GNLP2168

Showing comments and forms 1 to 15 of 15

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 16939

Received: 05/11/2018

Respondent: sandro cecchini

Representation:

I object to this plan. There are already sites being developed in the area causing more traffic, destroying wildlife habitats and the very fabric of these ancient Norfolk villages.
Creating a 'garden town' for the convenience of commuters to London and Cambridge is obscene.
Small villages in this area have remained largely unchanged down the centuries and are going to be utterly destroyed, trampled under the feet of thousands of people who do not care about the area and have no interest in it's history, wildlife or anything else. Shame on you and the greedy landowners if this goes through...

Full text:

I object to this plan. There are already sites being developed in the area causing more traffic, destroying wildlife habitats and the very fabric of these ancient Norfolk villages.
Creating a 'garden town' for the convenience of commuters to London and Cambridge is obscene.
Small villages in this area have remained largely unchanged down the centuries and are going to be utterly destroyed, trampled under the feet of thousands of people who do not care about the area and have no interest in it's history, wildlife or anything else. Shame on you and the greedy landowners if this goes through...

Comment

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 16977

Received: 08/11/2018

Respondent: Mrs Rosemary Leeder

Representation:

I am concerned about the impact on existing services in the area. PLEASE tell me that this plan includes another GPs surgery and extra schools? These are already massively overstretchec in the area. People cannot get their children into the school nearest to their home and often I cannot get a doctor's appointment for love nor money as they are so busy.
I await your comments with interest.

Full text:

I am concerned about the impact on existing services in the area. PLEASE tell me that this plan includes another GPs surgery and extra schools? These are already massively overstretchec in the area. People cannot get their children into the school nearest to their home and often I cannot get a doctor's appointment for love nor money as they are so busy.
I await your comments with interest.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 16988

Received: 09/11/2018

Respondent: Mr Robert Everitt

Representation:

The development should not be approved, the town cannot support it and what ever promises are made to provide editions services or infrastructure are unlikely to materialise.
I also believe this could have a devastating impact on this small market town by overloading the services and killing the 'town' .

Full text:

As a resident of the Silfield area of Wymondham for the last 7 years, i am frankly outraged at plan for 6500 houses in a market town that struggles to meet the existing demands of the people who live there.

There are already several developments in Wymondham that dont even equate to half the number of house in this new proposal. What infrastructure will be put in place to support the town? Equally, if there is infrastructure which is only for the housed area this could be extremely damaging to the town itself.

There is also the Silfield bridge aspect to bear in mind which is often blocked or flooded or there is some sort of construction work going on, I note the mention of direct access to the A11, it that actually likely? And if it is you will be directing traffic away from town, that may come across as damned if you do and damned if you dont but that is the way it is. There is a delicate balance in the town currently, our local market is a shadow of what it used to be because partly of interest but particularly because of council interfence, rates and works which put people off entering town.
That said, there is a large contingent of loyal town goers that support events but these events do block the town, with 6500 more house and their respective occupants where is there room to support this?

There is also the countryside aspect to consider, many people walk in this proposed area which will ultimately see the Wymondham town limits expanded, I have seen in nearby Attleborough how the town limits have changed and how choked their town centre is.

Wymondham is a lovely market town and development on this scale seeks only to make vast sums of money while squeezing as many houses into the smallest spaces with barely enough parking for residents let alone anyone wanting a guest to attend. As with all of the estates appearing there will be countless cars parked on roads and footpaths, ASB created from this and from the lack of space between houses and lack of amenities to entertain the young..
As it usually the case, many things will be promised in order to gain approval but in practice nothing will materialise or excuses will be made, the public know full well that houses make money and that is the only thing on the minds of the developers and landowners.
There are enough new estates in the town and I firmly believe that a development of this size would be detrimental to the town.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 16990

Received: 09/11/2018

Respondent: Mr Julian Halls

Representation:

strongly object A small site at 6,500 houses? The area is vast and good quality arable land with a river and train line. It will cause noise and flooding issues. The character of the open countryside will be destoyed. the only roads linking the Town is a narrow railway bridge. Highways England have already said no to a new link onto the A11. Result will be gridlock. Schools will not be able to cope either and bus service has been withdrawn. A more unsuitable site would be difficult to chose in an area devoid of proper infrastructure already.

Full text:

strongly object A small site at 6,500 houses? The area is vast and good quality arable land with a river and train line. It will cause noise and flooding issues. The character of the open countryside will be destoyed. the only roads linking the Town is a narrow railway bridge. Highways England have already said no to a new link onto the A11. Result will be gridlock. Schools will not be able to cope either and bus service has been withdrawn. A more unsuitable site would be difficult to chose in an area devoid of proper infrastructure already.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 17007

Received: 11/11/2018

Respondent: Mrs Elaine Pestle

Representation:

This is an obscene proposal. South Norfolk Council should be ASHAMED! This massive development would sacrifice a huge swathe of greenfield land, destroying wildlife habitat and irreplacable local heritage, greatly increase through traffic in surrounding villages such as Ashwellthorpe, already busier since recent new housing developments in Wymondham. Isolated areas of habitat such as Ashwellthorpe Wood SSSI and Peaseacre Wood would be ruined by increased footfall, we will lose our local wildlife, heritage and historical identity, all for the benefit of commuters (who have no current interest in Norfolk other than cheap housing), and of course the selfish greedy landowners.

