above I would like to make a few comments
1. Access to the site is through the small cul-de-sac namely Sandstone way via Tottington Lane and
Denmark Lane.These roads are extremely narrow and not ideal for two way passing traffic. Access
is important for the likes of ambulance, fire service and refuse collection.

2. Sandstone way is a very quiet cul-de-sac and any additional traffic would create noise for the
residents particularly during the construction process.

3. Traffic would be passing over the right of way at the entrance to the site. This is used by many
people including school children and dog walkers.

4. Exit from the site is via the A1066 which is already congested and visability is very poor.More sites
are proposed to use this road.

5. Two houses in Sandstone Way are very close to the entrance of the site and traffic would be
passing within feet of the properties.

I hope you will take these points into consideration when making a decision.

(Comments on small site GNLP0104)

Comments regarding the GNLP plan for land off Sandstone way.

There is a public footpath that runs across the access to the site and the site itself, this is also an area of archaeological interest. Has this been considered?

Along with the fact I don't think that the current road infrastructure could deal with the extra traffic from the extra houses both during the building stage but also after , owing the fact that roads on Tottington lane and Sandstone way already struggle with the volume and frequency of traffic on them due to the fact they are narrow (on several occasions the bins have not been collected due to the fact that the bin lorry cannot get to the end of the road). This would also be true for emergency vehicles. I am unsure there would be sufficient space to upgrade or improve the current road infrastructure to alleviate this issue or allow wider access. If there was a way to improve this who would it fall to, to pay the bill and in what way would this affect or impact the current residents?
I also think that if this development went ahead it the increased amount of traffic accessing this area would also affect the flow of traffic along the a1066. Including the already congested Victoria Rd.
With the focus of many people now on reducing pollution how much of an impact would the potential slowing of the traffic make on air pollution in the area?
The junction onto Denmark Lane can be difficult to negotiate during normal levels of traffic, let alone peak times. I feel the increased amount of traffic entering and exiting this road to access the site (both during the building stage and after) would make this junction quite dangerous, both for those traveling along the main road and joining it. This would also be an issue for pedestrians that are wanting to access the other side of the road (long meadow drive etc), along this stretch of the road there are no pedestrian crossings or cycle paths. Due to the slight curve of the road going towards the police station if anything has stopped on the side of the road it is often difficult to see when pulling out of Denmark lane.

Traffic aside Roydon will also have lost an area where wildlife is largely uninterrupted. If building was to begin where would this wildlife go once it was displaced?
Will the extra amount of tarmac/ concreted areas cause issues with water/ flooding after or during storm events?

The residents of Roydon have already opposed the joining of Roydon to Diss, this development would close up the gap so to speak. How long will it be before planning is granted on other land on the other side of the road? Will allowing this development instigate further development? If so this will put further strain not only on the transport infrastructure but also on schools, doctors etc.

Comments on small site GNLP0104. Land off Sandstone Way.

1) Firstly the land is one of the prime archaeological sites in Roydon and should not be destroyed.
2) Secondly there is a public footpath which runs (by) property and crosses the access to the site (Angles Way).
3) Thirdly the plan shows two houses (semi-detached) on the narrowest part of the site. I have a window facing the footpath to let light and the end of those homes will block the light coming into (local) property.
4) Fourthly the roadways leading to Sandstone way and on Sandstone way itself are inappropriate due to the fact the are narrow and restricted. Roads and pavements on Sandstone way are breaking up due to heavy vehicles mostly having to mount pavements to get past parked vehicles. The road from the a1066 to the site cannot take more vehicles owing to being congested already. (Occupants) have even had the refuse lorry leave (not collect) the bins at (the) end of sandstone way because it could not get up the roadway to the properties. The junction onto the main a1066 is dangerous, with a bend which does not allow traffic much time to pull out. The main a1066 is a problem with a lot of vibration from vehicles, this can be felt as far as Tottington lane and has caused cracks to appear in various properties.
5) Residents are opposed to Diss joining up to Roydon and want to have non-development between them.
6) Just a passing point, we see other housing the other side of the a1066 which will lead to more traffic using Upper Denmark Lane junction and more congestion on the a1066 main road.

