0520 Policy

No modifications appear possible that would make the application sound.

Hingham Road Safety Campaign's November 2020 report findings are that the Norwich Road, Hingham is "unfit for the 21st century". In a separate document (attached) we highlight the historic on-going issues that still exist with specific reference to GNLP0520, questioning and denying the soundness of this site preference. These cover planning, access, traffic calming and pedestrian issues, and conclude that approval of this development would also permanently block necessary improvements being made to a "very troubled principal town access".

A development of any size would cause substantial and unacceptable harm to the character and wildlife of the village.

Loss of habitat for deer, skylarks, foxes, owls and other wildlife.

The vehicles entering and leaving Hingham via Watton Road are I would think in excess 75% of the time over of 30 MPH and sometimes way in excess of 30.
I think if the development GNLP0335 and GNLP0298 were to go ahead, due to the fact there is a blind bend Approx 100 metres to the west of the proposed development entrance which I do not believe has a clear line of sight due to the speed of vehicles entering Hingham along Watton Road from the west. I believe this is a serious accident waiting to happen.

Mud on the road from contractor’s vehicles turning in and out during construction phase would be a very serious hazard. To the west of the proposed entrance the speed limit is 40 MPH with vehicles often well in excess of this speed entering and leaving Hingham via Watton Road.

We fully understand that houses need to be built but are very concerned about the number of houses being proposed for Hingham.

As far as we can ascertain from the GNLP development plan the sites GNLP0520 and GNLP0503 have been allocated for development but Hingham Parish Council are not happy that these sites have been allocated. They would much prefer the sites GNLP0335 and GNLP0298 to be developed instead.

With regard the sites GNLP0502 and GNLP0503 that have been put forward by yourselves for development. If Hingham must have an increase in housing then the Norwich Road and Dereham Road sites should be developed in a way that minimizes impact on the wildlife and village amenities. If houses must be built why are they not developed in other areas using brown field sites as a development of this size would cause substantial and unacceptable harm to the character of the area and wildlife.

We fully agree that the sites GNLP0335 and GNLP0298 should not be developed for the following reasons.

The destruction of the countryside will have a detrimental effect on the habitats of wild life which includes Deer, Sky Larks and many more species of birds and animals. Could this land in question instead of being developed for housing just be re-wilded?


There is a blind bend 100m to the west of the proposed development entrance on site GNLP0298 and in our opinion the exit onto the B1108 will not be safe due to the speed of all vehicles leaving or entering Hingham. Vehicles enter the village in excess of 30 miles per hour and often ignore the 30 mile flashing speed sign telling them to slow down. When leaving the village vehicles increase their speed before reaching the 40 miles an hour speed limit sign often well in excess of this speed. After observing vehicles from my property approximately 75% of them are over the speed limit in both directions. The road is not suitable for Adults with limited mobility or children to cross. We have seen older Adults trying to cross the road with their trolleys/walkers struggle to cross the road due to the speed for the traffic.

The developers have said about footpaths on the south side of Watton Road to GNLP0298. There is a hedge to the front of houses between 36 and 50 Watton Road. To put a footpath in would result in the destruction of more hedgerows. The path opposite on the north side opposite the proposed development entrance and exit is approx 1 metre wide and wholly unsuitable for the large amount of footfall for the development of this size.

A traffic island as proposed by the Developer would result in more destruction of hedgerows etc. I also believe this proposed traffic island would cause serious health and safety issues for people wishing to cross due to the excessive vehicle speed.

If this development were to go ahead with lorries and the large amount of construction vehicles entering and exiting the site once again I believe this would be a serious health and safety issue due to the amount of mud and debris on the road and the speed of the traffic on the B1108 in both directions.

With regard the proposed incorporation of woods on the developers plans for GNLP0335 why are the woods not at the rear of existing housing in Rectory Gardens and Watton Road rather than the back of the proposed houses. The new proposed woodland would not be planted with mature trees therefore would take 20 to 30 years to develop into a woodland. This would once again have a detrimental effect on environment and all wildlife.

Why do houses need to be built on a field that is best suited to agriculture? With an increasing population in the United Kingdom, we should be focusing on our capacity as a country to grow more crops at home and reduce our carbon footprint rather than importing food into the country. A development of this size would increase the total carbon footprint of Hingham.

The Council for the Protection of Rural England are requesting more areas be designated green belt again therefore can this area be designated green belt as it is on the south and western end of a rural settlement with views to open countryside.

Thank you for consulting Historic England on the Greater Norwich Local Plan Regulation 19 Draft including The Strategy and The Sites. As a statutory consultee, our role is to ensure that the conservation of the historic environment is fully integrated into planning policy and that any policy documents make provision for a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment.

Our comments below should be read with reference to our previous comments dated 1.2.17, 15.3.18, 4.12.1, 26.4.19 and 16.3.20. Please also see our detailed comments in the attached tables, Appendix A in relation to The Strategy and Appendix B regarding The Sites.

SUMMARY
The Greater Norwich Local Plan covers the Strategy and Site Allocations. While commenting on the plan as a whole, Historic England is particularly concerned, for its implications for Norwich itself. Norwich is one of England’s great historic cities, and its architectural and historic character, and the sense of place associated with that, make a profound and wholly beneficial contribution to the city’s well-being.

In line with paragraph 185 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) it is important that the Plan should set out a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment, including heritage assets most at risk through neglect, decay or other threats.

On this basis, it is recommended that the wording of Policy GNLP0520 is revised to state that the
site will accommodate at least 80 new homes; an approach that would be consistent with other site
allocations in the draft Greater Norwich Local Plan. The proposed amendment would ensure that
the policy is positively prepared, justified, and, therefore, sound.

On behalf of Abel Homes, we strongly support the allocation of GNLP0520, land South of Norwich
Road, Hingham. As demonstrated during the various Regulation 18 consultations, the site is entirely deliverable, and capable of making a significant contribution towards satisfying the Councils’ housing needs during the period to 2038.

The continued suitability of the site is detailed below. In considering the suitability of the site regard has been given to the specific requirements of Policy GNLP0520, as well as additional technical work, and discussions with key stakeholders, including the Lead Local Flood Authority and NCC (Highways), that have taken place since the Regulation 18 (c) consultation

On this basis, the allocation of land to the south of Norwich Road is considered to be sound based on the test of soundness set out in paragraph 35 of the NPPF, subject to minor alterations to the wording of Policy GNLP0520.

See attachment for full details

GNLP SHOULD NOT BE ADOPTED
Proper regard should be given to the representations made in opposition to GNLP0520 being allocated for development, especially with regard to flooding issues, potential impact on historical heritage, the protection of valued landscape, the adequacy of footway links and proximity to ALL of the town’s facilities.
GNLP0520 should be removed from the plan.
Reconsider the housing numbers allocated for Hingham/Reconsult to allow for an alternative site to come forward and for representations to be made.
Consideration MUST be given to if a site would provide a benefit alongside the proposed housing development, and if it would enable opportunity to achieve the aspirations of the community/town council for “future proofing” Hingham to be able to provide facilities to a growing community.
Allocations of any sites should be based on firm evidence that proposals made in order to mitigate, are actually feasible and achievable.

Please see the document :
HTC Greater Norwich Local Plan Regulation 19 Consultation Response
for detailed representations and evidence

Please see the document :
HTC Greater Norwich Local Plan Regulation 19 Consultation Response
for detailed representations and evidence
Representation 1 -
Site specific – relating to GNLP0503
Representation regarding the inclusion in the GNLP of (Land north of Springfield Way and west of Dereham
Road) GNLP0503, for develop of approximately 20 homes
Representations 2
Site specific GNLP0520
Representation regarding the inclusion in the GNLP of “Land south of Norwich Road, Hingham GNLP0520”
Representation 3
With regard to the site selection process:
The rejection of sites as reasonable alternatives, therefore no reasonable alternatives were put forward for the Regulation 18c consultation.
Representation 4
Regarding the plan making process
Representation 5
Policy 5.36. Two sites are allocated providing for at least 100 new homes in the key service centre (one for 80 homes, one for 20 homes). There are no carried forward residential allocations and a total of 20 additional dwellings with planning permission on small sites. This gives a total deliverable housing commitment for the key service centre of 120 homes between 2018 – 2038.
Representation 6 - Infrastructure requirements
Representation 7 - Settlement map
Representation 8 - Green Infrastructure Study
Representation 9 - Equality Impact Assessment