QUESTION 49: Do you think

Comment

Representation ID: 834

Received: 26/07/2021

Respondent: John Putman Ltd Architectural Services

• The site has the benefit of many green and amber ratings but is apparently not acceptable as it is backland development. I attach a drawing (2209.2) which clearly demonstrates that in this vicinity backland sites are part of the grain of development so the site should not be rejected on this basis. I would remind you that planning authorities have a statutory duty to be consistent in their decision making and rejecting this site does not conform to this stipulation.
• the option on the land covers widening the access track to 4.5m, erecting an acoustic fence 1800h on the East side of the access and taking a part of the front garden of No.130 to provide a 2.4 x 43m visibility splay. The new fence does no material harm to the amenity of No.130 as there are no habitable rooms on the West elevation of the bungalow and in any event there is at present a tall and dense hedge enclosing the property. A new bungalow would be sited some 36m from the rear of No.130.
• The site has received an amber rating due to its location within the Waveney Rural River Area. I attach a drawing showing the location of the site in relation to the drawn boundary of this area. Examination of this plan, together with a site visit shows clearly that there is no aspect of the rural river valley which could be harmed by developing the site. The defined area narrows at this point and consists almost entirely of of developed land which has no relation to the rural river valley defined parameters. The defined river area at this point is also nowhere near to the river itself or appreciable landscape area.
• If the site becomes accepted for development a subsequent planning application should include a Landscape Impact Assessment report to confirm the above. The site is surrounded at West, South and East boundaries with tall mature hedges which screen the site from any long views, as will be seen on a site visit.
• The site is in Flood Zone 1 as shown on the attached flood map.

Comment

Representation ID: 1400

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Ditchingham Farms

Agent: Savills

Please refer to supporting information.

Comment

Representation ID: 1403

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Ditchingham Farms

Agent: Savills

Please refer to covering letter.

Comment

Representation ID: 1591

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Durrants

Broome - Land west of Old Yarmouth Road, Broome Site SN4020
We believe the site SN4020 should be considered as a preferred site or a settlement limit extension as it continues the linear development of the settlement following from the previously allocated BRO1 site.

Comment

Representation ID: 2014

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Environment Agency (Eastern Region)

Foul Water Flows
For sites SN2011SL, SN0373 and SN0345, available information indicates fewer than 100 houses in these developments. Ditchingham WRC has capacity for this. If the house allocation is substantially increased, (we see there is additional planned development already nearby), then capcity at the WRC will be limited. However, current information provided indicates there is treatment capacity at present.

Comment

Representation ID: 2083

Received: 14/07/2021

Respondent: Norfolk County Council - LLFA

See attachments for full comments.
Few or no constraints.
Standard information required at a planning stage. 1.] At risk of surface water flooding?: No
* 3.33% AEP Event [Extent]: No flooding present
* 3.33% AEP Event [Depth]: No flooding present.
* 1.0% AEP Event [Extent]: No flooding present
* 1.0% AEP Event [Depth]: No flooding present.
* 0.1% AEP Event [Extent]: No flooding present
* 0.1% AEP Event [Depth]: No flooding present.
2.] Internal & external flooding?:
* On-site: No
* Within proximity to site (~500.00m): No
3.] Watercourses [Online ordinary watercourses or mains rivers]?:
* On-site: No
* Within proximity to site (~100.00m): No
4.] Surface water sewer systems?:
* On-site: No
* Within proximity to site (~100.00m): No
5.] Source Protection Zone?: Source Protection Zone 3
6.] Internal Drainage Board?: Waveney Valley
7.] The site predominantly has superficial deposits of SAND AND GRAVEL. Comments on infiltration potential are dependent on a complete geotechnical investigation, including BRE365 Soakaway Testing. Where possible, surface water infiltration should be utilised."

Assessment: Green

Comment

Representation ID: 2103

Received: 14/07/2021

Respondent: Norfolk County Council - LLFA

SN0345
See attachment for full details.
Few or no constraints.
Standard information required at a planning stage. "1.] At risk of surface water flooding?: No
* 3.33% AEP Event [Extent]: No flooding present
* 3.33% AEP Event [Depth]: No flooding present.
* 1.0% AEP Event [Extent]: No flooding present
* 1.0% AEP Event [Depth]: No flooding present.
* 0.1% AEP Event [Extent]: No flooding present
* 0.1% AEP Event [Depth]: No flooding present.
2.] Internal & external flooding?:
* On-site: No
* Within proximity to site (~500.00m): No
3.] Watercourses [Online ordinary watercourses or mains rivers]?:
* On-site: No
* Within proximity to site (~100.00m): No
4.] Surface water sewer systems?:
* On-site: No
* Within proximity to site (~100.00m): No
5.] Source Protection Zone?: Source Protection Zone 3
6.] Internal Drainage Board?: No IDB referenced
7.] The site predominantly has superficial deposits of SAND AND GRAVEL. Comments on infiltration potential are dependent on a complete geotechnical investigation, including BRE365 Soakaway Testing. Where possible, surface water infiltration should be utilised."

Assessment: Green

Comment

Representation ID: 2244

Received: 28/09/2021

Respondent: Norfolk County Council - Senior Ecologist

SN0345 Land to the north of Loddon Road, Ditchingham
Agricultural field opposite road from Broom Heath SSSI, LNR, CWS and candidate county geodiversity site, which is known to support reptiles and great crested newts, and which is managed by Norfolk Wildlife Trust (who should be consulted on any application). Site within SSSI IRZ but residential development does not trigger consultation with Natural England. Site in strategic GI corridor and amber/green habitat zone for great crested newts. Applications for planning consent should be accompanied by a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal/Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) which, together with the mitigation hierarchy should inform the design. Consideration should be given to delivering Biodiversity Net Gain. Potential for recreational impacts on adjacent SSSI.

SN4020 Land west of Old Yarmouth Road, Broome
Identified on MAGIC as Good quality semi-improved grassland (non-priority). Adjacent to Broom Heath SSSI, LNR, CWS and candidate county geodiversity site, which is known to support reptiles and great crested newts. The site itself is included within the candidate geodiversity site boundary. Site in amber habitat zone for great crested newts and lies within strategic GI corridor. Potential for direct impacts and recreational impacts - If brought forward recommended minimum 10m buffer between development and CWS/SSSI/LNR to the north. Applications for planning consent should be accompanied by a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal/Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) which, together with the mitigation hierarchy should inform the design. Consideration should be given to delivering Biodiversity Net Gain. Norfolk Wildlife Trust should be consulted.

Rating for these sites: Amber - measures required - priority habitat onsite or proximity to SSSI (recreational impact concerns) and or buffer required.

Support

Representation ID: 2273

Received: 20/07/2021

Respondent: Lanpro Services Ltd

Site SN0078 Land off Loddon Road, Ditchingham should be included in the settlement limits as it is deliverable, viable and available with no known constraints or ownership issues that would restrict its development.