QUESTION 7b: Do you think there are any specific requirements that should be added to the allocation policy to accommodate the extra 10 dwellings?

Comment

Representation ID: 3360

Received: 19/01/2024

Respondent: Water Management Alliance

Adjacent to the Waveney, Lower Yare and Lothingland IDD.

Major development - If surface water discharges within the watershed catchment of the Board's IDD, we request that this discharge is facilitated in line with the Non-statutory technical standards for sustainable drainage systems (SuDS).

Comment

Representation ID: 3390

Received: 24/01/2024

Respondent: Norfolk County Council - Minerals and Waste Team

Proposed allocation VC DIT1 REV is 2.42ha and underlain by safeguarded mineral resource, sand and gravel. We consider that it is appropriate and relevant for the requirements of a strategic policy (in this case Policy CS16 of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy) to be included in a site allocation policy where it sets out how the policy will apply to a specific site at the development management stage.

Therefore, the policy wording for this site should state: ‘This site is underlain by a safeguarded mineral resource; therefore investigation and assessment of the mineral will be required, potentially followed by prior extraction to ensure that needless sterilisation of viable mineral resource does not take place.’

Comment

Representation ID: 3410

Received: 24/01/2024

Respondent: Norfolk County Council

The Highway Authority does not objection subject to satisfactory access.

Comment

Representation ID: 3425

Received: 24/01/2024

Respondent: Norfolk County Council - Natural Environment Team

There is a Site of Special Scientific Interest to the east of the site, and County Wildlife Sites to the south-east and south-west of the site. It is also situated within a designated River Valley Landscape. Impacts of new developments on these close lying sites, and its situation within the River Valley should be taken into consideration.

Comment

Representation ID: 3490

Received: 26/01/2024

Respondent: Ditchingham Parish Council

Submitted as both a comment and objection on response form.

Subject to the sufficiency of suitable infrastructure, Ditchingham Parish Council is not against the provision of more housing in the village. However, the Council cannot support further development of the land north of Rider Haggard Way unless the access is changed from Hamilton Way (right opposite the primary school) to either Waveney Road or Thwaite Road.

Comment

Representation ID: 3536

Received: 31/01/2024

Respondent: Historic England

We welcome the preparation of the HIA. The recommendations of the HIA in relation to archaeology should be included in the policy requirements.

Comment

Representation ID: 3591

Received: 01/02/2024

Respondent: Anglian Water Services

It is noted that the site is proposed to be increased to accommodate an additional 10 dwellings to bring the site total to 45 dwellings. Based on current information, there is capacity at Ditchingham WRC for small scale growth –however, this may be impacted by cumulative growth from other commitments including the new proposed allocation SN4020 within the WRC catchment.

In addition to our previous recommendations for policy wording we would suggest the policy is amended to state: Early engagement with Anglian Water to identify infrastructure crossing the site and connection to the local water recycling network.

Object

Representation ID: 3637

Received: 03/02/2024

Respondent: Cornerstone Planning Ltd

No (see comments on Question 7a)

Comment

Representation ID: 3749

Received: 05/02/2024

Respondent: Norfolk Wildlife Trust

The option to extend the existing allocation homes at this site could have an impact on Broom Heath CWS, which is around 200m away. This site is potentially sensitive as highly accessible heathland. There is a strong body of evidence showing how increasing levels of access can have negative impacts on wildlife. Issues are varied including disturbance, increased fire risk, contamination and damage. We recommend that policy wording should reflect the proximity to the CWS and any applications should review any potential indirect disturbances to this site in an ecological assessment, in particular with respect to potential visitor pressure impacts.