Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations

Object

Representation ID: 21967

Received: 13/03/2020

Respondent: Welbeck Strategic Land III LLP

Agent: Bidwells

Comment wishes site to be preferred
3.48 As outlined in the attached, the site is suitable, available and viable, and is therefore developable. Housing in this location would represent sustainable development, as defined within the National Planning
Policy Framework. Wymondham, as South Norfolk’s largest Market Town, and situated on the A11
Tech Corridor as well as the Norwich-Cambridge railway line, is already acknowledged as a highly
sustainable location, and a preferred location for growth, and the foregoing text demonstrates that
this specific site is a suitable location for further development in all respects.
3.49 Economically, the site represents the right land in the right place at the right time. Residential
development here in the plan period would support the expanding employment area at Hethel, as
well as employment growth within Norwich and at Gateway 11 Business Park, providing high
quality and desirable homes within easy reach of these key employment locations.
3.50 Socially, the scale of development envisaged is such that it will enable the creation of a strong,
vibrant and healthy community, with easy access to existing and planned local services and
facilities, as well as on- site provision of a primary school should this be necessary, and extensive
Green Infrastructure. A wide mix of dwelling types, sizes and tenures will be provided to meet local
needs, and CIL/Section 106 payments will ensure the provision of the necessary health and cultural
facilities. The site is located in close proximity to established communities in Wymondham, which
should assist in achieving social integration between the existing and new residents.
3.51 Environmentally, the site is located close to a wide range of employment opportunities and enjoys
good access to a range of sustainable transport options providing easy access to the extensive
array of facilities and services available within Norwich and further afield. Residents will be able to
meet their day-to-day needs easily and without the need to use their car, assisting in reducing
pollution and minimising the contribution to climate change.
3.52 We, therefore, strongly recommend that the site identified as Reasonable Alternative GNLP0006,
Land North of Tuttles lane East, Wymondham is allocated in the Site Allocations Document for
residential development of at least 800 units. The site is entirely deliverable, and capable of making
a significant contribution towards satisfying the Councils’ housing needs during the period to 2038.
3.53 This will give certainty and ensure that the policies of the Greater Norwich Local Plan are
unambiguous in terms of how forecast growth will be met, it is recommended that rather than
identify a contingency site, land in Wymondham should be allocated for housing development.
3.54 In the event that the decision to identify contingency sites remains, it is recommended, as per the
approach adopted in relation to Costessey that GNLP0006 is identified as the Contingency Site for
Wymondham.

Object

Representation ID: 21968

Received: 13/03/2020

Respondent: Welbeck Strategic Land III LLP

Agent: Bidwells

Comment opposes site being reaosnable
3.10 GNLP0515, land at south Wymondham. This is 132.22ha in size and could accommodate in the
region of 1,500 dwellings. It is therefore 50% larger than required for the contingency and is also
part of the proposal for the Silfield garden village. The draft GNLP states that this site, along with
adjacent sites, could be considered as a new settlement in a future review of the Plan. In addition,
the site is relatively remote from the town centre and other services and less accessible being cut
off by the railway line and adding pressure on the main road connection pinch point under the
railway bridge. The draft GNLP highlights that there would be highway concerns (see also for
GNLP0032) and states that there is already pressure on Silfield Road with the current South
Wymondham housing allocation being built. The site also includes land to the south of the A11
which is truncated from the town and remote from Wymondham, separated from services and
facilities by the A11 and subject to possible noise from its close proximity to the A11. Other sites
in this location have been rejected at an earlier stage for this reason; GNLP0200, GNLP0402. It
also represents further encroachment to the west of the town which would have a greater
landscape impact in this more sensitive area. This site therefore does not meet the contingency
need and is not considered to represent a suitable location.

Object

Representation ID: 21969

Received: 13/03/2020

Respondent: Welbeck Strategic Land III LLP

Agent: Bidwells

Comment objects to site being reasonable at this time
3.11 GNLP0525R is located to the east of site GNLP0006. As a result it is, when compared with
GNLP0006, more detached from the Settlement Boundary, as well as being more remote from all
of Wymondham’s services. Therefore, sequentially it would not logically be the next site to be
allocated and in any case it could not be allocated before GNLP0006 as it relies on that site’s
delivery first. Accordingly, GNLP0525R should only be considered suitable for development once
GNLP0006 has been developed. Notwithstanding this, the illustrative masterplan for site
GNLP0006 has been prepared to ensure that it would not prejudice the ability of site GNLP0525R
to come forward at a later date.

Object

Representation ID: 21971

Received: 13/03/2020

Respondent: Welbeck Strategic Land III LLP

Agent: Bidwells

Comment objects to site being reasonable
3.9 Two of the Reasonable Alternatives are far in excess of the size required for 1,000 dwellings;
GNLP1055, land west of Hethel and GNLP2168, land at Park Farm. Both are being promoted as
garden villages and would each accommodate in the region of 6,500 new dwellings. The
commentary in the draft GNLP acknowledges this and states that as no new settlement is currently
being proposed in this Plan then these two sites are reasonable alternatives for consideration
through a future review of the Plan. Given that additional housing will be required in the future this
is a sensible strategic approach for the period beyond 2038. Neither of these sites therefore meet
the contingency need and should not be considered as Reasonable Alternatives.

Object

Representation ID: 21972

Received: 13/03/2020

Respondent: Welbeck Strategic Land III LLP

Agent: Bidwells

Comment objects to site being reasonable
3.9 Two of the Reasonable Alternatives are far in excess of the size required for 1,000 dwellings;
GNLP1055, land west of Hethel and GNLP2168, land at Park Farm. Both are being promoted as
garden villages and would each accommodate in the region of 6,500 new dwellings. The
commentary in the draft GNLP acknowledges this and states that as no new settlement is currently
being proposed in this Plan then these two sites are reasonable alternatives for consideration
through a future review of the Plan. Given that additional housing will be required in the future this
is a sensible strategic approach for the period beyond 2038. Neither of these sites therefore meet
the contingency need and should not be considered as Reasonable Alternatives.

Object

Representation ID: 21973

Received: 13/03/2020

Respondent: Welbeck Strategic Land III LLP

Agent: Bidwells

Comment objects to site being reasonable
3.7 Two of the identified Reasonable Alternatives sites are too small to accommodate the 1,000
dwelling contingency required; GNLP2150, land east of Carpenter Barn and GNLP2155, land west
of Carpenter Close. These are 6.5ha and 3.4ha and could only accommodate around 150 and 80
dwellings respectively which falls far short of the 1,000 dwellings required. In addition, because of
their size they would not deliver the infrastructure improvements necessary to support the
additional and existing housing required and they would both represent incremental growth rather
than a well-planned strategic contingency for Wymondham.
3.8 Whilst the commentary in the draft GNLP recognises that the sites are well located in terms of
access to services, both sites would need to form part of a comprehensive extension in this area
with associated infrastructure improvements. Neither site could deliver the necessary infrastructure
improvements particularly in terms of a new primary school. In addition, last month (February 2020)
a planning application (Ref: 2019/0184) for site GNLP2150 was refused by South Norfolk Council
due to there being no overriding benefits when having regard to the significant harm identified in
respect of the landscape and the Policy harm in allowing unplanned development in a plan led
system. For these reasons neither site meets the contingency need and are not considered,
therefore, to represent a site that should be considered further.

Object

Representation ID: 21974

Received: 13/03/2020

Respondent: Welbeck Strategic Land III LLP

Agent: Bidwells

Comment objects to site being reasonable
3.7 Two of the identified Reasonable Alternatives sites are too small to accommodate the 1,000
dwelling contingency required; GNLP2150, land east of Carpenter Barn and GNLP2155, land west
of Carpenter Close. These are 6.5ha and 3.4ha and could only accommodate around 150 and 80
dwellings respectively which falls far short of the 1,000 dwellings required. In addition, because of
their size they would not deliver the infrastructure improvements necessary to support the
additional and existing housing required and they would both represent incremental growth rather
than a well-planned strategic contingency for Wymondham.
Greater Norwich Local Plan Regulation 18 ( C ), GNLP00006
Page 14
3.8 Whilst the commentary in the draft GNLP recognises that the sites are well located in terms of
access to services, both sites would need to form part of a comprehensive extension in this area
with associated infrastructure improvements. Neither site could deliver the necessary infrastructure
improvements particularly in terms of a new primary school. For these reasons neither site meets the contingency need and are not considered,
therefore, to represent a site that should be considered further.