Question 1 Suggest and small scale changes to any development boundaries

Showing comments and forms 1 to 19 of 19

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 13026

Received: 13/02/2018

Respondent: Mr Alan Hewitt

Representation:

Over development of land where there is no sustainable infrastructure being proposed in the form of roads, public transport including rail are no where to be seen. Whilst the NDR is a great addition to the region it is not the answer to solving the potential increase in traffic in the proposed development areas. A complete lack of thought is going into this entire process and it strikes that this is a pure money making exercise that will in no way benefit members of the public!

Full text:

Over development of land where there is no sustainable infrastructure being proposed in the form of roads, public transport including rail are no where to be seen. Whilst the NDR is a great addition to the region it is not the answer to solving the potential increase in traffic in the proposed development areas. A complete lack of thought is going into this entire process and it strikes that this is a pure money making exercise that will in no way benefit members of the public!

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 13046

Received: 13/02/2018

Respondent: Miss Donna Clements

Representation:

I object to the continued expansion of Hethersett. The village infrastructure struggles to support the existing village and growth. On the plus, local businesses have opened and thrived but saturation point has been reached. I suggest other villages such as Gt Melton, Wramplingham, Barford and Kimerley could now grow as communities with new businesses and maintain their village feel.

Full text:

I object to the continued expansion of Hethersett. The village infrastructure struggles to support the existing village and growth. On the plus, local businesses have opened and thrived but saturation point has been reached. I suggest other villages such as Gt Melton, Wramplingham, Barford and Kimerley could now grow as communities with new businesses and maintain their village feel.

Support

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 13257

Received: 24/02/2018

Respondent: weston longville parish council

Representation:

The GNLP focusses on larger scale development proposals. The sustainability of small villages such as Weston Longville would be increased if small developments of 5 houses or fewer were permitted.

Large scale developments such as those of Honingham, Reepham or Marsham should be discouraged in favour of expansion of existing urban / suburban areas around Norwich city.

Development of the larger villages / small towns such as Reepham is that they risk becoming only dormitories or development of out of town facilities (such as supermarkets) put at risk small businesses focussed in the town centres.

Full text:

The GNLP focusses on larger scale development proposals. The sustainability of small villages such as Weston Longville would be increased if small developments of 5 houses or fewer were permitted.

Large scale developments such as those of Honingham, Reepham or Marsham should be discouraged in favour of expansion of existing urban / suburban areas around Norwich city.

Development of the larger villages / small towns such as Reepham is that they risk becoming only dormitories or development of out of town facilities (such as supermarkets) put at risk small businesses focussed in the town centres.

Support

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 13436

Received: 01/03/2018

Respondent: Miss Kate Jackson

Agent: Miss Kate Jackson

Representation:

I (the landowner) propose the extension of the development boundary on my site at the end of Lambert's Way, Ditchingham (NR35 2QB) to enable the development of one small, sustainable house as my permanent residence. The unadopted cul-de-sac was originally designed to incorporate further properties and the road ends on the entrance to the site. A map showing the small increase to the boundary has been sent to and confirmed as received by GNLP. I have attempted to minimise the impact on neighbouring properties and have received support for plans to develop a single residence.

Full text:

I (the landowner) propose the extension of the development boundary on my site at the end of Lambert's Way, Ditchingham (NR35 2QB) to enable the development of one small, sustainable house as my permanent residence. The unadopted cul-de-sac was originally designed to incorporate further properties and the road ends on the entrance to the site. A map showing the small increase to the boundary has been sent to and confirmed as received by GNLP. I have attempted to minimise the impact on neighbouring properties and have received support for plans to develop a single residence.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 13780

Received: 11/03/2018

Respondent: Jude Durrant

Representation:

Hainford is big enough for its capabilities and would be spoilt and unsustainable with the proposed expansion.

