0581 2043 Policy
Support
Publication
Representation ID: 23846
Received: 22/03/2021
Respondent: Taylor Wimpey
Whilst we do not object to the contingency site in principle, we feel the trigger point is onerous to the extent that the site will not become a formal allocation until undersupply has reached a very high level. In our view greater flexibility should be built into the policy to allow for a more proactive approach in addressing a shortfall. Allocating smaller schemes which are immediately available and deliverable in order to meet under supply, such as Land south of Townhouse Road. See red line plan attached.
Whilst we do not object to the contingency site in principle, we feel the trigger point is onerous to the extent that the site will not become a formal allocation until undersupply has reached a very high level. In our view greater flexibility should be built into the policy to allow for a more proactive approach in addressing a shortfall. Allocating smaller schemes which are immediately available and deliverable in order to meet under supply, such as Land south of Townhouse Road. See red line plan attached.
Object
Publication
Representation ID: 24053
Received: 18/03/2021
Respondent: Historic England
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Whilst there are no designated heritage assets within the site boundary, the grade II* listed Lodge Farmhouse lies to the south of the site. To the south west of the site lies the Bawburgh Conservation Area. This includes the grade I listed church of St Mary and St Wulfstan, grade II* listed Church Farmhouse, The Hermit’s House and the Slipper Chapel, together with a number of grade II listed buildings. There are also three scheduled monuments (Bawburgh Bridge and two garden houses near the Hall). Any development of the site has the potential to impact upon the setting of these heritage assets.
This is a very large site for development and therefore the scale of the development may have an impact on these sites. Whilst we consider it likely that the site could accommodate development, we suggest that a Heritage Impact Assessment should be undertaken in advance of the EiP to assess the impact of the proposed development upon the significance of these heritage assets, to establish the suitability or otherwise of the site and to establish appropriate mitigation and enhancement should the site be found suitable. If the site is found suitable, the findings of the HIA should then inform the policy wording.
It might also be helpful to illustrate proposed mitigation in the form of a concept diagram for the site e.g. showing where open space and landscaping would be located in the Local Plan.
We suggest that a more detailed Heritage Impact Assessment be undertaken in advance of the EiP to assess the impact of the proposed development upon the significance of these heritage assets, to establish the suitability or otherwise of the site and to establish appropriate mitigation and enhancement should the site be found suitable. If the site is found suitable, the findings of the HIA should then inform the policy wording.
It might also be helpful to illustrate proposed mitigation in the form of a concept diagram for the site e.g. showing where open space and landscaping would be located in the Local Plan.
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.
Object
Publication
Representation ID: 24057
Received: 18/03/2021
Respondent: RG Carter & Drayton Farms Limited
Number of people: 2
Agent: CODE Development Planners Ltd
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Not legally compliant
The approach taken in the assessment of sites and referred to in various site assessment booklets does not represent a transparent, objective or evidence based approach. The GNDP has failed to properly comply with its legal obligation to assess the Reasonable Alternatives on a comparative basis, having regard to a transparent and objective evidence, as is required by The Strategic Environmental Appraisal Directive 2001. (reference Legal Opinion at Appendix 1 of seperate attached representation document).
cc Representation report document
The GNDP should prepare proportionate evidence, properly informed by a Sustainability Appraisal and consulted on either to demonstrate the suitability of the proposed allocation sites and contingency site in comparison with other Reasonable Alternative sites or to demonstrate the suitability of sites
GNLP0332R and GNLP0334R as either allocated sites or contingency sites.
I attach representation to GNLP Reg 19 submitted on behalf or Drayton Farms Limited and RG Carter Farms Limited.
Object
Publication
Representation ID: 24060
Received: 18/03/2021
Respondent: RG Carter & Drayton Farms Limited
Number of people: 2
Agent: CODE Development Planners Ltd
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Not effective
A plan preparation uninformed by the anticipated rate of developemnt for specific sites and instead based on an average of past delivery rates on different sites with entirely different issues at a different time with different economic and social circumstances is likely to be unsound and is certainly not transparent and tested for its ability to deliver sufficient houses within the plan period. In our view, this is particularly important where a plan such the GNLP seeks to supply a large number of homes on large scale development formats. As stated in paragraph 72 of the Framework, in identifying large scale development, authorities should "make a realistic assessment of likely rates of delivery, given the lead-in times for large scale sites...."
cc See seperate attached representation document (Reg19)
In view of the concerns and to ensure that the plan is effective and sound under this test we recommend
that:
a) evidence should be produced to define, explain and allow proper testing of the anticipated delivery rates of all committed and allocated sites. This would be in accordance with advice contained in paragraph 72 of the Framework.
