GNLP2086

Showing comments and forms 1 to 6 of 6

Comment

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 17019

Received: 12/11/2018

Respondent: Carleton Rode Parish Council

Representation:

An application for this site was refused previously by Parish Council and South Norfolk Council. In 2014 an appeal was rejected by a Planning Inspector. Parish Council considers that that decision should remain and the site not taken forward for possible development. Parish Council objects on ground of landscape impact, proximity of listed buildings and low levels of infrastructure support and amenities. Two other sites [GNLP 0438 and 0349] have more than doubled the number of dwellings proposed for those areas.

Full text:

At their November meeting, Carleton Rode Parish Council resolved to oppose the inclusion of site GNLP 2086 [land south of Faxlands Road] as a potential site for development in the Local Plan.

The Parish Council and South Norfolk Council opposed a previous application for development at this site [2012/0863/F]. The Council believes that decision and the reasons for it remain valid. In February 2014 a Planning Inspector rejected a subsequent planning appeal. The Parish Council continues to support that decision.

Other reasons for opposing the proposal [GNLP 2086] are the constraints relating to the site which include impact on the landscape, the proximity of several listed buildings, and low levels of infrastructure support and amenities.

Other sites have been promoted for consideration within the new Local Plan - GNLP 0438 for 11 dwellings and GNLP 0439 for 10 dwellings, a total of 21 dwellings. These two sites were identified previously as sites for a total of 10 dwellings so the village's potential development for new dwellings has more than doubled.

Comment

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 17055

Received: 14/11/2018

Respondent: South Norfolk Council

Representation:

Surface water flooding affecting south-western corner of site

Full text:

Surface water flooding affecting south-western corner of site

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 17710

Received: 03/12/2018

Respondent: Thomas Walshe

Representation:

This site has consistently been opposed and/or rejected by the Parish and District Councils, Norfolk Highways, English Heritage, local residents and, in a final and decisive analysis, by the Planning Inspectorate. The site is not required for any housing quota or need identified within Carleton Rode.

Full text:

This site has consistently been opposed and/or rejected by the Parish and District Councils, Norfolk Highways, English Heritage, local residents and, in a final and decisive analysis, by the Planning Inspectorate.

The decision of the Planning Inspector, in her published report is key to any appraisal of the site and remains totally relevant. She found against it in all the main aspects considered, i.e.:-

* Insufficient justification for allowing development in the countryside.
* Effect on the character of the area and the settings of nearby listed buildings.
* On highways grounds, conflict and congestion arising from proximity to the Primary School.

There is no requirement for this manifestly unsuitable site to be included in the Greater Norwich Local Plan. The documentation states that "far more land has been submitted for consideration than will be needed."

The site is not required for any housing quota or need identified within Carleton Rode. Recently developed and future earmarked sites adequately provide for the parish's housing requirements.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 17728

Received: 30/11/2018

Respondent: Mr Peter Jeffery

Representation:

The consultation notice states 'Far more land has been submitted for consideration than will be needed. An application to develop the site was rejected by Carleton Rode Parish Council, South Norfolk and at appeal, by a Planning Inspector four years ago on grounds which remain valid today. Inclusion now would overturn that appeal decision so making a mockery of planning system.

Site GNLP 0438 and 0439 meet the land supply needs having been doubled to 21 dwellings under the consultation earlier this year. There has been significant recent new build in the parish at Cooks Corner [Five dwellings] and more are in the pipeline. The site is outside the existing development boundary.

The consultation notice document states 'Far more land has been submitted for consideration than will be needed in the GNLP' making this submission surplus to requirement and appear to be a tactic to bypass the Planning Inspector's dismissal of the 2012 applications.

Proposed development of the site has been rejected by South Norfolk Council and the Planning Inspectorate on a number of grounds which, in our view, are as valid today as they were four years ago. Development of the site was also opposed by NCC Highways Department, English Heritage, CPRE, and many local residents. Approval of the sites for development would overturn the result of local, district and inspectorate level opposition and so make a mockery of the planning system and bypass the previous refusal.

Full text:

Objection to the inclusion of the site GNLP2086 within the Greater Norwich Local Plan.

The consultation notice states 'Far more land has been submitted for consideration than will be needed. An application to develop the site was rejected by Carleton Rode Parish Council, South Norfolk and at appeal, by a Planning Inspector four years ago on grounds which remain valid today. Inclusion now would overturn that appeal decision so making a mockery of planning system.

Site GNLP 0438 and 0439 meet the land supply needs having been doubled to 21 dwellings under the consultation earlier this year. There has been significant recent new build in the parish at Cooks Corner [Five dwellings] and more are in the pipeline. The site is outside the existing development boundary.

The consultation notice document states 'Far more land has been submitted for consideration than will be needed in the GNLP' making this submission surplus to requirement and appear to be a tactic to bypass the Planning Inspector's dismissal of the 2012 applications.

Proposed development of the site has been rejected by South Norfolk Council and the Planning Inspectorate on a number of grounds which, in our view, are as valid today as they were four years ago. Development of the site was also opposed by NCC Highways Department, English Heritage, CPRE, and many local residents. Approval of the sites for development would overturn the result of local, district and inspectorate level opposition and so make a mockery of the planning system and bypass the previous refusal.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 19021

Received: 14/12/2018

Respondent: Mr David Watson

Representation:

This site has already had an application refused by the Parish Council, District Council and the Planning Inspectorate. I believe that the 5-year supply is already fulfilled.
In addition, the scale and density of this proposal are completely out of proportion with the rural and historic character of this village.

Full text:

This site has already had an application refused by the Parish Council, District Council and the Planning Inspectorate. I believe that the 5-year supply is already fulfilled.
In addition, the scale and density of this proposal are completely out of proportion with the rural and historic character of this village.

Support

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 19326

Received: 12/12/2018

Respondent: Durrants Ltd

Representation:

With respect to site reference GNLP2086, the applicant welcomes the Council's decision that the
site represents a suitable site for future residential development. We would stress that there are no
fundamental constraints or impacts that cannot be mitigated through the subsequent application
and development process, and the site represents an opportunity to provide much needed housing
within a location that would support the nearby school, minimise vehicle trips to the school whilst
also minimising wider landscape and townscape impacts. We would therefore welcome your
support for the inclusion of the above site in the merging local plan.

Full text:

See attachment

Attachments:

  • Rep (313.97 KB)