Full text:

I totally object the the proposed plans for Hainford. The areas out lined will nearly double the current village footprint. All of our current infrastructure is stretched to capacity currently so this would be detrimental to our village. Village being the operative word. We do not want or need the growth. The roads are to narrow now to cope with current capacity and the size of the expanding service and agricultural vehicles. The roads are in bad repair and the ditches collapsed. The sewage system is not at a dept to cope with more capacity. The broadband service are patchy at best, although fibre optic to the cabinets they are still inferior copper to the homes. We have a very small school, no shops and an inadequate bus service. There are thousands of square feet of unoccupied buildings in Norwich within the current footprint that could be converted to usable and affordable accommodation.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 13854

Received: 12/03/2018

Respondent: Mrs Nicola Stevens

Representation:

I wholly object to the plans to build new homes on the boundary of Hellesdon and Horsford. Hellesdon is a small parish with few conveniences, all of which are currently at saturation point. It is unethical to think that building new homes in this locality will enable sustainable growth. To be honest, this will overcrowd our schools, GP surgery, dentist and most of all out roads.

Full text:

I wholly object to the plans to build new homes on the boundary of Hellesdon and Horsford. Hellesdon is a small parish with few conveniences, all of which are currently at saturation point. It is unethical to think that building new homes in this locality will enable sustainable growth. To be honest, this will overcrowd our schools, GP surgery, dentist and most of all out roads. There is already significant traffic problems within Hellesdon, down the Reepham road and along Middletons Road past the High school. This is an unrealistic plan which will cause more misery to commuters and residents alike. Hellesdon has recently earmarked Cottinghams Park as its final green space area which is regularly used by children, dog walkers and local residents. This is a peaceful place and accommodates the growth of local wildlife for all to enjoy. Allotment holders could potentially be left without their pride and joy and for some this is a lifeline, where regular interaction with locals keep them socialised and in touch with local people. This is a community area which is held in high regard by many residents and fellow local Hellesdon residents. My children are regular users of Cottinghams Park and they feel safe here.
Hellesdon simply cannot accommodate any further growth and support should be gained for new housing further along Reepham Road where no neighbouring homes or environments will be affected.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 13859

Received: 12/03/2018

Respondent: Mr Nicholas Stevens

Representation:

I wholly object on basic:-
Small parish, already over committed, infastucture cannot cope and the need for protected green areas

Full text:

I wholly object to the plans to build new homes on the boundary of Hellesdon and Horsford. Hellesdon is a small parish with few conveniences, all of which are currently at saturation point. It is unethical to think that building new homes in this locality will enable sustainable growth. To be honest, this will overcrowd our schools, GP surgery, dentist and most of all out roads. There is already significant traffic problems within Hellesdon, down the Reepham road and along Middletons Road past the High school. This is an unrealistic plan which will cause more misery to commuters and residents alike. Hellesdon has recently earmarked Cottinghams Park as its final green space area which is regularly used by children, dog walkers and local residents. This is a peaceful place and accommodates the growth of local wildlife for all to enjoy. Allotment holders could potentially be left without their pride and joy and for some this is a lifeline, where regular interaction with locals keep them socialised and in touch with local people. This is a community area which is held in high regard by many residents and fellow local Hellesdon residents. My children are regular users of Cottinghams Park and they feel safe here.

Hellesdon simply cannot accommodate any further growth and support should be gained for new housing further along Reepham Road where no neighbouring homes or environments will be affected.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 14103

Received: 15/03/2018

Respondent: Buxton with Lamas Parish Council

Representation:

At the PC meeting held on Monday 12th March 2018, it was agreed by the PC to officially respond to the Greater Norwich Local Plan consultation with two resolutions:
1) That Buxton with Lamas PC opposes all the sites identified under the call for sites
2) That Buxton with Lamas PC wants to keep the settlement boundary of the parish as it is

Full text:

At the PC meeting held on Monday 12th March 2018, it was agreed by the PC to officially respond to the Greater Norwich Local Plan consultation with two resolutions:
1) That Buxton with Lamas PC opposes all the sites identified under the call for sites
2) That Buxton with Lamas PC wants to keep the settlement boundary of the parish as it is

