Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations

Overall it was felt that given recent development the parish has absorbed over the last five years the council was pleased to see that very little more has been allocated. Considering the large number of sites that were put forward at the ‘call for sites’ stage of the GNLP development, it is pleasing to see that only 1 has been allocated.

Further to comments already submitted by Blofield Parish Council it would also like to state the following: -

• It fully supports the decision made on the sites that are deemed unreasonable.
• the one site for Blofield Heath - GNLP1048 between the Council Houses and Renenergy, part of that site has now been taken up with the extension of Renenergy and we would question if there is sufficient space to deliver the minimum number of dwellings required to make it an allocated site. Looking at the plan and comparing to the works in progress, it would seem that around 25 - 33% of the site has been lost.
• GNLP and Blofield Heath - as the Bennetts site on Blofield Corner Road was recorded in the planning committee minutes of 27/11/19 that it should not have been passed as the drainage strategy was into a blind ditch it would be useful to link that evidence to this response. Bennetts have not done much on site because of this drainage strategy. Similarly as the Jenkins site beside Heathlands on Woodbastwick Road also proposes to link up to this drainage path, a local resident has raised the issue of whether that also renders this site unworkable because of drainage. The drainage strategy passed for Dawsons Lane is non-compliant and site specific for 12 properties and a small section of adoptable road, rest to be porous brick within the development itself. However this is now back with a new planning application to increase flow rate from 1.5l/sec to 18.8l/sec ie much changed drainage rate. For the GNLP it may be worth noting the site will not hold the 43 for either drainage or access reasons, as the road type 6 will only cover a max of 25 + possible 1 and the 12 plus 4 Dawsons Lane dwellings and the access of number 80 now onto this road and not Blofield Corner, there is not the capacity to go for more than a further 9 on the rest of the field, unless another access is made, and the drainage strategy would then need to be pumped uphill if it is to keep to the currently dug system

Further to comments already submitted by Blofield Parish Council it would also like to state the following: -

• It fully supports the decision made on the sites that are deemed unreasonable.
• the one site for Blofield Heath - GNLP1048 between the Council Houses and Renenergy, part of that site has now been taken up with the extension of Renenergy and we would question if there is sufficient space to deliver the minimum number of dwellings required to make it an allocated site. Looking at the plan and comparing to the works in progress, it would seem that around 25 - 33% of the site has been lost.
• GNLP and Blofield Heath - as the Bennetts site on Blofield Corner Road was recorded in the planning committee minutes of 27/11/19 that it should not have been passed as the drainage strategy was into a blind ditch it would be useful to link that evidence to this response. Bennetts have not done much on site because of this drainage strategy. Similarly as the Jenkins site beside Heathlands on Woodbastwick Road also proposes to link up to this drainage path, a local resident has raised the issue of whether that also renders this site unworkable because of drainage. The drainage strategy passed for Dawsons Lane is non-compliant and site specific for 12 properties and a small section of adoptable road, rest to be porous brick within the development itself. However this is now back with a new planning application to increase flow rate from 1.5l/sec to 18.8l/sec ie much changed drainage rate. For the GNLP it may be worth noting the site will not hold the 43 for either drainage or access reasons, as the road type 6 will only cover a max of 25 + possible 1 and the 12 plus 4 Dawsons Lane dwellings and the access of number 80 now onto this road and not Blofield Corner, there is not the capacity to go for more than a further 9 on the rest of the field, unless another access is made, and the drainage strategy would then need to be pumped uphill if it is to keep to the currently dug system

Further to comments already submitted by Blofield Parish Council it would also like to state the following: -

