132

Reduce the amount of proposed homes. Force the developers to improve infrastructure and facilities. We do not need another proposed care home

Please explain to me how “people of all ages will have access to good facilities”? Aylsham is a small town with few facilities as is. How will adding another 550 homes improve this. There are no new doctors, supermarkets or high schools being added. The roads are small and inadequate, adding another 550 homes will not help this situation.

There should really be no further development until there are marked improvements in the infrastructure. However, Reg.18 did involve appropriate consultation and opted for one site for Aylsham. Reg. 19 is neither legally compliant or sound, therefore the second site should be withdrawn and emphasis should be on building a new primary school prior to commencement of any building, improving the health and social care facilities and implementing effective changes to the road network, once the Town Council Working Party has come forward with its recommendations.

This aim does not appear to apply to Aylsham, where 550 new homes have been allocated to a town that is struggling with the last two developments, also of over 550 new homes. The schools are full, the health care services are inadequate and effectively less than 1981 when the population was below 5,000, as against a population of over 8,000. The road network based around a late medieval road network did not cope pre-covid and will not once normality is returned and parking is a real problem. Therefore this is an unsound policy in respect of Aylsham.

Reg.19 should be withdrawn for proper consultation and and a more appropriate and thoughtful examination of the need for new homes. By increasing the number of new homes in Aylsham by 83% from Reg.18 the aims of this strategy cannot be met, therefore either the strategy needs to change to stating that services will decline, there will be an increase in the use of cars and more environmental pollution or the amount of new homes should be reduced.

This strategy does not apply to the market towns of the Greater Norwich area or even the villages that are supported by these towns. By significantly increasing the numbers of new homes in the market towns it will mean that people will struggle to have good access to services and facilities" due to the large increase in the population, without commensurate increase in the infrastructure needed to meet the need. The strategy is not sound when put alongside the increase in new homes from Reg.18 to Reg.19. and the resultant increase in car use.

1.A appropriate period for public consutation and review, one the lockdown
situation has eased and a public meeting can be held and a working party formed.
2. That Broadland Council publishes it's plans in detail for increasing the number of both primary and secondary school places.
3. That Broadland Council publishes it's plans in detail to provide appropriate surgeries, general practitioners and heal1h care workers.
4. That Broadland Council publishes it's plans to provide information as to adequacy of the sewerage system for the town and environs.
5. That Broadland Council publishes information regarding the adequacy of the water table and it's suitability for such a significant growth of population.
6. That Broadland Council publishes it's plans for an increase in car parking and shops within Aylsham.
7. That Broadland Council publishes information regarding the creation of pavements and street lighting.
8. That Broadland Council publishes forcasts and proposals for the increase in traffic in and around the town and into Norwich.

I believe that this plan is not legally compliant because of the lack of consultation. I believe that the period of time for public consideration and reduced. discussion has been reduced. The fact that this decision was made in the absence of opposition councillors has resulted in the process appearing underhand and unreliable There is an unprecedented situation of a global pandemic that has resulted in obvious restrictions on social interaction and movement, it would appear that Broadland Council have exploited this situation to prevent transparency and the democratic process.

1.A appropriate period for public consutation and review, one the lockdown
situation has eased and a public meeting can be held and a working party formed.
2. That Broadland Council publishes it's plans in detail for increasing the number of both primary and secondary school places.
3. That Broadland Council publishes it's plans in detail to provide appropriate surgeries, general practitioners and heal1h care workers.
4. That Broadland Council publishes it's plans to provide information as to adequacy of the sewerage system for the town and environs.
5. That Broadland Council publishes information regarding the adequacy of the water table and it's suitability for such a significant growth of population.
6. That Broadland Council publishes it's plans for an increase in car parking and shops within Aylsham.
7. That Broadland Council publishes information regarding the creation of pavements and street lighting.
8. That Broadland Council publishes forcasts and proposals for the increase in traffic in and around the town and into Norwich.

Sport England supports the development of sustainable communities with good access to open space, sports facilities, and better opportunities to enjoy healthy and active lifestyles.

