Policy VC ROC1: Land south of New Inn Hill

Showing comments and forms 1 to 29 of 29

Object

South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 19 Pre-submission Draft)

Representation ID: 2454

Received: 17/02/2023

Respondent: Mr John Heathcote

Agent: John Long Planning

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

The VCHAP has not properly assessed the potential of site SN0531 to be further reduced in size to comply with the Plans site size parameters and assessed accordingly. Part of the site has been accepted as a proposed allocation (VCROC1).
This representation is in respect of the part of the promoted site that is not proposed for allocation. The landowner does not agree with the Council's assessment that the site does not lend itself to easily being reduced in size. It is acknowledged that this may require the village’s settlement boundary to be designated around the cluster of dwellings/buildings to the north, but a number of other settlements have their settlement boundaries in separate clusters, rather than contiguous. Opportunities exist to connect to site to the footpath network to the west of the site as the intervening land is within the landowner's control, and no trees will require removal to obtain access. Any new dwellings could be very much in keeping with the character of the properties further north along Lower Road. The scheme would also be expected to deliver the 33% affordable housing policy requirement, subject to detailed technical work and the cost of any off-site infrastructure that may be required.

Change suggested by respondent:

Request that the Council consider the inclusion of the frontage land of site SN0531 in the Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan for up to 15 dwellings.

We suggest that a new assessment of the smaller frontage site will be considerably different from the Council’s original assessment of the larger site, and issues such as highways, heritage, flood risk and landscape impact will not be evident or as severe and more easily mitigated. Opportunities exist to connect to site to the footpath network to the west of the site as the intervening land is within the landowner's control, and no trees will require removal to obtain access. Any new dwellings could be very much in keeping with the character of the properties further north along Lower Road. The scheme would also be expected to deliver the 33% affordable housing policy requirement, subject to detailed technical work and the cost of any off-site infrastructure that may be required.

Object

South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 19 Pre-submission Draft)

Representation ID: 2652

Received: 03/03/2023

Respondent: Mr Nigel Kippin

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

The Policy assessment highlights the implications. It does not address the ecological aspects such as impact on the wild life inhabitants in the trees, hedgerow and adjacent land. There is a colony of bats that utilise these trees which need consideration and management.

Further along the hedgerow badgers and other wildlife populate the location.

The exiting water pipe has frequent failures between its source and the village. Upgrades to both this and the sewage network which has failed at the rear to New Inn Hill/Green Lane in recent times.

Provision to safely access the site needs review.

Change suggested by respondent:

The impact and suitable mitigation would be required depending on ecological survey. Protection of the trees and wildlife would need adopting by a developer.

Suitable access identified to the highway to prevent potential incidents.

Development to be linear in line with existing village profile. The height, number and location needs to be identified to prevent impact on Yare valley views and surrounding valleys.

Object

South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 19 Pre-submission Draft)

Representation ID: 2720

Received: 05/03/2023

Respondent: Ms Joanne Norris

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

The location does not consider the ecological and environmental pressures on Hellington Nature Reserve and an undesignated marshy field which is habitat to Common Spotted Orchids. The area is habitat for skylarks (red listed species), cuckoos, buzzards, bats, chinese water deer and muntjack, as well as a lot of the more common bird species.

In addition, increased surface water run off from urbanisation is likely to increase flood risk and alter the chemical balance of the groundwater, thereby altering the ecosystem viability of the beck and natural environment. Mature oak trees and root systems also need protecting.

Change suggested by respondent:

Plan needs to consider an already threatened ecosystem and encourage biodiversity, rather than destroying or damaging fragile habitats.

Object

South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 19 Pre-submission Draft)

Representation ID: 2844

Received: 06/03/2023

Respondent: Fordley Hall Farm

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

The avarice of the landowner should not be permitted, nor condoned by the Council, to undermine its legal obligation to comply with the Restrictive Covenant originally put in place with the precise purpose of preventing such wanton destruction of community landscapes.

Change suggested by respondent:

Vehicular access onto The Street needs further analysis in terms of safety to both pedestrians and motorists.
25 dwellings will have a minimum of 30 cars, motorbikes etc - at peak times (morning and evening) the risk is considerable with very restricted visibility for emerging vehicles.

