Settlement Map

We wonder if we could lodge our concerns with you regarding the planned development of two areas of Aylsham as part of the Greater Norwich Local plan (GNLP). The planning for 250 houses (and possibly a school) on the Burgh Road Site was agreed in 2019 but it would seem that planning for a further 300 houses and a bus depot for a park & ride service (on the old motel site and adjacent field) has also been agreed last year under a resolution 19 order off the back of the first consultation.

We're very aware that under Resolution 19 we can't make comments on the content of the plan but can certainly comment on whether we feel that the plans can be classed as legal, sound and justified.

Regarding the obvious impact this will have on the infrastructure of the town we would like to highlight our very particular concerns regarding the effect this will have on the water supply. We have our own private water supply here (bore hole) and we would like to see evidence that due diligence has been observed in protecting private water supplies like ours. We have been advised that if a private water company was to sink a new bore hole in farm land for irrigation purposes it has a legal obligation to test pump all bore holes and wells within a specified area over a two week period to establish the effect it has on the drawdown. On that basis, we think we are well within our rights to challenge how sound the planning has been.

We would be very grateful if you could take on board our concerns.

As a resident of Aylsham & surrounding district I would like to object to resolution 19 of the Greater Norwich Local Plan which involves the land behind the Aylsham Lodge.
The residents of Aylsham, local Parish councils and the Town Council have not been consulted.

As a resident of Aylsham & surrounding district I would like to object to resolution 19 of the Greater Norwich Local Plan which involves the land behind the Aylsham Lodge.
The residents of Aylsham, local Parish councils and the Town Council have not been consulted.

I would like to comment on the soundness and legal compliance of the Greater Norwich Local Plan regarding housing developments in Aylsham.

1. The proposals are not legally compliant as regulation 18 states that Aylsham would have one site and regulation 19 states there will be two sites. This has never been consulted on.

2. The proposals are not sound as regulation 19 failed to consider the impact of two sites on the infrastructure needs of the town including schools, health facilities, roads and utilities.

I would like to comment on the soundness and legal compliance of the Greater Norwich Local Plan regarding housing developments in Aylsham.

1. The proposals are not legally compliant as regulation 18 states that Aylsham would have one site and regulation 19 states there will be two sites. This has never been consulted on.

2. The proposals are not sound as regulation 19 failed to consider the impact of two sites on the infrastructure needs of the town including schools, health facilities, roads and utilities.

We are utterly furious with the latest plans for Aylsham that have been increased from 300 to 550 new houses. This has been done without any reference to the local community and makes an utter farce of the whole consultation process that we have been through in the last two to three years. It has made this expensive and time consuming process completely futile and pointless. Another example of incompetent bloated government bullying.

There has been no reference to the local infrastructure and its ability to cope with this increase in population. I question whether there has been any thought whatsoever to the legal and procedural compliance in the production of these plans.

My wife and I will certainly be joining in contesting these plans which I understand where not even been presented to our local elected representatives for discussion. I am in agreement with fellow residents that this does not in any way represent the democracy I thought we lived in. These are the actions of a dictatorship that gives no recourse to the requirements or thoughts of its people.

It is not what we voted for and we will oppose this at every possible opportunity.

We are utterly furious with the latest plans for Aylsham that have been increased from 300 to 550 new houses. This has been done without any reference to the local community and makes an utter farce of the whole consultation process that we have been through in the last two to three years. It has made this expensive and time consuming process completely futile and pointless. Another example of incompetent bloated government bullying.

There has been no reference to the local infrastructure and its ability to cope with this increase in population. I question whether there has been any thought whatsoever to the legal and procedural compliance in the production of these plans.

My wife and I will certainly be joining in contesting these plans which I understand where not even been presented to our local elected representatives for discussion. I am in agreement with fellow residents that this does not in any way represent the democracy I thought we lived in. These are the actions of a dictatorship that gives no recourse to the requirements or thoughts of its people.

It is not what we voted for and we will oppose this at every possible opportunity.

Consultations is needed on record with the town on all the issues arising should this additional number increase go ahead. items such as: local infrastructure needed to support the population growth and a clear statement for the panning of provision of adequate school places before any further building takes place in this area as local schools are already at full capacity.

