Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Search Representations

Results for Suffolk County Council search

New search New search

Comment

Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Question 1: Please comment on or highlight any inaccuracies within the introduction

Representation ID: 22244

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Suffolk County Council

Representation:

SCC would be interested to engage further with the progress of South Norfolk Council’s ‘village clusters plan’ in respect to its relevance to Suffolk’s education provision and transport infrastructure.

Full text:

Please see attached for full submission

Attachments:

Comment

Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Question 2: Is the overall purpose of this draft plan clear?

Representation ID: 22245

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Suffolk County Council

Representation:

The introduction is clear, logical and contemporary. The introduction is specific, though also addresses the importance of planning ‘flexibly’ for a changing world.

The opportunities and challenges presented by an aging population could be better embedded into the objectives relating to communities and economy.

Full text:

Please see attached for full submission

Attachments:

Support

Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Question 19: Do you support, object or have any comments relating to the specific requirements of the policy?

Representation ID: 22246

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Suffolk County Council

Representation:

The reference to a ‘catchment’ approach to water management is recognised and supported. With a catchment strategy, neighbouring counties should be considered too. Watercourses and rivers reflect the properties of a catchment, rather than aligning with administrative county boundaries, posing cross boundary issues. Changes to the normal hydraulic regime, specifically fluvial and pluvial flooding as a result of growth should be accounted for on a cross-boundary scale. Both the River Waveney and Great Ouse run through Suffolk, thus cross boundary changes to water storage, flow and sedimentation could arise and should be taken into account.

Cross-boundary approach to storage and flood risk are particularly relevant strategic matters. Site specific mitigation may, however, be associated with green field run-off rates.

Full text:

Please see attached for full submission

Attachments:

Comment

Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Question 23: Do you support, object or have any comments relating to approach to transport?

Representation ID: 22248

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Suffolk County Council

Representation:

With the proposed construction of roundabouts on the A140 and the level of growth anticipated in the GNLP, there is the opportunity for enabling improved connections and journey times for bus services to Diss Railway Station across the county boundary. Doing so would provide better access to the train station and encourage the use of public transport, which aligns with the need to reduce carbon emissions and promote modal shift.

SCC is able to provide transport data to inform the future traffic modelling work to support the evidence-base of the Greater Norwich Local Plan. There are cross-border linkages that will need to be considered, as will the resultant additional journeys from this part of Norfolk into Suffolk and vice versa. The County Council is available to assist with such evidence during the next stages of the production of the plan, including the site allocations and clusters for South Norfolk. The key strategic road links are likely to be A140, A143, A146 and B1077. Other routes may be impacted by localised impacts, and this will need to be assessed through the modelling to inform the next stages of the plan making process. Improvements to the A140, specifically around Long Stratton, may reduce longer distance travel times between north Suffolk and the Norwich area, increasing people’s propensity to commute longer distances, and increasing cross-border traffic flows and stress at key strategic junctions.

Where there is development and final destinations are in Suffolk, consideration of passenger transport infrastructure could be funded for by the Greater Norwich Infrastructure Levy connected to development.

SCC is happy to work cross-border to make sure we get the best value for money and more useful passenger transport routes. The nature of the borderlands means Suffolk residents have tendency to travel to Thetford, Diss and Harleston whilst Norfolk residents would travel to Bungay, Beccles, Eye and Brandon and other similar settlements.

Full text:

Please see attached for full submission

Attachments:

Comment

Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Question 45. Do you support or object or wish to comment on the overall approach for the village clusters? Please identify particular issues

Representation ID: 22249

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Suffolk County Council

Representation:

The delivery of development particularly in South Norfolk of the Greater Norwich Local Plan and in South Norfolk Council’s separate village clusters plan is of interest. SCC would appreciate information on how Suffolk’s education infrastructure may be affected by increased pupil demand arising from any new development. Relevant existing provision, catchment schools and associated mitigation will need to be considered in respect to upcoming development plans. SCC welcomes communication about the aforementioned, in order to proactively promote synergy for schools cross-boundary.
Regarding Early Years provision, the wards of Fressingfield and Palgrave are the nearest wards to Harleston and Diss. Considering the upcoming growth in the area, forecasts for Fressingfield show an overall potential deficit in places. Upcoming growth is unlikely to be accommodated and alleviated by Suffolk provision due to existing pressure and Full Time Employment provision.

Full text:

Please see attached for full submission

Attachments:

Comment

Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Question 46. Do you support or object or wish to comment on the approach for specific village clusters?

Representation ID: 22250

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Suffolk County Council

Representation:

The delivery of development particularly in South Norfolk of the Greater Norwich Local Plan and in South Norfolk Council’s separate village clusters plan is of interest. SCC would appreciate information on how Suffolk’s education infrastructure may be affected by increased pupil demand arising from any new development. Relevant existing provision, catchment schools and associated mitigation will need to be considered in respect to upcoming development plans. SCC welcomes communication about the aforementioned, in order to proactively promote synergy for schools cross-boundary.
Regarding Early Years provision, the wards of Fressingfield and Palgrave are the nearest wards to Harleston and Diss. Considering the upcoming growth in the area, forecasts for Fressingfield show an overall potential deficit in places. Upcoming growth is unlikely to be accommodated and alleviated by Suffolk provision due to existing pressure and Full Time Employment provision.

Full text:

Please see attached for full submission

Attachments:

If you are having trouble using the system, please try our help guide.