Object

South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 19 Pre-submission Draft)

Representation ID: 2849

Received: 06/03/2023

Respondent: Mrs Nicola Colbeck-Rowe

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

When permission was granted for Eel Catcher Close it was on the understanding that it didn’t set a precedence for further building on the site, the opposite is now being stated.

Extremely poor vehicular and pedestrian access.. Previously there have been amber warning on access to Eel Catcher Close.

The proposed footpath would mean having to cross on the blind summit or use the ‘additional’ footpath crossing the road on a bend to access the current footpath on the opposite side of the road.

Rockland St Mary is a mainly linear settlement, proposed site is out of keeping with this.

Change suggested by respondent:

The site is unsuitable due to poor access. It is not in keeping with the village building line.

The site is too far away from the centre of the village. This means that people will be using their cars to access the villages amenities like the shop, school and GP surgery increasing the volume of traffic on small country roads. The village doesn’t have adequate drainage system, the sewage pipes at the end of the village overflows when there is heavy rain. The village suffers from poor internet connection.

Object

South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 19 Pre-submission Draft)

Representation ID: 2866

Received: 07/03/2023

Respondent: Dr Juliette Harkin

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

Rural landscapes are undermined. Site assessment focuses unduly on landscape from ‘The Street’ but not from other vantage points in the village, fields and valley.
Natural habitat continuity and wildlife is under threat
Highways compliance: not achievable for safe pathways for pedestrian access and connection to services.
Inclusivity - disabled wheelchair access seems unachievable; VCROC1 encourages more car use into village.
v. Climate change: VCROC1 residents car dependant , safer to drive
vi. Utilities - at capacity for drainage, increase problems, health hazards and increased flooding in the village.
vii Affordability – no evidence, promised in Reg 18 consultations

Change suggested by respondent:

Evidence affordability allocation for housing
Evidence allocation priority for locals and, at least, Norfolk residents
Evidence concrete ideas for how to make footpaths and connections viable and safe for pedestrians
Show engagement with Anglian Water to ascertain drainage plan and issues - existing settlements subject to water flooding
How encourage residents at site to cycle or walk rather than drive into village?
How safeguard mature trees, wildlife hedging?
How ensure safe vehicular access to and exit from site?

Object

South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 19 Pre-submission Draft)

Representation ID: 2878

Received: 07/03/2023

Respondent: Mrs janet fellows

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

22 houses just completed on other side of the road. Destruction of trees, open access and views of only open area in whole village. Development would be almost a mile from village centre. NO precedent for building in this area as two planning applications already refused. Destruction of trees and habitat. Road access impossible to create in any safe manner. Area behind eel catcher close protected by covenant and would be closing off houses with no privacy or access to open feilds and veiws.

Change suggested by respondent:

Reduce plan to 4 or 5 houses end ways on to the road, or abandon plans altogether as access always going to be a problem.

Attachments:

Object

South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 19 Pre-submission Draft)

Representation ID: 2885

Received: 07/03/2023

Respondent: Paddy Hann

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

1) The proposed development of the site would intrude into open landscape to the east of the village and is not in keeping with the historical linear pattern of development of the settlement.

2) It sits at the brow of New Inn Hill, which will cause limited visibility in both directions. The entrance and exit from Green Lane opposite the proposed site currently presents safety issues, with visibility restricted in both directions


3) Appointments at the local Doctors Surgery are difficult make with delays of weeks not uncommon.
Any increase in the see this situation deteriorate further

Change suggested by respondent:

Development not to proceed

Object

South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 19 Pre-submission Draft)

Representation ID: 2891

Received: 07/03/2023

Respondent: Mr Stuart Ellison

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

The site is not developable or deliverable because it will: increase traffic use to unsafe levels with dangerous exit onto New Inn Hill/The Street; increase footfall to dangerous levels on narrow and inadequate pavements; result in an exit road not wide enough while disrupting heritage buildings; seriously impair the heritage/visual appearance of the village and fundamentally change the character of the village, destroying the current beautiful long view; threaten local biodiversity, endangering flora and fauna, including the Common Spotted Orchid threatened by run off from the construction site into the steam system feeding the orchid marsh-field.

Change suggested by respondent:

Given the harm identified and the fundamental access constraints it is clear this proposed allocation is unsound and no further development of this size be considered in the village to preserve the existing character of development within Rockland St Mary.

Attachments:

Object

South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 19 Pre-submission Draft)

Representation ID: 2910

Received: 07/03/2023

Respondent: Mrs Nicola Davey

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

Huge visual impact on landscape for the size of development with potential to continue to increase. Unsafe access as road narrows due to cars parked opposite. Unsafe increase of flow of traffic through the village with potential of 50 plus extra vehicles passing through or using shop, school and doctors. Close proximity to Broads causing damage to wildlife. Surface water and sewage capacity concerns.

Change suggested by respondent:

Much smaller development of affordable housing to mirror Eel Catcher Close.

Object

South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 19 Pre-submission Draft)

Representation ID: 2916

Received: 07/03/2023

Respondent: Mr Jason Davey

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

It will change the visual impact and character of the village and intrude into the landscape and destroy the wide open space there. It will have a negative impact on the Broads and wildlife especially affecting hedges and trees. Access small with limited vision splay. Unsafe increase of vehicles through the village. Impact on visitors/tourists to the village for the Broads, landscape, views and wildlife. Surface water drainage and sewage concerns as the Broads area has flooded before.

Change suggested by respondent:

Less than half the properties and to resemble Eel Catcher Close.

Object

South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 19 Pre-submission Draft)

Representation ID: 2921

Received: 07/03/2023

Respondent: Mr John Stone

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

Adverse affect to landscape creating a negative visual impact. Poor access for size of development. Added pressure of vehicles on the street which is busy already at peak times, especially if there are problems with surrounding roads. Development too close to the Broads and will affect wildlife in that area which has regular visitors. Could set a precedent to increase building there further into the future which is what has already happened after Eel Catcher close.

Change suggested by respondent:

The development does not need to be any bigger than the existing Eel Catcher close.

Object

South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 19 Pre-submission Draft)

Representation ID: 2928

Received: 07/03/2023

Respondent: Christine Owens

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

These homes are too be affordable but affordable to who? the young people living in this village on a minimum wage will not be able to buy these to stay in this village.
The access for more homes will impact on the one village road and its safety, also the impact to the environment and the arable land with more pollution being generated.

Change suggested by respondent:

Ensure
Just one close to reflect what has already been built and ensure homes are affordable.

Object

South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 19 Pre-submission Draft)

Representation ID: 2932

Received: 07/03/2023

Respondent: Mrs Louisa Godley

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

The council’s HIA fails at a basic level (it is unsound). Building on this site would substantially erode significance and understanding of a listed farmstead, going against statutory duties outlined in the NPPF- legality is questionable. There is a covenant in the deeds of 3 properties precluding development of the land. The council’s use of exemption site as precedent in justifying this site is unsound. Failing to acknowledge precedent set by refusing planning immediately adjacent is hypocritical. Proceeding ignores the concerns of >70 people who objected in the Reg18, and erodes trust in local government processes. See attached independent HIA.

Change suggested by respondent:

It should not proceed as it is based on an unsound HIA, fails to liaise adequately with Historic England's preferred methodology for assessing impact on Historic buildings, and proceeding will put the council on shaky ground legally due to the substandard HIA and the failure to identify the considerable harm to the historic buildings that developing this land would result in. At the very least the external HIA provided should be considered and adopted.

Structural assessment of the effects of a footpath on a listed building which would be less than 1 metre from the proposed footpath to the west of the site.

Object

South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 19 Pre-submission Draft)

Representation ID: 2933

Received: 07/03/2023

Respondent: Mr Keith Godley

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

The Council's Heritage Impact Assessment for this site is lacking in basic detail and evaluation, fails to use Historic England's recommended methodology, and it cannot be trusted to make sound evaluation of the VCROC1 site. Developing here will cause harm to a historic listed farmhouse and farmstead, and ignores its statutory duty to follow the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Causing harm to historical buildings, failing to consider mitigations and enhancements, and going against the NPPF's positive conservation strategy, has been tested in court. We will have no hesitation to do this if the draft Regulation 19 proceeds.

Change suggested by respondent:

Review of and adoption of the external Heritage Impact Assessment we have commissioned or at the very least re-perform the HIA using Historic England's suggested methodology.
Highways Agency has not assessed the impact of the proposed footpath at the West site and how it meets The Street. If this is unsafe either due to its proximity to a Historic Listed building which exclusively looks out onto it and cannot proceed, there is no other practicable, safe pedestrian access to the site.

Object

South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 19 Pre-submission Draft)

Representation ID: 2936

Received: 07/03/2023

Respondent: Mrs Julie Church

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

The Council’s Heritage Impact Assessment is not sound as it has not been executed correctly and has failed to identify a Grade II listed property which has an open aspect over the entire site. It does not recognise that the agricultural setting of three Grade II listed buildings is integral to an understanding of their significance, as dictated by the NPPF. This has already been raised as a concern by Historic England. The strong link between the farmstead and the site is evidenced by restrictive covenants in existing deeds which prohibits residential development. Please refer to attached documents.

Change suggested by respondent:

Surveyor’s reports needed on the structural implications to existing listed buildings.
Perform a sound heritage impact assessment or review and adopt the attached independent heritage impact assessment

Object

South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 19 Pre-submission Draft)

Representation ID: 2940

Received: 07/03/2023

Respondent: Mrs Francesca Underhill

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

The proposal is neither legally compliant, nor sound. I have listed several reasons as to why not - and this is not an exhaustive list.

To zone in on one compelling reason, the heritage impact assessment carried out by the council has little or no evidence of accuracy - or sufficient detailed researching of the proposed site’s historic connections with the heritage assets. Subsequently, an externally commissioned Heritage Impact Assessment has objectively concluded ‘the assessment of SSNDC to date has not adequately appraised of or recognized the significance nor potential impact on these statutorily designated heritage assets’.

Change suggested by respondent:

A precedent for permission refusal was set in May 2017, when an application for a single dwelling directly opposite site SN2007 was refused (2017/0638/O). The grounds for refusal were stated as "outside the development area, had an adverse effect on the character and landscape of the rural area, and was unsustainable". With this in mind, I cannot see how the planning authority can support any application in the same location, for 25 times the number of houses, that would have a far more profound impact on the character and landscape of the rural area.

Object

South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 19 Pre-submission Draft)

Representation ID: 2989

Received: 08/03/2023

Respondent: Rockland St Mary With Hellington Parish Council

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

Outstanding/unanswered points
• ‘Amber’ flags regarding Highways and Heritage/Landscape/Visual landscape concerns raised during HELAA/site survey have not been resolved satisfactorily.
• The developments will result in a significant vehicular impact across the whole village.
• The proposals are in conflict with the stated Objective 3 of the South Norfolk Village Cluster plan which is to “Protect the character of their villages and settings” – which are a natural asset for the County.
• The proposals for Rockland St Mary provide no evidence of or commitment to affordable or social housing, as per Annex 2 of the NPPF.

Change suggested by respondent:

Provide the outcome of the Amber flags issues raised in Reg 18.
Provide information regarding social/affordable housing at the proposed site.

Object

South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 19 Pre-submission Draft)

Representation ID: 3001

Received: 08/03/2023

Respondent: Mr steve garrard

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

drainage to broads from site would be against broads authority guidelines. road access impossible. no precedent established. protected land to rear of eel catcher close, because of ancient building which is protected. no consultation seems to have been taken notice of as there were an enormous number of objections and the site plan has changed. the land is the only open access for the village and the nature of the village will be destroyed would this to go ahead.

Change suggested by respondent:

plan should be abandoned, and not viable in many respects.

Object

South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 19 Pre-submission Draft)

Representation ID: 3008

Received: 08/03/2023

Respondent: Mr Jayme Forbes

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

In summary : Large high value private housing attracts 'second home' owners and unlikely to be affordable to the local community that needs them.
Local infrastructure impacted. Rockland St Mary already suffers low water pressure, eletrical blackouts.
Nutrient Nutrality and no mention of an Habitats Regulations Assement anywhere I can find.
Rain water run off and additional sewage load on the system.
Development behind existing houses out of character with the village.
Poor road, cycle and public transport links to and from nearest employment areas & amenities.

Change suggested by respondent:

This is a large development for this area. So I would expect the following:
All the houses need to be affordable and in keeping with the village structure ie along The Street and not behind it. Improvements to infrastructure required as part of plans - such as water & electrical supply to accommodate additional load on system. Note existing black outs and low water pressure issues.
Plans to improve travel links through the village and the link to Norwich for bikes, cars and pedestrians. The main link road is already busy and realistically Norwich is likely the main employment and services hub for this development so an increase in motor vehicle traffic is inevitable. Also note these roads are already becoming increasingly risky for walkers and cyclists with increasing traffic.
Long term as well as short term assessments of the impact on the local habitat/environment - especially where it is likely increasing the load on an already overloaded Broad ie Rockland Broad & Surlingham Broad.
Impact assessment on flooding from additional run-off with realistic practical long term methods of mitigation.

Object

South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 19 Pre-submission Draft)

Representation ID: 3013

Received: 08/03/2023

Respondent: Miss Jessica Church

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

The proposal is not sound, nor is it complaint .

In particular, the plan falls far short in assessment of the Grade II Listed buildings which are situated adjacent to the site. The Heritage Impact Assessments carry little credibility ; they have been carried out in a slipshod manner, containing many errors, the most significant of which is the omission of one Grade II Listed property which has an open aspect over the entire site.

The development of this size in this location is completely unsuitable in terms of road safety, existing utilities and the rural nature of the village.

Change suggested by respondent:

Given that a planning application for a single storey dwelling was refused in 2017, as it was deemed it would have an adverse effect on the character and landscape of the area, it would be impossible for the LPA to justify permission for a development of 25 homes.

Object

South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 19 Pre-submission Draft)

Representation ID: 3017

Received: 08/03/2023

Respondent: Miss Bethany Church

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

The plan is not sound or compliant.

Objective 3 of the South Norfolk Village Cluster Plan is to ‘protect the character of their villages and settings’ and the plan does not concur with this objective. Additionally, the Heritage Impact assessments are not sound and therefore cannot be used as a decision making tool in the planning process.

To place a development of this size at this site would harm the village in every way possible. Historically planning permission has, rightly, been refused at this site and there can be no justification for that decision to be overturned.

Change suggested by respondent:

Trust in the process has waned due to an unsatisfactory and inaccurate evidence base.

Object

South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 19 Pre-submission Draft)

Representation ID: 3028

Received: 08/03/2023

Respondent: Mrs Pamela Stone

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

This site will cause a visual detrimental impact on the landscape which is currently open. It is not in keeping with the latest development, Eel Catcher close and looks to dwarf this site. Also have concerns that this site could be extended further in the future. The access is unsafe and not big enough and does not have enough vision splay . There will be an increase of traffic through the village to access the school, shop, Drs and commute to Norwich. Detrimental to the Broads and wildlife which this village is known for and has visitors for that reason.

Change suggested by respondent:

The site needs to be significantly reduced to mirror Eel Catcher Close and could therefore share that access way and continue the linear style of the village.

Object

South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 19 Pre-submission Draft)

Representation ID: 3050

Received: 08/03/2023

Respondent: Mrs Rosanna Stone

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

Unsafe access way which appears very tight for the size of this development. The site is too large and will intrude into the landscape creating a detrimental visual impact. It is very close to the Broads which brings visitors to this village for the rural views and wildlife which will both be impacted by a development of this size. There will be an increase to flow of traffic through the village on a road that is already busy and used as a rat run from the A146. Surface water and sewage concerns.

Change suggested by respondent:

A smaller development of no more than 10 dwellings like Eel Catcher Close and so affordable housing, to run alongside Eel Catcher to continue the linear style of the existing village.

Object

South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 19 Pre-submission Draft)

Representation ID: 3078

Received: 03/03/2023

Respondent: Norfolk County Council - Strategic Planning Team

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

Norfolk County Council in its capacity as the Mineral Planning Authority considers that Policy VC ROC1 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, which was contained in the response by the Mineral Planning Authority, to the Regulation 18 consultation.

Change suggested by respondent:

Amend Policy VC ROC1 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: 3102

Received: 07/03/2023

Respondent: Mr and Mrs David Richardson

Number of people: 2

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

We strongly object to the proposed designation of the above site for residential development as, in our view, it is not legally compliant, nor is it sound, for the following reasons:-
1. Distance from village amenities
2. Nearby listed buildings
3. Public utilities at capacity
4. No precedent for development
5. Setting of Old Hall
In the early stages of this consultation over 70 letters or submissions objected to the original proposal. Apart from planning considerations, this is part of an important open landscape overlooking the Yare valley, has amazing wildlife including owls, buzzards and skylarks, and is well used by dog walkers and parishioners. It would be very sad if this land is allowed to be developed and in our view we believe that should not be the case.

Object

South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 19 Pre-submission Draft)

Representation ID: 3130

Received: 07/03/2023

Respondent: Ms Naomi Watts

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

Having visual difficulties and having confirmed with a member of the MIND team the website fails to conform to the web accessibility legislation 2018. I and 8 neighbours in Eel Catcher Close have found the website impossible to navigate, impossible to register (no password code sent after email put in) and PDFs on the site will not magnify or indicate letters large enough.
Eel Catcher Close would be enclosed by houses destroying access to fields. There is a covenant protecting the land behind Eel Catcher Close for social housing. We have just had 21 new houses built at Bee Orchid Way opposite and there is no excuse to exceed the village boundary.

Change suggested by respondent:

The consultation process needs to be re-started with a new compliant website.

Proposal should be refused.

Object

South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 19 Pre-submission Draft)

Representation ID: 3184

Received: 01/03/2023

Respondent: Historic England

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Whilst there are no designated heritage assets within the site boundary, three grade II listed buildings (Old Hall and two barns) lie around the western end of the site. We therefore have concerns about built development on the western end of the site.
We welcome the preparation of the HIA.
However, we disagree that the impacts Old Hall Barn and Farmhouse will be negligible. The collection of farm buildings has a relationship to the wider landscape. There needs to be a degree of set back and open space in the far western portion of the site to reduce the impact on these listed buildings. This should be added as a new policy criterion.
The HIA also suggests that the footpath link near the barn would need to consider the relationship to the barn and use appropriate materials. This should be included in the policy at criterion 4 to read ‘Careful consideration should be given to the relationship of the footpath to the listed barn and appropriate materials used’.
Bullet point 5 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 5 should be amended to read, ‘Planning applications should be supported by archaeological assessment including the results of field evaluation where appropriate.’

Change suggested by respondent:

Add wording to criterion 4 to read ‘Careful consideration should be given to the relationship of the footpath to the listed barn and appropriate materials used’.
Add new criterion to read:
‘The most western part of the site should be left open to protect and enhance the setting of the listed buildings.’
Amend criterion 5 to read ‘Planning applications should be supported by archaeological assessment including the results of field evaluation where appropriate.’

Support

South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 19 Pre-submission Draft)

Representation ID: 3250

Received: 08/03/2023

Respondent: Anglian Water Services

Representation Summary:

Anglian Water agrees with the approach taken regarding the site allocation policies for Wicklewood where matters regarding cumulative/in-combination effects with the development identified in the GNLP may require the phasing of development beyond the early years of the plan, are addressed in the supporting text and therefore a policy requirement is not considered necessary.

We suggest that the same approach is taken with other VCHAP allocations within WRC catchments that have in-combination effects with the GNLP developments, including sites within the catchment of Whitlingham WRC:

Change suggested by respondent:

The small-scale nature of these allocations is unlikely to require phasing in respect of Whitlingham WRC and therefore the policy requirement can be removed.