Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy
Search representations
Results for Hingham Town Council search
New searchComment
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: 21600
Received: 16/03/2020
Respondent: Hingham Town Council
With reference to “new retailing” - it is concerning that there is no focus on encouraging, preserving and enhancing retail within the existing high street environment, addressing empty retail premises and assisting existing businesses to flourish.
With reference to “new retailing” - it is concerning that there is no focus on encouraging, preserving and enhancing retail within the existing high street environment, addressing empty retail premises and assisting existing businesses to flourish.
Comment
Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy
Question 37: Are there any topics which have not been covered that you believe should have been?
Representation ID: 21609
Received: 16/03/2020
Respondent: Hingham Town Council
Use/regeneration of of existing empty retail premises within high street/communities
Use/regeneration of of existing empty retail premises within high street/communities
Comment
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: 21612
Received: 16/03/2020
Respondent: Hingham Town Council
With reference to “new retailing” - it is concerning that there is no focus on encouraging, preserving and enhancing retail within the existing high street environment, addressing empty retail premises and assisting existing businesses to flourish.
With reference to “new retailing” - it is concerning that there is no focus on encouraging, preserving and enhancing retail within the existing high street environment, addressing empty retail premises and assisting existing businesses to flourish.
Object
Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy
Question 43. Do you support or object or wish to comment on the approach for the key service centres overall? Please identify particular issues.
Representation ID: 21617
Received: 16/03/2020
Respondent: Hingham Town Council
Hingham has been designated as a Key Service Centres, at no point in the document is there a definition for a “Key Service Centre”. The lack of concrete criteria for a “Key Service Centre” renders the designation of such an entity meaningless.
Hingham has been designated as a Key Service Centres, at no point in the document is there a definition for a “Key Service Centre”. The lack of concrete criteria for a “Key Service Centre” renders the designation of such an entity meaningless.
Comment
Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy
Question 44. Do you support or object or wish to comment on the approach for specific key service centres: (Acle, Blofield, Brundall, Hethersett, Hingham, Loddon / Chedgrave, Poringland / Framingham Earl, Reepham, Wroxham)? Please identify particular issu
Representation ID: 21634
Received: 16/03/2020
Respondent: Hingham Town Council
Hingham has several services/facilities that are inadequate to support growth within the town.
It is has substandard and narrow footways in places. There is no pedestrian priority crossing places, no public car park and no high school, no commitment to increase the capacity at the primary school/Drs surgery,
The policy document notes that Hingham has "good transport links". The Joint Core Strategy 6.53 describes Hingham as having a limited bus service”,
No benefit to the residents of Hingham (the Community), of being deemed a “Key Service Centre”, just the burden of additional housing development.
Hingham has been designated as a Key Service Centres, at no point in the document is there a definition for a “Key Service Centre”. The lack of concrete criteria for a “Key Service Centre” renders the designation of such an entity meaningless.
Hingham was not deemed important enough by South Norfolk Council for them to continue to provide such a basic facility as public toilets. The public toilets were under threat of closure by South Norfolk Council, and would have been permanently closed had the Town Council not take over the ownership of them.
Hingham has several services/facilities that are inadequate to support growth within the town. The Library is not housed within a purpose built facility however, it provides a range of valuable roles to the local community, as well as access to education for children and adults through books and use of the internet, the library supports health and wellbeing with books on prescription and is a valuable community resource for social get togethers such as knit and natter, coffee mornings, sessions for parents and babies and IT support.
The historic nature of Hingham means that is has substandard and narrow footways in places. There is no pedestrian priority crossing places. There is no public car park and no high school. There is no commitment to increase the capacity at the primary school and Drs surgery, and increased capacity would come with the additional problems with lack of parking.
It is unrealistic to conceive that in a rural area with a limited bus service, businesses within the “Key Service Centre” can flourish without the provision of adequate public parking. It is essential that businesses can encourage and obtain support from visitors to the town from nearby villages. If the small independent businesses within the Hingham cannot flourish they will close and residents of Hingham will also have to travel further afield to shop. Adequate public parking must be addressed, not only for visitors to the town but those residents that need to access local services and businesses using a car due to ill health or mobility issues.
Parking facilities for existing community buildings – within Hingham these are insufficient to support growth and to enable these facilities to thrive. The Lincoln Hall/Bowls Club/Library and the Sports Centre parking areas are inadequate in size to accommodate visitors to these venues during busy times, and it is of concern that the venues will lose bookings and revenue if they cannot provide adequate parking facilities for their potential customers.
The policy document notes that Hingham has "good transport links". This is not an accurate description. The Joint Core Strategy 6.53 describes Hingham as having a limited bus service”, since the JCS was adopted there has been a reduction in bus services and threats of loss of the already severely limited direct bus service to Dereham .
In terms of employment the policy document states Hingham is "well located to benefit from additional employment opportunities in the Cambridge Norwich Tech Corridor" - this does not seem an accurate description in the context of reliance on public transport when there is one bus an hour to the Research Park and a bus to the Hethel Innovation Centre (which is a 20 minute drive) would take 2 hours via Norwich.
This description is akin to calling Hingham a “commuter town” which is not indicative to the ethos of “Growing Stronger Communities Together”
There is no evidence in the policy of commitment to provide improved infrastructure in Hingham to enable the town to sustain the quoted 120 new homes, in particular additional primary school places and improvements to the road and footway network in the town.
With no commitment to improving infrastructure within the town, there seems to be no benefit to the residents of Hingham (the Community), of being deemed a “Key Service Centre”, just the burden of additional housing development.
Object
Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy
Question 47. Do you support or object or wish to comment on the overall approach for Small Scale Windfall Housing Development? Please identify particular issues.
Representation ID: 21649
Received: 16/03/2020
Respondent: Hingham Town Council
The policy, it is not clearly written and is ambiguous and needs to be clarified or removed completely.
Potential for a considerable number of houses throughout the district and would add additional burdens on the communities and infrastructure/facilities, have additional negative impact on climate change and place more residents in areas where there is a lack of public transports etc.
this policy will mean applications for development will seemingly be approved even if there is local opposition and developments may be built outside of a development boundary or infill into small valuable areas of open countryside.
Hingham Town Council do not support the policy, it is not clearly written and the policy is ambiguous and needs to be clarified (or removed entirely).
Does the policy mean there will only be one site of a total of 3 dwellings permitted in each parish OR does it mean there will be an unspecified number of separate sites in each parish but only allowing 3 dwellings on each site.
If this policy is intended to only permit 3 windfall properties maximum within each parish, it is unlikely to be able to stand up on appeal. If two people in one village submitted equally suitable plans for 3 houses on 2 separate sites, at about the same time, say as soon as the plan is adopted, there would be a danger that an appeal would result in the village having an extra 6 houses.
The policy could add a considerable number of houses throughout the district and would add additional burdens on the communities and infrastructure/facilities, have additional negative impact on climate change and place more residents in areas where there is a lack of public transports etc.
It is concerning that this policy will mean applications for development will seemingly be approved even if there is local opposition, objections from neighbouring residents and such developments may be built outside of a development boundary or infill into small valuable areas of open countryside.
Object
Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy
Question 1: Please comment on or highlight any inaccuracies within the introduction
Representation ID: 23006
Received: 16/03/2020
Respondent: Hingham Town Council
Hingham Town Council, in preparing this response the GNLP consultation, have gathered public opinion through Councillor attendance at the GNLP Hingham roadshow event on 25th February, corresponded and met with members of the GNLP team, received and discussed correspondence and held a dedicated GNLP public participation session at the Town Council meeting on 03 March 2020.
The GNLP consultation documents have been made available by the Town Council in Hingham Library, and at the February and March Town Council meetings. The site assessment booklet, preferred sites booklet and policy/strategy documents have been discussed extensively by Councillors via email and at the March Town Council meeting. Comments from the public and Councillors, both oral and written were collated and publicly relayed at the March Town Council meeting, at that meeting the Town Council agreed its outline response to the GNLP consultation.
An overriding consensus was that the GNLP consultation was poorly advertised (other than on social media), insufficient notice was given to enable the road show event to be advertised in the Parish Magazine, the road show was not organised in liaison with the Town Council, the GNLP website is not user friendly, with information being difficult to find, and the alternative ways of responding to the GNLP (other than using the website) were not sufficiently advertised. It is felt that the consultation process was not inclusive to all members of the community and was viewed by some residents as "pointless" as they considered that their comments would not be considered as they felt that the preferred sites allocations were a "done deal".
With specific reference to the site assessments, the Town Council consider that there are a number of contradictions within the site assessments and the sites put forward as preferred options for housing development and the decision on some sites to be deemed unsuitable, are extremely flawed.
Hingham Town Council would like to thank the members of the GNLP team who have engaged with the Town Council, listened to and taken on board these comments.
Hingham Town Council has signed the pledge to support the CPRE campaign objecting to any new sites being allocated for house building in revised local plans to 2038 until all existing allocations in current core strategies have been developed.
The Town Council's overriding response to the GNLP is to have a preference for no further development in Hingham, having already had several areas of housing development within the Town over the years, yet with little/insufficient improvement to the infrastructure to support the growth of the Town.
Under the GNLP, Hingham are being asked to accept 100 new homes, on top of the existing commitment of 16 homes and on top of that, an unknown number of new homes through small "windfall" development sites. The Council believe that this growth is not sustainable, without improvement to the existing infrastructure and facilities of the town.
Smaller sized gradual development may be less impactive on the existing infrastructure and facilities.
To be able to build and sustain a "stronger community", development in the Town needs to provide adequate affordable housing for local families, a range of suitable housing for a diverse population, housing in appropriate locations. Supporting infrastructure is required, such as provision of improved footways and pedestrian priority crossing points in key locations within the Town, road safety improvements to the "Fairland crossroads" , increased capacity at the primary school, a purpose built public car park within easy walking distance of the town centre, provision for green travel such as provision of publicly available vehicle charging points, extended green space for sports facilities, provision for an extension to the cemetery.
Hingham Town Council have recently acknowledged the Climate Emergency, any development need to address and mitigate environmental impact, including in terms of sustainability, green issues, pollution, and wildlife habitat.
Hingham Town Council is committed to working to try to secure the best outcomes for the community and to ensure that the infrastructure is adequate to support residents to be able to use local businesses and in turn enable those businesses to thrive.
The GNLP is set to run until 2038, by which time children now at the primary school will be seeking employment, they will need transport, they will need housing that they are able to afford to enable them to remain in a community where they grew up, if they so wish. Children not yet born will need to access both primary and secondary education. The GNLP needs to deliver adequate provision (alongside housing) to sustain both the community as it is today and tomorrow and the community that will be come 2038.
For full representation response, please refer to the attached document.
Object
Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy
Question 13: Do you agree with the proposed Settlement Hierarchy and the proposed distribution of housing within the hierarchy?
Representation ID: 23007
Received: 16/03/2020
Respondent: Hingham Town Council
Hingham Town Council consider the Hierarchy to be flawed. Several parishes have been designated as Key Service Centres, at no point in the document is there a definition for a “Key Service Centre”. The lack of concrete criteria for a “Key Service Centre” renders the designation of such an entity meaningless.
Hingham Town Council object to any new sites being allocated for house building in revised local plans to 2038 until all existing allocations in current core strategies have been developed.
There is no evidence in the policy document of commitment to improved infrastructure in Hingham to enable the town to sustain the quoted 120 new homes, in particular additional primary school places and improvements to the road and footway network in the town.
For full representation response, please refer to the attached document.
Object
Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy
Question 14: Do you support, object or wish to comment on the approach for housing numbers and delivery?
Representation ID: 23009
Received: 16/03/2020
Respondent: Hingham Town Council
Hingham has a allocation of 120 new homes (including 16 existing commitment), however the consideration of Windfall sites as being “acceptable in principle” – of sites of up to 3 homes within each parish would mean the ACTUAL homes that will be delivered is potentially unquantifiable (Policy 7.5 is ambiguous in its meaning and needs clarification).
Housing figures are not discussed inline with actual need within the community or taking into account the number of vacant properties already in existence.
Hingham Town Council have been told that “deliverability” is a key component to housing development site allocation. The Council would like to sate that just because something is deliverable it does not mean that it is right for a community, and there are concerns regarding the push to deliver housing development “en masse” which could potentially overwhelm the town’s facilities and infrastructure. The GNLP runs until 2038 and the Town Council are of the opinion that a phased approach to delivering smaller developments, as and when needed, with a higher focus on affordability for local people would be a more acceptable and appropriate approach.
For full representation response, please refer to the attached document.
Object
Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy
Question 15: Do you support, object or wish to comment on the approach for the Economy?
Representation ID: 23010
Received: 16/03/2020
Respondent: Hingham Town Council
The allocation of employment locations should be considered in relation to allocation of preferred sites for housing development, and it should be considered how the 2 areas would impact on each other both positively and negatively. In Hingham a preferred site for housing development is sited opposite the designated employment area, only the “positive” of the potential for providing local employment (within walking distance) to residents of the new development has been highlighted. Siting a housing development so close to a “employment area” which is already home to heavy industry can have many negative impacts on residents, with regard to road safety, increased traffic in a confined area, noise and pollution. It should also be recognised that employment does not occur in just one designated area within a community.
There appears to be no time scales with regard to the development of the employment area - i.e when would the jobs be delivered?
For full representation response, please refer to the attached document.
