GNLP0487

Showing comments and forms 1 to 5 of 5

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 13837

Received: 12/03/2018

Respondent: Mr Martin Murrell

Representation:

This goes against NPPF item 80: to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another, to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.
It also goes against JCS Policy 15 Item 6.61 that allocations for Service Villages should be in the range of 10-20 dwellings.
This also goes against Salhouse Neighbourhood Plan Housing Policy H1.
From the 2011 census there were 638 house in Salhouse, the increase of 95 houses would be indicative of a 14.9% increase.

Full text:

This goes against NPPF item 80: to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another, to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.
It also goes against JCS Policy 15 Item 6.61 that allocations for Service Villages should be in the range of 10-20 dwellings.
This also goes against Salhouse Neighbourhood Plan Housing Policy H1.
From the 2011 census there were 638 house in Salhouse, the increase of 95 houses would be indicative of a 14.9% increase.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 15068

Received: 21/03/2018

Respondent: Mrs Valerie Smith

Representation:

SITES 0487 AND 0493. I am the landowner of the above sites. Lanpro has submitted the sites on behalf of a client stating he is the sole owner, a property promoter/developer and the sites are available immediately. This was done without my knowledge or authority I want these withdrawn. For three weeks I have attempted to resolve this apparent deception with the NCC but to no avail. I've had no response from Lanpro. My legal right as landowner has been completely ignored by Lanpro and NCC. These sites have no relevance within the GNLP and should have been removed.

Full text:

SITES 0487 AND 0493. I am the landowner of the above sites. Lanpro has submitted the sites on behalf of a client stating he is the sole owner, a property promoter/developer and the sites are available immediately. This was done without my knowledge or authority I want these withdrawn. For three weeks I have attempted to resolve this apparent deception with the NCC but to no avail. I've had no response from Lanpro. My legal right as landowner has been completely ignored by Lanpro and NCC. These sites have no relevance within the GNLP and should have been removed.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 15774

Received: 22/03/2018

Respondent: David Bryan

Representation:

Object on the following basis:

- the proposed development on this site would effectively merge Rackheath and Salhouse together
- both areas would lose their sense of individual identity
- clear distinction should be maintained between neighbouring towns/villages

Full text:

Object on the following basis:

- the proposed development on this site would effectively merge Rackheath and Salhouse together
- both areas would lose their sense of individual identity
- clear distinction should be maintained between neighbouring towns/villages

Support

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 16687

Received: 22/03/2018

Respondent: Lanpro Services Ltd

Representation:

This large site on land to the north of Norwich Road, Salhouse is being promoted as a strategic housing site delivering circa. 90 dwellings. The site has been previously promoted through the emerging Greater Norwich Local Plan and assigned the reference GNLP0487. The promoted
scheme is further designed to enable delivery of the new 7ha Salhouse Country Park to meet existing green infrastructure deficiencies in this part of the Norwich Policy Area.
The site is located on the northern edge of the Growth Triangle that is main focus for new housing
growth within the Broadland District part of the Norwich Policy Area. This part of the Norwich
Policy Area is particularly sensitive due to the proximity of The Broads. Specific parts of The Broads within this part of the Norwich Policy Area are designated Site of Special Scientific Interest, Special Protection Area, Environmentally Sensitive Area, National Nature Reserve and Ramsar. The new Country Park proposed is sufficiently large and can be made attractive for recreation and
leisure to be a realistic alternative to visiting The Broads.
As such the mixed‐use scheme proposed is highly sustainable as it will deliver net environmental
gains for nature and improve public health and community wellbeing within the Growth Triangle
area.
[refer to full submission documentation attached].

Full text:

Submission in support of site GNLP0487 Rackheath North (Land north of Norwich Road, Salhouse) - refer to full submission documentation attached

Comment

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 19772

Received: 14/12/2018

Respondent: Salhouse Parish Council

Representation:

This site has been the subject of a more detailed outline plan for the development of 86 dwellings
which was presented to the Parish Council in December 2016. The following comments are
therefore more detailed than for other sites and are based on the outline plan as presented:
Comments on Proposals for Offered Site Ref. GNLP0487
* A previous proposal for 20 dwellings on part of the same site was put forward in 2014. SPC
declined to support it after objections by parish residents. A crucial part of that proposal
was for a footway along the Norwich Road from the Station Road bus stop. This was
rejected by Highways on the grounds that the width of available Highways land on that side
was too narrow in places to support a path.
* This new proposal also includes a footway along the same section of road. Mr. Phil Atkinson
of Lanpro stated at the presentation that this had already been approved in advance by
Highways. It seems unlikely that Highways would unequivocally support this in advance of a
formal PA and in the light of the previous refusal.
* Previous policy by the District Council has been that infilling the green space that exists
between the two villages of Salhouse and Rackheath should not be permitted and a green
space between them should be retained. It is noted that that on the current plan virtually all
the houses are out of sight of the main road. This is a benefit in relation to maintaining the
'green space' between settlements, but probably the developer has no choice in this matter
because the high pressure gas main from Bacton crosses the site, and a no-build exclusion
zone applies.
* As a result of the need for a no-build zone, the developer is proposing a park to be included
in the development. We should be extremely vigilant that this green space is not eroded as
the plans develop, as we have seen on other sites.
* The park proposal is all well and good, but access to the park by other residents of the
village, apart from those living on site, will be of necessity by car only with access from
Norwich Road. Pedestrian access is required.
* Pedestrian access to the estate could easily be achieved from Wood Green. Pedestrian
access by this route would allow access to Salhouse railway station and to the main part of
the village on foot via footpaths without having to venture onto the main road. This should
be incorporated into the plans.
* Road access to the estate is by a single T-junction onto the Norwich Road. Given the number
of homes proposed, this would be hazardous and a cause of delay and frustration for drivers
at busy times. A second road access should be considered via Wood Green. However, this
would adversely affect the residents there.

The site also includes a wetland pond. This is surprising, given that the site is at one of the
highest points in the locality (approx. 30m OD) and there is no history of drainage issues.
* The affordable houses are very densely packed and very close to the rear boundaries of
properties on Norwich Road, most are bungalows and will be overlooked by the affordable
houses.
* Does not comply with policy H1 of Salhouse Neighbourhood Plan

Full text:

Salhouse PC previously submitted comments on the sites put forward in the 2016 'Call for Sites' consultation. These comments submitted in January 2017 still stand and are attached for reference.

Two changes have occurred since early 2017. First, our previous comments included references to the Draft Salhouse Neighbourhood Plan, which was subsequently adopted in July 2017. Second, since March 2018, the land supply in Broadland District has been calculated at more than 5 years.

Salhouse PC believes that the 'Call for Sites' process is fundamentally flawed, in that it encourages opportunistic offers of sites instead of being plan-led. A further local concern is that the services infrastructure (particularly mains water and electricity and sewerage) in Salhouse is in a very poor state. No additional housing development should be considered without these services being completely upgraded to meet the extra demand.

Although there are no new sites listed for the Parish of Salhouse in the latest 2018 submissions, there are sites in adjacent parishes which approach very closely to Salhouse's boundaries, raising the prospect of continuous housing from Norwich to Salhouse is all the options were taken up.

See attachment for full details of submission.

Attachments: