Policy VC WOO1: Land south of Church Road

Object

Representation ID: 2278

Received: 23/01/2023

Respondent: Mr David Glayzer

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

This is a tick box excercise without real thought, Woodton does not offer young families with any facilities a modern family require to sustain themselves, all it will do is fill landowners pockets and affect wildlife and the peace and tranquility of the countryside, and pollution from homeowners needing to travel for supplies 5-7miles to nearest shop healthcare centre etc, and please don’t use the “old bus link is available” as they aren’t regular or convenient enough or cost effective for a family

Object

Representation ID: 2308

Received: 10/02/2023

Respondent: Woodton Parish Council

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Under the terms of soundness we do not believe the evidence supplied by the promoter is proportionate regarding the scale and provision of adequate benefits, not meeting objective 3. The amended plan is not justified as there were 2 reasonable alternatives which have been disregarded. The ‘new evidence’ supplied by the promoter is no longer relevant and additional community space was not requested or required, not meeting objective 2. The legal process was not followed correctly, with WPC not being fully consulted of the amendments. In conclusion the plan is not in accordance with SC1 in relation to site VCW001.

Object

Representation ID: 2934

Received: 07/03/2023

Respondent: Mr Jon Spalding

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Woodton does not have a Post Office, or Shop, and will soon see it's Pub close. It already has a Village Hall and Community Woodland. It therefore has nothing to offer another 50 properties. The existing Primary School could not accommodate the numbers this amount of development would see. The local character and landscape would be severely compromised, and the view from Norwich Road would not be screened by 'established hedgerows and trees'. Woodton is a village and does not need this scale of housing, particularly as the current development is still unsold. More agricultural land loss!

Object

Representation ID: 2939

Received: 07/03/2023

Respondent: Mr George Kirby

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

I would echo all of the comments made by WPC.
The proposed extended development to the south of the site will be extremely prominent and will destroy the whole visual impact of the village in the landscape. The existing dwellings on The Street are in a small valley and hidden from view by the surrounding landscape.
Village amenities are limited and dwindling.
The local PS cannot cope with the current demand from existing families and there is extremely little scope for expansion of the site.

Object

Representation ID: 3076

Received: 03/03/2023

Respondent: Norfolk County Council - Strategic Planning Team

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Norfolk County Council, in its capacity as the Mineral Planning Authority, considers that Policy VC WOO1 is currently unsound; as it is inconsistent with national policy, and the adopted Development Plan in Norfolk, in relation to mineral resource safeguarding. The Mineral Planning Authority recognises that underlain mineral resource has been included in the supporting text; however, we request inclusion of the text in the policy itself. The policy can be made sound by including the wording below, which was contained in the response by the Mineral Planning Authority, to the Regulation 18 consultation.

Support

Representation ID: 3197

Received: 01/03/2023

Respondent: Historic England

Whilst there are no designated heritage assets on this site, the grade II listed Rectory lies to the east of the site and the grade II listed Manor Farmhouse lies to the north of the site. Therefore, any development of this site that the potential to impact upon the significance of these heritage assets through development within the setting of the assets.
We appreciate that the allocation has been moved away from these heritage assets which is welcomed.

Support

Representation ID: 3216

Received: 08/03/2023

Respondent: ESCO Developments Ltd

Agent: Brown and Co

The proposed development would make a positive contribution to the provision of market and affordable housing in the area. The proposal would also add to the range of housing sites available in the locality, providing flexibility and a wider choice of development opportunities to the market, and thus strengthening the local supply of housing land. By providing sufficient land of the right type in the right place to support growth, the development would address the economic dimension of sustainable development, as defined in the NPPF.

Support

Representation ID: 3243

Received: 08/03/2023

Respondent: Anglian Water Services

Anglian Water suggests that due to the relatively small-scale nature of the sites, that the policy requirement regarding the capacity of the WRC is unnecessary. The draft DWMP has identified growth for the WRC catchment area to 2050 and has not included any medium or long-term strategies over this period. The policy requirement should be amended as suggested.