Full text:

This is an obscene proposal. South Norfolk Council should be ASHAMED! This massive development would sacrifice a huge swathe of greenfield land, destroying wildlife habitat and irreplacable local heritage, greatly increase through traffic in surrounding villages such as Ashwellthorpe, already busier since recent new housing developments in Wymondham. Isolated areas of habitat such as Ashwellthorpe Wood SSSI and Peaseacre Wood would be ruined by increased footfall, we will lose our local wildlife, heritage and historical identity, all for the benefit of commuters (who have no current interest in Norfolk other than cheap housing), and of course the selfish greedy landowners.

Comment

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 17365

Received: 24/11/2018

Respondent: MR Marlon Fulcher

Representation:

I can understand the concerns of local residents. I feel the creation of new self contained settlements however is the only way to build the houses we are short of in a responsible way that doesn't strain the services of existing communities. The key however is to ensure they are fully self contained and that the planners insist upon these services being provided alongside houses. This hasn't happened so far in the mass of development already taking place around Norwich despite all the self promotion about providing services on the gnlp website

Full text:

I can understand the concerns of local residents. I feel the creation of new self contained settlements however is the only way to build the houses we are short of in a responsible way that doesn't strain the services of existing communities. The key however is to ensure they are fully self contained and that the planners insist upon these services being provided alongside houses. This hasn't happened so far in the mass of development already taking place around Norwich despite all the self promotion about providing services on the gnlp website

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 17730

Received: 12/11/2018

Respondent: Patrena and Richard Cutter

Representation:

Home will have minimum garden space, Garages that a motor vehicle will not be able to Use unless its a smart car. Concerns are raised regarding schools, doctors surgery and transport links.

South Norfolk Planning Department will be looking at the Gain they are going to make from the Considerable Extra Council Tax Revenue and not on the environmental effect on Wymondham and the local Population.

The Infant, Middle and High Schools are Already at full capacity. Promises Have been Made in the past for new Developments to Provide Extra Schools which have not Materialised as SDDC say their is No money To pay for the Teachers. (This Initial Cost should be put Upon the Developers.) Doctors Surgeries are at Full capacity, and Vacancies arising caused by Doctors Retiring Have not been able to be filled due to the increased Work load on the Surgeries.

Full text:

I am writing regarding the proposed development at Silfield Wymondham of 6,500 homes (None of which will be affordable for the local working class who will still have to rent, Lining the pockets of the second Home owners)
Mr Alston refers to the development as an exciting opportunity for Mr Alton, The land owner, To make Himself a multimillionaire. (This is a New form of Agriculture where the only Crop that is Reaped is greed.) I would suggest that any Agricultural Land for development, What ever size be sold as Agricultural, Not as building land Price.
The Development is referred To as A Garden Village! (Weasel Words Used by Developers ) I am sure that the Homes will have the Minimum of Garden Space, Garages that a motor vehicle will not be able to Use unless its a smart Car, (More On Pavement Parking) And AS for the 20,000 Plus Inhabitants can hardly be described as A Village, Does this Include New Schools, ( We are still waiting for The promised School By the Developers at The Harts Farm Development. See Old Planning Application at SNDC) Doctors surgery, Transport links. (You cant just put extra carriages on Trains, As they would over hang the end of the platforms at Wymondham Rail Station and all those down the line to Cambridge. The Commuter trains too and from Wymondham To Cambridge are already full by the Time they Reach Attleborough Station )
South Norfolk Planning Department will be looking at the Gain they are going to make from the Considerable Extra Council Tax Revenue and not on the environmental effect on Wymondham and the local Population.
The Infant, Middle and High Schools are Already at full capacity. Promises Have been Made in the past for new Developments to Provide Extra Schools which have not Materialised as SDDC say their is No money To pay for the Teachers. (This Initial Cost should be put Upon the Developers.) Doctors Surgeries are at Full capacity, and Vacancies arising caused by Doctors Retiring Have not been able to be filled due to the increased Work load on the Surgeries.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 18339

Received: 10/12/2018

Respondent: Mrs Janis Raynsford

Representation:

An archaeological site: Park Farm is an ancient deer park, Lower Park Farm is moated and was an ancient hunting lodge. Therefore an historical site. Loss of good arable land, wildlife habitats, veteran trees. The services will be unable to cope i.e. doctors, dentist, schools, hospitals as they are unable to do so now. Not a brownfield site. Silfield bridge inadequate, no access to A11. Gross urbanisation of a rural landscape, destruction of ancient woodland, pollution and light pollution, no infrastructure. It is time to call a halt to development in Silfield and indeed in Wymondham itself

Full text:

An archaeological site: Park Farm is an ancient deer park, Lower Park Farm is moated and was an ancient hunting lodge. Therefore an historical site. Loss of good arable land, wildlife habitats, veteran trees. The services will be unable to cope i.e. doctors, dentist, schools, hospitals as they are unable to do so now. Not a brownfield site. Silfield bridge inadequate, no access to A11. Gross urbanisation of a rural landscape, destruction of ancient woodland, pollution and light pollution, no infrastructure. It is time to call a halt to development in Silfield and indeed in Wymondham itself

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 18720

Received: 12/12/2018

Respondent: Mrs Elizabeth Glazier

Representation:

Loss of prime agricultural land.

Impossible access and use of the rural lanes around this proposed development.

Damage to the character of Wymondham and surrounding countryside as a unique tourist destination.

Devastating loss of the natural environment and impact on wildlife and flora.

Full text:

This is prime agricultural land and therefore needed for food production. It would be a great loss if 6,500 houses and associated amenities were built on it.

This proposed development is grossly too large for the rural area it sits in. Silfield is already absorbing over 2000 new houses and the road system is not capable of taking any more vehicles at all. Access may be suggested onto the A11 via a new on-road, but there will be many more journeys taken by prospective families to schools, shops, work and leisure etc that don't need to go onto the A11 at all and so will clog up the narrow country lanes in this area.

Wymondham is a tourist destination. It's unique character would be damaged by all the additional vehicles and necessary extra facilities to service the proposed huge rise in population.

The ancient and established natural environment and wildlife would be a huge casualty of this proposed development which is very much in the public mind these days and we can't afford to lose any more of it.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 18723

Received: 12/12/2018

Respondent: Andrew Gardiner

Representation:

Wymondham is getting too big. We need to put the brakes on. Promised enhancement to infrastructure is *not* following developments and we are destroying the very things that make Wymondham a desirable place to live. We are rapidly becoming a simple "a.n.other" commuter town with no character and will become little more than a urban 'bed and breakfast' facility.

Full text:

Wymondham was regarded as a 'bustling market town'. It is rapidly being suffocated by seemingly unlimited and barely controlled development. Residential developers claim their developments are required to support workers in the area. Industrial developers claim that development is required to provide jobs for people coming to live in the area. This is obviously a self-cycling argument.
This particular development would change the character of Wymondham from a 'bustling market town' in the Norfolk countryside into to a huge commuter area with even more stress on traffic management and the collapsing A11 road surface. We already have 2000 homes built/being built, we have no extra secondary education provision, little heath support and no vehicular infrastructure to support these developments (eg the development on the land to the North and South of Silfeld Road have not provided the promised improvements to the Silfield Bridge). At some time we must pause for breath and decide what Wymondham should be - a 'bustling, historic market town' with some development or an urban carbuncle with 'an old bit'?
I would point out that the development plan shown is misleading. On the development plan provided no existing residences are shown on Verdon's Lane which is described as being turned into a non-vehicular road, yet there are residences. Is my home to become a vehicle-inaccessible home in the middle of a housing estate? I have lived in Wymondham for nearly fifty years. I choose to live 'in the country' with no street lights, mains sewage or mains gas where, as an astronomer and naturalist, I consider it perfect to observe the night sky and local wildlife. I would be horrified if I was to be surrounded in future by an urban sprawl, my view of the countryside destroyed someone's vision of profitable urban 'lego bricks' and view of the beautiful Norfolk night skies destroyed by light pollution. Wymondham deserves more respect than that.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 18993

Received: 13/12/2018

Respondent: Norfolk Wildlife Trust

Representation:

We object to the inclusion of this site in the plan, due to the loss to irreplaceable ancient woodland which would occur. We strongly recommend that this site is removed from any further consideration in the plan.

Full text:

We object to the inclusion of this site in the plan, due to the loss to irreplaceable ancient woodland which would occur. We strongly recommend that this site is removed from any further consideration in the plan.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 19220

Received: 14/12/2018

Respondent: Mr Stephen Kittle

Agent: Mr Stephen Kittle

Representation:

We could be forced from a Green Belt enviroment to an Urban enviroment should this get the go ahead.
Not a position we are happy with.

Full text:

We moved to Willow Farm in Silfield , with the view that we would be within the Green Belt for the rest of our lives
this development clearly changes that totally , as our property would now be in an Urban enviroment. Not what we had planned.
The concept of the Garden Village sounds fine, however developers often use fine words and plans to get planning , however once planning is granted , many of the niceties and promised infrastructure disappear, as houses are crammed in to every square metre of land
We have great concerns that this will cause our property to loose a substantial part of its value.
I also have concerns regarding substantial increases in traffic, and the associated noise and pollution.
The entrance to our property is already somewhat dangerous , massive increases in traffic will exacerbate this.
There will be massive disruption should the go ahead be given whilst construction is underway
Should this plan get the go ahead we believe that use of heavy landscaping and tree belts should be used to minimise the impact on our and other properties in Silfield

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 19232

Received: 14/12/2018

Respondent: Mrs Vivien Alderson

Representation:

As a Carer it has become increasingly dangerous to walk with another person the triangle of Mill Road, Church Road and Barford Road in Marlingford. There are no footpaths, (just banks and hedges full of holly, brambles and nettles). These country roads were not designed to take artic lorries and 3.5t vans. I suffer from bronchiectesis and the exhaust fumes polluting the air exacerbate it. The volume of traffic cutting through our village, (which is much shorter than the A47 Bypass) the noise and greenhouse gases will again increase, whereas I thought we were meant to be reducing the latter.

