29.2

Showing comments and forms 1 to 3 of 3

Object

South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 19 Pre-submission Draft)

Representation ID: 2601

Received: 02/03/2023

Respondent: Mr Andrew Cullum

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? Yes

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

The area to the east of the village has high landscape value consisting of gentle hills with wildlife friendly hedges, scrub and trees It marks the gradual end of a natural ridge and provides good walking and excellent views in almost all directions as the footpath winds through the landscape to Claxton , along the "Beck" and back to the staithe. ECC has broken into this vista and it appears that 25 houses will almost certainly destroy this wonderful area of the village

Change suggested by respondent:

A change to establish a policy that promotes building, instead of the landscape.

Object

South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 19 Pre-submission Draft)

Representation ID: 2951

Received: 08/03/2023

Respondent: Mr Peter Armitage

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

The increase in housing will spoil the village's pleasant rural character

Change suggested by respondent:

less housing

Object

South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 19 Pre-submission Draft)

Representation ID: 3012

Received: 08/03/2023

Respondent: mr Christopher Tusting

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

The village does indeed have a 'pleasant rural character' - mainly due to the quality of farmland. The Site Assessment states “agricultural soil classification unclear”. However The Natural England classification (ALC008) clearly shows the land as ‘Grade 2 - very good’. The fact that its classification was not confirmed, especially when it is clearly high quality is unacceptable. The loss of this land when agricultural production needs to be intensified is unjustifiable and contravenes Natural England policy (TIN049).

Change suggested by respondent:

Brownfield sites or areas of poorer farmland should be used for development leaving best quality land for sustainable food production now and in the future.