I obeject to the houses suggested for Reedham. Our roads are not wide enough, the sewers are not adequate and our Doctors surgery cannot cope now. We are a village and it is ridiculous to suggest more houses. We have neither a good bus service or train service either. We have a post office that opens three half days a week. Our village school is not big enough.

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.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the current GNLP2020(Please note: this is believed to be GNLP2019
due to it being in Coltishall) , whilst I will be commenting on one specific site, I would like to take this opportunity to offer general observations:

I write as a resident of Coltishall since 1981 and Hoveton for ten years prior to that and am dismayed at the current damage of Broadland District Council and North Norfolk District Council villages resulting from poor planning decisions and policy.

I do not accept that a “housing crisis” is in any way a justification for the situation we now have. I support sensibly planned development; but feel I must object to the current situation and proposals.

Traffic through Horstead and Coltishall has significantly increased at all times of the day irrespective of season. This directly results from the opening of the Northern Distributor Road. Try safely crossing the High Street in Coltishall in the rush hour or even fighting your way out into the traffic flow; it is much worse since the opening of the NDR a road fundamentally flawed in concept, design and execution, actually restricting traffic flow along Norwich’s arterial roads at peak times. What about emergency services trying to use the A1151 or B1150 at these times?

Any increase in development north of Norwich is madness without first addressing the obvious lack of capacity of the two narrow road bridges crossing the River Bure and in the villages of Hoveton and Wroxham, and Coltishall and Horstead.

In the 1980s a bypass for Wroxham and Hoveton was a Norfolk County Council priority, land and property was purchased, in spite of an unsuitable route being chosen. At that time it was clear that something was needed. Now traffic delays in Wroxham and Hoveton are causing large numbers of drivers to seek the alternative route. At peak times the Wroxham Road in Coltishall is a constant flow of vehicles. Also we have had thirty years of development in North Walsham, Stalham and other villages, the negative effect of the traffic is felt from these. Services under the roads are not reliable with collapsed sewers, burst water mains, leaking gas mains and buried electricity cabling frequently causing issues. This I suspect is partly as a result of age of the infrastructure and then constant road use above. A road closure causes chaos at peak times in the surrounding narrow residential streets with consequent danger to those who live in the village - see attached photo.

So what is the local authority policy to plan a route out of this mess? Well it appears to be only to build more houses including 2150 in North Walsham - it won’t work.

Recently we endured five days of chainsaws and shredders removing trees (yes, Saturday and Sunday included) from dawn to dusk. No doubt a planning application from another “garden grabber” will be lodged in due course as a large area has been cleared, the trees are gone so why not...

It wouldn’t be so bad if what was built was in any way aesthetically pleasing. While I appreciate the subjective nature of appearance, putting large red roofed properties immediately behind and dwarfing a line of modest grey roofed bungalows hardly looks as if any consideration has been given (Westbourne Road).

I really do fear for the section of land on Rectory Road where outline planning permission has been granted for 30 homes (COL1). Will they be as hideous as the development off the Cawston Road at Aylsham; truly an example of a lack of respect for the location, and next to a long distance footpath amenity, and the developer now wants to increase the site to at least fifty-five. I am witnessing the ongoing ruination of what were considered desirable areas to live.

No consideration is given to those who already living in an area who in no way benefit from development, indeed blighted with insensitive schemes which adversely effect their own properties and lives? Little or no investment in infrastructure or services to meet increased need.

And what about the disruption to residents during the progress of these builds? In 2019 we endured days of chainsaws, stump grinders, the mother of all bonfires and then months of vehicular movements, chaotic on street parking and mud. Roofers cutting tiles with angle grinders in from 7,15am on the whole four day Easter weekend. This is what these speculative developments mean to residents - just as well that developer was a member of the Considerate Contractors Scheme - and they only built two houses.

How many existing houses are empty at present? A glance on Rightmove suggests a lot; at all levels of the market. If we suddenly built all necessary to meet the Governments targets for building, the market would collapse into freefall and the economic consequences would be devastating to borrowers, lenders and… developers.