Full text:

As a Carer it has become increasingly dangerous to walk with another person the triangle of Mill Road, Church Road and Barford Road in Marlingford. There are no footpaths, (just banks and hedges full of holly, brambles and nettles). These country roads were not designed to take artic lorries and 3.5t vans. I suffer from bronchiectesis and the exhaust fumes polluting the air exacerbate it. The volume of traffic cutting through our village, (which is much shorter than the A47 Bypass) the noise and greenhouse gases will again increase, whereas I thought we were meant to be reducing the latter.

Comment

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 19480

Received: 13/12/2018

Respondent: Pelham (South Wymondham) Ltd

Agent: dha Planning

Representation:

Site GNLP 2168 consists of 340 ha and is proposed for a new settlement of some 6,500 dwellings south of the A11.

Parts of the land are of Grade 2 agricultural value; there are wooded areas (some of which is ancient woodland); ponds and habitat on site are likely to require ecological investigation.

There are several options to approach meeting housing need, including proportionate growth, larger urban extensions or even the development of new garden villages. We favour the expansion of settlements like Wymondham given the existing infrastructure that can accommodate the growth. In contrast, the provision of a new garden settlement with its own identity and self-sustaining facilities is extremely challenging, albeit not unachievable.

The supply of large numbers of new homes can often be best achieved through planning for larger scale development. In terms of when garden villages become a suitable approach, the 2016 Locally-Led Garden Villages, Towns and Cities prospectus announced broad Government support for 'garden villages', defined as new settlements of a minimum of 1,500 homes and that must be embedded with the key garden city principles. To be a genuine garden village it must be a holistically planned and designed in such a way that development enhances the natural environment and offers high-quality affordable housing and locally accessible work in beautiful, healthy and sociable communities. Garden village principles are an indivisible and interlocking framework for delivery, and include:
* Community ownership of land and long-term stewardship of assets.
* Mixed-tenure homes and housing types that are genuinely affordable.
* A wide range of local jobs in the Garden City within easy commuting distance of homes.
* Beautifully and imaginatively designed homes with gardens, combining the best of town and country to create healthy communities, and including opportunities to grow food.
* Development that enhances the natural environment, providing a comprehensive green infrastructure network and net biodiversity gains, and that uses zero-carbon and energy-positive technology to ensure climate resilience.
* Strong cultural, recreational and shopping facilities in walkable, vibrant, sociable neighbourhoods.
* Integrated and accessible transport systems, with walking, cycling and public transport designed to be the most attractive forms of local transport.

Whilst it may be possible to meet these criteria, we have concern about whether such a level of masterplanning could be achieved within the emerging plan period. Accordingly, it is essential that further information is published to establish the deliverability and suitability of the site as a garden village location. Should the site come forward for development there would be a requirement for major infrastructure improvements, including a potential new junction from the A11, which would inevitably require use of land within our client's control and therefore early engagement would be needed.

Having regard to the above, we consider that a new settlement in this location may be feasible but is more of a longer term option that would be for subsequent plan periods. Should it be seen favourably, it should be designed in such a way that would not sterilise our client's land nor prohibit the sustainable future expansion of south Wymondham within the A11 boundary.

In summary, our client's land represents a better and more sustainable and economically beneficial site option for growth in line with the current draft strategy.

Full text:

On behalf of Pelham (South Wymondham) Ltd, (hereafter referred to as 'Pelham'), we wish to comment on the additional sites currently being considered as part of the latest Regulation 18 consultation. The representation should be read in conjunction with Pelham's site consultation comments of March 2018 that support the allocation of land within its ownership at South Wymondham (site reference GNLP0515).

Prior to commenting on the new sites, we would remind the authority that our client's site GNLP0515 is situated within a sustainable location close to Wymondham Railway Station with excellent links to the many facilities and amenities within the town.

It benefits from good access to core public transport hubs, the strategic road network, would integrate well with the existing ongoing expansion of the town and would represent a logical and sustainable area for future growth. Furthermore, the existing orientation of the settlement puts the heart of the town centre on the outer southern edge and so expansion immediately to the south of the town centre will place it in the centre of the expanded urban area, strengthening the appeal of the town centre and improving economic conditions as is the objective of a 'main town'.

A phase 1 development of 1230 houses is currently underway at South Wymondham and the proposed Phase 2 adjoining development could deliver a minimum of a further 1,375 more homes.

The land is approximately 78 ha, half of which is proposed for residential led mixed use development. Initial concepts suggest 39 ha could be utilised to deliver a minimum of 1,375 new homes, a new school and associated retail and commercial floorspace, all of which would complement the emerging area of growth and benefit existing residents. The residual 39ha could be retained as open space to enhance the wider green infrastructure network.

The scale of growth that could be provided is very much needed. In this regard, Broadland District Council, Norwich City Council and South Norfolk Council are working together with Norfolk County Council to prepare the Greater Norwich Local Plan (GNLP). Early evidence has been established by the Central Norfolk Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) 2017, which identified the OAN for Greater Norwich from 2015 to 2036 as 39,486 homes (1,880 per annum).

Given the context and the need for new housing, we provide comments on the associated new housing options for Wymondham below.

Site GNLP 0525R is an extension/enlargement of GNLP 00006 to the northern extent of Wymondham. It is therefore predicated on the assumption that the respective promoters are now advancing the site as a single opportunity.

In general terms we support the scale of growth that is being promoted, which is akin to that being advocated by our client. The 2018 updated Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is clear (Para 72) that the supply of large numbers of new homes can often be best achieved through planning for larger scale development, such as new settlements or significant extensions to existing villages and towns, provided they are well located and designed, and supported by the necessary infrastructure and facilities.

However, having regard to this latter point, we consider that location at north Wymondham is far less suitable than to the south. Development to the north/north east will inevitably have an adverse impact upon the separation of Wymondham and Herthersett and has the potential for causing the coalescence of the two settlements. Regard must also be had to lack of physical boundaries and the potential for unrestricted urban sprawl to the north. In contrast, expansion to the south is both sustainable and can be restricted to the hard boundary provided by the A11 and so providing an opportunity to prevent growth from sprawling beyond this natural barrier.

From a wider perspective, the existing orientation of the settlement puts the heart of the town centre and key transport hubs on the outer southern edge some distance away from this area in the north. In this regard, paragraph 85 of the NPPF is clear that planning policies and decisions should support the role that town centres play at the heart of local communities, by taking a positive approach to their growth, management and adaptation. Promotion of growth to the north would do far less to support the town centre than if it were directed to the south.

Having regard to the above, whilst we support the principle of strategic growth, we consider our client's land represents a better and more sustainable and economically beneficial site option for the growth, with far superior links to public transport.

Site GNLP 2073 at Burnthouse Lane, Silfield is less than 1ha and has the capacity to deliver only circa 5 dwellings.

The scale of development would contribute little to the objective of meeting the compelling housing need for both market and affordable housing. Furthermore, it would be unlikely to offer anything by way of developer contributions to offset the pressure on local infrastructure.

Nevertheless, we do recognise that paragraph 68 of the NPPF provides some support for small and medium sized proposals and that 10% of the housing requirement should be delivered on sites of less than 1ha. A balance is therefore needed.

Notwithstanding the importance of smaller sites, GNLP 2073 is detached from the settlement boundary and rural in nature. It benefits from little by way of safe and accessible linkages. Burnthouse Lane lacks public footpaths and the site is not easily accessible to public transport opportunities. Whilst para 7 of the NPPF seeks to promote sustainable development in rural areas, it is also clear that housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities, which would not be the case in this instance.

Having regard to the above, we consider our client's land represents a better and more sustainable and economically beneficial site option for growth.

Site GNLP 2090 East of Field House is capable of delivering circa 50 units. However, it is detached from the main settlement of Wymondham and would fail to represent a suitable and logical natural expansion of Wymondham.

The site is rural in nature and benefits from poor accessibility. Silfield Street lacks public footpaths and the site is not easily accessible to public transport.

As set out above, para 7 of the NPPF seeks to promote sustainable development in rural areas, it is also clear that housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities.

Given the characteristics of the site this would not enlarge or compliment an established rural community. Furthermore, there are wider heritage and ecological constraints.

Having regard to the above, we consider our client's land represents a more sustainable and economically beneficial site opportunity.

Site GNLP 2125 South of Norwich Common is less than 0.5 ha and has the capacity to deliver only circa 8 dwellings, which even then would be drastically out of character with the prevailing area.

We do, again, recognise that 10% of the housing requirement should be delivered on sites of less than 1ha. Nonetheless, the scale of development would provide little to meeting housing need. Furthermore, it would be unlikely to offer anything by way of developer contributions to offset the pressure on local infrastructure.

The site is also identified as being at risk of surface water flooding.

Having regard to the above, we consider our client's land represents a better and more sustainable and economically beneficial site option for growth.

Site GNLP 2150 appears to be part of 0525R to the northern extent of Wymondham and it is unclear as to whether the site and its potential has been double counted. It is again predicated on the assumption that the larger parcel of land comes forward, as in isolation it would be detached from the settlement boundary.

As set out previously, development to the north of Wymondham is less suitable than to the south. It will inevitably have an adverse impact upon the separation of settlements and there is no hard physical barrier to development in the north.

The existing orientation of the settlement puts the heart of the town centre and key transport hubs on the outer southern edge rather than the north.

Having regard to the above, we consider our client's land represents a better and more sustainable and economically beneficial site option for growth.


Site GNLP 2155 is located to the north of Wymondham. It contains the curtilage of Downham Grove House, lies to the west of recently developed housing in the north of Wymondham at Carpenters Close.

As set out above, development to the north is less suitable than to the south and there is no hard physical barrier to properly contain growth and the town centre and key transport hubs on the outer southern edge.

Some areas are at surface water flood risk; and, a pond, along with two wooded areas, that may trigger the need for an ecological assessment.

Having regard to the above, we consider the site appears unsuitable for a number of reasons and our client's land represents a better and more sustainable and economically beneficial site option for growth with far superior links to public transport.

Site GNLP 2157 is located to the south west of Wymondham.

The site is rural in nature and benefits from poor linkages. London Road lacks public footpaths and the site is not easily accessible to public transport opportunities.

It is detached from the settlement boundary and rural in nature. Whilst para 7 of the NPPF seeks to promote sustainable development in rural areas, it is also clear that housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities, which would not be the case in this instance.