Detailed consultation is still required to see if or how these issues can be mitigated. The GNLP Failed to do this as they bypassed 18d

Other points highlight how the allocation of two sites in Aylsham contradicts the Strategy section point 132 which states that new communities “will be reasonable and sustainable communities” and “well integrated with our existing communities”. To increase the number of homes in Aylsham in a short space of time by more than 15% will mean this objective of the Strategy document cannot be met.

More use of brownfield sites, nearer the improved transport infrastructure linked to new employment opportunities.
The use of pooled CIL money has, to date, concentrated on projects about as far from Reepham as it is possible to be. This is an implict recognition that the KSC element of the GNDP was unsound from the beginning and needs now to be re-addressed, particularly in the light of zero carbon requirements.

Many Key Service Centes have had sites allocated often, (as in the case of Reepham) against residents' wishes (only 4% supported the priciple of PA 20200847/REP 1). Development on the scale suggested will reduce not improve access to services, such as primary school, GP surgery, which contradicts the justification for the strategy.
Reepham has limited employment opportunities; no railway; a slow and sporadic bus service (journey time 70 mins; nothing on Sundays; last weekday bus from Norwich to Reepham 17.15). The highway sustem is crumbling.
Locating so many new homes at such distance from jobs and travel infrastructure is unsound

• Any new community facilities (GNLP 1060) should be offered within the remit of the Parish Council to ensure new facilities work in harmony with those in existence and remain viable and sustainable.

Would be good to expand on access to greenspace as a key part of what makes a community healthy and attractive.

The inclusion of a second site put forward in Reg 19 should be withdrawn.

The proposed second site was randomly deposited in Aylsham in Reg 19 to meet an arbitrary target. The impact of Covid and Brexit will almost certainly lead to an increase in the number of town centre sites becoming available for development.

Response to GNLP Regulation 19

The Local Planning Authority has failed to engage with Aylsham District Councillors, Aylsham Town Council and the local community except through the formal Regulation 18 BLP Consultation which considered only one site for development. There has been radio silence since then until the release of the Reg 19 plan, in spite of the Council recognising a need to alter the way they communicate with interested parties through the publication of the “Temporary update in response to Covid-19 guidance (July 2020)”. The Covid-19 pandemic can not be used as an excuse for lack of consultation. Aylsham Town Council continued to meet over Zoom and Councillors were still available. The LPA also uses the Facebook social media platform via the page ‘Aylsham and the Surrounding Villages’ to promote its services to the residents of Aylsham. This could have been one way of consulting the community.

Lack of consultation is contrary to the LPA’s own Statement of Community Involvement which says under “Standards for effective community involvement” at 1.15 that the Council will;

- Adopt an inclusive approach, ensuring that those who have an interest in the topic have the opportunity to contribute from an early stage and throughout the process.

And under “Planning and community involvement”

1.6 Paragraph 155 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012), where it discusses plan making, states: 'Early and meaningful engagement and collaboration with neighbourhoods, local organisations and businesses is essential. A wide section of the community should be proactively engaged, so that Local Plans, as far as possible, reflect a collective vision and a set of agreed priorities for the sustainable development of the area, including those contained in any neighbourhood plans that have been made.'

And

1.7 This sets out a firm, national directive that local planning authorities should be seeking the views of communities and other stakeholders from an early stage in the development of their local planning documents.

As the Council appears not to have followed its own procedures or met its own standards, the decision to pursue two large housing development sites instead of only one, is not sound. There will be no evidence of how the Council complied with this duty.

Any further development must be in keeping with the points laid out in the Aylsham Neighbourhood Plan.

Aylsham has recently expanded with the addition of at least 500 homes over a few years. Certainly, even one more development over the coming 15 years will add strain to the community, facilities, services and infrastructure. What is the hurry? As a rural Norfolk market town, Aylsham now needs time to adapt and integrate the residents of the two new housing developments at Willow Park and Bure Meadows. Whichever ONE further site is selected for development before 2038, more homes can be provided if a reasonable number of small, one bedroom properties are included. The type of homes built should reflect the actual need in our community.