Sadly I have little confidence that anything will change, indeed our new Government wants to get more homes built – laudable - but at what cost? The current policy is completely flawed. A headlong rush to build, build, build is resulting in numerous mistakes – mostly major, a shockingly poor legacy.

Reedham
Supporting Text Documents Regarding Objection to Proposed Scale of Housing Development in Reedham

We object to the approach towards the preferred housing allocation at Marsham. In summary, land south of Le Neve Road, Marsham (Ref. GNLP2143) is identified as a preferred housing allocation, which is a greenfield site on the edge of the village. However, land at Fengate Farm (Ref. GNLP3035) is identified as an unreasonable alternative, despite the fact that it contains vacant and unused buildings/hardstanding associated with a former poultry unit, and there are no constraints to development at it is available.

The draft policy to allocate a greenfield site in preference to a vacant site containing buildings and areas of hardstanding is inconsistent with national guidance that seeks to promote the effective use of land to meet development needs – see Paragraph 117 of the NPPF. The land at Fengate Farm has been vacant for a number of years, the buildings have recently been damaged by fire and are due to be demolished, and it will not be reused as a poultry unit or for any other agricultural use.

If the council does not support residential redevelopment at Fengate Farm the landowners will then need to consider either the re-introduction of intensive agriculture or alternative commercial redevelopment proposals. Such redevelopment would re-introduce a non-conforming and potentially harmful form of development out of keeping with the housing that exists on three sides of the site. Should the council fail to support either the residential, agricultural or commercial redevelopment of the site this would represent planning blight.

As set out in the representations to the Site Allocations document for Marsham sites, there are existing accesses to the site and the vehicular access off Old Norwich Road would be used for the promoted development at the site. It should be noted that the 2014 appeal decision for residential development at the site did not raise any concerns about a vehicular access off Old Norwich Road (Appeal Ref: APP/K2610/A/14/2223121). There are no other technical issues that have been identified that would prevent development at the site. In these circumstances, it is requested that land at Fengate Farm in Marsham (Ref. GNLP3035) should be allocated for residential development in emerging GNLP for at least 35 dwellings.

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.

I cant understand why you are so interested to develop Reedham into a town why can’t you leave our village as it is , rather improve the roads drains etc peoples gardens are flooded with to much rain . It’s after all a village not a town leave all villages as a village please , extent towns build more houses in town areas or build houses along the motorways star town there but please let villages stay villages . PLEASE LEAVE OUR VILLAGE ALONE WE LOVE REEDHAM AS IT IS !!!!! We are a community toy look out for one another

Please see attached documents for detail.

We are concerned that all of the “village clusters” in South Norfolk (including Hempnall) will not be scrutinised to the same degree as those in Broadland due to the separate South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Site Allocations document.

We are concerned that all of the “village clusters” in South Norfolk (including Hempnall) will not be scrutinised to the same degree as those in Broadland due to the separate South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Site Allocations document.

Reedham should not be included under this heading as it is not clustered, neither is the environment suitable for more housing development. It is a rural non-drive through village to anywhere else at the end of a narrow country road 6 miles from Acle. I have objected greatly to any housing development of GNLP 3003 on the GNLP website. GNLP 1001 is neither suitable or needed for more housing in the village. Reasons:

New houses already built (Barn Owl Close) are not being readily sold, the 'affordable' houses offered to qualifying residents were not taken up indicating that these are not truly 'affordable'.

Single roads with poorly maintained passing places are too narrow to sustain more traffic; they can already become congested with private cars, delivery vehicles etc at times which would increase with more housing.

The sewage plant is inadequate. Tankers removing waste are continuously coming and going to the plant along narrow roads. Residents complain of flooding during heavy rainfall and raw sewage in gardens in some areas. Anglia Water have said nothing can be done about it. Disgraceful! So building more houses will only add to this problem.

We have a part-time post office and overstretched GP surgery which again is only available part-time.

