16.8
Object
South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 19 Pre-submission Draft)
Representation ID: 2294
Received: 06/02/2023
Respondent: Resident
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Yes
The site does not provide any worthwhile facilities, a footpath to a service station and fast food outlets and a pub, hardly exciting services. All medical/dental services are in Beccles which has overstretched facilities already, Beccles has also a new large estate planned (450 homes) so this is placing extra problems on the medical services but is in Suffolk so doesn't feature in this Plan. All Gillingham residents have to go to Beccles Medical centre and have no choice.
Gillingham development shouldn't go ahead. Beccles is only 3/4 mile away and the development there is huge placing strain on the local services which are under extreme pressure already. It's impossible to see a doctor. Surely the Beccles expansion programme should be taken into account and if so the Gillingham development wouldn't be required.
Object
South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 19 Pre-submission Draft)
Representation ID: 2447
Received: 24/02/2023
Respondent: Ms Tamsin Watt
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
The Village Clusters Plan states that the parish is well located for local services and with links to the A146 and the A143. However the blind bend along The Street, the only access point for the proposed site, can not cope with the additional levels of traffic the new houses would bring. Services in Beccles are already at capacity and Beccles is also under substantial development. The incombination effects of each of these developments together should be assessed within the Village Clusters Plan. Gillingham should not be allocated for further development as the local services can not support this.
When considering the Gillingham Site, the Village Clusters Plan needs to take into account the substantial development that is happening within Beccles. Although in a different county Beccles is only 1 mile away and Gillingham residents will rely on the services within Beccles (as set out within the Village Clusters Plan). Beccles services are at capacity and Gillingham itself does not have any medical, dental or social care services it can rely on independently. The incombination effects of each of these developments together should be assessed within the Village Clusters Plan and any development plans should clearly set out what additional services will be provided to cope with the number of houses that are proposed within the area. These plans should be deliverable now, not at some arbitrary point in the future. Currently the Village Clusters Plan is not in keeping with the NPPF or its own objectives.
Object
South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 19 Pre-submission Draft)
Representation ID: 2519
Received: 27/02/2023
Respondent: Landmark Associates
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
It is submitted that in addition to the reference to ‘services,’ there should be a reference to local employment opportunities offered by the facilities.
It is submitted that in addition to the reference to ‘services,’ there should be a reference to local employment opportunities offered by the facilities.
Object
South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 19 Pre-submission Draft)
Representation ID: 2931
Received: 07/03/2023
Respondent: Ms Julia Johnson
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
The Sustainability Appraisal Report notes that Gillingham is favoured over Geldeston & Stockton for reasons of Accessibility, which appears to be related only to having the Primary School located within it. Other services such as secondary schools, doctor's surgery, retail etc are very similar for all three sites. Gillingham Primary School is over-subscribed, so cannot cater for any additional pupils. Other local services also cannot cater for additional people such as Beccles Medical Centre which states that this development would have an "unsustainable impact" on their service in their response to the 2022/193 planning application that covers the GIL1 site.
Remove this site from the Plan as it has a number of impacts which cannot be mitigated.