Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy
Search representations
Results for Hopkins Homes, Persimmon Homes and Taylor Wimpey search
New searchSupport
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: 21172
Received: 16/03/2020
Respondent: Hopkins Homes, Persimmon Homes and Taylor Wimpey
Agent: Bidwells
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.
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: 21175
Received: 16/03/2020
Respondent: Hopkins Homes, Persimmon Homes and Taylor Wimpey
Agent: Bidwells
Support for proposal to allocate sites only where there is a reasonable prospect of delivery.
Support for delivery plans, but important that the potential for unforeseen material changes to occur, which could impact delivery.
Support for 9% buffer.
The proposal to only allocate housing sites where there is a reasonable prospect of delivery can be evidenced is fully supported, and accords with paragraph 67 of the NPPF.
The requirement for delivery plans to be submitted with planning applications is supported, but it is important to recognise that there may be unforeseen material changes in circumstances which could impact the delivery of an allocation, and consequently, a degree of flexibility will be required to ensure viable and sustainable development.
The Plan’s proposal to accommodate 9% more homes than “need” indicates is supported; this buffer will help ensure that the supply and delivery of housing is maintained.
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: 21177
Received: 16/03/2020
Respondent: Hopkins Homes, Persimmon Homes and Taylor Wimpey
Agent: Bidwells
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.
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.
Support
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: 21179
Received: 16/03/2020
Respondent: Hopkins Homes, Persimmon Homes and Taylor Wimpey
Agent: Bidwells
The proposed Settlement Hierarchy is supported; the Norwich Urban Area, including the fringe parishes such as Sprowston, is clearly the most sustainable location for growth, given the range of services available, and it is therefore appropriate to focus the majority of growth, including new allocations, here.
The proposed Settlement Hierarchy is supported; the Norwich Urban Area, including the fringe parishes such as Sprowston, is clearly the most sustainable location for growth, given the range of services available, and it is therefore appropriate to focus the majority of growth, including new allocations, here.
Support
Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy
Question 14: Do you support, object or wish to comment on the approach for housing numbers and delivery?
Representation ID: 21180
Received: 16/03/2020
Respondent: Hopkins Homes, Persimmon Homes and Taylor Wimpey
Agent: Bidwells
See response to q13
See response to q13
Support
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: 21182
Received: 16/03/2020
Respondent: Hopkins Homes, Persimmon Homes and Taylor Wimpey
Agent: Bidwells
The proposed review of the Plan 5 years after Adoption is fully consistent with paragraph 33 of the NPPF. However, it should be made clear in the Policy that the review will need to be COMPLETED within 5 years of adoption.
The proposed review of the Plan 5 years after Adoption is fully consistent with paragraph 33 of the NPPF. However, it should be made clear in the Policy that the review will need to be COMPLETED within 5 years of adoption.
Support
Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy
Question 17: Do you support, object or wish to comment on the approach to Infrastructure?
Representation ID: 21183
Received: 16/03/2020
Respondent: Hopkins Homes, Persimmon Homes and Taylor Wimpey
Agent: Bidwells
The need to support sustainable growth through the provision of infrastructure improvements, such as schools and health centres, is, in principle, supported. However, the policy should recognise that infrastructure provision must be proportionate to each development, to mitigate the impacts of the specific development, based on a local need and must not undermine delivery.
The need to support sustainable growth through the provision of infrastructure improvements, such as schools and health centres, is, in principle, supported. However, the policy should recognise that infrastructure provision must be proportionate to each development, to mitigate the impacts of the specific development, based on a local need and must not undermine delivery.
Support
Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy
Question 18: Do you support, object or have any comments relating to the preferred approach to sustainable communities including the requirement for a sustainability statement?
Representation ID: 21184
Received: 16/03/2020
Respondent: Hopkins Homes, Persimmon Homes and Taylor Wimpey
Agent: Bidwells
The principle of ensuring that developments are high quality and contribute to delivering inclusive growth in mixed, resilient and sustainable communities, whilst assisting in mitigating and adapting to climate change, is supported.
The requirement for major developments to submit a Sustainability Statement is also supported, as is the requirement for Delivery plans to be provided.
The principle of ensuring that developments are high quality and contribute to delivering inclusive growth in mixed, resilient and sustainable communities, whilst assisting in mitigating and adapting to climate change, is supported.
The requirement for major developments to submit a Sustainability Statement is also supported, as is the requirement for Delivery plans to be provided.
Comment
Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy
Question 24: Do you support, object or have any comments relating to the approach to other strategic infrastructure (energy, water, health care, schools and green infrastructure)?
Representation ID: 21186
Received: 16/03/2020
Respondent: Hopkins Homes, Persimmon Homes and Taylor Wimpey
Agent: Bidwells
The proposal for continued lobbying of statutory providers for the timely delivery of improvements to strategic infrastructure, such as the energy supply network, is welcomed and supported.
The Consortium are committed to continued engagement with NCC in relation to the potential to accommodate a secondary school on site GNLP0132. Further clarification is required in relation to funding mechanisms and the relationship with CIL to ensure that the implications for viability are fully understood and mitigated at Plan-making stage.
The proposal for continued lobbying of statutory providers for the timely delivery of improvements to strategic infrastructure, such as the energy supply network, is welcomed and supported. This will be critical to ensuring the timely delivery of the planned growth.
In relation to education provision, the Consortium are committed to continued engagement with Norfolk County Council in relation to the potential to accommodate a secondary school on site GNLP0132. Further clarification is required in relation to funding mechanisms, and the inter-relationship with the CIL regime, to ensure that implications for viability are fully understood and mitigated at Plan-making stage. This is essential to ensure that the policy framework is drafted to appropriately reflect these considerations, and ensure that strategic sites are not over-burdened with the delivery of strategic infrastructure beyond that directly required by the development.
Support
Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy
Question 25: Do you support, object or have any comments relating to the approach to on-site and local infrastructure, services and facilities?
Representation ID: 21187
Received: 16/03/2020
Respondent: Hopkins Homes, Persimmon Homes and Taylor Wimpey
Agent: Bidwells
The need to support sustainable growth through the provision of on-site and local infrastructure improvements is, in principle, supported. However, the policy should recognise that infrastructure provision must be proportionate to each development, based on a local need and not undermine delivery.
Consideration should be given to the potential for the larger strategic-scale housing sites (i.e. sites of 1000+ dwellings) to be CIL exempt, or subject to a bespoke reduced CIL charge, to reflect the site-specific infrastructure costs, and support delivery of the larger-scale sites.
The need to support sustainable growth through the provision of on-site and local infrastructure improvements is, in principle, supported. However, the policy should recognise that infrastructure provision must be proportionate to each development, based on a local need and not undermine delivery.
Consideration should be given to the potential for the larger strategic-scale housing sites (i.e. sites of 1000+ dwellings) to be CIL exempt, or subject to a bespoke reduced CIL charge, to reflect the site-specific infrastructure costs, and support delivery of the larger-scale sites.
