QUESTION 53: Do you support

Comment

Representation ID: 1414

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: East Suffolk Council

We have no specific comments on the increased settlement boundary. please consider infrastructure implications in East Suffolk.

Support

Representation ID: 1575

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Norwich Diocesan Board of Finance (NDBF)

Agent: Savills

Please see letter and supporting information, attached.
SN0390
Owner of site supports proposed amendment of settlement limit to include their land. However, a slight amendment to site area is proposed to enable better access.
Third party land referenced by NCC Highways is within same ownership. The inclusion of the rectory land as part of wider site would provide a suitable access onto School Lane. Site is of sufficient scale to enable replacement dwelling for clergy to be on same plot or as part of wider housing allocation.
A new site plan is included with these representations demonstrating revised site area which is approximately 1.25 ha in size.
With additional land, it is considered possible to enable min 25 dwellings on western area of land (20 dph).
A few other matters are ‘Amber’ in the assessment. Further information is therefore provided.

Comment

Representation ID: 1719

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Earsham Parish Council

Local facilities e.g. doctors/primary school, already at full capacity.
Substantial traffic increase in recent years, possibly due to schools being outside village with greater journey distances.
Earsham floods in many locations - further building may increase this. Located on edge of flood plain, mostly to east - further improvements needed to drains and soakaways before further development occurs.
Parish Council were not in favour of this site being developed due to constraints mentioned - easterly section of the site is approximately 40% in the Flood Zone. Would exacerbate traffic on School Road, which sees speeding on a daily basis. Could add 100+ vehicles to confined area and, with narrow entrance, potential for accidents. Would cause major congestion, especially at school peak times.

Comment

Representation ID: 1942

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Water Management Alliance

See attachment for full response.
SN0390 – Land east of School Road
Within the Waveney, Lower Yare and Lothingland IDD.
A Board Adopted Watercourse is located to the east of the proposed site boundary.
Byelaw 3 applies to any proposed discharge of surface water from the proposed site.
All other Board Byelaws will also apply to this development.

Comment

Representation ID: 2038

Received: 21/07/2021

Respondent: Historic England

Please see attachments for full response.
SN0390, Land east of School Road
There are no designated heritage assets on site. The Close listed at grade II, lies to the south of the site. However, given the distance we consider that the development of the proposed allocation would have limited impact of the setting of the heritage asset.

Comment

Representation ID: 2086

Received: 14/07/2021

Respondent: Norfolk County Council - LLFA

See attachments for full response.
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): Yes - Internal Flooding|Yes - External Flooding
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: 2250

Received: 28/09/2021

Respondent: Norfolk County Council - Senior Ecologist

Rating: Green no major ecological constraints identified from desk-top search. Surveys, and biodiversity enhancement in accordance with policy required.
Agricultural field bounded along southern edge by a hedge (priority habitats). No other priority habitats identified (see MAGIC). Site within strategic Green Infrastructure corridor, amber/green habitat zones for great crested newts, and SSSI IRZ but residential development does not trigger consultation with Natural England. 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.