GNLP2115

Showing comments and forms 1 to 11 of 11

Comment

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 17321

Received: 22/11/2018

Respondent: South Norfolk Council

Representation:

some pockets of surface water flooding.
Historical flooding issues with run-off from the site affecting properties in Gothic Close and The Common. Any development of this site should fully investigate historical flooding issues and incorporate mitigation measures to prevent run-off from the site.

Full text:

some pockets of surface water flooding.
Historical flooding issues with run-off from the site affecting properties in Gothic Close and The Common. Any development of this site should fully investigate historical flooding issues and incorporate mitigation measures to prevent run-off from the site.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 17517

Received: 29/11/2018

Respondent: Mr Brett Kingsbury

Representation:

Area is prone to flooding with potential run off to properties in The Common and Gothic Close.
No footpaths in The Common to deal with likely footfall from new properties towards adjacent school.
A large new build estate would not be in keeping with the mostly period properties that constitute The Common.
The agricultural land is in constant use for food crop (not silage).
The land has high ecological value, providing habitats for local wildlife.
The land is in Needham parish. If there is need for more housing in Needham parish, it should be located adjacent to Needham settlement boundary.

Full text:

Area is prone to flooding with potential run off to properties in The Common and Gothic Close.
No footpaths in The Common to deal with likely footfall from new properties towards adjacent school.
A large new build estate would not be in keeping with the mostly period properties that constitute The Common.
The agricultural land is in constant use for food crop (not silage).
The land has high ecological value, providing habitats for local wildlife.
The land is in Needham parish. If there is need for more housing in Needham parish, it should be located adjacent to Needham settlement boundary.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 17554

Received: 30/11/2018

Respondent: Mr Andrew Healey

Representation:

Roads into Harleston already clogged with Traffic which more homes in this area will add to, already bottlenecks down Needham Road caused by parked vehicles.Historical Flood run off into the Common and Gothic Close.
Infrastructure not able to cope with more homes.
Accces to Doctors/Dentists, etc already difficuly without more homes.
Already Insufficient parking in Harleston.
If residents in this development travel to Norwich they will travel down to A140 via unsuitable roads through Starston, Pulhams or Fritton.
Loss of agricultural land.
WIll there be Public Serviced Improvements.

Full text:

Roads into Harleston already clogged with Traffic which more homes in this area will add to, already bottlenecks down Needham Road caused by parked vehicles.Historical Flood run off into the Common and Gothic Close.
Infrastructure not able to cope with more homes.
Accces to Doctors/Dentists, etc already difficuly without more homes.
Already Insufficient parking in Harleston.
If residents in this development travel to Norwich they will travel down to A140 via unsuitable roads through Starston, Pulhams or Fritton.
Loss of agricultural land.
WIll there be Public Serviced Improvements.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 17677

Received: 03/12/2018

Respondent: Mike Brennan

Representation:

Area is prone to flooding, Foot traffic would damage the common, Doctors wouldn't be able to deal with increased patient load (already in the bottom 3% for the whole of UK).

Full text:

Area is prone to flooding, Foot traffic would damage the common, Doctors wouldn't be able to deal with increased patient load (already in the bottom 3% for the whole of UK).

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 17678

Received: 03/12/2018

Respondent: Ms Dawn Brennan

Representation:

Ecological and townscape impacts, loss of grade 2 agricultural land. Area prone to flooding. Foot access via The Common will cause damage and disruption to wildlife habitation

Full text:

Ecological and townscape impacts, loss of grade 2 agricultural land. Area prone to flooding. Foot access via The Common will cause damage and disruption to wildlife habitation

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 17941

Received: 30/11/2018

Respondent: Harley Allman

Representation:

1. The site is prone to flooding and poor drainage.
2. The common is 'Common Land'
3. The Common is made up of a large number of 'period' properties
4. The site is and has been very successful agricultural land
5. The wildlife infrastructure is highly populated with habitats of many types of birds, animals, flowers and fauna.
6. The site is actually within the boundaries of the parish of Needham so therefore consideration should be made for sites closer to or within those boundaries first.
7. Access to the proposed sites raises other concerns see full text.

