Site Proposals document

Sorry to resort to an email submission but you web-site insists on telling me that I don't exist!

These are the comments of Brockdish & Thorpe Abbotts Parish Council on the GNLP agreed at our meeting on 22 Feb 2018:

Question 1 in the GNLP Consultation asks if we agree with the draft vision and objectives.

The answer is an emphatic "NO" The strategy is deeply flawed. There is a laudable aim regarding delivery of homes (*1) and there is an analysis of housing needs in the SHMA (*2) BUT sadly there is no connection between the two in the Strategy. There are no policies or intervention mechanisms of any sort to establish that the planning process will deliver development which meets the defined need.

It follows that the over-allocation of housing land will create a free-for-all for developers and their land banks. Given this serious over allocation, only that land which is easily profitable will be used by developers, and that is most unlikely to address the real housing need. Moreover such an over commitment does not allow value for money or focus in infrastructure investment or give any incentive to develop brown-field sites.

It is surprising that there is no analysis of the reasons why previous housing targets have not been met and why the land already allocated for 35,665 houses has not been developed. This represents over 20 years supply at current building rates. Such analysis would reveal why those in most housing need do not have access to the houses which are built. Lessons should be learned from this history. The most important are: (1) new land should only be released on a phased basis, as and when it is needed and when existing commitments, including brown-field sites, are nearing exhaustion (2) there are measures, including public sector housing, to ensure that proposed developments will be related to meeting identified need, and (3) there should be policies in the Plan which ensure that all relevant agencies have a coordinated approach to delivering the aims relating to 'homes'.

The acknowledgement that windfall sites are a fact of life is welcomed but these should be regarded as a 'commitment' rather than a 'bolt on bonus'. Moreover there appears to be no monitoring of windfall development and the extent to which, in all probability, it contributes most to meeting local need.

Regarding the growth strategy, a strategy which concentrates growth in the Norwich area coupled with a strong green belt is the best choice for the environment and for achieving sustainable development.

Regarding the 2 sites identified in Brockdish and Thorpe Abbotts the Parish Council is aware that very few extra dwellings are necessary to meet local needs: the scale of development will be identified following the current 'housing needs survey' being carried out by the Saffron Housing Association. The Parish remains without available infrastructure or reasonable community facilities to support significant growth.

(*1) "To enable delivery of high quality homes of the right size, mix and tenure to meet peoples needs throughout their lives."
(*2) Strategic Housing Market Assessment

In addition to these comments the Council was critical of the expense of this exercise which has not resulted in positive action to deal with matters such housing need.

Derek Clark
Parish Councillor

Sorry to resort to an email submission but you web-site insists on telling me that I don't exist!

These are the comments of Brockdish & Thorpe Abbotts Parish Council on the GNLP agreed at our meeting on 22 Feb 2018:

Question 1 in the GNLP Consultation asks if we agree with the draft vision and objectives.

The answer is an emphatic "NO" The strategy is deeply flawed. There is a laudable aim regarding delivery of homes (*1) and there is an analysis of housing needs in the SHMA (*2) BUT sadly there is no connection between the two in the Strategy. There are no policies or intervention mechanisms of any sort to establish that the planning process will deliver development which meets the defined need.

It follows that the over-allocation of housing land will create a free-for-all for developers and their land banks. Given this serious over allocation, only that land which is easily profitable will be used by developers, and that is most unlikely to address the real housing need. Moreover such an over commitment does not allow value for money or focus in infrastructure investment or give any incentive to develop brown-field sites.

It is surprising that there is no analysis of the reasons why previous housing targets have not been met and why the land already allocated for 35,665 houses has not been developed. This represents over 20 years supply at current building rates. Such analysis would reveal why those in most housing need do not have access to the houses which are built. Lessons should be learned from this history. The most important are: (1) new land should only be released on a phased basis, as and when it is needed and when existing commitments, including brown-field sites, are nearing exhaustion (2) there are measures, including public sector housing, to ensure that proposed developments will be related to meeting identified need, and (3) there should be policies in the Plan which ensure that all relevant agencies have a coordinated approach to delivering the aims relating to 'homes'.

The acknowledgement that windfall sites are a fact of life is welcomed but these should be regarded as a 'commitment' rather than a 'bolt on bonus'. Moreover there appears to be no monitoring of windfall development and the extent to which, in all probability, it contributes most to meeting local need.

Regarding the growth strategy, a strategy which concentrates growth in the Norwich area coupled with a strong green belt is the best choice for the environment and for achieving sustainable development.

Regarding the 2 sites identified in Brockdish and Thorpe Abbotts the Parish Council is aware that very few extra dwellings are necessary to meet local needs: the scale of development will be identified following the current 'housing needs survey' being carried out by the Saffron Housing Association. The Parish remains without available infrastructure or reasonable community facilities to support significant growth.

(*1) "To enable delivery of high quality homes of the right size, mix and tenure to meet peoples needs throughout their lives."
(*2) Strategic Housing Market Assessment

In addition to these comments the Council was critical of the expense of this exercise which has not resulted in positive action to deal with matters such housing need.

Derek Clark
Parish Councillor