8.6

Object

Representation ID: 2319

Received: 13/02/2023

Respondent: Dr. Jonathan Newman

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The preferred are allocated for development is outside the settlement area boundary, and is therefore not currently legally permitted

Object

Representation ID: 2555

Received: 28/02/2023

Respondent: Mr Rob Wilson

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The proposed settlement is outside the permitted development area in Brooke.
Furthermore, the existing properties along Norwich Road are single dwellings backing on to fields. To create a mini housing development at the end of the road would be out of character for the area and would mean building back from the existing building line along Norwich Road. This will create issues with overlooking of neighbouring properties.

Object

Representation ID: 3164

Received: 01/03/2023

Respondent: Historic England

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Although this is not an allocated site in the Local Plan, the settlement limit is being amended to incorporate this land.
The land lies within the Brooke Conservation Area and just to the south of The Warren (grade II listed). Any development of the land has the potential to impact on the significance of these designated heritage assets.
There does not appear to be an HIA for this site. We recommend the preparation of an HIA for this site ahead of the EiP.
Notwithstanding this, we have some reservations about the approach to the extension of settlement limits because it is unclear how site-specific policy requirements e.g. mitigation measures recommended in an HIA, can be secured in the absence of a site-specific policy.

Object

Representation ID: 3202

Received: 06/03/2023

Respondent: Jasmine Philpott

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Site SN2119 was submitted as part of the call for sites process for the Greater Norwich Local Plan, and considered a ‘reasonable alternative’. Following the submission of representations to inform the Regulation 18 stage, including the provision of further technical information to address concerns raised by the Council, the site was shortlisted for allocation, ‘subject to demonstrating access from Astley Cooper Place’.
The Regulation 19 version of the Plan sees SN2119 rejected, for reasons we believe to be unfounded.
The attached documents demonstrate that the assessment of the site’s suitability was flawed, and failed to take into account the evidence provided by the landowner and agent in 2018.
The site appears to have ultimately been rejected for three reasons, all of which can be mitigated: doubt that a footway link can be delivered; poor visibility; and impact on the setting of 66 High Green. It is also evident that the preference for access via Astley Cooper Place informed the decision to reject the site, but Astley Cooper Place was never a reasonable access solution.
The disregard for the evidence provided and the relevant areas of the NPPF, combined with the negative approach to overcoming technical constraints, make the plan unsound.