I agree with the views of the others expressing concern over the lack of consultation for the changes to the original planed number of new build houses for the Burgh Road site and the addition of the site off the Norwich Road for which there has been no consultation with the town folk.

The proposed development in Aylsham (apart from the fact that local people have not been consulted),
is neither sound nor justified because it builds on good agricultural land. Such policy is foolishly short sighted. This country cannot feed itself as it is.

The proposed development in Aylsham (apart from the fact that local people have not been consulted),
is neither sound nor justified because it builds on good agricultural land. Such policy is foolishly short sighted. This country cannot feed itself as it is.

Consultation with both the Town Council and residents on the new proposal for two new large residential developments. Without this the proposal is illegal.

In December GNLP produced draft proposals under Reg19 with two sites for Aylsham with a total of 550 homes. There was no consultation with Aylsham Town Council or residents. Reg 18 stated that Aylsham would have one site not two sites as stated by Reg 19. Reg 19 failed to consider the impact of two sites on the infrastructure needs of the town including school, health facilities, roads and utilities. All are severelt strained by the impact of the two large estates built at Bure Meadows and Willow Park. The carbon footprint will be increased further.

Consultation with both the Town Council and residents on the new proposal for two new large residential developments. Without this the proposal is illegal.

I write to object to these Regulations which were agreed without the opportunity of Aylsham residents being consulted as is, I understand, the normal legal requirement.
The plan for up to 500 new homes in this small market town is ridiculous.
There has been no information about the impact it will have on the community such as the existing schools, doctor surgeries and infrastructure.
There are many narrow roads in the town that cannot be widened due to the existence of houses abutting them so any increase in traffic, due to the increased housing, will make life for existing locals miserable to say the least if not dangerous.
I cannot see why it is regarded as acceptable to put forward two housing developments at once rather than one only and see how that impacts the town before then agreeing to a second-if need be.
Think of the impact your decision will have on existing residents rather than just regarding it as a desk exercise for profit.
I would urge you to reconsider the serious mistake that is being made by allowing these 2 developments to proceed without the opportunity for residents to be consulted properly and legally.
By permitting these developments to proceed in this way you are ignoring the interests of this community.
Please reconsider

I understand that under this part of the process you are looking for comments on the soundness and legal compliance of this stage. I believe that the proposal for Aylsham is not legally compliant because Regulation 18 stated that Aylsham would have ONE site that was put forward for consultation but Regulation 19, and the map clearly shows this, states that there will be TWO sites which has not been consulted upon. I understand there has been no consultation with the Town Council or local residents on such a major development which seems like a circumvention of what is legal and morally correct.

In addition, I believe the proposals are not sound as Regulation 19 failed to consider the impact of 2 sites on the infrastructure needs of the town which is clearly one of the key elements of any project such as this one.

I find myself with my head in my hands once again. How can this be correct or fair that such a decision can be taken without any input from local council or residents in Aylsham.
1- Reg 18 has stated that Aylsham would have one site put forward for consultation, reg 19 states there will be two sites. This has never been consulted on so not legally compliant.
2- Reg 19 had failed to consider the impact of two sites on the infrastructure needs of the town, including schools, health, roads and utilities.
There will also be an increase in the carbon footprint for the town. Are these proposals sound if this is the case?

I thought we were in this together, obviously not. If you continue to bring in plans in such a stealth like manner you will lose what trust and respect we the public has in the so called democratic system.

We, as Aylsham residents, are concerned that the new proposals are neither legally compliant, nor sound.

Regulation 18 stated that Aylsham would have one site of 300 homes put forward for consultation. However, Regulation 19 states that there will be two sites - resulting in a total of 550 new homes in Aylsham instead of 300. This has never been consulted on, either with the Town Council or the residents of Aylsham, and it is for this reason that we believe that the proposals are not legally compliant.

We believe that the proposals are not sound, as Regulation 19 failed to consider the impact of two sites on the infrastructure needs of the town, including schools, health facilities, roads and utilities. These have already been stretched with the building of the Youngs Park and Bure Meadows estates. There will also be an increase in the carbon footprint of the town.

I would like to comment on the soundness and legal compliance of the Greater Norwich Local Plan regarding housing developments in Aylsham.

1. The proposals are not legally compliant as regulation 18 states that Aylsham would have one site and regulation 19 states there will be two sites. This has never been consulted on.

