Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Search Representations

Results for Aylsham TC search

New search New search

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: 21605

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Aylsham TC

Representation:

Although at this stage it is not of direct interest to Aylsham and its residents there is a view that too much emphasis has been placed on school catchment areas rather than geographical links

Full text:

Although at this stage it is not of direct interest to Aylsham and its residents there is a view that too much emphasis has been placed on school catchment areas rather than geographical links

Comment

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: 21611

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Aylsham TC

Representation:

The policy on flooding (item 9) could be strengthened by actually encouraging no additional hard surfaces outside the highway within a distance of one mile into a flood plain. Recent issues have shown the devastation excessive rain can have when rivers fill and although this has not been an issue for Norfolk the situation is only likely to get worse.

Full text:

The policy on flooding (item 9) could be strengthened by actually encouraging no additional hard surfaces outside the highway within a distance of one mile into a flood plain. Recent issues have shown the devastation excessive rain can have when rivers fill and although this has not been an issue for Norfolk the situation is only likely to get worse.

Object

Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Question 20: Do you support, object or have any comments relating to approach to the built and historic environment?

Representation ID: 21620

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Aylsham TC

Representation:

There is a lack of acknowledgement within the policy that the historic asset maybe underground rather than visible on the surface. This is also badly covered in the NPPF. This would be an opportunity to ensure discovery and then protection of unknown sites

Full text:

There is a lack of acknowledgement within the policy that the historic asset maybe underground rather than visible on the surface. This is also badly covered in the NPPF. This would be an opportunity to ensure discovery and then protection of unknown sites

Comment

Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Question 26: Are there any topics which have not been covered that you believe should have been?

Representation ID: 21626

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Aylsham TC

Representation:

There is nothing in the plan regarding connecting the market towns to Norwich and onward sites through long-distance all-weather cycle paths. This would appear to be an opportunity missed

Full text:

There is nothing in the plan regarding connecting the market towns to Norwich and onward sites through long-distance all-weather cycle paths. This would appear to be an opportunity missed

Comment

Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Question 27: Do you support, object or have any comments relating to approach to affordable homes?

Representation ID: 21628

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Aylsham TC

Representation:

With regard to affordable housing there is a need, from past experiences, to ensure there is no wiggle room for developers over the 33% figure. We would also like to see an addition so that the development is ‘tenure blind’

Full text:

With regard to affordable housing there is a need, from past experiences, to ensure there is no wiggle room for developers over the 33% figure. We would also like to see an addition so that the development is ‘tenure blind’

Comment

Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Question 42. Do you support or object or wish to comment on the approach for specific towns (Aylsham, Diss (with part of Roydon), Harleston, Long Stratton and Wymondham)? Please identify particular issues.

Representation ID: 21643

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Aylsham TC

Representation:

AylshamWhilst it is true that Aylsham has good transport links there is an issue with transport through the town itself. TThe Town Council would like to address this through the provision of a transport hub to look at solutions for both the bus situation and the long-term parking issues experienced by the town.
The town requires a safe crossing of the A140.
Clarification on the school - is this a replacement or third school?

Full text:

Aylsham
Whilst it is true that Aylsham has good transport links both North and South via the A140, there is an issue with transport through the town itself. The roads in the historic centre were not built for cars let alone the large buses that now regularly cross the town. The Town Council would like to address this through the provision of a transport hub to look at solutions for both the bus situation and the long-term parking issues experienced by the town. The Town Council does not agree with the chosen site – the full details of which are provided in the response to sites consultation.
The town is fortunate to have the long distance trails of the Weavers Way and Marriots/Bure Valley Way. However, both these paths necessitate crossing the extremely busy A140 with no assistance to the pedestrian – this will need to be addressed.
Although the Town Council welcomes the addition of the school the policy does not specifically include this. The notes to the policy claim a new primary school which would indicate a third school will be built but the Town Council have been informed that it is more likely that an existing school will be moved and extended on a new site. This is not clear in the policy and is not the wished for expansion of primary education in the town

Comment

Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Question 47. Do you support or object or wish to comment on the overall approach for Small Scale Windfall Housing Development? Please identify particular issues.

Representation ID: 21650

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Aylsham TC

Representation:

Clarification for size of site would be useful as how the policy stands it might not meet the requirement in your vision for homes:

Homes
To enable delivery of high-quality homes of the right density, size, mix and tenure to meet people's needs throughout their lives and to make efficient use of land.

Also what measures are there in place to prevent repeated applications for three houses from small developers on basically the same site?

Full text:

Clarification for size of site would be useful as how the policy stands it might not meet the requirement in your vision for homes:

Homes
To enable delivery of high-quality homes of the right density, size, mix and tenure to meet people's needs throughout their lives and to make efficient use of land.

Also what measures are there in place to prevent repeated applications for three houses from small developers on basically the same site?

If you are having trouble using the system, please try our help guide.