Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy
Search representations
Results for Engena search
New searchObject
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: 21707
Received: 16/03/2020
Respondent: Engena
Terminology needs to be more carefully worded, particularly 'The NPPF also requires a positive approach to large scale renewable energy generation except for onshore wind energy development.' Without amendment the policy is unreasonable and restrictive. The 'preferred approach' implies footnote 49 of the NPPF which does not need to be repeated in local policy. A positive approach can be taken to onshore wind if the stipulations of NPPF Footnote 49 are met. The NPPF promotes sustainable development and therefore excluding onshore wind from the positive approach to planning is a policy conflict.
Terminology needs to be more carefully worded, particularly 'The NPPF also requires a positive approach to large scale renewable energy generation except for onshore wind energy development.' Without amendment the policy is unreasonable and restrictive. The 'preferred approach' implies footnote 49 of the NPPF which does not need to be repeated in local policy. A positive approach can be taken to onshore wind if the stipulations of NPPF Footnote 49 are met. The NPPF promotes sustainable development and therefore excluding onshore wind from the positive approach to planning is a policy conflict.
Object
Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy
Question 19: Do you support, object or have any comments relating to the specific requirements of the policy?
Representation ID: 21728
Received: 16/03/2020
Respondent: Engena
Without amendment the policy is unreasonable and restrictive. Wind energy should not be an exception from the policy support. Part of Footnote 49 of the NPPF is implied but this does not need to be repeated in local policy. Wind energy developments which have the backing of the affected local community should be supported. Public opinion is consistently supportive of onshore wind (see attached). It is suggested that the final paragraph of part 10 of the policy is removed and wind is not excluded from support subject to acceptable wider impacts, as given in the penultimate paragraph of part 10.
Without amendment the policy is unreasonable and restrictive. Wind energy should not be an exception from the policy support. Part of Footnote 49 of the NPPF is implied but this does not need to be repeated in local policy. Wind energy developments which have the backing of the affected local community should be supported. Public opinion is consistently supportive of onshore wind (see attached). It is suggested that the final paragraph of part 10 of the policy is removed and wind is not excluded from support subject to acceptable wider impacts, as given in the penultimate paragraph of part 10.