2. The proposals are not sound as regulation 19 failed to consider the impact of two sites on the infrastructure needs of the town including schools, health facilities, roads and utilities.

I am writing to point out the illegality and unsoundness of the plan to develop a second site in Aylsham under reg19 of the draft involving 250 more houses there. I also abject to the building of 300 houses in reg 18 in the first place, but I believe that this may have slipped through. It is regrettable that the proposals were not put before Aylsham town council and Broadland for consultation first. I also hope it will not force the TC into taking legal action.

As a long term resident of Aylsham since 1956 (65 years) I think that both these proposals, especially reg 19 will be the end of Aylsham as
“the jewel in Broadland’s crown as said by Barbara Hornbrook some years ago

The GNLP blueprint is riding roughshod over Aylsham as a market town, and its scattergun proposals on where to build are town planning vandalism. Just because 2 plots seem to be available it is a BAD IDEA
to go ahead willy nilly and build on them, not realizing the potential damage to the Town they will be sure to cause. Maybe this is the Norwich tunnel vision view point. Those producing the GNLP have not considered the strains already placed on the infrastructure caused by the recent building of the Willow Park and Bure Meadows estates (550 houses then)
Let alone the probable of a further 550 homes( maybe 2000 more people)

There MUST be more to planning than just putting up houses. Builders will be cheering. But the quality of life here will decline and Aylsham will become just a dormitory town for Norwich, lose its cittaslow status and its reputation as a nice place to live. Pressures on the infrastructure: water, drainage, sewage, doctors surgeries, school places, wear and tear on roads, traffic and parking. The town is congested enough now without another 2000 people and their cars. There will probably be a call for another supermarket which will adversely affect the local shops.

Finally, I have suggested in the past, that new small hamlets could be built individually or in addition to already declining villages. These could have a market square, a community hall, recreation area and shops built into the design. They could be distinct villages and not tacked on to the edges of distinctive Market towns like Aylsham. Just tacking more houses on to the edges of Market Towns is a lazy and unimaginative way of town and country planning

Last year I looked very carefully at the Reg 18 consultation documents proposing a plan for 300 new homes in Aylsham. I commented then that while I fully appreciated the need for more housing it was vitally important that this should meet reasonable criteria of good quality and design, and be supported with appropriate infrastructure, in order to give its inhabitants a decent quality of life while being happily and successfully assimilated into the existing town, and with due respect for the environment. On this basis - and only on this basis - it seemed reasonable to agree a plan for 300 new houses.
(Unfortunately much of the new housing built recently around Aylsham does not inspire confidence that these criteria are a priority for developers and planners.)

Now, with no further consultation, you are sweeping in with a proposed change to this plan, which adds another site and nearly doubles the number of houses. There seems to have been no proper consideration or appreciation of the impact of this on the town, or on the environment.

I would like to add my voice to those, including the Town Council, who find the new stage of the plan to be neither legal, nor sound, nor justified. The reasons for this are itemised in the Town Council's response.

As a resident, a member of NWT, and as a grandmother who is very worried about the very serious threats to younger generations caused by climate change, I oppose the Norwich Western Link Road.
The inclusion of this proposed road is incompatible with the climate change statement and its inclusion is therefore unsound.

I am writing with my comments on the GNLP plan but specifically on the effect on Aylsham. I am amazed that the residents of Aylsham have not been consulted on the Plan as it now stands, and it seems that there are now two sites for future development, whereas previously there was just the one. I am informed that this has never been put forward for consultation, and is therefore not legally compliant.
Furthermore, Regulation 19 does not consider the obvious impact of the two development sites on the town. Aylsham has already been the site of two large housing developments over the past five years, and the existing infrastructure has had to absorb these large developments, so any further strain will be impossible to absorb. In particular, health facilities and schooling would not be able to cope, let alone the road structure and the poor public transport, with no trains and only an intermittent bus service (many of the buses just skirt around the town, therefore being useless to Aylsham residents).
Therefore, I believe that the legal position of the Plan is not legal and is thus unsound.

The Settlement Map should be republished with only the Regulation 18 site included
This comprises 3 elements ; GNLP 3011 , 0595 , 2060

The Settlement Map is inaccurate
It includes reference to Plot GNLP 0596 R
This was not considered in Regulation 18

The GNLP’s Climate Change Statement must include clear evidence-based carbon reduction targets, which are needed for the GNLP to demonstrate how it will meet its legal obligations.