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 14487

Received: 19/03/2018

Respondent: Mrs Andrea Donnison

Representation:

Regarding sites shown for potential development in Pulham St Mary, 4 have previously been assessed by South Norfolk Council for their Local Plan.They concluded: "A number of sites were put forward across the parish for inclusion within the development boundary or for allocation for development.These sites were assessed but none considered suitable for allocation,primarily due to access constraints and due to issues surrounding the setting of the village centre which is a Conservation Area.In consequence,no sites have been allocated for development due to a lack of sites that are both suitable for development and deliverable within the Plan period.

Full text:

Regarding sites shown for potential development in Pulham St Mary, 4 have previously been assessed by South Norfolk Council for their Local Plan.They concluded: "A number of sites were put forward across the parish for inclusion within the development boundary or for allocation for development.These sites were assessed but none considered suitable for allocation,primarily due to access constraints and due to issues surrounding the setting of the village centre which is a Conservation Area.In consequence,no sites have been allocated for development due to a lack of sites that are both suitable for development and deliverable within the Plan period.

Comment

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 14595

Received: 19/03/2018

Respondent: Edward King

Representation:

Regarding CC8 in King Street

Wensum Community Sports Centre (WCSC) is currently used by my son Timothy each week for learning and practicing karate and less frequently by my wife Nove for playing badminton with her friend.

We would hope that any change in the immediate vicinity would not mean an end to this sports centre.

Neither of them drive, and so it would be difficult for them to visit facilities further away.

Full text:

Regarding CC8 in King Street

Wensum Community Sports Centre (WCSC) is currently used by my son Timothy each week for learning and practicing karate and less frequently by my wife Nove for playing badminton with her friend.

We would hope that any change in the immediate vicinity would not mean an end to this sports centre.

Neither of them drive, and so it would be difficult for them to visit facilities further away.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 14648

Received: 19/03/2018

Respondent: Darren Huckerby

Representation:

March 2018

Dear Sir/Madam

There is a submission under the GNLP Regulation 18 Consultation for a potential housing site for up to 4 dwellings on the Land North of Eaton Gate, Keswick (GNLP Ref 0214). I oppose this submission on the following grounds:

It is not within the agreed Keswick Development boundary and I do not agree with extending the existing Development Boundary to the North of Low Road

It is in an area of high flood risk

Inot in keeping with the Landscape setting of the area

There are access and Highways issues



Yours sincerely

Mr D Huckerby

Full text:

March 2018

Dear Sir/Madam

There is a submission under the GNLP Regulation 18 Consultation for a potential housing site for up to 4 dwellings on the Land North of Eaton Gate, Keswick (GNLP Ref 0214). I oppose this submission on the following grounds:

It is not within the agreed Keswick Development boundary and I do not agree with extending the existing Development Boundary to the North of Low Road

It is in an area of high flood risk

Inot in keeping with the Landscape setting of the area

There are access and Highways issues



Yours sincerely

Mr D Huckerby

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 14650

Received: 19/03/2018

Respondent: Mr Michael Nutt

Representation:

I oppose the submission for up to 4 dwellings on the land lorth of Eaton Gate, Keswick (GNLP Ref 0214) on the following grounds:
1. It is not within the agreed Keswick Development boundary and I do not agree with extending the existing Development Boundary to the north of Low Road
2. It is in an area of high flood risk
3. It is not in keeping with the Landscape setting of the area
4. There are serious access and Highways issues
5. It would not complement the existing dwellings of Old Keswick Hall and Eaton Gate

Full text:

There is a submission under the GNLP Regulation 18 Consultation for a potential housing site for up to 4 dwellings on the Land North of Eaton Gate, Keswick (GNLP Ref 0214). I oppose this submission on the following grounds:
1. The land in question was formally used for riding stables but it is not within the agreed Keswick Development boundary and I do not agree with extending the existing Development Boundary to the North of Low Road.
2. The land is in an area of high flood risk. The attached photographs taken on New Year's Day 2018 show this dramatically. The plot adjoins water meadows which flood on a regular basis and the northern part of the site lies within the flood plain.
3. There are serious access and Highways issues. There is no vehicular right of access; when previously used as stables, access was via a track off Mill Lane to the north of the site. However this borders the flood plain. The area immediately in front of the plot within Eaton Gate is a designated visitor parking area and there is no drop-kerb facility.
4. Development of this site is not in keeping with the Landscape setting of the area which is entirely rural.
5. It would not complement the existing dwellings of Old Keswick Hall (Grade II listed) and Eaton Gate, a private community of 5 barn conversions.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 14721

Received: 20/03/2018

Respondent: Mr David Hill

Representation:

I oppose the submission under the GNLP Regulation 18 Consultation for a potential housing site for up to 4 dwellings on the Land North of Eaton Gate, Keswick (GNLP Ref 0214).
It is not within the agreed Keswick Development boundary and I do not agree with extending the existing Development Boundary to the North of Low Road
This area lies in an area of high flood risk, and is not in keeping with the Landscape setting of the area.
There are access and Highways issues and it would not complement the existing dwellings of Old Keswick Hall and Eaton Gate

Full text:

March 2018
Dear Sir/Madam,
Greater Norwich Local Plan - Regulation 18 Consultation
Land north of Eaton Gate, Low Road, Keswick
I am a resident of Eaton Gate, Keswick, and would be affected by the submission (ref no. GNLP0214) which has been put forward as a potential housing site (up to 4 dwellings) under the "call for sites" stage of the Greater Norwich Local Plan preparation.
I understand that this will be considered as a potential settlement boundary extensions through the GNLP.
I strongly oppose this application for the reasons set out below

Development Boundary
The current development boundary for Keswick lies entirely on the south side of Low Road, some distance from this site. I understood that sites such as this, which are both less than 0.25ha and 5 dwellings will be considered for 'small' boundary changes through the GNLP. This clearly is not a small boundary change, but a major redrawing of the development boundary in Keswick which will significantly impact on the character and landscape of the village. It is for this reason that the site was previously rejected for residential development as part of the "call for sites" stage of the existing South Norfolk Local Plan i.e. because of its location in relation to the village development boundary, the flood risk, and its remoteness.
The site in question lies entirely within a "River Valley" landscape character designation and this highlights additional material concerns regarding the suitability of this plot for built development - namely, impact on the landscape and flood risk. It would also be clearly damaging and contrary to the objective of retaining the rural nature of the area.


Flood Risk
As a result of its location in the valley of the River Yare, aspects of the site fall within the Environment Agency's defined Flood Zones 2 and 3 - the latter of which indicates the highest probability of flooding. As a result, it would be counter to both national and local planning policy to allow built development to take place on this land with the associated risk of flooding.
Parallel Application
Subsequent to this submission in response to the GNLP Call for Sites, the applicant submitted an application to South Norfolk District Council for this plot to erect a single dwelling (South Norfolk Ref 2018/0468). The applicant informed the Parish Council at a public meeting that the single dwelling application was his prime objective for the plot. This application is under consideration by South Norfolk and it is clear from their website that there are serious concerns.
Access and Highway Issues
All vehicular traffic associated with a new development boundary will be from off Mill Lane. The appropriate highways agency has already raised concern with any intensification of the use of this junction. In particular:
'the visibility from the junction of Mill Lane and Low Road does not quite meet the levels stipulated by the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, with visibility of approximately 20m to the east and 35m to the west achievable. Given this, it is recognised that you will have concerns regarding any development which would result in the intensification of the use of this junction'.
The above quote is in Appendix 8 of the application for a single dwelling (2018/0468) to South Norfolk for this site. The proposed extension to the development boundary should therefore be rejected on highway grounds.
In addition there does not exist, nor has there ever been used, a vehicular point of access into the land from Eaton Gate. All vehicular traffic associated with this submission will utilise the track off Mill Lane. This access is in Flood Zone 3.
The plot has only ever been used at a low level for the stabling, grazing and exercising of horses which ceased some years ago.

Landscape Character
There is little doubt that development of up to four new dwellings on the land would not conserve or enhance the landscape character of the area. The site lies within the "River Valley" landscape character designation in the adopted South Norfolk Local Plan and hence any development would be in conflict with DM Policy 4.5 of the Local Plan.
The site also lies between Keswick Old Hall, which is a Listed Building, and Eaton Gate which is a small development of five barns with stringent planning conditions to preserve the unique character of the area.


Conclusion
The Keswick development boundary should be left unaltered on the grounds of access, highways, flood risk, landscape protection, and the character of the village.


Yours sincerely,


David Hill

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 14784

Received: 20/03/2018

Respondent: Mr Jeremy Cocks

Representation:

Re Land North of Low Road, Keswick. We object on the grounds:
- Not in accordance with existing development boundary. Extending the boundary for this plot would result in a general boundary extension for subsequent plots.
- Adverse impact on the River Valley landscape character.
- Within an existing flood zone level 2/3 area.
- Incorrect statement on right of access through Eaton Gate development - no vehicular access exists.


Full text:

March 2018
Dear Sir/Madam,
Greater Norwich Local Plan - Regulation 18 Consultation
Land north of Eaton Gate, Low Road, Keswick
Eaton Gates (Keswick) Management Company Limited is responsible for the management, maintenance, security and safety of all communal elements of the Eaton Gate development, including common boundaries, private road, footways etc.
The Management Company, therefore, has a strong material interest in the adjacent land (ref no. GNLP0214) which has been put forward as a potential housing site (up to 4 dwellings) under the "call for sites" stage of the Greater Norwich Local Plan preparation.
It is understood that sites such as this, which are both less than 0.25ha and 5 dwellings, have not been assessed for the purposes of the Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment but will be considered as potential settlement boundary extensions through the GNLP.
In accordance with its responsibilities and objectives, the Management Company therefore submits the following comments regarding its opposition to the inclusion of this land for development in the Greater Norwich Local Plan.

Development Boundary
Policy 16 of the adopted Joint Core Strategy (JCS) for Broadland, Norwich and South Norfolk identifies Keswick as an 'Other Village' which has a defined development boundary within which very limited infill development can occur without affecting the form and character of the village.
As a result, the development boundary for Keswick has been drawn tightly around the existing built up area on the south side of Low Road to prevent further extension into the surrounding countryside and to exclude those parts of the village that are at risk from flooding. It is pertinent that the site was previously rejected for residential development as part of the "call for sites" stage of the South Norfolk Local Plan process because of its location in relation to the village development boundary and the flood risk.
Although the allowance of small site windfalls for housing development adjacent to existing development boundaries is a potential option being put forward through the GNLP, the land in question is situated to the north of Low Road and well outside of the designated development boundary. The site is considerably detached from the rest of the village and connectivity is accordingly poor. Any extension of the village's development boundary to include this site would therefore constitute a significant policy change because not only would it necessitate a radical redrawing of the boundary to include the north side of Low Road but it would also be clearly damaging and contrary to the objective of retaining the rural nature of the area.
In this respect, the site in question lies entirely within a "River Valley" landscape character designation and this highlights additional material concerns regarding its suitability for built development - namely, impact on the landscape and flood risk.

Landscape Character
The whole of the 0.25ha site lies within the "River Valley" landscape character designation in the adopted South Norfolk Local Plan. DM Policy 4.5 of the Local Plan relates to the protection of Landscape Character and River Valleys and states that "All development should respect, conserve and where possible, enhance the landscape character of its immediate and wider environment. Development proposals that would cause significant adverse impact on the distinctive landscape characteristics of an area will be refused". The emerging GNLP seeks to maintain the protection and enhancement of recognised and valued landscapes by retaining existing landscape policies.
There is little doubt that development of up to four new dwellings on the land would not conserve or enhance the landscape character of the area. It would instead have a significant adverse impact on the open and unspoilt nature of the river valley and would therefore be counter to the aims of this particular policy.
References to the land being "previously developed" is questionable given its low level former use for the stabling, grazing and exercising of horses - a rural activity suitable for the location - has resulted in a derelict timber stables structure as the only residual remnant of this former use.
In addition, the site lies adjacent to the grounds of Keswick Old Hall - a Grade II Listed Building of considerable merit - the setting of which would be compromised by the development of new housing immediately to the east.

Flood Risk
One of the eight Strategic Principles of the Site Specific Allocations and Policies Document of the adopted South Norfolk Local Plan is "To avoid allocating land in Flood Zones 2 and 3" (SP4). The emerging Local Plan for Greater Norwich also states that new development will be steered away from areas of flood risk.
As a result of its location in the valley of the River Yare, the northerly margins of the site fall within the Environment Agency's defined Flood Zones 2 and 3 - the latter of which indicates the highest probability of flooding. As a result, it would be counter to both national and local planning policy to allow built development to take place on this land with the associated risk of flooding.
This is a particularly significant factor in relation to vehicular access to the site, which is provided via a track off Mill Lane and a field gate to the north end of the site. This existing access runs adjacent to a drainage ditch of the grazing meadows on land which is classified as Flood Zone 3 - ie the highest probability of flooding. This drainage ditch is shown as "High Risk" on the Environment Agency's map showing Flood Risk From Surface Water. As a result, the site is within 20 metres of a high risk source of surface water flooding and in periods of high rainfall (such as the recent Christmas / New Year period), this drain cannot cope with the volume of water and significant flooding results - impacting on the track which provides the sole means of vehicular access to the site.
In addition to this threat from flood water, this narrow track does not provide the standard of access required for built development on the site.

Access
It is considered that some of the information provided in the "call for sites" submission by the owners of the land is misleading. In particular, the landowners do not "enjoy an unencumbered right of access to the site from the public highway via the private road serving the Eaton Gate development". There does not exist, nor has there ever been used, a vehicular point of access into the land from Eaton Gate. This fact is reinforced by the layout of the private estate road - designed to serve the five properties of Eaton Gate - which does not include any drop kerb provision at any point along the section of the Eaton Gate boundary which abuts the neighbouring land in question. Moreover, the point at which the landowners have recently created a potential vehicular access point onto their land from the private estate road lies directly behind the marked spaces provided for Eaton Gate visitor car parking and which also provides the turning head for emergency vehicles. This parking and turning provision, together with suitable boundary treatment to reflect the rustic nature of the location, are examples of the stringent conditions applied to the original planning approval for the barn conversions and creation of Eaton Gate in 1996 and which have been upheld by the residents in all subsequent minor developments.
It is understood that a pedestrian right of access does exist onto the land from Eaton Gate but the fact remains that all vehicular traffic associated with the previous stabling of horses utilised the track off Mill Lane highlighted above. This would have involved very low levels of traffic, however, a substantial increase in vehicle movements (that would result from any housing development) must be of concern to the highways authority - not least since the junction where Mill Lane meets with Low Road does not benefit from good visibility.
In conclusion, therefore, the Management Company objects to any future amendment of Keswick's development boundary to facilitate inclusion of former site number GNLP0214 on the grounds that it would constitute a major, illogical and unnecessary amendment to the boundary. This is borne out by the fact that the land in question is situated in a protected landscape zoning, is partially at risk from flooding and has inadequate means of access.
We trust that for these strong reasons, the site is not considered suitable for built development and, to protect the rural nature of the village and its immediate surroundings, the Keswick development boundary is correspondingly left unaltered.

