Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Support

Representation ID: 22391

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Norwich Green Party

Support greater use of legal powers. Developers are dragging heels on redeveloping brown field sites in Norwich at expense of countryside.

Object

Representation ID: 22393

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Norwich Green Party

Object to providing 9% more homes than needed and identifying two 'contingency' locations, especially if windfalls are to be discounted (and we object to this also). The Plan should ensure delivery of JCS allocations before developing new sites allocated in GNLP.

Object to small scale growth in villages as development dispersal would have large adverse impact on carbon emissions. No evidence to show that dispersal would support village services. Norfolk CC allowed extensive housebuilding in villages in 1970s and this increased car commuting whilst not protecting services. All new development should be concentrated in or close to Norwich or in towns with rail connections.

Object

Representation ID: 22394

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Norwich Green Party

Object to expansion of/allocation of new strategic sites unless provision of high quality public transport, walking and cycling networks can be demonstrated from the outset, otherwise they will be dependent on car/van/lorry access.

Object to types of economic development in rural locations which would generate car, van and HGV movements. Digitally based jobs are acceptable.

Support

Representation ID: 22395

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Norwich Green Party

Support concentrating employment in Norwich city centre.

Object

Representation ID: 22396

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Norwich Green Party

Object to 'improve connectivity' as this permits more road building. Should be pinned down to refer to 'improve connectivity for public transport and local rail, walking and cycling”.

Object to the fact that the strategy for transport infrastructure isn't consistent with meeting the Paris Agreement. It needs to include managing traffic demand such as infrastructure for workplace parking charges and also infrastructure to enable the transition to zero carbon vehicles.

Coordination of infrastructure delivery should refer to the importance of 'soft' infrastructure such as education to distinguish it from hard infrastructure.

Object

Representation ID: 22397

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Norwich Green Party

Statement contains warm words, but not integrated with other policies eg homes and strategic transport. There are strong inconsistencies between statement, evidence base and policies. The draft GNLP is an approach of 'carry on as before', when we are now in a climate emergency. There are no climate change policies, no targets, no quantification of what may be achieved. GNLP does not demonstrate compliance with legislation. The SA appraisal seems to show that the CC objective will not be met in a lot of cases eg DEFRA target in Clean Air Strategy for 30% transport emissions reduction by 2030. Climate change needs to stand equal with other policies including delivery. Setting a carbon budget which cannot be exceeded is a way forward. Longer submission is attached.

Object

Representation ID: 22398

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Norwich Green Party

We have the following concerns:

Norwich urban area: although we wish to see growth concentrated in and around Norwich, we do not wish to see growth allocated to areas which are not well served by public transport. EG we do not support strategic allocation at Taverham off Fir Covert Road because there are no plans or funding for upgrading public transport infrastructure along Fakenham Road. The failure to secure adequate Transforming Cities funds will prevent upgrading to public transport system for serving growth communities unless new sources can be obtained.

Main towns: growth should be limited to nodes on rail network.

Key service centres: growth should be limited to nodes on rail network.

Village clusters: oppose on climate change grounds, apart from identification of sites for local social housing.
'Delivery' skews distribution of housing allocations in favour of dispersal options. Delivery has nothing to do with sustainability; it is not an objective in the SA and should be disregarded for purpose of weighing up policies on sustainability grounds.

Object

Representation ID: 22399

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Norwich Green Party

Object. Plan should ensure delivery of JCS allocations before commencing phased development of new sites allocated in GNLP, starting with brownfield sites in Norwich city centre. Linking delivery of affordable housing to that of private sector housing has failed. Planning authorities have maximised housing numbers to obtain affordable housing whilst developers have claimed that achievement of policy quota of 33% affordable housing is unviable. The only solution to addressing affordable housing need is through public policy intervention, in particular national government facilitating social housing.

Object

Representation ID: 22400

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Norwich Green Party

Sites allocated in the JCS should be developed first of all before bringing forward new sites allocated in the GNLP. Sites with good access to rail and public transport, walking and cycling facilities should be given preference. Too many strategic employment sites reliant on car and lorry use have been permitted, adding to carbon emissions eg Longwater, Broadland Business Park, Norwich Research Park, Easton/Honigham, Hethel. Employment sites not required should be de-allocated. The JCS failed to achieve sustainable development and the draft GNLP is continuing along a business as usual path.

Comment

Representation ID: 22401

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Norwich Green Party

High housing target in JCS made it impossible to achieve 5 year land supply; it increased number of dwellings required to meet affordable housing need; and led to developers building on unallocated greenfield sites in villages.