In preparing this plan, the GNLP prioritises economic growth and development without putting the additional legal requirements of climate change at the centre. Para. 158 states that ‘the document meets the NPPF’s primary purpose for a local plan by providing the planning strategy for the pattern and scale of development to meet growth needs in Greater Norwich from 2018 to 2038’. What it should be stating is that it meets the NPPF’s primary purpose for a local plan to provide for “sustainable development”.
Two sites brings an increase to the proposed level of development to 83% on the consultation figure – 550 homes increases the total number of homes by 15.6%. The population of the town is likely to increase by a similar figure. This increase contradicts point 188 in the Strategy section which states there should be “reasonable levels of growth in the main towns.” This increase cannot be met by the current infrastructure in the town or by improvements offered by the plans within Reg 19.

Aylsham is our nearest market town and any proposals to increase housing, with the resultant impact on services, would undoubtedly affect our residents.

1. The proposals suggest 550 new houses for Aylsham, spread across two sites.
2. The first, on Burgh Road, of 300 homes, included provision for a primary school.
3. The second, on Norwich Road, was added without warning or consultation with the town; this is unreasonable and represents an increase of 83% - a failure to consult on a significant change.
4. Infrastructure issues have not been addressed, in particular water/sewerage, plus parking in the town to cope with the increased demand on primary care, dentists, shops and supermarkets.
5. Schools are at capacity now – the new primary school proposed as part of the first development would probably be built after completion, There would also be increased pressure on secondary and early years provision – there is no mention of this in the plan.
6. Planning and community involvement has not been met as detailed in the National Planning Policy Framework, neither has the duty of co-operation to engage with various stakeholders during the preparation of the plan.
7. The proposed 325 houses at Badersfield would also impact on Aylsham
8. The Covid crisis is likely to reduce footfall in the City, but increase it in surrounding towns; it would make more sense to concentrate new housing nearer to existing retail capacity and employment opportunities – i.e. in the larger towns and the City, particularly using existing brownfield sites.


For the reasons outlined above, the Council does not consider the plan to be sound as defined under Regulation 19.
A

I would like to protest that the proposals for Aylsham are not legally compliant or sound at the reg. 19 stage.
I attended the public consultation held in the Town Hall for Aylsham, and there was no indication that two sites would be put forward. I understood one site was possible.
The development of two sites would have a massive impact on schools, medical services, water and sewage provision etc and I feel this impact has not been considered properly and the proposals Anne therefore not sound.

We would like to register our objection in the strongest possible terms to the proposed extra development in Aylsham.

We attended the exhibition in Aylsham town hall where the plans for 300 new homes on one single site were on display. Officers were in attendance who were able to answer certain questions about the proposals, but could not say whether there would be a new doctors surgery to cope with perhaps another 1000 patients, nor adequate school provisions. That was already bad enough, but now we are told that a further 550 homes could be built. This was never consulted on, neither with the public nor apparently with the town council. Can this be legal?
Furthermore, the extra houses would place a completely intolerable burden on existing medical and educational facilities. The extra traffic on the already congested and not very safe A140 between Aylsham and Norwich ( there are certainly no jobs available in Aylsham) would have a seriously detrimental affect on our community.

To sum up, the additional housing does not seem to be legally compliant nor sound, and lacks much needed infrastructure for the area.

We were horrified to find out that there are even more large estates to be built in our little market town of Aylsham. We do not want to grow into a suburb of Norwich. We understand there was no consultation with the town council or the residents of Aylsham. This cannot be legal. If this is how you treat people we will not be voting Conservative in the May election.

We write as Aylsham residents who are astonished at the process which appears to have been followed in the progression of the GNLP as it relates to this area. We know, of course, that Aylsham is an attractive town which is also popular because of its location midway between Norwich and the north coast. We moved here nearly 40 years ago and are fully aware of how fortunate we have been in being able to raise our children here and, now, to enjoy our retirement here. We understand that many other people will wish to live here and that some growth has been necessary to enable that to happen. However, in the time we have lived here, there have been FOUR major developments - Norfolk Homes, Hopkins Homes, Willow Park and Bure Meadows - which have placed enormous pressure on the local infrastructure as well as a number of "infill" developments.

