GNLP2166

Showing comments and forms 1 to 3 of 3

Comment

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 19007

Received: 13/12/2018

Respondent: Norfolk Wildlife Trust

Representation:

We note the proximity of this site to Paine's Yard Wood, The Owlery & March Covert CWS and are concerned at the potential ecological impacts of housing in this location. Should this site be progressed to the next consultation stage, then we would expect it to be accompanied by further details demonstrating how it would be deliverable without resulting in damage to adjoining areas of ecological value, for example through providing sufficient stand-off between development and priority habitats, and where proportional the provision of green infrastructure to ensure that the site has a net benefit for biodiversity.

Full text:

We note the proximity of this site to Paine's Yard Wood, The Owlery & March Covert CWS and are concerned at the potential ecological impacts of housing in this location. Should this site be progressed to the next consultation stage, then we would expect it to be accompanied by further details demonstrating how it would be deliverable without resulting in damage to adjoining areas of ecological value, for example through providing sufficient stand-off between development and priority habitats, and where proportional the provision of green infrastructure to ensure that the site has a net benefit for biodiversity.

Comment

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 19525

Received: 14/12/2018

Respondent: Salhouse Parish Council

Representation:

Considering the proposed sites for Rackheath, site numbers GNLP 0095, 2166, 2092 and 2040 will all contribute to the effect of continuous development from the Norwich city boundary to Salhouse, especially if the earlier sites nos. GNLP 0487 (now Planning Application 20170243), 0493, 0164 and 0163 were all allowed to go ahead within the Salhouse parish boundary. Development of these sites would conflict with Policy 2 of the JCS and Broadland Policy EN 2 as it would fail to maintain the strategic gap between the communities of Sprowston and Rackheath and Rackheath and Salhouse respectively, and would damage the landscape settings of the two villages and their approaches. It would
also conflict with Policy GT 2 Green Infrastructure of the Broadland North East Growth Triangle AAP which seeks to protect an area either side of the NDR from inappropriate development. Various other proposed sites in Rackheath also conflict with this policy.

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:

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 19586

Received: 18/12/2018

Respondent: Great & Little Plumstead Parish Council

Representation:

The development is outside of the settlement boundary.

The site allocation as it does not comply with Policy 1 of the Great and Little Plumstead Parish Council Neighbourhood Plan. Which states 'New development will respect and retain the integrity of Great Plumstead, Little Plumstead and Thorpe End Green Village as distinct character as individual villages and, in particular, it is important that coalescence is avoided between Thorpe End Garden Village and development related to the surrounding settlements, ensuring that Thorpe End Garden Village retains the appearance and character of a separate garden village"

Full text:

GNLP0441R
The Plumsteads are seen as "service villages" within the Norwich Policy
Area and Joint Core Strategy. This is defined as suitable for small housing
developments (10 to 20 dwellings) subject to form and character
considerations.

Developing this land would also be on Grade 1 Agricultural Land, surely
brownfield sites should be used first?

Great Plumstead in particular has no infrastructure. There are currently
no schools, shops or doctors etc within the Village. The nearest school is
located within Little Plumstead which is at capacity, The nearest doctor
is Blofield, which is already nearing capacity. There is no shop within
the Parish at all, the closest shop is in neighbouring Parishes.

Poor road infrastructure in an area poorly serviced by public transport. There is only one bus which services the area which is not frequent.

It is presumed that the exit/entrance of this site would be located on Hare
Road. This is potentially dangerous as the road is not very wide and there have
already been accidents. Alternatively an exit/entrance onto
Middle Road would equally be unsuitable. This road has increased in
traffic since the opening of the new bridge and the closure of Low Road and
Smee Lane. Middle Road itself is not a wide carriageway and at parts
cannot support two vehicles passing each other.

Drainage/soakaways would need to be investigated on this site as Hare Road
is known for flooding in various parts.

Great Plumstead already absorbing more than Service Village allocation with over 30 new dwellings in progress.

This development is outside of the settlement boundary.

The foul drainage capacity in the area is already overloaded without taking account of the new developments coming.

Not a sustainable location.


GNLP0420R
The Parish Council objects to this site as it is contrary to our Service
Village designation, which states developments should be up to 20
dwellings.

Developing this land would also be on Grade 1 Agricultural Land, surely
brownfield sites should be used first?

Great Plumstead in particular has no infrastructure. There are currently
no schools, shops or doctors etc within the Village. The nearest school is
located within Little Plumstead which is at capacity, The nearest dentist
is Blofield, which is already nearing capacity. There is no shop within
the Parish at all, the closest shop is in neighbouring Parishes.

Poor road infrastructure in an area poorly serviced by public transport. There is only one bus which services the area which is not frequent.

It is presumed that the exit/entrance of this site would be located on Hare
Road. This could be dangerous as the road is not very wide and there have
already been accidents on this road.

Drainage/soakaways would need to be investigated on this site as the roads are subject to contact surface water flooding.

Great Plumstead already absorbing more than Service Village allocation with over 30 new dwellings in progress.

The foul drainage capacity in the area is already overloaded without taking account of the new developments coming.

This development is outside of the settlement boundary.

Not a sustainable location.


GNLP2107
The Plumsteads are seen as "service villages" within the Norwich Policy
Area and Joint Core Strategy. This is defined as suitable for small housing
developments (10 to 20 dwellings) subject to form and character
considerations. Little Plumstead already absorbing more than Service Village allocation with over 100+ new dwellings in progress.

Little Plumstead has almost no infrastructure. There are no shops, doctors, dentists etc located within the Parish.

Occupying and removing agricultural land

Poor road infrastructure in a area poorly serviced by public transport

Foul drainage capacity in the area overloaded.

Drainage/soakaways would need to be investigated on this site roads in the area are known for flooding in various parts.

We are already buried in a growth triangle which is not working in terms of delivery, a masterplan or infrastructure support.

Not a sustainable location - only way to get to a shop is by car.

GNLP2040
The Plumsteads are seen as "service villages" within the Norwich Policy
Area and Joint Core Strategy. This is defined as suitable for small housing
developments (10 to 20 dwellings) subject to form and character
considerations.

Great Plumstead already absorbing more than Service Village allocation with over 30 new dwellings in progress.

The development is outside of the settlement boundary.

Occupying and removing agricultural land

Great Plumstead in particular has no infrastructure. There are currently
no schools, shops or doctors etc within the Village. The nearest school is
located within Little Plumstead which is at capacity, The nearest dentist
is Blofield, which is already nearing capacity. There is no shop within
the Parish at all, the closest shop is in neighbouring Parishes.

Poor road infrastructure in a area poorly serviced by public transport

Foul drainage capacity in the area overloaded.

Poor road infrastructure subject to constant surface water flooding

We are already buried in a growth triangle which is not working in terms of delivery, a masterplan or infrastructure support.

GNLP2166
The development is outside of the settlement boundary.

The site allocation as it does not comply with Policy 1 of the Great and Little Plumstead Parish Council Neighbourhood Plan. Which states 'New development will respect and retain the integrity of Great Plumstead, Little Plumstead and Thorpe End Green Village as distinct character as individual villages and, in particular, it is important that coalescence is avoided between Thorpe End Garden Village and development related to the surrounding settlements, ensuring that Thorpe End Garden Village retains the appearance and character of a separate garden village"

GNLP2092
The development is outside of the settlement boundary.

The site allocation as it does not comply with Policy 1 of the Great and Little Plumstead Parish Council Neighbourhood Plan. Which states 'New development will respect and retain the integrity of Great Plumstead, Little Plumstead and Thorpe End Green Village as distinct character as individual villages and, in particular, it is important that coalescence is avoided between Thorpe End Garden Village and development related to the surrounding settlements, ensuring that Thorpe End Garden Village retains the appearance and character of a separate garden village"

GNLP0095
The development is outside of the settlement boundary.

The site allocation as it does not comply with Policy 1 of the Great and Little Plumstead Parish Council Neighbourhood Plan. Which states 'New development will respect and retain the integrity of Great Plumstead, Little Plumstead and Thorpe End Green Village as distinct character as individual villages and, in particular, it is important that coalescence is avoided between Thorpe End Garden Village and development related to the surrounding settlements, ensuring that Thorpe End Garden Village retains the appearance and character of a separate garden village"