Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations

North of Stoke Road, Caistor St Edmund - GNLP2094


With regards to the above site, we would like to reiterate our comments as shown below explaining why our clients site should be allocated for housing within the Greater Norwich Local Plan. As per the comments stated in the Draft Local Plan, it has been suggested that the site has potential for allocation subject to acceptable access, footway provision, carriageway widening and pedestrian connectivity with POR1 and POR3. We are of the opinion that these can all be realised and therefore the site would benefit from allocation in the Greater Norwich Local Plan. It is worth noting that the site is located between POR1 and POR3 and therefore forms a natural infill development and growth site for the settlement.

Suitability
This site sits between current plan allocations POR1 and POR3 which have been allocated for residential and employment development respectively. As a result the site forms a natural infill development and growth site for the settlement of Poringland/Framing Earl which has seen significant growth in the recent past. The site is within close proximity to all the services and facilities within Poringland which provide for all necessary day to day needs for household occupants.

We note that the conclusions and comments within the HELAA and Site proposals Addendum document for this site are very similar to those of site reference GNLP2093 that is discussed above and borders the site to the north. We therefore do not intend to repeat those representations above, but would reiterate that there are no potential impacts or constraints discussed within the suitability analysis cannot be suitably addressed, and therefore the site is suitable for residential development.

With respect to transport and access we particularly note the initial comments of the Highways Authority that they support the site subject to the provision of an extension to the cycle network. We would fully envisage that a development of this site would come forward with a package of off-site highway improvements which for instance may include but not limited to footpath and cycleway improvements; signage and signalling improvements, junction and carriageway widening that would be necessary. Indeed the site will be subject to further in depth highway studies as part of the plan making process and any subsequent policy allocation for the site can include requirements for such off site highway improvements to be secured by way of a legal agreement or conditions as necessary.

We note that only a small part of the site along the southern boundary is at risk of surface water flooding as identified on the Environment Agency Flood Risk Maps. The dwellings could all be located to avoid these areas and therefore not be at risk of flooding. Improvements can be made to the drainage performance of the highway and this part of the site as part of bringing the site forward that would solve these minor surface water drainage issues. Therefore this is not a constraint on development. Otherwise, there is nothing to indicate that a standard approach to landscaping and SUDS techniques would not be able to mitigate for any potential impacts of site and minimise risk on and off site. Therefore, this would not be a constraint on development.

The potential impacts on wildlife and biodiversity are not significant and can be suitably surveyed and mitigated through the policy and application process. With respect to the provision of sewerage and main water supply there is nothing at this stage that would indicate that these cannot be provided whether this be through on site private treatment measures or improvements to existing infrastructure.

The other considerations relating to townscape, biodiversity; heritage, and utilities can all be mitigated for through the policy allocation and development process. None of these considerations are a constraint on development. Therefore, the site represents a logical infill allocation and natural continuation of the recent growth of Poringland which make it an extremely suitable site for development to be included in the emerging plan.

Availability
We also take the opportunity to reiterate that the site is available and owned by our client and there are no known legal restrictions to bringing the site forward in the short term and indeed that would prevent an immediate delivery of new homes.

Achievability
We would highlight that the site is available now in freehold ownership of our client and there are no technical, legal, or viability constraints that would not prevent it from being developed within years 1 - 5. This is considered realistic for a site which is attractive being located on the edge of an existing village and within close proximity to local amenities including schools, shop and public houses and incorporates flexibility to deliver any necessary infrastructure to serve the development.

Summary
With respect to site reference GNLP2094 the applicant welcomes the Council’s conclusions that the sites represent suitable sites for future residential development within Poringland. We highlight that there are no fundamental constraints or impacts that cannot be mitigated through the subsequent policy allocation, applications and development process

We would stress that the proposals put forward in contrast to recent speculative applications and individual piecemeal development represent an opportunity to help deliver a plan-led future for Poringland and wider local community. One that addresses the specific existing and future needs of the District and the local community in a sustainable and accessible location and at the same time seeks to minimise the environmental impacts of future development. We would therefore welcome your support for the inclusion of the above site in the emerging joint local plan