We do not believe that the proper processes around Regulation 19 have been followed by Broadland District Council and that, as a result, the current proposals are not legally compliant, nor do they satisfy the “soundness” criterion. The LPA’s Statement of Community Involvement and Para 155 of the National Planning Policy Framework require that genuine engagement and community involvement must occur. Apart from any other details, how can that criterion be satisfied if there has been no contact with Aylsham Town Council regarding Regulation 19 and no attempt at proactively engaging with the local community? To propose an increase of over 80% in the number of new houses suggested - compared with the proposal under Regulation 18 - without engagement with the local community or its local representatives is a gross dereliction of the Council’s duties.

As for the “soundness” criterion, we have seen no evidence that the impact on education, health or social care facilities has been taken into account. The proposal for a “new” school actually appears to relate to a replacement for an existing school with no indication of increased capacity. Nursery provision in the town is severely limited and the closure of Children’s Centres by the County Council has only contributed further to the reduction of supportive facilities for young families. No attention appears to have been given to these factors. Similarly, Aylsham’s road network is already under enormous pressure and its historic layout gives limited scope for expansion or alteration. Parking is already a very significant problem - shortage of parking tends to drive people away from shopping in the town, going instead to Norwich or other nearby towns where it is easier to park. This has a very damaging effect on the viability of local shops. More broadly, no proper attention has been directed towards “whole town” solutions to traffic and parking issues.

Issues of sustainability and the impact of climate change appear to have been ignored. An increase in housing at the level proposed in Regulation 19, with new houses at the extremities of the town, will result in a significantly greater use of cars leading to an increased, rather than decreased, carbon footprint. This seems grossly irresponsible at this time.

Finally, it has to be said that the Town Council and the local population thoroughly engaged in the work leading up to the Aylsham Neighbourhood Plan, signed off in 2019. To proceed in the ways now proposed by the District Council entirely flies in the face of that engagement and will destroy local faith in those democratic processes. It seems to us that the ONLY beneficiaries of the plans now proposed by the District Council will be developers who have already benefited greatly from planning decisions over the past 40 years. It is now time to prevent further damage to a beautiful town and strong community.

Review and updating of the Site Assessment paper and process to account for the updated information presented in respect of our client's site at North East Aylsham.

Review and updating of the Sustianability Appraisal for the same, including our client's revised / alternative proposal for a 150 dwelling scheme at the site.

Allocation of part / whole of our client's site to ensure sufficient growth is planned for at Aylsham and that the positive opportunity for sustainable development at the town can be secured.

Please find attached representations and the requisite form on behalf of Westmere Homes and with particular respect to our client’s land at North East Aylsham (GNLP0336).

The Sustainability Appraisal process is flawed as per our accompanying representation. There are errors in the site assessment process and a proposal submitted to officers concerning the delivery of a 150-dwelling scheme on our client's site has been omitted from consideration as a reasonable alternative.

In respect of soundness the consequencies of the flaws in the site assessment process, further expanded on in our response, render the plan unsound on the basis that it is not justified, effective or consistent with national policy.

Reference the proposals for Aylsham… you will kill this market town which, frankly, has already undergone massive change without any thought for its sense of community and far less for the abilities of its hard pressed essential services. New housing and new blood is welcome but Aylsham has now played more than its part. We have lived in the town for more than 35 years… but now we are seriously considering a move.

Having had link's to Aylsham since 2002 and living here since 2014 I have seen the draining affects that the new housing estates have had on Aylsham.
I totally support the Aylsham Town Councils questioning of the legalities of the new Planning Proposal.Any new plans should include provision for Education, Health and Utilities.The schools and Doctor's are already struggling.
Traffic has increased profoundly causing impact on air quality through the town's small roads, the town's roads were not built for such constant heavy traffic...even the new housing estates roads are too narrow, no allowance for cars parking on the road causing an increase in traffic build ups, increased traffic fumes especially at school times.The damaging affects can be seen on a daily basis.

The plan should not proceed without a full and transparent process - ie full consultation.

This is the only way that the views of the local residents and local council can be heard and taken into consideration.

Before any additional sites are considered, infrastructure must be dramatically improved and the effects on the carbon footprint and change to the rural area must be fully considered.