Full text:

Following information received regarding the proposal for the above site to be acquired for 175 residential properties. I would like to submit the following comments to be put on record strongly against the proposal.

1. This site is prone to flooding and poor drainage, being victims ourselves in the past, resulting in water runoff onto our property and to other parts of The Common and Gothic Close.

2. The Common is 'Common Land' and therefore does not have dedicated footpaths or walkways suitable for any increased footfall from new properties navigating into the main town or to the nearby high school.

3. The Common is made up of a large number of 'period' properties (ours included) and any 'new build' will not be in keeping with this style or compliment the area.

4. The site is and has been very successful agricultural land and has been in constant use providing many diverse and necessary food crops.

5. The wildlife infrastructure is highly populated with habitats of many types of birds, animals, flowers and fauna.

6. The site is actually within the boundaries of the parish of Needham so therefore consideration should be made for sites closer to or within those boundaries first.

7. Access to the proposed site raises other concerns:

a, any access via Needham Road which is on a curved hill, would not provide an acceptable access route.
b, the site contains a former farm and grounds.
c, Needham Road is not robust enough to carry the more than likely increase in traffic and would cause even more serious traffic problems than there is at present.
d, any access via Gothic Close would also cause an unhealthy increase in traffic not suitable for such a small road, and which also has a 'public' footpath at its end.
e, the towns services - Doctors, Dentist, Post Office, Bank, Schools etc, etc, are already overstretched in providing an acceptable level satisfaction to its current residents without increasing the numbers even more.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 17942

Received: 01/12/2018

Respondent: Mr Paul Nooney

Representation:

I would like to object to the development of the site identified as GNLP2115 I have only recently moved to Gothic Close and had I known that this site was going to be developed I would have avoided buying in this area.
We do not want months/years of building work ruining the tranquility of our new home We don't know much about the suitability of the land for development but it appears to be agricultural at the moment and is used for crops, we are concerned that without the natural drainage in the soil of the land there could be significant implications regarding flooding The fact that this is listed as a development for Needham is deceitful. If Needham needs more houses they should be in Needham not Harleston Please do not allow this to proceed

Full text:

I would like to object to the development of the site identified as GNLP2115 I have only recently moved to Gothic Close and had I known that this site was going to be developed I would have avoided buying in this area.
We do not want months/years of building work ruining the tranquility of our new home We don't know much about the suitability of the land for development but it appears to be agricultural at the moment and is used for crops, we are concerned that without the natural drainage in the soil of the land there could be significant implications regarding flooding The fact that this is listed as a development for Needham is deceitful. If Needham needs more houses they should be in Needham not Harleston Please do not allow this to proceed

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 18894

Received: 10/12/2018

Respondent: Mr Ian Carstairs

Representation:

It is my view that sites GNLP2115, GNLP2116, GNLP2088 should not be accepted. 2115 and 2116 actually join up the parishes of Needham and Redenhall with Harleston in areas which play important parts in maintaining historic distinction between the two communities. Additionally, the views to either side of Needham Road having climbed from the by-pass towards the town offer long views which enhance the perception of the town's position in its wider rural setting. To allow these sites to be developed would render the principal tourist approach to the town, the first vision to greet the visitor, as nothing more than a massing of housing visited on the countryside, far from the concept of a historic settlement. A robust approach to maintaining this separation would show an appreciation of the bigger picture setting, not just the pursuit of a numbers quota for houses.

Full text:

Response to: Greater Norwich Local Plan Regulation 18 Consultation

1. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the next stage of the Greater Norwich Local Plan (GNLP). I would be grateful if you would take my views into consideration.

2. As an overarching point it is clear that the submissions received would greatly exceed the target allocation for housing defined under the outlines for the Plan. This offers planners the opportunity to select the most appropriate places from within the suite of sites and the scope to guide developers to achieve the most beneficial solutions for the economic, social and environmental well-being of the area. My detailed observations follow.

