QUESTION 9b: If the site is allocated, do you think there are any specific requirements that should be set out in the allocation policy?
Comment
Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan - Alternative Sites & Focused Changes (Reg. 18)
Representation ID: 3389
Received: 24/01/2024
Respondent: Norfolk County Council - Minerals and Waste Team
Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy Policy CS16 ‘Safeguarding mineral and waste sites and mineral resources’ applies as the proposed allocation, SN0218, is located within the consultation area for safeguarded mineral extraction site, Earsham Quarry, which is only 25m from the boundary of SN0218 at the closest point, with the A143 in between. The site assessment should include this information.
Therefore, the policy wording for this site should state: ‘The site is within the consultation area for a safeguarded mineral extraction site and the development must not prevent or prejudice the use of the existing mineral extraction site unless suitable alternative provision is made, or the applicant demonstrates that the site no
longer meets the needs of the aggregate industry.’
See attachment for full submission.
Comment
Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan - Alternative Sites & Focused Changes (Reg. 18)
Representation ID: 3412
Received: 24/01/2024
Respondent: Norfolk County Council
The site should be accessed via The Street only. The access would require suitable visibility splays, along with extension of the 30mph speed limit and relocation of the speed reducing gateway feature.
A 2.0m wide footway would be required at The Street, between the site access and Milestone Lane to connect with the existing facility, this would need to include a simple pedestrian crossing.
Trees east of the development, at the north side of The Street could present a constraint to delivery of footway if they are 3rd party owned. At the south side of The Street, some hedging is present, along with a ditch. In some instances, carriageway can be utilised for footway delivery, The Street is a bus route and needs to be maintained at 6.5m wide.
The Highway Authority would not object to allocation of the site if the promotor demonstrates that a satisfactory footway as above can be delivered.
Please see attachment for full representation.
Comment
Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan - Alternative Sites & Focused Changes (Reg. 18)
Representation ID: 3427
Received: 24/01/2024
Respondent: Norfolk County Council - Natural Environment Team
This site constitutes a large extension to the existing settlement which will cause a change in the landscape character and setting of the village. It would be beneficial for this to be a landscape led scheme, with key consideration given to the boundary vegetation. The Norfolk Broads are situated to the north, this is an important context in terms of the landscape and visual impacts of the development, as well as considering wider habitats. A public right of way crosses the western end of the site and runs along the entire south-western and southern boundaries. Access along the Public Right of Way must remain at all times, should access be proposed on to the Public Rights of Way discussion should be had with Norfolk County Council Public Rights of Way and Highways team. There is also a pond to the north of the site which may require further surveys before development.
See attachment for full representation.
Comment
Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan - Alternative Sites & Focused Changes (Reg. 18)
Representation ID: 3541
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.
See attachment for full representation.
Comment
Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan - Alternative Sites & Focused Changes (Reg. 18)
Representation ID: 3603
Received: 02/02/2024
Respondent: Clayland Architects
Allocation Policy could ;
-Ensure the scheme gives consideration and provision to future growth if required of additional land adjoining the site.
-Secure Highways mitigation measures with the scheme
-Secure landscape features and planting measures
Allocation Policy could ;
-Ensure the scheme gives consideration and provision to future growth if required of additional land adjoining the site.
-Secure Highways mitigation measures with the scheme
-Secure landscape features and planting measures
Object
Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan - Alternative Sites & Focused Changes (Reg. 18)
Representation ID: 3622
Received: 02/02/2024
Respondent: Mrs Kathleen Randlesome
Too close to A143
Infrastructure
Danger
Flooding
Regarding the proposed 25 new houses in Earsham. 1. The houses would be exceptionally close to the A143 and the noise would be unbearable for the people who buy the homes. 2. The infrastructure in the village is already struggling to cope with drainage, sewage and sufficient places at the local primary school. 3. It could be dangerous to put an entrance/exit to the houses so close to traffic which has just come off the A143 unless the speed limits can be lowered on approach to the Earsam turning off the A143 which is already an accident hot spot. 4. There are already too many houses in the village which is prone to flooding from The River Waveney .
Comment
Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan - Alternative Sites & Focused Changes (Reg. 18)
Representation ID: 3693
Received: 04/02/2024
Respondent: Earsham Parish Council
• Some open space would lessen the impact of the density of dwellings on a small development and would be welcomed by families with children, especially if there was a small play area.
• Adequate footpath from the proposed development onto The Street would be necessary.
• Adequate natural screening from the A143.
• The style of dwellings to be sympathetic to the surroundings and in keeping with a rural village.
• Some open space would lessen the impact of the density of dwellings on a small development and would be welcomed by families with children, especially if there was a small play area.
• Adequate footpath from the proposed development onto The Street would be necessary.
• Adequate natural screening from the A143.
• The style of dwellings to be sympathetic to the surroundings and in keeping with a rural village.
Comment
Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan - Alternative Sites & Focused Changes (Reg. 18)
Representation ID: 3750
Received: 05/02/2024
Respondent: Norfolk Wildlife Trust
We note that this is a greenfield site outside of the current development boundary. Authorities have a duty under the NERC Act 2006 and the Environment Act 2021 to have regard to the conservation and enhancement of Priority Habitats in their decision making. Hedgerows are listed as a Priority Habitat under the requirements of section 41 of the NERC Act. We recommend that clear and robust policy wording with respect to hedgerows/trees is included in this policy and suggest some wording.
We note that this is a greenfield site outside of the current development boundary. Authorities have a duty under the NERC Act 2006 and the Environment Act 2021 to have regard to the conservation and enhancement of Priority Habitats in their decision making. Hedgerows are listed as a Priority Habitat under the requirements of section 41 of the NERC Act.
Also of relevance is: National Planning Policy Framework, (NPPF), 179: ‘-To protect and enhance biodiversity and geodiversity, plans should…62 b) promote the conservation, restoration and enhancement of priority habitats, ecological networks and the protection and recovery of priority species; and identify and pursue opportunities for securing measurable net gains for biodiversity.’
We recommend that clear and robust policy wording with respect to hedgerows/trees is included in this policy, such as the following: ‘The developer of the site will be required to ensure: ‘Protection of the trees and hedges on the site boundaries…’ . In exceptional circumstances only, where the developer has demonstrated that removal of any part of a hedgerow or a tree/s is absolutely unavoidable, then the policy wording should clearly set out high expectations for compensatory planting sited so that the existing ecological connectivity is not reduced. We recommend that policy wording should also require robust compensatory planting (delivering at least 10% Biodiversity Net Gain, regardless of whether the site is exempt from the mandatory national BNG requirements and also maintaining any ecological connectivity that the original habitat provided), include reference to mitigation measures and ideally reflect the updated biodiversity duty required in the 2021 Environment Act to have regard to the enhancement of biodiversity.