Reedham has been classed as a Cluster Village and (over) allocated the number of houses to be built because there is a primary school. There is no safe walking for children to attend school and for pedestrians generally. There are heavy agricultural vehicles on the roads daily.

The village shop is open early morning and well into the evening and is good for basic shopping and newspapers. Residents have to use their cars for bulk shopping or rely on supermarket deliveries.

There are hardly any opportunities for employment in the village. The GNLP states that housing would be built to encourage people to cycle (too dangerous) or walk (again dangerous) to their place of employment but this is impossible to attain that goal in Reedham as the village is not an area suitable for employment other than in the few existing small businesses. People have to use their cars to get to work in Norwich City or elsewhere.

More house building will contribute to increased light pollution (we have the absolute minimum at present) and will add to, not decrease carbon emissions and threaten our wildlife.

We have a train station which now has trains to Norwich and Great Yarmouth after a year without any due to upgrading signal boxes but they run infrequently and at inconvenient times. Flooding at Brundall can close the line in bad weather. It is necessary to drive 6 miles to Acle to shop at the Co-op or park and catch a bus into Norwich or Yarmouth. We have no direct bus route into Norwich. The present infrastructure will not sustain further development.

Reedham is an ancient village which brings many visitors to our lovely riverside and pubs where they can park and watch the water traffic (Reedham is the only place in Broadland where it's possible to do this) or boaters can moor overnight without charge. Tourism is important in Reedham and we need to keep the character of our village without a lot of new housing and be able to protect our greenfield sites and amazing wildlife.

THE GNLP
Is flawed for many reasons. In particular It's so called Vision and Objectives, relating to the Village Clusters, are actually HARMFUL to the rural areas of Broadland. It was intended in the Joint Core Strategy that these areas would be PROTECTED by keeping new housebuilding nearer to Norwich and within the border of the NDR built inter alia to preserve unique wetlands and wildlife. So why has this policy changed so drastically? How can this GNLP building plan possibly be upheld? In Reedham, the Highways Dept. has said in relation to GNLP 3003 that Mill Road (besides inaccesibility) is unsafe for pedestrians and totally unsuitable, with no room for improvement to make a safe walkway for schoolchildren, and should therefore not be considered! Why are opinions like these being completely ignored?

There is over-allocation of housing in areas where the infrastructure cannot sustain this development. This will inevitably increase carbon emissions - another change in BDC policy although the GNLP still maintains that it will work towards decreasing these statistics. How can this possibly be enforced? It is in complete contradiction to the aims of the Plan.

Glavenhill Limited support the designation of Tacolneston and Forncett as a village cluster and continue to promote Land west of Norwich Road, Tacolneston as a suitable, available and deliverable site for housing.

Please see enclosed representations letter for further detail and for the area of land currently being promoted.

Representations were submitted to the Regulation 18b consultation in December 2018 to support a Settlement Boundary at Thorpe End, which is within the Great and Little Plumstead Village Cluster as shown in Appendix 5 of the GNLP. It is understood that the re-appraisal of Settlement Boundaries is yet to take place and consultation will be undertaken at Regulation 19 stage. However, it is noted on the interactive map that a Settlement Boundary is identified for Thorpe End. The principle of a Settlement Boundary for Thorpe End is supported.

However, the draft Settlement Boundary should be adjusted to include a 14m strip of land to the south east of Thorpe End, south of Plumstead Road, to reflect the true physical boundary now apparent on the ground, which has come about due to changes in land use from agriculture to residential curtilage over 10 years ago, and would enable the inclusion of a plot of land adjacent to 50 Plumstead Road, which has potential for housing windfall development.

Please refer to the full representation “Supplemental Statement in Support of Representation to Q46 and Appendix 5 On behalf of Robert and Joy Gower (March 2020)” and Appendices 1 to 3.

In 2008, the owner of the field to the south east of Thorpe End sold an approximately 14 metre wide strip of land to all the adjacent homeowners. Most of the properties have subsequently used this land as residential curtilage and a new boundary has become established and matured, extended beyond the former village limits into the area designated as Landscape Buffer under GATAAP Policy GT2. Being over 10 years, the use of this land as residential curtilage is now an established use.

50 Plumstead Road was sold in 2009 without the 14 metre strip of land, so is in a different ownership, has remained fenced, and is no longer in agricultural use, which has created an under-used plot of land.

It is proposed that the Settlement Boundary is regularised by including this strip of land in the Thorpe End Settlement Boundary and removing it from the existing GT2 Landscape Buffer designation, to reflect the true physical boundary as now apparent on the ground.

The intention of Policy GT2 is to prevent coalescence between the Norwich Urban Fringe and new development. For Thorpe End, the policy states that development will not be permitted that would significantly intrude on the sense of separation between Thorpe End and new development. The 14 metre strip of land directly abutting Thorpe End is minimal in relation to the full extent of the Landscape Buffer designation so the minor adjustment to this boundary would not have an adverse impact on the function and purpose of the designation.

The character of this edge of the Landscape Buffer designation has already been altered by the long term use of much of the land as residential curtilages. The designation of this land is therefore out of date due to changing circumstances.

As can be seen from the aerial photographs in the Supplemental Statement, the boundary adjustment would not intrude into the countryside as the village boundary on the north side of Plumstead Road would still lie approximately 12 metres east of the proposed new boundary to the last residential property, and a further approximately 65 metres to the village hall boundary.

Furthermore, the landscape setting and character of Thorpe End has been more recently altered due to the recent construction of the NDR.

For this reason, the Growth Triangle Area Action Plan Policy GT2 Landscape Buffer designation of this strip of land is out of date and should be removed and included in the Settlement Boundary for Thorpe End.

Introduction

It is recognised that Felthorpe comprises one of the three villages forming the Horsford, Felthorpe and Haveringland Village cluster. Only one new allocation is proposed for 30-40 homes on a site at Dog Lane, Horsford (Policy GNLP0264). This site was selected on the basis that it was for the redevelopment of a soft play centre and other commercial premises. It is noted from the documentation produced to accompany the Regulation 18 Site Allocations Document, that four sites were put forward for allocation in Felthorpe, with the scale of development ranging from 5-20 dwellings. All of the sites were rejected on the basis that they had poor access to core services and facilities in Horsford some distance away. In particular there was no safe walking route to Horsford Primary School which was 3km away.

However, it must be recognised that Felthorpe has a good range of facilities in its own right, including the Mariner’s public house, car repair garage, car sales, florist and village hall with associated sports pitches. It is apparent that the provision of additional housing will aid the vitality and viability of local services and businesses. The village also has bus services to Norwich and Holt, with the nearest bus stops being located on The Street, circa 350 metres from the site. These stops are clearly in walking distance of the site. The level of facilities within Felthorpe in their own right are significant and this should be recognised in the description section of the village cluster assessment.

Proposed Development Site – Mill Lane, Felthorpe

My client is seeking for his site at Mill Lane to be considered with a view to it contributing towards the proposed growth within the Village Clusters within Broadland for allocation in the Greater Norwich Local Plan. The identification of such sites is on the basis that the Council need to ensure that 10% of their housing requirement is on sites of no larger than 1.0 hectare. This is confirmed by paragraph 68 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

This site is located on the northern boundary of the village and comprises previously developed land in the form of a redundant builder’s yard. The site is occupied by a range of buildings and extensive areas of hardstanding and unquestionably represents a brownfield site. It is clear that the removal of the existing buildings and the redevelopment of the site for a development of circa 20 dwellings would result in improvements to the character and appearance of the area.

Access to this site would be from the existing access into the former builder’s yard which is suitable to serve a development of 20 dwellings. Adequate visibility splays can be achieved onto Mill Lane, which is subject to a 30 Mph speed limit. It is recognised that Mill Lane is popular with walkers accessing the woods to the west of the site and the site promoters are committed to the provision of a Breedon Gravel footpath linking the site to the junction just off Mill Lane and The Street. This will not just benefit the residents of the proposed development but also local residents. It is also recognised that this will assist Felthorpe Parish Council in meeting their objective of improving footpaths in the village.

The site is not at risk of flooding and any contamination of the site would be remediated prior to the occupation of the dwellings.

As can be seen from the illustrative masterplan submitted with these representations a varied range of house types can be accommodated on the site. These could include a mixture of single storey and two storey properties. These will range from 1 bedroom to 5-bedroom dwellings. The existing office in the south western corner of the site is suitable for refurbishment and could be converted into a dwelling. In terms of affordable housing, 7 of the 20 properties will be affordable. The intention is that some of the affordable units will be bungalows, specifically aimed at meeting the needs of the elderly in Felthorpe. This will have a benefit in that it could also free up existing under occupied dwellings within the Parish.
A small area of public open space is provided within the development, whilst it is recognised that existing sport and recreation facilities are located within the main part of the village. The site has good access to green space with woodland being located immediately to the west (Swannington Bottom Plantation).

It is recognised that the site to the south is also occupied by a disused timber yard and this could conceivably also be developed as an extension to this site. However, it is also recognised that this site could be brought back into commercial use and as a consequence an acoustic fence is proposed on the southern site boundary. The site is screened to the north and east by existing woodland.

It is also noted that the adjacent site was subject to an application for the change of use of a builder’s yard (Use Class B1) to a HGV drivers training centre (Sui Generis) and repositioning of entrance gates and fence (application ref 2019192) which was refused on the 4th March 2020. The fifth reason for refusal states that “Policy GC3 of the Development Management DPD, Policy 5 of the Joint Core Strategy and Paragraph 84 of the National Planning Policy Framework encourage the use of brownfield land in rural areas for sustainable employment uses and economic growth. However, development has to be sensitive to its surroundings. The proposed use of the site for an HGV training centre would have unacceptable impacts on local roads”. Whilst Reason 6 states that “The unclassified road (Mill Lane U57150) and adjacent roads serving the site are considered to be inadequate to serve the development proposed by reason of their poor alignment, restricted width, lack of passing provision and restricted visibility at adjacent road junctions. The proposal would give rise to conditions detrimental to highway safety. The proposal is contrary to the aims of Policy TS3 of the Development Management DPD 2015”. However, the development of a former builder’s yard to a residential use is very different in character to an HGV training centre and there is adequate room on Mill Lane for two cars to pass, as opposed to HGVs.

In addition, the re-use of the builder’s yard or an alternative use has the potential to result in commercial vehicles re-using Mill Lane. If the existing lawful use recommenced or was intensified the traffic flows could actually be greater than those associated with a modest housing scheme. The decision taken in relation to the application 2019192 raises the question as the suitability of this part of Felthorpe for commercial uses.

Conclusion

In the light of above, this site is considered suitable for residential development and will result in the reuse of a brownfield site thereby reducing the need for greenfield land to be developed. The redevelopment of this site also accords with the advice at paragraph 118 c) of the NPPF which states that planning policies and decisions should “should give substantial weight to the value of using suitable brownfield land within settlements for homes…”. The proposal will provide an important resource of affordable housing, including bungalows, particularly aimed at elderly residents. The site owners are also committed to providing pedestrian enhancements along Mill Lane, which will benefit both existing and proposed residents. The site will also allow the existing mix of commercial buildings to be replaced by a well-designed housing scheme. In view of the above it is requested that this site be allocated within the Greater Norwich Local Plan on the basis that it will assist Broadland Council in meeting the proposed growth within the Village Clusters.

The use of a separate plan by SNDC seems to us to be deeply suspicious and may well result in the supplementary plan being rushed, unrelated to the other aspects of the other elements of GNLP and be subjected to very little scrutiny once produced. As mentioned earlier in our responses, the apparently differing target terminology as between South Norfolk and Broadland is very worrying.

Your attention is drawn to GNLP0454 which is approx 0.8ha hectares and could provide for approx 34 homes. This should be reconsidered for allocation as part of this plan the site lies in close proximity to the Key Service Centre of Hethersett which is earmarked for significant housing growth, bringing the settlement even closer to the site. This is a brownfield site and should be prioritised over greenfield development. This site was submitted in 2016 but having reviewed the Hethersett Assessment Booklet, the site does not appear to have been covered and therefore it is redrawn to your attention for the reasons set out in the submission in 2016, response number ‘0454’, for allocation in this plan.