Yours sincerely,


Jeremy Cocks
For, and on behalf of, Eaton Gates (Keswick) Management Company Limited

Please see attached letter for full rep he has sent in via email

Attachments:

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 14814

Received: 20/03/2018

Respondent: Derek Plummer

Representation:

I oppose the submission for up to 4 dwellings on the land north of Eaton Gate,Keswick (GNLP Ref 0214 ) and do not agree to the extending of the existing Development Boundary.My main objections are :
1.it is not within the agreed Keswick Development boundary
2.it is within a flood risk area
3.out of character with the landscape of the immediate area/village
4.there are very real access issues
5.it would not complement the existing Eaton Gate and Keswick Old Hall dwellings
Derek Plummer

Full text:

I oppose the submission for up to 4 dwellings on the land north of Eaton Gate,Keswick (GNLP Ref 0214 ) and do not agree to the extending of the existing Development Boundary.My main objections are :
1.it is not within the agreed Keswick Development boundary
2.it is within a flood risk area
3.out of character with the landscape of the immediate area/village
4.there are very real access issues
5.it would not complement the existing Eaton Gate and Keswick Old Hall dwellings
Derek Plummer

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 14815

Received: 20/03/2018

Respondent: Keswick and Intwood Parish Council

Representation:

Keswick is identified as an "Other Village" within Policy 16 of the Joint Core Strategy (JCS) for Broadland, Norwich and South Norfolk. The development boundary (in Keswick) has been tightly drawn around the existing built up area along Low Road to prevent further extension of growth into the surrounding countryside and to exclude those areas subject to flooding.

Full text:

GNLP 0214
Keswick is identified as an "Other Village" within Policy 16 of the Joint Core Strategy (JCS) for Broadland, Norwich and South Norfolk. The development boundary (in Keswick) has been tightly drawn around the existing built up area along Low Road to prevent further extension of growth into the surrounding countryside and to exclude those areas subject to flooding.
The "call for sites" reference GNLP 0214 has been previously rejected for precisely the reasons of its location in relation to the existing boundary and its being in a flood risk area. Any change in this regard would be a significant policy change necessitating a radical redrawing of the existing boundary and damaging in relation to maintaining the rural nature of the area.
Policy DM 4.5 of the existing Local Plan in relation to the protection of Landscape Character and River Valleys is unequivocal in stating that: "All development should respect, conserve and where possible, enhance the landscape character of its immediate and wider environment. Development proposals that would cause significant adverse impact on the distinctive landscape characteristics of an area will be refused".
Moreover, the emerging GNLP seeks to maintain the protection and enhancement of recognised and valued landscapes by maintaining existing policies. The Keswick and Intwood Parish Council believe GNLP 0214 is contrary to these policies and would have an adverse impact on the unspoiled nature of the river valley.
The emerging Local Plan seeks to maintain the existing Strategic Policies of avoiding allocating land for development in Flood Zones 2 and 3 (SP 4). The northerly margins of the site GNLP 0214 falls within Flood Zones 2 and 3 thus being subject to the highest probability of flooding. Furthermore, vehicular access to the site runs adjacent to a drainage ditch of grazing meadows on land which is classified as Flood Zone 3, the highest possibility of flooding and classified as "high risk" on Environment Agency mapping. The Parish Council believes it would be contrary to national and local policy to allow the development with such a high risk of surface water flooding.
In conclusion, Keswick and Intwood Parish Council therefore object to any redrawing of the existing development boundary to encompass this site.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 15909

Received: 22/03/2018

Respondent: Mrs Tracey Bocz

Representation:

Swainsthorpe cannot sustain future development due to the limited infrastructure already in place. There is no facilities for shopping and access issues onto adopted and non adopted roads will remain an issue. The historical character of the village will also need to remain a priority.

Full text:

Swainsthorpe cannot sustain future development due to the limited infrastructure already in place. There is no facilities for shopping and access issues onto adopted and non adopted roads will remain an issue. The historical character of the village will also need to remain a priority.