Page 214 Section 5.42. Harleston

3. May I suggest that there are two further constraints to be added. The first is neglected every time a plan is produced and that is the physical impact of traffic generated on a tightly constrained town centre. Vehicular pressure and parking capacity are a significant issue in Harleston and a material consideration when judging the impact of development on the current settlement and should be acknowledged and assessed as such. The second constraint is the need to ensure that the separation from the adjacent village and parish of Needham is maintained on the Harleston side of the by-pass.

4. The community in Harleston has worked extremely hard over recent years to give real meaning to South Norfolk Council's Market Town's Initiative and has produced some spectacular contributions towards enhancing the tourism and resident commitment to the town and its hinterland.

5. A present project of the town council working with Norfolk County Highways and South Norfolk Council with the support of Harleston's Future is investigating trial phases of a Roads Traffic and Pedestrians Safety initiative to seek to lessen the impact of traffic in the town centre. Inadequately constrained additional development and failing to take this into account will only frustrate this long-running initiative, but no-one seems willing to acknowledge and incorporate this into true, rather than cosmetic strategic planning. The GNLP is an opportunity to do so.

Additional Site Proposals

General - Importance of character in relation to Tourism

6. Much store is placed on tourism as an economic driver for the district. Good strategic planning should therefore fully take into account the 'bigger picture' of the visual appearance of the Town as approached and the need to ensure that new developments do not diminish the character of the area.

7. It is appreciated that harmonising development with a town's rural setting is not easy to achieve if the style and density of modern houses is to continue as at present and especially where the houses have no meaningful gardens, within which trees and shrubbery would soften and enhance the appearance.

8. Today development seems to shroud existing historic rural towns with suburban sprawl in the countryside. Careful consideration is therefore needed to ensure that the town blends well into the surrounding landscape and presents an attractive face to those visiting. Solid blocks of insensitively placed high density housing seriously diminish the character of an area. I have already commented on the need to protect the approach to Harleston along Rushall Road, which can be achieved with imagination. Such an approach is also needed on a whole-town scale.

9. Taking a wider look at the setting of the town as viewed from the by-pass it can be seen that until recently Harleston sat well into its depression in the landscape and past developments rather nestled into the land form. However, very recent developments onto higher ground are significantly breaching this and with three-storey houses forming parts of development schemes these are radically eroding the appearance and adversely affecting the character of the town to such a degree that it feels rather hollow to think of Harleston as a market own, as opposed to the ubiquitous appearance of a dormitory semi-urban settlement.

10. It is therefore suggested that as a generality, moves are set in place now to ensure that whichever sites are accepted that where these might abut the bypass and perhaps other main access roads into town, a buffer corridor, ideally 20 meters wide of public amenity space is planted. This needs to be started now and to be incorporated into existing approved sites when any detailed planning applications are submitted.
11. The reason for suggesting 20 metres is to allow sufficient room for mature forest tree species, such as oak, to have room to fully develop, without consequential problems in years to come of broad and tall trees immediately on a narrow boundary line. It is only necessary to look at the line of trees planted in Spirketts Lane as screening for industrial units to see that oak trees 2 metres from the carriage way and close to a site boundary cannot flourish to full effect without impinging severely in very few years on the highway or neighbouring property.
12. As inevitably further sites contiguous to the by-pass are proposed in coming years, each part of the jigsaw can be completed to give a corridor right round the south/eastern aspect to the town, which will provide an excellent health walk and pleasant recreational facility while screening the urbanisation of the town to tourists and visitors alike. This is of economic relevance to the future of the town and quality of life and the character of the Waveney Valley. I note that there is no significant public space provision suggested in the proposals. In a town where 94% of its town centre public space is dominated by the needs of the motor vehicle something needs to be done to provide breathing space close to home for such dense concentrations of housing as are being built.

