Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy
Search representations
Results for Brown & Co search
New searchSupport
Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy
Question 30: Do you support, object or have any comments relating to the approach to Gypsies and Travellers, Travelling Show People and Residential Caravans? To help to meet long term need, this consultation specifically invites additional sites for Gypsy
Representation ID: 21756
Received: 16/03/2020
Respondent: Brown & Co
We support the approach to Gypsies and Travellers, Travelling Show People and Residential Caravans.
Support
Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy
Question 31: Do you support, object or have any comments relating to the approach to Purpose-built student accommodation?
Representation ID: 21757
Received: 16/03/2020
Respondent: Brown & Co
We support the approach to purpose-built student accommodation.
However, we would raise concerns regarding the potential impacts of large numbers of student accommodation units have upon local communities, in particular when students leave outside term-time. We would also highlight that whilst such accommodation counts towards the local five-year housing land supply it does very little to provide housing for local people and meet local need.
Support
Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy
Question 32: Do you support, object or have any comments relating to the approach to Self/Custom-Build?
Representation ID: 21758
Received: 16/03/2020
Respondent: Brown & Co
We support the approach to self/custom-build housing.
The proposed new settlement Honingham Thorpe would provide fully serviced plots for those looking to design and/or build their own home.
Support
Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy
Question 34: Do you support, object or have any comments relating to the approach to employment land?
Representation ID: 21759
Received: 16/03/2020
Respondent: Brown & Co
We support the approach to employment land.
In order to support sustainable employment and economic growth it is imperative to provide high quality housing in close proximity to strategic sites; to attract workers and investment to the area and promote sustainable modes of transport. Honingham Thorpe is well related to the Food Enterprise Park and would support its development, the emerging agri-tech corridor to the west of Norwich, and the move to a post-carbon economy.
Support
Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy
Question 35: Do you support, object or have any comments relating to the approach to tourism, leisure, environmental and cultural industries?
Representation ID: 21760
Received: 16/03/2020
Respondent: Brown & Co
We support the approach relating to tourism, leisure, environmental and cultural industries.
The proposed new settlement Honingham Thorpe would provide a new country park, with associated educational facilities and local nature reserve, together with enhancements to the local green infrastructure network.
Support
Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy
Question 36: Do you support, object or have any comments relating to the sequential approach to development of new retailing, leisure, offices and other main town centre uses?
Representation ID: 21761
Received: 16/03/2020
Respondent: Brown & Co
We support the sequential approach to development of new retailing, leisure, offices and other main town centre uses.
Support
Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy
Question 38. Do you support or object or wish to comment on the approach for the city centre? Please identify particular issues.
Representation ID: 21764
Received: 16/03/2020
Respondent: Brown & Co
We support the approach to the economy, and retail and leisure provision within the city centre.
However, we would query the ability to deliver the volume of housing proposed for the area in light of previous delivery rates and the proportion of carried forward allocations.
Comment
Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy
Question 39. Do you support or object or wish to comment on the approach for East Norwich? Please identify particular issues.
Representation ID: 21765
Received: 16/03/2020
Respondent: Brown & Co
We would raise concern regarding the proposed approach for East Norwich. This area is subject to significant flood risk, contamination, infrastructure constraints, and is located adjacent to The Broads and a number of heritage assets. These constraints, together with the significant investment required to deliver development in this location has seen no scheme progress despite previous allocations and approved planning applications.
Comment
Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy
Question 40. Do you support or object or wish to comment on the approach for elsewhere in the urban area including the fringe parishes? Please identify particular issues.
Representation ID: 21769
Received: 16/03/2020
Respondent: Brown & Co
We would raise concern over the ability to, and sustainability of, continuing to ‘bolt-on’ significant housing development to existing settlements. Such continuing urban sprawl is not considered to represent truly sustainable development, can often result in the creation of non-walkable neighbourhoods separated from services and facilities, places increased pressure on local infrastructure, and often comprise identikit housing which fails to adequately respect local character and create community cohesion. In recent years, development within the urban fringe has failed to deliver attractive development with its own character, or meaningful open space to provide the ‘green lungs’ of the city.
Comment
Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy
Question 41. Do you support or object or wish to comment on the approach for the main towns overall? Please identify particular issues.
Representation ID: 21771
Received: 16/03/2020
Respondent: Brown & Co
As with the approach to the urban fringe parishes, we would raise concern regarding the deliverability, and sustainability of additional ‘bolt-on’ developments in these locations. Such continuing urban sprawl is not considered to represent truly sustainable development, can often result in the creation of non-walkable neighbourhoods separated from services and facilities, places increased pressure on local infrastructure, and often comprise identikit housing which fail to adequately respect local character and create community cohesion.