Comment

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 15963

Received: 22/03/2018

Respondent: Lawson Planning Partnership Ltd

Agent: Lawson Planning Partnership Ltd

Representation:

Please see above.

Full text:

Greater Norwich Local Plan Regulation 18 Consultation, Site Proposals Consultation Document: Comment in relation to site Reference HNF3 (GVA reference BA14), allocated for employment uses adjacent to Abbey Farm Commercial Park, Horsham St Faith.

Introduction

On behalf of our client, Horsham Properties Ltd, this letter comprises our representations in response to the Greater Norwich Local Plan Regulation 18 Consultation, 'Site Proposals Document' published January 2018.

These representations specifically relate to Site Reference HNF3 (GVA reference BA14) - Land at Abbey Farm Commercial Park, Horsham St Faith, that is allocated for employment uses within Broadland District Council Site Allocations Development Plan Document (2016).

In summary, the site owners support the incorporation of the existing employment allocation (Site Reference HNF3) within the Greater Norwich Local Plan but request that the settlement boundary of Horsham St Faith is extended to encompass this site allocation.

Background

Broadland District Council's Site Allocations Development Plan Document was adopted in May 2016 and allocates sites that are suitable for certain forms of development such as housing, employment, community facilities etc. The document allocates land at Abbey Farm Commercial Park (Approx. 2.9ha) for employment uses (Use Classes B1, B2 and B8).


Greater Norwich Local Plan 'Site Proposals' Document

The Greater Norwich Local Plan (GNLP) proposes to incorporate the existing employment allocation (Site Reference HNF3) contained within the Broadland Site Allocations DPD within the GNLP. The site owners support the incorporation of the existing allocation into the GNLP. The site is considered to comply with other policies in the GNLP and the National Planning Policy Framework as it will contribute positively towards meeting the employment needs and job requirements of the area. The allocation represents a non-strategic site which would meet the needs of small, medium and start-up businesses as well as enabling existing local firms to expand and consolidate their operations.

The owner's intention is to expand the business park onto the allocated site within the next 5 years, with a planning application currently being prepared for the sites development.

Question 1 of the Site Proposals Document invites suggestions to any small changes to development boundaries. Paragraph 2.9 also indicates that "settlement boundaries will be extended to encompass sites eventually allocated for development in the GNLP". We therefore request that the settlement boundary of Horsham St Faith is extended to include site reference HNF3, to be consistent with the designation of the existing business park, which lies within the settlement boundary, and to acknowledge that the new allocation would complement the form and function of the service village in the same way.

We trust you will find the above and enclosed information to be helpful, please contact Georgina Brotherton or Kathryn Oelman on 01206 835150 if you require any further clarification

Yours faithfully,
Lawson Planning Partnership Ltd

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 16105

Received: 22/03/2018

Respondent: MR TERRY TURNER

Representation:

Re proposals for Horsford. These would swamp Hellesdon's Reepham Road traffic wise, which already much busier from NDR traffic, its schools & GP surgery without additional infrastructure provision. Must surely be similar pressures on Horsford. A potential overall total of over a thousand new homes and the population attached would be way over the top for reasonable expansion of this area & in my brief perusal of proposals I have not spotted any specific mention of additional infrastructure. Have not looked for developments further along Reepham Road but if any for Thorpe Marriott area whole package would be a disaster.

Full text:

Re proposals for Horsford. These would swamp Hellesdon's Reepham Road traffic wise, which already much busier from NDR traffic, its schools & GP surgery without additional infrastructure provision. Must surely be similar pressures on Horsford. A potential overall total of over a thousand new homes and the population attached would be way over the top for reasonable expansion of this area & in my brief perusal of proposals I have not spotted any specific mention of additional infrastructure. Have not looked for developments further along Reepham Road but if any for Thorpe Marriott area whole package would be a disaster.