Site specific comments
13. It is good planning practice to ensure that distinct settlements are not allowed to 'join up' through allowing development which erodes the separation. This comment was made by planners over Local Plan submissions in the past and is a good and sound policy especially applicable to the boundary between Needham and Harleston.
14. It is my view that sites GNLP2115, GNLP2116, GNLP2088 should not be accepted. 2115 and 2116 actually join up the parishes of Needham and Redenhall with Harleston in areas which play important parts in maintaining historic distinction between the two communities. Additionally, the views to either side of Needham Road having climbed from the by-pass towards the town offer long views which enhance the perception of the town's position in its wider rural setting. To allow these sites to be developed would render the principal tourist approach to the town, the first vision to greet the visitor, as nothing more than a massing of housing visited on the countryside, far from the concept of a historic settlement. A robust approach to maintaining this separation would show an appreciation of the bigger picture setting, not just the pursuit of a numbers quota for houses.
15. For similar reasons I suggest that proposal GNLP2099 be not considered acceptable as it is rising ground and housing here on an elevated position would have a major and overbearing impact on the second most important approach to the town.
16. Thank you for taking the time to read my submission. I hope that you will find these comments helpful and that you are able to take them into account when finalising the next stages of the plan process.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 19266

Received: 14/12/2018

Respondent: Danielle Kingsbury

Representation:

The parish boundary of Needham runs behind The Common. Any development on the site would join up the settlement of Needham and Harleston and erodes the distinction between the two. Additionally, we believe the Harleston settlement boundary runs along the rear of The Common.

A large development would impact the approach to Harleston and potentially damage tourist impression of a small historic town thereby lessening the importance of Harleston and damaging the economical benefits resulting from tourism.

The proposed location is grade 2 agricultural land used for more than a single crop each year.

Thank you

Full text:

The parish boundary of Needham runs behind The Common. Any development on the site would join up the settlement of Needham and Harleston and erodes the distinction between the two. Additionally, we believe the Harleston settlement boundary runs along the rear of The Common.

A large development would impact the approach to Harleston and potentially damage tourist impression of a small historic town thereby lessening the importance of Harleston and damaging the economical benefits resulting from tourism.

The proposed location is grade 2 agricultural land used for more than a single crop each year.

Thank you

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 19401

Received: 14/12/2018

Respondent: Starston Parish Council

Representation:

The PC oppose this proposed development site inline with the strong views expressed at the Neighbourhood Plan consultation event 17/11/18 (nearly 20% residents attended), and in the Parish Plan 2008 (95% resident response rate), that Starston remains separate to Harleston.
Residents don't want Starston to become absorbed into Harleston as a result of large scale housing development between the two currently distinct communities.
At the first GNLP consultation in March 2018, Starston PC requested that the land between Harleston and Starston was identified as a "Strategic Gap", to ensure that Starston didn't become a suburb of Harleston in the future.

Full text:

The Parish Council oppose this proposed development site.
This position is in line with the strong view expressed at the Neighbourhood Plan consultation event on 17th November 2018 (nearly 20% residents attended), and in the Parish Plan 2008 (95% resident response rate), that Starston remains separate to Harleston. For detailed comments, see "Environment & Landscape" page 4 of the Results & Analysis from the Parish Workshop, available in the Neighbourhood Plan section of Starston Village website.
Residents do not want Starston to become absorbed into Harleston as a result of large scale housing development between the two currently distinct communities.

It should be noted that in the first GNLP consultation in March 2018, Starston Parish Council requested that the land between Harleston and Starston was identified as a "Strategic Gap", to ensure that Starston did not become a suburb of Harleston in the future.

Support

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 19535

Received: 14/12/2018

Respondent: Durrants Ltd

Representation:

With respect to site references GNLP2115 and GNLP2116 the applicant welcomes the Council's conclusions that the sites represent suitable sites for future residential development and provide for the natural expansion of Harleston. We highlight that there are no fundamental constraints or impacts that cannot be mitigated through the subsequent policy allocation, applications and development process

We would stress that the proposals put forward in contrast to recent speculative applications and individual piecemeal development within the District represent an opportunity to help deliver a plan-led future for Harleston and wider local community. One that addresses the specific existing and future needs of the District and the local community in a sustainable and accessible location and at the same time seeks to minimise the environmental impacts of future development. We would therefore welcome your support for the inclusion of the above sites in the emerging joint local plan.

Full text:

See attachment for full details of submission.

Attachments: