Policy VC EAR1: Land east of School Road
Object
South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 19 Pre-submission Draft)
Representation ID: 2698
Received: 05/03/2023
Respondent: Miss Harriet Thomas
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Yes
1. The site will visually damage the landscape. The Waveney river valley at Earsham is an attractive and unspoiled landscape; it is unlikely that any screening will be adequate to conceal 25 houses.
2. Loss of high quality agricultural land - the land in the area is regularly used to graze cows and sheep.
3. Loss of important wildlife habitats - the area is popular for bird watching and hosts a number of species at risk such as egrets, barn owls and bats. These species do not reside in hedgerows but are affected by artificial lighting and traffic.
The site must be kept to a maximum of five houses if it is not to negatively impact the landscape.
Object
South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 19 Pre-submission Draft)
Representation ID: 2829
Received: 06/03/2023
Respondent: Earsham Parish Council
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? Yes
Duty to co-operate? Yes
Earsham Parish Council do not have any reason to doubt the validity of the soundness or legality of the Plan, however Parish Councillors still feel the problems with EAR1 for any density of building will exist because of its proximity, nearby school and local businesses located at The Old Mill
Earsham Parish Council accepts that the number of proposed properties has been halved since the first consultation took place, but still feel that 25 properties is too many for the area. It is appreciated that concerns regarding the entrance to any proposed build has been taken into account, but the concern is still there given the number of extra vehicles that potentially could come with 25 properties, it could be anything between 40 and 75. Speeding is an issue in the village, despite the Parish Council having purchased two SAM2 machines and more recently have installed a speed reduction sign outside the school. The Police have installed a black box just last week to look at the increased speeding issues, and it is felt that more vehicles that come with more housing are just going to add to the problem especially in the School Road area.
Safety for the primary school children, as well as pedestrians, is of paramount importance as it gets so busy at school drop off and pick up times, also the village has seen a big increase in vehicles visiting The Old Mill with its numerous businesses on site (which is great for local economy) but the only way to get to The Old Mill is via Church Road or School Road, these two roads converge not too far from the proposed site EAR1. A recent housing development on School Road (Granary Close) has also added to the vehicle numbers in recent years. Earsham Parish Council would like further consideration to be given to reduce the number of proposed housing even further for site EAR1 if is is not to be discounted altogether please.
Object
South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 19 Pre-submission Draft)
Representation ID: 2927
Received: 07/03/2023
Respondent: Clayland Architects
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Yes
The policy in relation to this site has been shown to be unsound throughout early rounds of consultation stages, local opinion, HELAA Assessments and Sustainability Assessments.
The site has numerous issues and restrictions which are well documented relating to Heritage, Landscape, Flooding, Access, Land Ownership, Proximity to School and Highways Access. It is not sound to allocate a site with this level of constraints where other sites have been demonstrated as preferable or reasonable alternatives.
The Policy should be amended to provide a linear infill development on a reduced size with aprx. 5 units. The remainder of the of 25 unit allocation could be delivered with reasonable alternative sites in the village.
Object
South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 19 Pre-submission Draft)
Representation ID: 3080
Received: 03/03/2023
Respondent: Norfolk County Council - Strategic Planning Team
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Yes
Norfolk County Council in its capacity as the Mineral Planning Authority considers that Policy VC EAR1 is currently unsound; as it is inconsistent with national policy, and the adopted Development Plan in Norfolk, in relation to mineral resource safeguarding. The Mineral Planning Authority recognise that underlain mineral resource has been included in the supporting text; however, we request inclusion of the text in the policy itself. The policy can be made sound by including the wording below.
Amend Policy VC EAR1 to add the following wording as a policy requirement:
‘The site is underlain by a defined Mineral Safeguarding Area for sand and gravel. Any future development on this site will need to address the requirements of Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy Policy CS16 - ‘safeguarding’ (or any successor policy) in relation to mineral resources, to the satisfaction of the Mineral Planning Authority.’
Object
South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 19 Pre-submission Draft)
Representation ID: 3169
Received: 01/03/2023
Respondent: Historic England
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
There are no designated heritage assets on site. The Close, listed at grade II, lies to the south of the site. The grade I listed All Saints Church lies to the north of the site. However, given the distance we consider that the development of the proposed allocation would have limited impact of the setting of the heritage assets.
We welcome the preparation of the HIA. The HIA makes a number of helpful recommendations in relation to site density and views of the church.
We broadly welcome bullet points 1,2 and 4 of the policy but consider that bullet point 1 could be more specific in relation to density on the eastern part of the site and views of the church.
Bullet point 4 states that the HER should be consulted to determine the need for any archaeological surveys prior to development. In our view, some assessment is needed to inform any planning application.
We therefore advise that bullet point 4 should be amended to read, ‘Planning applications should be supported by archaeological assessment including the results of field evaluation where appropriate.’
Amend bullet point 1 to reference lower density on eastern part of site and views of the church.
Amend criterion 4 to read ‘Planning applications should be supported by archaeological assessment including the results of field evaluation where appropriate.’