Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Comment

Representation ID: 23014

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Hingham Town Council

Whilst Hingham Town Council support the policy “the sustainable growth strategy will be supported by improvements to the transport system, green infrastructure and services” – there is absolutely no evidence to show how this will be achieved in Hingham. Hingham is in need of improvements to its footways, roads, school, green infrastructure and public transport – HOW in this going to be improved in Hingham to support the growth of the town?

Object

Representation ID: 23029

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Hingham Town Council

Hingham Town Council supports the policy with regard to Sustainable Communities, but again question it’s deliverability, with specific reference to Hingham. It is disappointing that the GNLP housing development site assessment has concluded that a Preferred option – GNLP0520 is contrary to this policy on several counts. The development would not be able to provide safe and convenient access to existing facilities in the town (ref policy 2.1) , it would not respect, protect and enhance the landscape character (ref policy 2.5) and would unlikely to be able to manage travel (ref policy 2.6) demand due to Hingham’s limited public transport. The preferred option site GNLP0520 certainly would not “minimise flood risk or reduce the cause and impacts of flooding” (ref policy 2.8).
Whilst the policy theory for Sustainable Communities on paper is very desirable, HOW is this going to be achieved when preferred sites for housing development are allocated that are contrary to this policy.
The GNLP team and Planning Authorities thereafter should actively seek information from residents affected by or potentially affected by flooding in the vicinity of a proposed site allocation or development, rather than accepting the submittance from the developers that flooding has been / can be mitigated.

With reference to policy point 2 i (page 62) “ ….using a recognised community engagement process will be encouraged on larger sites……..200 dwellings” this is not far reaching enough. Community engagement should be mandatory for any development that would have a significant impact on a community – for example – with specific reference to Hingham – a development of 80 houses would have a significant impact on the town, in terms of integrating into the community, burden on local facilities such as Drs surgery and school and associated parking issues, as well as the visual and character impact a development would have on a small historic town such as Hingham.

Comment

Representation ID: 23032

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Hingham Town Council

Consultation responses are welcomed on the likely cost of implementing the proposed energy policy approach locally.

As the Council have declared a climate emergency we believe that any new housing should be as energy efficient as possible and this is beyond the present building regs it should still be required. The use of community battery schemes would be useful in taking excess power generated during the day and making it available at night. If we are going to be required to drive electric cars then there will be a need for a much enhanced grid and the large power stations could be supplemented by local generation. On a historic note Hingham did at one time have it’s own gas works and similar small scale electrical generation should be welcomed

Support

Representation ID: 23033

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Hingham Town Council

Hingham Town Council support the policy of environmental protection and enhancement. A community should have total confidence that if forced to accept more development , that the development would be an asset to and enhance the environment.

Object

Representation ID: 23034

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Hingham Town Council

Preferred option site for housing development GNLP0520 is contrary to this policy. It has been commented upon that the recent Hops development adjacent to GNLP0520 (built by the same developer ) has “ruined” the approach to Hingham and is an “eyesore”. Communities should not be subject to development that instils such vehement dislike and opposition.

Policy 3 states “ The development strategy of the plan and the sites proposed for development reflect the area's settlement structure of the city, towns and villages, retaining the separate identities of individual settlements.
Development proposals will be required to conserve and enhance the built and historic environment through:
being designed to create a distinct sense of place and enhance local character taking account of local design guidance and providing measures such as heritage interpretation to further the understanding of local heritage issues;”
With the allocation of GNLP0520 as a preferred site to be built by the same developer as the Hops, residents fear being left with a large area of development (covering both the Hops and GNLP0520) that will not be in keeping with the historic environment of the very nearby areas of Hingham. Having one development of a distinctive style already been built, it does not mean that it is right for the settlement to be further developed by adding more of the same. In particular if its style and design is likely to be opposed and resented by residents of the town.

Object

Representation ID: 23035

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Hingham Town Council

With regard to the Natural Environment –“ Development proposals will be required to conserve and enhance the natural environment. Key elements of the natural environment include valued landscapes”. Again with specific reference to GNLP0520. Development of GNLP0520 would be contrary to Policy 3 “The Natural Environment …. Development proposals will be required to conserve and enhance the natural environment. Key elements of the natural environment include valued landscapes” … it is clear from residents objections that the loss of such prominent and valued open landscape by developing GNLP0520 would definitely not “conserve or enhance the natural environment”, but permanently destroy it, on the approach to Hingham via the Norwich Road.
Sites should not be allocated for development when they are so clearly contrary to the policies that should be applied.

Comment

Representation ID: 23036

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Hingham Town Council

Whilst the Council believes that there should be no development until the present allocations have been built on it does believe that planners should give careful consideration to allowing more self build across the district and that they should be willing to allow some experimental green initiative building that takes account the need to address climate change/the climate emergency.

In the context of the climate emergency, where several species of wildlife native to Britain are becoming extinct or at risk of extinction the Council are concerned to ensure that housing developments are not built on areas where rare species of wildlife may exist, or indeed, where extension of the urban area will contribute to the depletion of wildlife. Should housing development take place wildlife habitat should be preserved, protected, enhanced and improved.

Object

Representation ID: 23037

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Hingham Town Council

There is insufficient detail as to HOW transport provision will be improved for the outer reaches of the GNLP area. The focus is too heavily on Norwich and Major road networks (A roads). There is no commitment to improvement within Hingham which is situated on the B1108 which is subject to ever increasing traffic numbers and carries traffic from the large areas of development in and around Watton/Carbrooke (Breckland).

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 the context of the climate emergency where we need to encourage everyone to be less reliant on cars and to use public transport as much as possible, this strategy document, taking us up to 2038, is very much lacking in ambition and concrete provisions of improvement to transport links. Currently buses are available to Wymondham, Watton and Norwich every 30 minutes and buses to the Norfolk and Norwich Hospital and Research Park once an hour, also buses stop at around 7pm.
In terms of employment the 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 (a 20 minute drive) would take 2 hours via Norwich. In addition, no consideration has been made to account for the fact that Hingham is on the very edge of South Norfolk bordering with Breckland and that people could quite conceivably want to travel to Attleborough or Dereham for work, local amenities or leisure and there are either limited or no public transport links directly available to these places at all (a bus to Attleborough would take over an hour verses a 10 minute drive by car, and to Dereham a 40 minute bus ride is only available twice a week, otherwise an hour and a half bus journey versus a 20 minute drive).
In terms of leisure a night bus service, enabling people to return from the city after going to the theatre or seeing a band would also be very welcome. For a strategy that claims to aspire towards a "radical shift away from the private car" current plans seem woefully inadequate.
There is no mention in Policy 4 of road infrastructure improvements to support additional traffic through the rural communities forced to accept more housing development, and no commitment to ensuring that infrastructure will be enhanced to try to ensure greater adherence to speed limits.
There are long held concerns over the safety of the B1108 Fairland crossroads – More housing development in Hingham and the surrounding areas will only increase the vehicle numbers using this already dangerous crossroad. Hingham Town Council have applied for (and have been successful) NCC Parish Partnership bid for a feasibility study into the Fairland/B1108 junction safety improvements. In order to support further development of Hingham, if it is proved to be feasible to improve this junction, a firm commitment needs to be made from the Highways authority to undertake the work.

Object

Representation ID: 23038

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Hingham Town Council

Policy 4 sates “School capacity will be increased to provide for growth by improvements to existing schools”
With specific reference to Hingham – there is widespread concern within the community of the pressure that more housing will have on the primary school and Drs surgery. Current plans for Hingham Primary School are to replace old worn out mobile classrooms with new structures, however this will not increase the capacity of the school. With development taking place in Watton, Carbrooke and Great Ellingham, parents from Breckland are looking to enrol children in Hingham Primary School, increasing the pressure on the school’s ability to accommodate additional numbers of children (the Drs Surgery also has a wide catchment area within Breckland). There is also concern regarding the lack of sufficient local child care places to assist working parents.
It should also be noted that Hingham does not have a high school.
With regard to green infrastructure. Being that there is no public car park and businesses in the Market Place and Fairland have no dedicated parking for staff or customers, it would be unlikely to achieve provision for green travel (outside of that of providing private charging points within a development) such as provision of publicly available vehicle charging points.

Comment

Representation ID: 23039

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Hingham Town Council

“Development proposals will provide on-site services and facilities and support local infrastructure capacity improvements through on-site provision, providing land and developer contributions”.

Developers should also be looking to contribute to improving and sustaining infrastructure beyond the boundary of the development to help to ease the burden on existing infrastructure and facilities