b) Additional medium sized site allocations should be identified in order to reduce the over-reliance
of the plan's supply of housing on large-scale development sites. This would be in accordance
with advice contained in paragraph 68 of the Framework which confirms how small and medium
sized sites can make an important contribution to meeting the housing requirement of an area.
c) Additional contingency sites should be identified to provide greater assurance that additional
allocations could be made and delivered quickly if housing delivery in the plan area fell short of
expectation. As with additional allocations referred to in b) above additional contingency sites
should include small and medium sized sites sufficient to make a material impact on delivery and
capable of quick delivery and build-out.
d) Alternatively, other contingency sites should be identified to replace the Costessey contingency
site referred to in Policy GNLP0581/2043. The site is not considered to be justified and suitable
for development and, in any event, is unlikely to be delivered quickly given the substantial
necessary and in some cases uncertain improvements and mitigation
I attach representation to GNLP Reg 19 submitted on behalf or Drayton Farms Limited and RG Carter Farms Limited.
Object
Publication
Representation ID: 24067
Received: 18/03/2021
Respondent: RG Carter & Drayton Farms Limited
Number of people: 2
Agent: CODE Development Planners Ltd
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Unsound - Not justified
The plan has failed to justify through proportionate and consistent evidence the selection of allocated site GNLP0337, identified contingency site GNLP2043/0581 and the rejection of Reasonable Alternative sites GNLP0332R and GNLP0334R.
See seperate attached representation document (Reg19) and evidence from Reg 18 stage.
We recommend that:
a) proportionate evidence, properly informed by Sustainability Appraisal should be prepared and consulted on either to demonstrate the suitability of the proposed allocation sites and contingency site in comparison with other Reasonable Alternative sites or to demonstrate the suitability of sites GNLP0332R and GNLP0334R as either allocated sites or contingency sites.
b) Subject to evidence and consultation, the GNDP could elect to allocate or identify both sites GNLP0332R and GNLP0334R for development or contingency, as alternatives to presently allocated or identified contingency sites or as additional allocated or contingency sites.
Unsound - Not justified
The plan has failed to justify through proportionate and consistent evidence the selection of allocated site GNLP0337, identified contingency site GNLP2043/0581 and the rejection of Reasonable Alternative sites GNLP0332R and GNLP0334R.
See seperate attached representation document (Reg19) and evidence from Reg 18 stage.
Object
Publication
Representation ID: 24244
Received: 22/03/2021
Respondent: Terra Strategic
Number of people: 2
Agent: Barton Willmore
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
The Site is currently allocated as part of draft Policy GNLP0581/2043 as a contingency site for residential-led development. For the avoidance of doubt, Terra Strategic control the northern section of the allocation, which has the site reference: GNLP0581. This area of land has the ability to deliver approximately 600 dwellings alongside a primary school, sixth form college and local centre. The Site is allocated alongside adjacent site ref: GNLP2043 (North of New Road, east of A47), which will deliver an additional 200 dwellings – approximately 800 dwellings across the draft allocation. Terra Strategic are in discussions with the adjoining landowners with a Masterplan provided at Appendix 1 which details how the two parcels of land could come forward.
As currently drafted, the Site would come forward for development if there were three consecutive years in which Annual Monitoring Reports show that housing completions in Greater Norwich are more than 15% below annual targets in each year and where under-delivery is the result of site specific constraints (for example there are infrastructure or ownership constraints or significant abnormal costs have been identified) preventing the delivery of committed and allocated housing sites
As will be set out within these representations, this approach is considered to be unsound and should instead be identified as a full allocation within the forthcoming GNLP as an available, suitable and sustainable location to deliver residential-led development.
See attachment for full representation
As it currently stands, the site will become an allocation if “there are three consecutive years in which Annual Monitoring Reports show that housing completions in Greater Norwich are more than 15% below annual targets in each year and where under-delivery is the result of site-specific constraints (for example there are infrastructure or ownership constraints, or significant abnormal costs have been identified) preventing the delivery of committed and allocated housing sites”.
The policy is unsound in its current form due to the proposed trigger mechanism which would allow the site to come forward. In particular, through Examination of the Local Plan, the Council should have robustly assessed the ‘site specific constraints’ of the alternative commitments and allocations. Indeed, the draft Delivery Statement sets out a pro-active approach to delivery through only allocating housing sites where a reasonable prospect of delivery can be evidenced. As a result, this requirement should be deleted and instead focused on any subsequent shortfall in housing delivery.
