A.10.

Object

Representation ID: 2853

Received: 06/03/2023

Respondent: Mrs Sarah Manning

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Government guidance states that 'allocation and outline permission should not be relied upon unless there is clear evidence that these sites will be delivered'. I don't consider a response from the land owned is clear evidence enough to include 2015 undelivered sites/allocations within the calculations, therefore I consider the figures potentially unsound.

Object

Representation ID: 3214

Received: 08/03/2023

Respondent: Pigeon Investment Management Ltd

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The Village Clusters Plan is not sound and is not consistent with paragraph 35 of the NPPF. The Village Clusters Plan is not consistent with national policy set out in paragraphs 104 and 105 of the NPPF. There is no certainty that the allocation sites affected by nutrient neutrality are deliverable over the plan period.

Object

Representation ID: 3215

Received: 08/03/2023

Respondent: United Business and Leisure Properties Ltd

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The conclusion we reach is that South Norfolk Council consider it will be, at best, 6+ years from now before completions under this Plan are delivered assuming the NN matter is resolved.
We therefore conclude the Plan based on the up-to-date published evidence is unsound and unviable as the cost of NN mitigation has not been demonstrated.
The uncertainty surrounding NN mitigation and cost renders the proposals contained in this Plan unsound and incapable of being progressed.