Policy VC ROC2: South of The Street

Showing comments and forms 31 to 33 of 33

Object

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

Representation ID: 3134

Received: 03/03/2023

Respondent: Norfolk County Council - Strategic Planning Team

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

The existing GP Surgery access is not sufficiently wide to enable it to be upgraded to an adoptable standard estate road. Visibility splays and footway improvements would also be necessary to enable safe access; these safety improvements require third party land, resulting in an undeliverable allocation.

Access between 24 and 26 The Street may be appropriate subject to suitable design. However, there is concern that suitable visibility splays may not be achievable within highway and may require third party land resulting in an undeliverable allocation.

Change suggested by respondent:

The Highway Authority would request that ROC2 is removed from the draft plan.

Object

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

Representation ID: 3186

Received: 01/03/2023

Respondent: Historic England

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

We welcome the preparation of the HIA.
The site should include criterion in relation to archaeology given the presence of finds within the site as identified in the HIA.

Change suggested by respondent:

Add criterion in relation to archaeology.

Support

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

Representation ID: 3251

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.