Having regard to the above, we consider our client's land represents a better and more sustainable and economically beneficial site option for growth.

Site GNLP 2168 consists of 340 ha and is proposed for a new settlement of some 6,500 dwellings south of the A11.

Parts of the land are of Grade 2 agricultural value; there are wooded areas (some of which is ancient woodland); ponds and habitat on site are likely to require ecological investigation.

There are several options to approach meeting housing need, including proportionate growth, larger urban extensions or even the development of new garden villages. We favour the expansion of settlements like Wymondham given the existing infrastructure that can accommodate the growth. In contrast, the provision of a new garden settlement with its own identity and self-sustaining facilities is extremely challenging, albeit not unachievable.

The supply of large numbers of new homes can often be best achieved through planning for larger scale development. In terms of when garden villages become a suitable approach, the 2016 Locally-Led Garden Villages, Towns and Cities prospectus announced broad Government support for 'garden villages', defined as new settlements of a minimum of 1,500 homes and that must be embedded with the key garden city principles. To be a genuine garden village it must be a holistically planned and designed in such a way that development enhances the natural environment and offers high-quality affordable housing and locally accessible work in beautiful, healthy and sociable communities. Garden village principles are an indivisible and interlocking framework for delivery, and include:
* Community ownership of land and long-term stewardship of assets.
* Mixed-tenure homes and housing types that are genuinely affordable.
* A wide range of local jobs in the Garden City within easy commuting distance of homes.
* Beautifully and imaginatively designed homes with gardens, combining the best of town and country to create healthy communities, and including opportunities to grow food.
* Development that enhances the natural environment, providing a comprehensive green infrastructure network and net biodiversity gains, and that uses zero-carbon and energy-positive technology to ensure climate resilience.
* Strong cultural, recreational and shopping facilities in walkable, vibrant, sociable neighbourhoods.
* Integrated and accessible transport systems, with walking, cycling and public transport designed to be the most attractive forms of local transport.

Whilst it may be possible to meet these criteria, we have concern about whether such a level of masterplanning could be achieved within the emerging plan period. Accordingly, it is essential that further information is published to establish the deliverability and suitability of the site as a garden village location. Should the site come forward for development there would be a requirement for major infrastructure improvements, including a potential new junction from the A11, which would inevitably require use of land within our client's control and therefore early engagement would be needed.

Having regard to the above, we consider that a new settlement in this location may be feasible but is more of a longer term option that would be for subsequent plan periods. Should it be seen favourably, it should be designed in such a way that would not sterilise our client's land nor prohibit the sustainable future expansion of south Wymondham within the A11 boundary.

In summary, our client's land represents a better and more sustainable and economically beneficial site option for growth in line with the current draft strategy.

Site GNLP 2169 is located to the south of Wymondham within the heart of the existing phase1 commitments and as such care is needed to ensure against double counting.

In the event that the land is achievable, it represents a sustainable location for growth, albeit at an extremely limited scale.

Having regard to the above, we consider our client's land represents a better and more sustainable and economically beneficial site option for growth.

Summary
Pelham (South Wymondham) Ltd is promoting land within its ownership at South Wymondham (reference GNLP0515) for sustainable residential led mixed use expansion.

Pelham has previously promoted and is delivering major growth to the west and east of Silfield Road (Phase 1). Our client directly obtained the relevant outline permission for the existing planned growth and the detailed phases of development are subsequently now being delivered on the ground by national housebuilders. Pelham therefore has a good track record of delivery. The land now being proposed amounts to what would logically be considered as a second phase of the development and therefore the ability to properly integrate new development makes site GNLP0515 the ideal location for growth.

The combined effect of the Phase 1 development of 1230 houses currently underway at South Wymondham and the proposed Phase 2 adjoining development of a minimum of 1,375 houses re-balancing the position of the town centre and enabling sustainable growth to be delivered, with significant economic benefits for the town centre.

Phase 2 could deliver a minimum of 1,375 new homes, a new school and associated retail and commercial floorspace, all of which would complement the emerging area of growth. The residual 39ha would be retained as open space to enhance the wider green infrastructure network.

Whilst detailed proposals are yet to be advanced and would be subject to meaningful dialogue with the LPA, the Local Community and key stakeholders, it is clear that the site is wholly suitable for residential development. From an environmental perspective, the land has extremely low landscape value and does not form any formal planning designation such as green belt or area of outstanding natural beauty. Furthermore, there are no overriding environmental constraints that would prevent development.

The site does not lie within or in immediate proximity to any nationally or European designated site such that development of the site would be contrary to the Habitat Regulations or adversely affect the integrity of any designated sites. The closest site of note is the Lower Wood Ashwellthorpe SSSI which is some 3km to the south east and will remain undisturbed.

The predominant land use within the site is agriculture the majority of which is arable in nature. There are no public records of any farming related Environmental Stewardship Schemes in existence within the site which confirms that the actively farmed areas of the site are likely to be of limited ecological value.

Arboriculture investigations will be required. However, we do not envisage tree impact to be an absolute constraint to development. The majority of trees on the site are in groups that can be maintained and incorporated into landscape and open space features. Furthermore, substantially increased levels of planting are likely to be achieved as a result of a comprehensive landscape led approach to the masterplanning process. There are no areas of ancient woodland.

The site falls within an area that does not directly impact the setting of any listed building. Furthermore, given the locality of the land, the relative distance to the nearest listed building and Scheduled Monuments, the archaeological potential of a site is considered to be low. However, the site consists of undeveloped land and therefore there remains some element of risk of an archaeological find and therefore a precautionary approach would be applied.

The site itself comprises a mixture of arable land and a number of perimeter trees. However, overall the site is considered to be of low or limited ecological value and this is not considered to represent a significant risk to its development potential.

Any development could be progressed immediately with approximately 300 new homes being capable for delivery in the immediate first five years of the plan period. The emerging Bovis and Taylor Wimpey scheme on the Phase 1 site delivers a new access link onto Park Lane which would form the principal access to the initial 300 units that can immediately be delivered to the west of Park Lane. A further emergency access could also be achieved adjacent to the Green Land/Park Lane junction but would not be reliant on this for any through traffic.

Subsequent phases will require upgrading of the highway network. The precise nature of the infrastructure upgrades will be subject to detailed discussions with key stakeholders as the plan making process progresses. However, we can confirm that all of the necessary upgrades are either already being delivered through the Phase 1 development or would be delivered through the Phase 2 scheme on land our client controls sufficient to deliver wider upgrades within and around the site if they prove necessary.

In respect of deliverability, the land has no planning history of relevance nor any history of unimplemented permissions and there are no known impediments to the site being phased for early commencement within the 0 -5 year period.

No unexpected financial restrictions are anticipated that would impact upon the viability of the site nor that would prohibit development coming through within the early stages of the plan period. To the contrary, we consider there to be an opportunity to deliver a high quality and exemplar scheme.

The site is in control of a single land owner and there are no legal agreements or covenants that would prohibit the ability to bring the site forward early in the plan period.

Taking all of the above into account and having regard to the new development options currently subject to consultation, we consider our client's site continues to represent the most suitable and economically beneficial location for the immediate and longer term growth and expansion of Wymondham and falls in line with our preferred growth options as set out in our representations of March 2018.

Comment

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 19498

Received: 13/12/2018

Respondent: Harvey & Co

Agent: Harvey & Co

Representation:

In summary, It Is because of all the points mentioned above that we believe site GNLP 2168 would be suitable to accommodate the long term housing growth of the Norwich Polley Area. There are many aspects of the guidance set out in the recently published NPPF with which new garden settlements In general and site GNLP2168 specifically are consistent.

Furthermore, site GNLP2168 is far more compliant with the options consulted on by the GNLP than other proposed new garden settlements which do not benefit from comparable transport connections, or the strategically important location on the Norwich
-Cambridge hi-tech corridor

And the essential need to give appropriate confidence of delivery is fully understood. Measures have been taken to ensure a reliable and effective delivery mechanism is in place.

(See full submission for further details).

Full text:

GNLP 2168
On behalf of J. Alston & Sons Ltd, we set out below our further comments on the additional sites submitted for consideration as part of the Regulation 18 Consultation that closed in March 2018.
The new National Planning Policy Framework was published in July 2018, since the Reg 18 process closed. It is considered relevant to refer to ii in the context of site GNLP2168 about which we previously submitted representations. Certain other aspects have also changed or advanced which are described below.
Our comments with regard to site GNLP 2168 reiterate what we believe to be the attributes of the proposal, as follows:-
* It is consistent with increasing central government support for new garden settlements, as set out in a paper published by the Department for Communities and Local Government in March 2016 titled "Locally Led Garden Villages, Towns and Cities".
* This is further expanded upon in the updated NPPF in which there is specific reference to new settlements (the relevant aspects of which are outlined in further detail below).
* It would allow comprehensive maslerplanning to incorporate all required facilities.
* And would avoid the further need for continuing piecemeal development of the suburbs of Norwich and surrounding market towns, locations that have absorbed their fair share of recent growth and where further substantial growth would be unsustainable, unrealistic and would meet increasingly fierce resistance from the local population who will lake the view their locations have accepted more than enough development.
* The site is discrete.
* It is also in single ownership, which removes the potential obstacle to delivery that multiple ownership can create.
* It has a range of natural amenities, including various wooded areas, some of which is ancient woodland, mature trees and watercourses, all of which would complement a major development.
* The proposed development would enable important and much needed infrastructure improvements to be delivered, including a new connection to the south of Wymondham, off the A 11 and the possible extension of Spooner Row station to enable more frequent usage.
* Development to the south of Wymondham would avoid the need for consideration of any further sites to the north/north east that would compromise the integrity of the strategic gap between Wymondham and Hethersett and would also preserve the natural environment around the historic Kells Oak.

The Reg 18 process that concluded in March 2018 outlined 6 options for consultation. Site GNLP 2168 is consistent with:-

* Options 3 & 5 which refer to a new garden settlement.
* Option 2 which highlights the importance of established transport corridors. Site GNLP 2168 is very compliant with this option, being close to the A 11 and within easy walking distance of two railway stations.
* Option 3 which focuses on the increasingly significant Norwich to Cambridge hi-tech corridor (the A 11 and railway line connect Norwich to Cambridge). The profile of Norwich Research Park continues to rise - it was recently given an outstanding achievement award at the Eastern Daily Press Business awards. The importance of NRP as a major driver of economic growth in Norwich will grow and this can be accelerated by forging ever closer links to Cambridge.
* The ready availability of a range of housing types and tenures on the route of the corridor will encourage footloose organisations to consider Norwich Research Park as a viable location at which to move or establish their business.