Site Allocations Documents – Small Site – Village Clusters – Land to the east of Manor Road, Newton St Faith.

Whilst detailed representations have been made as to the rejection of the 5.50 hectares site in relation to the Site Allocations document, my client is seeking for a smaller site to be considered with a view to it contributing towards the towards the proposed growth within the Village Clusters within Broadland for allocation in the Greater Norwich Local Plan. The identification of such sites is on the basis that the Council need to ensure that 10% of their housing requirement is on sites of no larger than 1.0 hectare. This is confirmed by paragraph 68 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

It is clear that a 1.0 hectare part of this site could be identified and allocated for a development of circa 20 dwellings. This would not only provide 13 market dwellings, but more importantly 7 affordable units. This should be considered against the adjacent Lovells scheme (HNF1) where it was claimed that anymore than 10% affordable housing would render the development unviable. The 1.0 hectare site being put forward has been assessed and it has been confirmed that with 33% affordable housing and off site pedestrian improvements that the development would be viable.

Whilst, an appeal against the non-determination of the application 20181525 was dismissed, this was on the basis of its impact on the setting of the Listed Building to the east of the site. From the appeal decision it was confirmed that the proposal would not have adverse impacts in relation to flooding and that the access and the proposed housing would not have an adverse impact on highway safety or residential amenity. It was also confirmed that there would be no harm to the trees and hedgerows on the site and that the ecological impacts of development would be minimal. It should be noted that the reduction in the scale of development on this site would allow bio-diversity and habitat enhancements to be achieved. The proposal would also allow the opportunity for the powerlines on the northern boundary of the site to be relocated and placed underground.

The reduction in the depth of the site would also ensure that the impact on the listed buildings will be minimised as a consequence of the development being provided at the front of the site, leaving enclosed fields between the site being submitted and the listed building. The current application for a rural exception site has removed the eastern part of the and the objections of the Conservation Officer have been addressed.

As detailed above there are no constraints to the development of this site and unlike other sites within Horsham and Newton St Faiths this site will represent a logical infill between the existing development to the north and the Lovells development to the south. The proposal will also allow benefits to be provided in the form of affordable housing, bio-diversity and habitat enhance and pedestrian enhancements along Manor Road. There is already developer interest in this site and it is immediately available and can be delivered early in the plan period. The construction of the Norwich northern distributor road has also increased the demand for additional housing to the north of Norwich. In view of the above it is requested that this site should be taken forward for to assist the Council in ensuring that 10% of their housing requirements should be on small sites.

Glavenhill Limited support the designation of Morley as part of a village cluster and continue to promote Land West of Golf Links Road, Morley St Boltolph as a suitable, available and deliverable site for a small-scale housing scheme.

Please see enclosed representations letter for further detail.

Reedham is a "VC" all on its own and therefore cannot share its housing allocation with other villages.
The proposed housing allocation in Reedham is based entirely on the current under-capacity of the primary school without any consideration for the other services in, or not in, the village, or the access roads to and from the village.
Neither proposed 'preferred' site in Reedham has safe access to the school or other facilities or services and therefore should be deemed 'unreasonable'.
Why are the "Village Clusters" in Broadland and South Norfolk not being consulted on at the same time.

The site owners do not support the approach to Village Clusters as drafted within Policy 7.4 for the reasons set out in Section 3 of LPP's submitted Statement.

It is requested that the policy is amended to include the existing employment allocation (site reference HNF3) land West of Abbey Farm Commercial Park within the policy.

It is also requested that the text is amended to allow for the expansion of small and medium
sized employment sites.

We therefore request that the penultimate paragraph of Policy 7.4 is amended as follows:
• Other small-scale employment development will be acceptable in principle elsewhere within
village development boundaries or through the re-use of rural buildings or through the
potential expansion of existing small and medium sized employment sites (LPP suggested
text) subject to meeting other policies in the development plan.