135

Glavenhill support the aim to concentrate the building of new homes in and around Norwich and in the Cambridge Norwich Tech Corridor. However, we do not consider that the policies which follow will provide for this in the most effective way.

Too great an emphasis is placed upon dispersal of growth to as yet unidentified sites in rural cluster villages in South Norfolk and to towns like Diss and Harleston, outside of the Cambridge-Norwich Tech Corridor and the Strategic Growth Area. Although it is recognised that these more rural locations should accommodate some additional housing growth, this should not take precedence over redirecting the policies in the new plan beyond those in the JCS to ensure that there is a real new focus and commitment on meeting the stated vision for the Strategic Growth Area and Cambridge -Norwich Tech corridor.

Housing numbers should be redirected from Diss, Harleston and the South Norfolk rural cluster villages to a new settlement at Hethel. This approach would clearly support the ambition to provide most new homes in and around Norwich and within the Tech corridor and would provide land and homes to expand and support the opportunity for hi-tech engineering jobs within the Tech corridor. Such an approach would help provide a ‘Sustainable Growth Strategy’ and a development hierarchy that focusses growth on the most sustainable locations within the Strategic Growth Area. The current over emphasis on potential rural allocations in the bottom tier of the settlement hierarchy and overly large allocations in Diss and Harleston makes the strategy unsound in its current form.

Our previously submitted Vision and Delivery Document has provided detailed information regarding the availability and deliverability of the Stanfield Garden Village site together with the opportunities and benefits that would arise through its allocation.

Breckland District Council has concerns over the Greater Norwich Local Plan and its growth plans. A large proportion of Breckland District Council’s growth plans are concentrated in the same area of the Norwich – Cambridge Corridor and the Council’s main concerns are the cumulative impact of the growth on infrastructure particularly power which has been identified as a constraint in this area in the Greater Norwich Energy Study April 2019. However, this study has failed to consider the cumulative growth of both Breckland and GNLP growth plans. Sufficient water resources both supply and waste management is also a concern as indicated in the Anglian Water Resources Management Study 2019. The Council does not consider the water efficiency policies proposed are going to adequately address the water requirements to support the growth from both Breckland and the Greater Norwich area. Under the Duty to Cooperate, Breckland District Council would welcome the earliest opportunity to engage with GNLP to explore a joint approach to any constraints which may arise as a result of the cumulative growth in both planned areas.
The Council is also particularly interested in any growth aspirations along the A47 at Honingham Thorpe; and A11 at Hethel and Silfield which would further put pressure on infrastructure in the area and under the Duty to Cooperate, Breckland District Council would welcome the earliest opportunity to engage with GNLP to explore the location and impact of any proposals in the Honingham Thorpe, Hethel and Silfield area on infrastructure including power and water as well as the impact on Breckland’s communities living nearby and to work jointly to minimise any adverse effects which may arise as a result.

See attachment.