Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Search Representations

Results for Caistor St Edmund Parish Council search

New search New search

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: 21866

Received: 13/03/2020

Respondent: Caistor St Edmund Parish Council

Representation:

I am writing to you in my position as Parish Clerk on behalf of Caistor St Edmund and Bixley Parish Council. With reference to the GNLP Regulation 18 Draft consultation Caistor St Edmund and Bixley Parish Councils response is as follows;

Six new sites have been proposed within Caistor St Edmund, and one within Bixley all of which are recommended for rejection. The Parish Council strongly supports the recommendations for rejection for the reasons given in the Draft local plan.

The Parish Council strongly endorses the recommendation in the GNLP not to develop the Poringland/Framingham Earl Key Service Centre beyond the existing site allocations. The infrastructure has reached saturation point and is at full capacity

Full text:

I am writing to you in my position as Parish Clerk on behalf of Caistor St Edmund and Bixley Parish Council. With reference to the GNLP Regulation 18 Draft consultation Caistor St Edmund and Bixley Parish Councils response is as follows;

Six new sites have been proposed within Caistor St Edmund, and one within Bixley all of which are recommended for rejection. The Parish Council strongly supports the recommendations for rejection for the reasons given in the Draft local plan.

The Parish Council strongly endorses the recommendation in the GNLP not to develop the Poringland/Framingham Earl Key Service Centre beyond the existing site allocations. The infrastructure has reached saturation point and is at full capacity.

With regards to site 0485 (Glavehill, Land North of Caistor Lane), the Parish Council has studied the detailed proposals that have been made and has spoken to Glavenhill, but despite the community benefits that are offered, it does little to address the impact on already-overloaded local roads and services, and indeed will probably worsen matters.


The Transport Note produced by LANPRO sets out three access points on Caistor Lane and outlines the various roadway and footpath widths, however it does not address the major issue of the junction with Norwich Road, Poringland. It is already a major problem getting out of Caistor Lane at peak times, especially if you are wanting to turn right. The magnitude of this problem with the potential of additional cars from 180 homes, and traffic movements generated at peak times needs to be taken into serious consideration. The only car parking spaces appear to be allocated on the proposed community building next door to the school but this is only for 30 vehicles, the question needs to be raised as to what users of the community building do if the car parking spaces are taken up by school parents? Will this result in cars parking in Caistor Lane, adding to the existing cars that park here at peak times to collect children from the High School around the corner. Consideration also needs to be taken in relation to the 200 houses at Brickle Wood Road, a cul-de-sac estate, who all have to access their homes via Caistor Lane.

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