Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Search representations

Results for Hopkins Homes search

New search New search

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: 21449

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Hopkins Homes

Representation Summary:

Further detail is provided on the attached.

Object

Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Question 16: Do you support, object or wish to comment on the approach to Review and Five-Year Land Supply?

Representation ID: 21453

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Hopkins Homes

Representation Summary:

Hopkins Homes does not agree with the Council’s five-year land supply position. It is considered that the calculations have not been undertaken correctly in line with the Planning Practice Guidance and make the following comments to ensure the Plan’s soundness. Further detail is provided on the attached.

Object

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: 21955

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Hopkins Homes

Representation Summary:

The attached document addresses technical points in the Council’s evidence base on landscape and traffic and sets out why land submitted by Hopkins Homes at South Wroxham is deliverable and should be allocated.

Comment

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: 22323

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Hopkins Homes

Representation Summary:

Whilst Hopkins Homes agrees with the broad strategy outlined, we do consider that a number of the existing villages within the wider Greater Norwich Area, both within and beyond the defined ‘Norwich Policy Area’ benefit from sufficient sustainability credentials so as to be able to accommodate greater levels of housing growth than are currently proposed.

Notably, Hopkins Homes have proposed sites on the periphery of the villages of Mulbarton and Scole within South Norfolk, both of which settlements benefit from facilities and good connections with nearby higher-order market towns which enable them to accommodate higher levels of growth than are currently envisaged through the proposed Strategy.

In respect of Mulbarton, the existing population in excess of 3,500 is higher than that of over half of the designated Key Service Centres, as confirmed by the data contained in Table 1 on Page 11 of the Draft Plan, which therefore further confirms the appropriateness of higher levels of proportionate housing growth than currently proposed within the Draft Plan.

Attachments:

Comment

Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Question 32: Do you support, object or have any comments relating to the approach to Self/Custom-Build?

Representation ID: 22324

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Hopkins Homes

Representation Summary:

Whilst Hopkins Homes understands the Government’s desire to promote the development of housing via Self and Custom-Build, it is common knowledge that the vast majority of demand for such housing is upon smaller and individual development sites in predominantly rural locations, rather than as a small portion of a larger development site.

To this end, it is suggested that specific smaller sites in rural locations should be allocated for such uses, rather than seeking to require such provision as a portion of larger sites.

Attachments:

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: 22327

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Hopkins Homes

Representation Summary:

As previously outlined under Question 13, Hopkins Homes considers that the village of Mulbarton should be formally identified as a Key Service Centre, Mulbarton, given the existing population in excess of 3,500 is higher than that of over half of the designated Key Service Centres, as confirmed by the data contained in Table 1 on Page 11 of the Draft Plan, whilst the village also benefits from a proportionately good range of services and facilities.

Attachments:

Comment

Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Question 46. Do you support or object or wish to comment on the approach for specific village clusters?

Representation ID: 22329

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Hopkins Homes

Representation Summary:

Whilst Hopkins Homes support the identification of village clusters to accommodate additional residential development to support the sustainable growth of rural areas, there should be no defined numerical restraint upon the size of site area or the number of dwellings proposed for allocation in this way. Instead, any such allocations should be made so as to be proportionate to the size of settlement cluster within which they are located and the range of facilities available, in order that they successfully meet local housing needs.

Attachments:

Support

Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Question 6: Do you support or object to the vision and objectives for Greater Norwich?

Representation ID: 23129

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Hopkins Homes

Agent: Bidwells

Representation Summary:

The objective of delivering high quality homes that contribute to the delivery of mixed, inclusive, resilient
and sustainable communities that are supported by appropriate economic and social infrastructure is
fully supported. The approach is fully consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework

Support

Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Question 9: Do you support, object, or have any comments relating to the approach to Housing set out in the Delivery Statement?

Representation ID: 23130

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Hopkins Homes

Agent: Bidwells

Representation Summary:

The requirement that sites should only be allocated for housing where, having regard to policy requirements, there is a reasonable prospect that housing can be delivered, fully accords with paragraph 67 of the NPPF.
Whilst the submission of Delivery Plans as part of a planning application is supported the documents
need to recognise that there may be unforeseen material changes in circumstances, which could impact
the delivery of an allocation.
The identified buffer in relation to housing numbers will help maintain the supply and delivery of housing,
in accordance with the NPPF and specifically the Government’s objective of encouraging authorities to consider more growth than required to meet local housing need, particularly in locations where there is
potential for significant economic growth, such as the Cambridge Norwich Tech Corridor.
However, to guard against non-delivery, particularly in relation to the potential failure of larger strategic
sites in the Norwich urban area to come forward, a minimum buffer of 10% should be identified. Indeed,
the draft GNLP states on page 45 that the Regulation 19 version of the Plan will aim to provide a minimum
buffer of 10% (at least 250 further homes).

Support

Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Question 11: Do you support, object, or have any comments relating to the approach to Infrastructure set out in the Delivery Statement?

Representation ID: 23131

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Hopkins Homes

Agent: Bidwells

Representation Summary:

Whilst there is support, in principle, for the proposed approach to infrastructure, particularly the need
for key stakeholders to work collaboratively, the Delivery Statement should make it clear that infrastructure requirements will be proportionate to each development and based on clear assessments of need. Failure to do this will result in certain developments being rendered unviable and, therefore, undeliverable.

For instructions on how to use the system and make comments, please see our help guide.