QUESTION 19: Do you think

Comment

Representation ID: 783

Received: 29/07/2021

Respondent: Barford & Wramplingham Parish Council

We consider that the shortlisted village cluster sites in the Barford and Wramplingham area should be completely rejected because we do not agree with the concept of a village cluster plan and we see no case or need for any other site to be allocated.

Comment

Representation ID: 1287

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Professor Keith Waldron

I consider that the shortlisted village cluster sites in the Barford and Wramplingham area should be completely rejected because I do not agree with the concept of a village cluster plan and I see no case or need for any other site to be allocated. As a Service Village the Joint Core Strategy (JCS) states that between 10-20 new dwellings are expected during the life of the plan. Barford has nearly reached the upper limit with still (in theory) five years of the JCS to run.

Comment

Representation ID: 2077

Received: 14/07/2021

Respondent: Norfolk County Council - LLFA

"1.] At risk of surface water flooding?:
* 3.33% AEP Event [Extent]:
* 3.33% AEP Event [Depth]:
* 1.0% AEP Event [Extent]:
* 1.0% AEP Event [Depth]:
* 0.1% AEP Event [Extent]:
* 0.1% AEP Event [Depth]:
2.] Internal & external flooding?:
* On-site:
* Within proximity to site (~500.00m):
3.] Watercourses [Online ordinary watercourses or mains rivers]?:
* On-site:
* Within proximity to site (~100.00m):
4.] Surface water sewer systems?:
* On-site:
* Within proximity to site (~100.00m):
5.] Source Protection Zone?:
6.] Internal Drainage Board?:
7.] The site predominantly has superficial deposits of . Comments on infiltration potential are dependent on a complete geotechnical investigation, including BRE365 Soakaway Testing. Where possible, surface water infiltration should be utilised."