Policy VC TAS1: North of Church Road

Object

Representation ID: 2996

Received: 08/03/2023

Respondent: Tasburgh Parish Council

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

The first bullet point is unsound because the continuous access from Henry Preston Road is unsafe and contrary to the previous plan.

Object

Representation ID: 3081

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 TAS1 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 recognises 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.

Object

Representation ID: 3190

Received: 01/03/2023

Respondent: Historic England

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

While there are no designated heritage assets within the site, the grade II listed Old Hall Farmhouse lies immediately to the north west of the site. In addition, the scheduled monument (a hillfort, known as ‘Camp in Village’), lies to the north of the site, which also includes the grade I listed Church of St Mary, and grade II listed war memorial and Rectory.
Therefore, any development of this site has the potential to impact upon the significance of these heritage assets. We are particularly concerned about the potential impacts on the Farmhouse, given its proximity.
We do however appreciate this is seeking to increase the density of an existing allocation.
We welcome the preparation of the HIA. However, we disagree with some of the HIA findings. It is our view that the setting of the Old Hall Farmhouse would be affected by development across the whole site.
We would like to see approximately one third (the northeast) of the site left as orchard or, potentially a playing field extension for the school, but with no built development. Housing development should be contained within the south eastern two thirds of the site to reduce harm to the significance of the listed building by development within its setting.
This may have an impact on the capacity of the site and it may not be possible to accommodate 25 dwellings on the site at a density in keeping with the surrounding character of the village.
The policy should be amended to include this area of open space/orchard/playing field in the north eastern third of the site to protect and enhance the setting of Old Hall Farmhouse. The capacity of the site should be reduced accordingly.
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.’

Support

Representation ID: 3265

Received: 03/03/2023

Respondent: Norfolk Wildlife Trust

We welcome the policy wording for hedgerows/trees in Policy VC ROC. We recommend that similar policy wording is applied to the policies listed below to ensure this approach is applied consistently across the Local Plan. Where removal of a tree or any part of a hedgerow is unavoidable, we recommend that policy wording includes reference to mitigation measures, reflecting the updated biodiversity duty required in the 2021 Environment Act to have regard to the enhancement of biodiversity.
VC BB1, VC BRE1, VC HAL2, VC SWA2, VC NEE1, VC WOR2, VC NEW2, VC SPO3, VC TAS1, VC BUR1, VC WIN1.