The PPG sets out that from the day following publication of the Housing Delivery Test measurement, where delivery of housing has fallen below the housing requirement, certain policies set out in the
NPPF will apply. Depending on the level of delivery, this states that the LPA should publish an action plan if housing delivery falls below 95% (NPPF, para 75).
To ensure consistency with the national policy and guidance, the following policy wording is suggested:
The site will become an allocation if the Council’s Housing Delivery Test trajectory shows that delivery is expected to fall below 95% there are three consecutive years in which Annual Monitoring Reports show that housing completions in Greater Norwich are more than 15% below annual targets in each year and where under-delivery is the result of site specific constraints (for example there are infrastructure or ownership constraints or significant abnormal costs have been identified) preventing the delivery of committed and allocated housing sites.
See full detail in attachment
In response to the Regulation 19 Pre-submission Draft Plan, please find attached form, letter and appended Masterplan. Terra Strategic have interests in land on the edge of Costessey, referred to as ‘Land off Bawburgh Lane, Costessey’.
Object
Publication
Representation ID: 24349
Received: 22/03/2021
Respondent: Jarrold and Sons Ltd
Agent: CODE Development Planners Ltd
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Please see attachment for details of full representation.
These representations are submitted on behalf of Jarrolds & Sons the owners of land to the rear of Heath Crescent (identified in the Greater Norwich Local Plan (GNLP) evidence base documents as site GNLP2173). The site is bound to the north by Fifers Lane, an industrial
estate to the east and residential dwellings along Heath Crescent and Prince Andrew’s Road to the west, and Prince Andrew’s Close to the south.
The site at Heath Crescent has been assessed in the GNLP Site Assessment: Norwich and Urban Fringe - Hellesdon Booklet as a reasonable alternative site for residential development (reference GNLP2173).
4 Conclusions
4.1 Jarrold & Sons also considers the GNLP fails the test of soundness when assessing whether it is justified. In order to be justified the plan should be an appropriate strategy, taking into account the reasonable alternatives and based on proportionate evidence. There is insufficient evidence to justify decisions in the GNLP. Decisions that have been made are based on
inaccurate and misleading information.
4.2 These representations demonstrate that the GNLP is not legally compliant and fails the tests of soundness.
4.3 Currently the GNLP seeks in part to delegate decisions regarding the spatial representation of
the infrastructure requirements to support growth, principally sport, recreation and open space designations, to the development management DPDs. However, this fails the tests of soundness as it has impacted the GNLPs policy justifications and effectiveness. Furthermore,
it does not provide a strategy which seeks to meet the areas needs consistent with achieving sustainable development; the residential allocations are not supported by an up to date assessment of the need for sport, recreation and open space. The GNLP is therefore not positively prepared.
4.4 In order to remedy this the SA needs to be amended and reassess strategy and site allocation policies. The GNLP Site Assessment Booklets should be amended to follow and reference the SA assessment. These amendments will lead to amendments to the policies and supporting text contained in the GNLP. Consequently, further formal public consultation will be required.
a) In order to remedy the legal failings the SA needs to be amended and reassess strategy and site allocation policies.
b) The GNLP Site Assessment Booklets should be amended to follow and reference the SA assessment.
c) These amendments will lead to amendments to the policies and supporting text contained in the GNLP. Consequently, further formal public consultation will be required.
• Response form submitted on behalf of Jarrold & Sons in respect of land to the rear of Heath Crescent.
• Drawing CH17/LBA/455/LP-1-100: Location Plan
• Transport Appraisal (including proposed access drawing) (January 2020) prepared by WSP
• Preliminary Landscape and Visual Overview (March 2020) prepared by Tyler Grange
• Ecology Report (March 2020) prepared by Wild Frontier Ecology
• Drawing 60312-PP-003 revision A extracted from the Surface Water Drainage Strategy and Flood Risk (January 2020) prepared by Richard Jackson
• Initial Site Noise Risk Assessment (February 2020) prepare by Adrian James Acoustics
• Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment (January 2020) prepared by RPS
• Arboricultural Assessment (February 2020) prepared by Oakfield Arboricultural Services
• Drawing CH17/LBA/455/FL-1-100 revision A: Proposed Proving Layout – Option A
• Drawing CH17/LBA/455/FL-1-101 revision B: Proposed Proving Layout – Option B
• Email correspondence dated 16 December 2020 from GNLP officer
• Asset of Community Value (ACV) nomination refusal letter dated 16 May 2018
• Greater Norwich Growth Board agenda for meeting held on 24 September 2020 (including appendix 1, FMG Consulting’s report titled Strategic Outcomes Planning Guidance Scoping Exercise – Greater Norwich, June 2020)
• CODE Development Planners’ review of legal compliance in respect of GNLP’s Sustainability Assessment
Object
Publication
Representation ID: 24544
Received: 22/03/2021
Respondent: Rosconn Group
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
RSL considers that more deliverable contingency sites should be identified in the GNLP to offset the risk of under-delivery and to provide the flexibility to respond to changing circumstances. For the reasons discussed above, provision of a reserve site at Costessey at the scale proposed would not perform this function.
