Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Support

Representation ID: 22978

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Barratt David Wilson Homes

Agent: Pegasus Planning Group

Our client supports the delivery of new homes in the fringe parishes and believes that these are one of the most sustainable locations for new homes to be delivered in the Greater Norwich area. Therefore, it is crucial that the Councils maximise the use of sites in the fringe parishes that have already been identified to accommodate new homes. The use of higher densities on these sites, in accordance with the approach on sites already consented for development, will also maximise the use of new infrastructure that has already been, or is in the process of being delivered.

Our earlier comments in this document and the evidence submitted to the Sites Allocations element of the GNLP is of relevance here as it explains why we think more housing could be delivered at Cringleford. This should be reflected in the strategy for the fringe parishes.

Object

Representation ID: 22979

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Barratt David Wilson Homes

Agent: Pegasus Planning Group

Our client is concerned that 1,200 homes are proposed to be delivered on as yet unidentified sites that are to be allocated through a separate South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Site Allocations document. This is a document that has yet to have an agreed timescale for production and does not feature in the current LDS. The reliance on another plan process to deliver these homes has adds uncertainty and delay to the delivery of these new homes.

The strategy for delivery these 1,200 new homes across the villages is yet to be identified and therefore it is unclear whether they will be delivered in sustainable locations or in the form of development that could fund sufficient infrastructure or deliver appropriate levels of affordable housing. Furthermore, if some or all of these new homes were proposed to form part of the Councils’ five-year supply of housing then the uncertainties around their delivery would leave the Greater Norwich area at risk of not being able to demonstrate a five year supply of housing if they do not come forward.

This reliance on a further plan process departs from the single plan strategy that the GNLP seeks to deliver with inherent adverse consequences for sustainable development. This is not an appropriate strategy for the plan and therefore the alternative strategy of including this requirement as part of the single plan process is more appropriate. This would allow for this provision to be considered as part of increasing the development yield of sites that are coming forward as part of the GNLP process.

Comment

Representation ID: 22980

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Barratt David Wilson Homes

Agent: Pegasus Planning Group

Our client supports the principle of relaxing controls on the development of land adjacent to development boundaries but believes that the figure of permitted developments should not be capped at a maximum total of 3 dwellings within each parish during the lifetime of the plan. Our client also believes that Policy 7.5 should not ‘support’ the delivery of self-build plots but instead it must prioritise them. An amendment of Policy 7.5 so it relates to self-build plots only, and removes the cap on numbers, should be the Councils’ primary approach to the delivery of self-build plots in order to meet their statutory requirement to promote self-build housing. This approach should be used rather than seeking to secure a percentage of self-build plots on developments of 40 dwellings or more, which are often less desirable locations for self-builders to live, as would be required by Policy 5.

A relaxation of development boundaries to allow the delivery of sensitive self-build plots that infill sites within a recognisable group of dwellings, and respect the form and character of settlements, is a positive tool to promote development and boost the supply of housing. The removal of a cap on the number of homes that could be delivered in each parish would ultimately allow for more self-build homes to come forward as windfall sites. If the only homes that were permitted were to accommodate the needs of people on the Councils’ self-build registers this would mean that the new homes were occupied by people with ties to the area. This is also likely to mean that these new homes would be more acceptable to local communities. When considering applications for such developments planning officers would need to exercise their professional judgement as to whether individual schemes infilled sites within a recognisable group of dwellings and respected the form and character of the settlement with no detrimental impact on the landscape and natural environment. This would still allow development control officers to refuse applications for inappropriate developments in more sensitive locations.

Prioritising the delivery of self-build plots on the edges of development boundaries is more of a sound policy than relying on major development sites to deliver self-build plots. Especially as the cost of delivering infrastructure to serve these larger sites often impacts negatively on the percentage of affordable housing that is delivered. A requirement for self-build plots on developments of 40 dwellings or more, which generate less revenue for developers than finished homes, has the potential to further reduce the percentage of affordable housing on these large sites.

By permitting the development of small sites on the edges of development boundaries to accommodate self-build plots it would help to boost the supply of housing, address the Councils’ self-build registers and provide a continued source of employment for small builders and tradespeople. It would also remove the obligation from larger development sites in order to maximise the amount of affordable housing that they could viably deliver.