Further relevant guidance is contained in the revised National Planning Policy Framework published in July 2018 post the closure of the Reg 18 process.

The NPPF defines sustainable development, the principles of which can be embodied in new garden settlements.

The economic objective requires that sufficient land of the right types is available. The scale of a new garden village achieves that objective.

The social objective focuses on the requirement to support strong, vibrant and healthy communities by ensuring a sufficient number and range of houses can be provided to meet the needs of present and future communities. The social objective also refers to a well designed and safe built environment with accessible services and open spaces that support communities health, social and cultural well being.

It is hard to see how the continuing piecemeal development of "bolt on" sites can deliver the overarching principles underpinning this objective of sustainable development. The evidence is that services are not comprehensively delivered through piecemeal development of the type recently experienced in the GNDP area. On the contrary, undue and unsustainable pressure has been exerted on existing services which local communities have found challenging.

However, once again, the scale of a new garden village will ensure the effective delivery of a genuine, vibrant and fully functioning community.

The environmental objective requires the protection and enhancement of the built and natural environments. Again, effective masterplanning of new settlements can deliver high quality public realm and in respect of site GNLP2 l 68, can provide accessibility to a range of existing features including historic woodlands, mature trees and watercourses.

The built environment the NPPF is seeking to encourage could be created as a consequence of the scale of development proposed at site GNLP2168. Best practice in masterplanning, design, sustainability, carbon reduction and minimisation of waste & pollution can be viably incorporated. Piecemeal development which lacks required scale will find it very difficult if not impossible to deliver the environmental objective laid out in the NPPF.

The delivery of these three fundamental objectives is enshrined in the presumption of sustainable development. It is believed our above comments demonstrate the substantial benefits of a new garden settlement on site GNLP2168 in a way that is entirely consistent with the principles underpinning the NPPF. Of more significance is that GNLP2 l 68 satisfies a number of key criteria of the GNDP in planning for future growth. It is difficult to see how an alternative location proposed within the GNLP area could deliver on these key specific objectives.

Paragraph 72 in the NPPF clearly states the "supply of new homes can often be best achieved through planning for larger scale developments, such as new settlements or significant extensions to existing villages & towns provided they are well localed and designed and supported by the necessary infrastructure and facilities".

In our above comments, we have demonstrated compliance with paragraph 72 a) in respect of taking opportunities presented by existing infrastructure, the area's economic potential and the scope for net environmental gains. The size of the development would ensure consistency with 72 b) and 72 c).

Section 8 of the NPPF applies to "Promoting Healthy and safe communities" Such a principle would be at the heart of maslerplanning and design of a new garden settlement on site GNLP2168.

Section 9 applies to sustainable transport. Again, existing infrastructure enables this to be provided at site GNLP2168 but equally, a development at the site could facilitate investment to further improve the existing networks as outlined above.

It is completely accepted by J. Alston & Sons Ltd and Harvey & Co that large settlements such as a new garden village can be challenging to deliver. Justifiable concerns have been raised in this respect and we recognise the essential requirement to provide the necessary confidence of delivery. With this in mind, a short list of prospective partners with the experience, resources and expertise required to deliver the project has been drawn up since the Reg 18 process closed. Negotiations are presently underway with a view to concluding a promotion agreement with the preferred partner in early 2019.

In summary, It Is because of all the points mentioned above that we believe site GNLP 2168 would be suitable to accommodate the long term housing growth of the Norwich Polley Area. There are many aspects of the guidance set out in the recently published NPPF with which new garden settlements In general and site GNLP2168 specifically are consistent.

Furthermore, site GNLP2168 is far more compliant with the options consulted on by the GNLP than other proposed new garden settlements which do not benefit from comparable transport connections, or the strategically important location on the Norwich
-Cambridge hi-tech corridor
And the essential need to give appropriate confidence of delivery is fully understood. Measures have been taken to ensure a reliable and effective delivery mechanism is in place

GNLP2169
The following comments are made on behalf of J. Alston & Sons Ltd in respect of site reference GNLP 2169, about which we submitted representations as part of the Regulation 18 process that closed in March 2018.

The response to our submission is that this site is situated within an area allocated by the last local plan for 1,230 dwellings (Policy WYM3) and would therefore not be suitable for inclusion in the next round of allocated sites.

The current allocation is acknowledged to be correct. However, the site is small, at 1.36 hectares. It is outside the control of the consortium of landowners and their promoter who is responsible for the delivery of the 1 ,230 houses. That number could therefore be delivered on land that excludes site GNLP 2169.

Should this be the case, site GNLP 2169 would remain undeveloped and would not be allocated for further development, even though it would be surrounded by new development.

Provision, therefore, needs to be made for the development of site GNLP 2169 in the event that the 1,230 houses associated within the current local plan are delivered on surrounding land and leave site GNLP 2169 undeveloped.