• It fully supports the decision made on the sites that are deemed unreasonable.
• the one site for Blofield Heath - GNLP1048 between the Council Houses and Renenergy, part of that site has now been taken up with the extension of Renenergy and we would question if there is sufficient space to deliver the minimum number of dwellings required to make it an allocated site. Looking at the plan and comparing to the works in progress, it would seem that around 25 - 33% of the site has been lost.
• GNLP and Blofield Heath - as the Bennetts site on Blofield Corner Road was recorded in the planning committee minutes of 27/11/19 that it should not have been passed as the drainage strategy was into a blind ditch it would be useful to link that evidence to this response. Bennetts have not done much on site because of this drainage strategy. Similarly as the Jenkins site beside Heathlands on Woodbastwick Road also proposes to link up to this drainage path, a local resident has raised the issue of whether that also renders this site unworkable because of drainage. The drainage strategy passed for Dawsons Lane is non-compliant and site specific for 12 properties and a small section of adoptable road, rest to be porous brick within the development itself. However this is now back with a new planning application to increase flow rate from 1.5l/sec to 18.8l/sec ie much changed drainage rate. For the GNLP it may be worth noting the site will not hold the 43 for either drainage or access reasons, as the road type 6 will only cover a max of 25 + possible 1 and the 12 plus 4 Dawsons Lane dwellings and the access of number 80 now onto this road and not Blofield Corner, there is not the capacity to go for more than a further 9 on the rest of the field, unless another access is made, and the drainage strategy would then need to be pumped uphill if it is to keep to the currently dug system

Further to comments already submitted by Blofield Parish Council it would also like to state the following: -

• It fully supports the decision made on the sites that are deemed unreasonable.
• the one site for Blofield Heath - GNLP1048 between the Council Houses and Renenergy, part of that site has now been taken up with the extension of Renenergy and we would question if there is sufficient space to deliver the minimum number of dwellings required to make it an allocated site. Looking at the plan and comparing to the works in progress, it would seem that around 25 - 33% of the site has been lost.
• GNLP and Blofield Heath - as the Bennetts site on Blofield Corner Road was recorded in the planning committee minutes of 27/11/19 that it should not have been passed as the drainage strategy was into a blind ditch it would be useful to link that evidence to this response. Bennetts have not done much on site because of this drainage strategy. Similarly as the Jenkins site beside Heathlands on Woodbastwick Road also proposes to link up to this drainage path, a local resident has raised the issue of whether that also renders this site unworkable because of drainage. The drainage strategy passed for Dawsons Lane is non-compliant and site specific for 12 properties and a small section of adoptable road, rest to be porous brick within the development itself. However this is now back with a new planning application to increase flow rate from 1.5l/sec to 18.8l/sec ie much changed drainage rate. For the GNLP it may be worth noting the site will not hold the 43 for either drainage or access reasons, as the road type 6 will only cover a max of 25 + possible 1 and the 12 plus 4 Dawsons Lane dwellings and the access of number 80 now onto this road and not Blofield Corner, there is not the capacity to go for more than a further 9 on the rest of the field, unless another access is made, and the drainage strategy would then need to be pumped uphill if it is to keep to the currently dug system

Further to comments already submitted by Blofield Parish Council it would also like to state the following: -

• It fully supports the decision made on the sites that are deemed unreasonable.
• the one site for Blofield Heath - GNLP1048 between the Council Houses and Renenergy, part of that site has now been taken up with the extension of Renenergy and we would question if there is sufficient space to deliver the minimum number of dwellings required to make it an allocated site. Looking at the plan and comparing to the works in progress, it would seem that around 25 - 33% of the site has been lost.
• GNLP and Blofield Heath - as the Bennetts site on Blofield Corner Road was recorded in the planning committee minutes of 27/11/19 that it should not have been passed as the drainage strategy was into a blind ditch it would be useful to link that evidence to this response. Bennetts have not done much on site because of this drainage strategy. Similarly as the Jenkins site beside Heathlands on Woodbastwick Road also proposes to link up to this drainage path, a local resident has raised the issue of whether that also renders this site unworkable because of drainage. The drainage strategy passed for Dawsons Lane is non-compliant and site specific for 12 properties and a small section of adoptable road, rest to be porous brick within the development itself. However this is now back with a new planning application to increase flow rate from 1.5l/sec to 18.8l/sec ie much changed drainage rate. For the GNLP it may be worth noting the site will not hold the 43 for either drainage or access reasons, as the road type 6 will only cover a max of 25 + possible 1 and the 12 plus 4 Dawsons Lane dwellings and the access of number 80 now onto this road and not Blofield Corner, there is not the capacity to go for more than a further 9 on the rest of the field, unless another access is made, and the drainage strategy would then need to be pumped uphill if it is to keep to the currently dug system

Further to comments already submitted by Blofield Parish Council it would also like to state the following: -

• It fully supports the decision made on the sites that are deemed unreasonable.
• the one site for Blofield Heath - GNLP1048 between the Council Houses and Renenergy, part of that site has now been taken up with the extension of Renenergy and we would question if there is sufficient space to deliver the minimum number of dwellings required to make it an allocated site. Looking at the plan and comparing to the works in progress, it would seem that around 25 - 33% of the site has been lost.
• GNLP and Blofield Heath - as the Bennetts site on Blofield Corner Road was recorded in the planning committee minutes of 27/11/19 that it should not have been passed as the drainage strategy was into a blind ditch it would be useful to link that evidence to this response. Bennetts have not done much on site because of this drainage strategy. Similarly as the Jenkins site beside Heathlands on Woodbastwick Road also proposes to link up to this drainage path, a local resident has raised the issue of whether that also renders this site unworkable because of drainage. The drainage strategy passed for Dawsons Lane is non-compliant and site specific for 12 properties and a small section of adoptable road, rest to be porous brick within the development itself. However this is now back with a new planning application to increase flow rate from 1.5l/sec to 18.8l/sec ie much changed drainage rate. For the GNLP it may be worth noting the site will not hold the 43 for either drainage or access reasons, as the road type 6 will only cover a max of 25 + possible 1 and the 12 plus 4 Dawsons Lane dwellings and the access of number 80 now onto this road and not Blofield Corner, there is not the capacity to go for more than a further 9 on the rest of the field, unless another access is made, and the drainage strategy would then need to be pumped uphill if it is to keep to the currently dug system

Further to comments already submitted by Blofield Parish Council it would also like to state the following: -

• It fully supports the decision made on the sites that are deemed unreasonable.
• the one site for Blofield Heath - GNLP1048 between the Council Houses and Renenergy, part of that site has now been taken up with the extension of Renenergy and we would question if there is sufficient space to deliver the minimum number of dwellings required to make it an allocated site. Looking at the plan and comparing to the works in progress, it would seem that around 25 - 33% of the site has been lost.
• GNLP and Blofield Heath - as the Bennetts site on Blofield Corner Road was recorded in the planning committee minutes of 27/11/19 that it should not have been passed as the drainage strategy was into a blind ditch it would be useful to link that evidence to this response. Bennetts have not done much on site because of this drainage strategy. Similarly as the Jenkins site beside Heathlands on Woodbastwick Road also proposes to link up to this drainage path, a local resident has raised the issue of whether that also renders this site unworkable because of drainage. The drainage strategy passed for Dawsons Lane is non-compliant and site specific for 12 properties and a small section of adoptable road, rest to be porous brick within the development itself. However this is now back with a new planning application to increase flow rate from 1.5l/sec to 18.8l/sec ie much changed drainage rate. For the GNLP it may be worth noting the site will not hold the 43 for either drainage or access reasons, as the road type 6 will only cover a max of 25 + possible 1 and the 12 plus 4 Dawsons Lane dwellings and the access of number 80 now onto this road and not Blofield Corner, there is not the capacity to go for more than a further 9 on the rest of the field, unless another access is made, and the drainage strategy would then need to be pumped uphill if it is to keep to the currently dug system