Policy VC WIC2: Land off Hackford Road
Object
South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 19 Pre-submission Draft)
Representation ID: 2585
Received: 02/03/2023
Respondent: Mr John Botly
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
The village of Wicklewood cannot sustain the building of 12 houses on the proposed site next to the school. Such a number of new houses would dramatically change the dynamics of the village where we have one pub and no other services. Equally drainage issues are a serious problem in Wicklewood where high clay content is a real concern when it comes to building on this scale.
WIC2 proposal should be dropped from the plan.
Object
South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 19 Pre-submission Draft)
Representation ID: 3194
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 this site, the grade I listed church of All Saints and the grade II listed war memorial lie to the north of the site. However, the intervening trees provide an effective screen to the site. We suggest that additional planting along the northern boundary of the site would help to safeguard the setting of the church.
We welcome the preparation of the HIA. We welcome bullet points 1 and 2 of the policy. We suggest the addition of and words, ‘and enhance’ after conserve in the first bullet point to read: ‘to conserve and enhance the immediate setting…’ to more closely reflect the NPPF.
In first bullet point add,
‘to conserve and enhance the immediate setting…’
Support
South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 19 Pre-submission Draft)
Representation ID: 3247
Received: 08/03/2023
Respondent: Anglian Water Services
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.
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.