See attachment for full representation (sections 6.9 - 6.12)
See attachment for full representation (sections 6.9 - 6.12)
For Rosconn Strategic Land, please find attached the following documents and information:
1. Duly completed representation form
2. Representations to relevant policies of the GNLP and relevant parts of the evidence base
3. Site delivery statements including high level transport review note for Land South of Flowerpot Lane, Long Stratton (HELAA Ref. 4033/34)
Object
Publication
Representation ID: 24547
Received: 22/03/2021
Respondent: Gladman Developments
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Please see attachment for full representation particularly section 5.4
5.4 COSTESSEY CONTINGENCY SITE
5.4.1 Gladman notes the identification of a contingency site which will become an allocated site in the event the GNLP is not delivering housing at the anticipated rate. Gladman submits that the site we are promoting at Norwich Common, Wymondham would be a more suitable alternative for inclusion under this policy for the following reasons:
• The site is being actively promoted by Gladman, we have the experience and expertise to deliver a site of this scale.
• An outline planning application has been submitted by Gladman to South Norfolk Council and the technical information submitted with the application demonstrates
that there are no constraints which would prohibit the development of the site.
• We are working with South Norfolk Council and have offered to provide additional land for education and other community uses as part of the development.
• The site can be suitably accessed using land entirely within our control.
Please see attachment for full representation particularly section 5.4
Please find attached the representations of Gladman in response to the Reg 19 Pre-submission Draft consultation.
Object
Publication
Representation ID: 24555
Received: 22/03/2021
Respondent: ClientEarth
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
It would appear that the adverse effects [identified in the SA report] have been exacerbated by the decision to plan for ….. development on greenfield land and in unsustainable locations.
The impact of this decision is clear from looking at a few examples of the Sustainability Appraisal’s assessment of allocations made in the plan:
• In respect of site GNLP0581R – for provision of more than 600 dwellings:
o “Sites GNLP0581R and GNLP4045 comprise previously undeveloped land and are located outside the existing settlements of Costessey and Bowthorpe. Therefore, the proposed development at these two sites could potentially contribute towards the urbanisation of the countryside.” (D.8.4.4)
o “The nearest local services, Co-op, Stafford Stores and Post Office, and Sainsbury’s, are located in and around Costessey. Sites GNLP0581R and GNLP4045 are located outside the target distance to these services.” (D.8.6.1)
o “The closest GP surgeries to this cluster are The Roundwell Medical Centre in Costessey and Taverham Surgery in Taverham. Sites GNLP0581R and GNLP4045 are located outside the target distance to these GP surgeries.” (D.8.8.5)
o “The closest leisure facility to Costessey is Riverside Leisure Centre, located approximately 8km south east of the cluster. Both sites in this cluster are located outside the target distance to this leisure facility …” (D.8.8.6)
o “The closest primary schools to this cluster include Chapel Break Infant School, St Michael’s Church of England Voluntary Aided Junior School and Queen’s Hill Primary and Nursery School. Sites GNLP0581R and GNLP4045 are situated outside the target distance to these schools.” (D.8.10.1)
o “Sites GNLP0581R and GNLP4045 are located outside the target distance to a bus stop providing regular services. … The closest railway station to Costessey is Norwich Railway Station, located approximately 8km to the south east of the cluster. This is outside the target distance … Site GNLP0581R currently has poor access to the surrounding footpath network.” (D.8.12.1-3)
o “The proposed development at Site GNLP0581R would be likely to result in a major negative impact on natural resources due to the loss of more than 20ha of previously undeveloped land. These negative impacts would be associated with an inefficient use of land and the permanent and irreversible loss of ecologically valuable soils.” (D.8.14.2)
Accordingly, on its own terms, the Sustainability Appraisal’s findings would appear to support a quite different approach to site allocation – one that avoids as far as possible new development on greenfield land and in unsustainable locations. The above allocations are an illustrative but not exhaustive list of instances of this problem in the plan.
We regret that none of the issues raised in our response to the Regulation 18 consultation appears to have been addressed in the updated version of the plan. We therefore repeat our previous representations regarding non-compliance with section 19(1A) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, with the SEA regulations including related requirements, and inconsistency with the NPPF, which we now supplement and update in respect o certain issues.