My partner and I feel very strongly that this has not been appropriately consulted on and therefore the process is not legal or sound.
The new plan is substantially different from the plan consulted on previously and allowing this to go through now would make a mockery of the whole process.
Since consultation, 250 more houses have been added to the plan and there has therefore been no consideration of the views and concerns from the local residents and the town council who know the area.
We have already been subject to a huge amount of development with current sites still being built on and this additional 250 homes, on a different site is a step too far. Should this have been in the initial plan, I am certain more people would have objected.
We do not have the infrastructure in Aylsham to support this huge and rapid growth any therefore I do not consider the decision is sound. I have lived here for years and am still registered at a dentist out of area.
The environmental effects and change to the rural area cannot be underestimated and any changes must go through the correct democratic process before we loose something we can’t replace.

I am writing to object to the to Regulation 19 of the GNLP for Broadland.
This latest plan does not appear to be legal, sound or justified.

• Illegality - There has been no consultation on Reg. 19, no attempts to engagae with community and stakeholder bodies. Regulation 18 was consulted on regrading the proposed building of 300 new homes, but Regulation 19, which has increased the proposed new homes to 550, has not, and it seems apparent that the only people who responded positively to the original Re. 18 plans were the developers.
• Unsoundness and Lack of Justification
o No attempt has been made to consult on the impact on the town’s infrastructure or carbon footprint, nor to the damage to the existing medieval and elizabethan buildings, which are already being adversely affected by the volume of traffic.
o No attempt appears to have been made to liaise with adjoining North Norfolk Council, with regard to school provision, and to meet health and social care needs.
o The proposed ’new’ school does not appear to have to be built before the new houses.

Aylsham Town Council have submitted a full and comprehensive document laying out tthe objections to Regulation 19, and rather than repeat all the arguments that they have specified so clearly, I would like to add my name to the objections, and endorse and support everything the Town Council have written.

The are clear inaccuracies in the assessment of this site, in particular with regards to the access arrangements. In addition, there are benefits arising from this site in terms of recreation and health care which have not been considered. Also there is a need for consideration being given to the level of development being apportioned to towns as they have a track record of delivering housing in a timely manner.

These representations have been prepared by Cheffins Planning on behalf of William Young. They relate on to the site reference GNLP0287 which is being promoting a 12.85ha site for approximately 250 dwellings and 2.35ha of public open space for recreation and leisure at land north of Marriots Way, Alysham. These representations provide comments in relation to the assessment of the site made in the HELAA Comparison Table and the Stage 6 – Detailed Assessment of Reasonable Alternative Sites. These representations also need viewed in conjunction with the detailed representations and masterplan submitted in connection with the Regulation 18 consultation.

These representations have also assessed and compared GNLP0287 against those identified for allocation, namely, sites GNLP0311, GNLP0595 and GNLP0260. It is also important to note that this site has more positive scores than any of the sites identified for allocation in the Stage 2 – HELAA comparison table.
It is noted that GNLP0287 has been given an amber score for site access. This is a contradiction of the comments made by Norfolk County Council where they have advised that the site is suitable for development subject to access being via St Michael’s Avenue and improvements to Marriotts Way. However, the comments made by Norfolk County Council are incorrect and the main vehicular access will be from the newly constructed housing development to the south of the site, with this access joining the B1145 Cawston Road via a new roundabout. The access road runs along the western site boundary and will therefore have little impact on the amenity of the dwellings within the Willow Park development.

Please refer to continuation sheet

I object to the draft proposals under Reg 19 on the basis that the plan’s preparation is not compliant with the regulations and must therefore be outside the law.
Reg 18 stated that Aylsham would have ONE housing allocation site (300 dwellings). Consultation took place. Reg 19 states that there will be TWO housing sites (550 dwellings). This massive increase, possibly a 83.3% uplift in housing numbers has never been consulted upon. It should have been.
The proposals are not sound as Reg 19 fails to consider the impact of the two sites (550 dwellings) on the carbon footprint, societal aspects, nor the infrastructure needs of Aylsham including utilities, roads, health facilities and schools.
In addition to the above specific points I make the general point that seemingly ignoring or even overriding the consultation process destroys trust between the governed and the governors. It also really irritates the electorate.