Policy VC HAD1: Land south of Haddiscoe Manor Farm

Object

Representation ID: 2402

Received: 22/02/2023

Respondent: Mrs Rosie Moyce

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? Yes

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Resident in the village .

Support

Representation ID: 3041

Received: 08/03/2023

Respondent: Haddiscoe Parish Council

Sewer/local wastewater treatment capacity not sufficient, current Water Recycling Centre would not manage additional homes. No mains sewer system in Haddiscoe, surface flooding is frequent, running down The Street towards the dam. No amenities in village. Public house closed in 2020. Limited views in/out of the site onto A143, suitable access must be put in place for safety. Highways have indicated that development here could assist in reinforcing the current 30mph limit, from a SAM2 camera in the village reports prove the majority of traffic coming through Haddiscoe exceed 30mph. Street lighting shouldn't be used in any local development.

Object

Representation ID: 3079

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 HAD1 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.
In addition, for your information: The land north of VC HAD1 (adjacent B1136) is proposed for mineral extraction through the emerging Minerals and Waste Local Plan (site reference MIN25). A planning application was submitted in December 2022 for the extraction of sand and gravel at this site (FUL/2022/0056).

Object

Representation ID: 3193

Received: 01/03/2023

Respondent: Historic England

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Whilst there are no designated heritage assets on site, the grade I listed St Marys Church, together with a War Memorial and monument to William Salter, both of which are listed at grade II, lie to the west of the site. Therefore, any development of this site has the potential to impact upon the significance of these heritage assets through development within the setting of the assets.
We welcome the preparation of the HIA. We welcome the proposal to locate the development further south, leaving an area of open land at the northern end of the site closest to the A143 to protect the setting of the church. We particularly welcome criterion 6 and 7 of the policy.
Bullet point 8 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 8 should be amended to read, ‘Planning applications should be supported by archaeological assessment including the results of field evaluation where appropriate.’

Support

Representation ID: 3219

Received: 08/03/2023

Respondent: Mr Tony Watson

Agent: Brown & Co

We consider this form of development that is part of the draft allocation for this village, led by the green credentials of the locality would result in tangible benefits for the community and provide housing in a holistic and sustainable way in order to create a vibrant and resilient community and support the move to a post-carbon economy. Government has recognised the role that residential development can have in achieving sustainability and creating communities, where there is no choice between quality and quantity and green spaces amount to more than token verges and squares.

Support

Representation ID: 3241

Received: 08/03/2023

Respondent: Anglian Water Services

Anglian Water suggests that due to the small-scale nature of the site, that the policy requirement regarding the capacity of the WRC and phasing of delivery is unnecessary, however early engagement is welcomed.