QUESTION 87: Do you agree

Comment

Representation ID: 13

Received: 07/06/2021

Respondent: Mr Tim Cave

I support the general thrust for the village of East Carleton. I would have been concerned that by collecting with Mulbarton and Bracon Ash the village might attract more potential development but I can see that proposals have generally be rejected on the basis of lack of amenity, access and impact on rural setting.

Object

Representation ID: 445

Received: 17/07/2021

Respondent: Ms Emma Mason

The village of Mulbarton has already been developed to a point where the local facilities are no longer able to cope with the number of residents. Any new development will only worsen the situation whilst at the same time, the essential nature of the village is being lost as more and more new developments are added. In addition, Bluebell Road was not designed to be as major a route as this development would demand, Rectory Road access would be much more appropriate and less disturbing to the many young families who are currently residents of the Bluebell estate.

Object

Representation ID: 447

Received: 17/07/2021

Respondent: Mrs Jenny Price

School is full
Newton flotman is not practical as would have to drive there.
Preschools and nursery are full
Gp is stretched as it is
Pharmacy is stretched as it is
Locals sports teams and clubs are at capacity
Field is behind my house and I moved here for the view! I don't want to look at an ugly crammed in housing estate and be subjected to more noise than there already is.
Impact to local wildlife.

Object

Representation ID: 658

Received: 23/07/2021

Respondent: Bracon Ash and Hethel Parish Council

Bracon Ash and Hethel Parish Council has considered the consultation documentation and has the following comment to make: -
The development boundary of the Bracon Ash includes the site BRA1. This site had been identified and independently reported by Aecom in a sustainability report that this site which had previously been allocated for 20 houses should be removed from the local plan because it was unsustainable.
The parish council considers that Aecom's recommendation should be respected and that the BRA1 site be removed from the local plan and the development boundary be adjusted to remove this area

Comment

Representation ID: 1114

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Swardeston Parish Council

Those concerns which were raised by a number of parties at the time of the initial Bobbins Way development, to which the new allocation is an extension, have in no way been addressed.

Object

Representation ID: 1504

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Humphrey Berney

Agent: La Ronde Wright Ltd

The Settlement Limit for Bracon Ash should include edge-of-village gardens & existing small parcels of land, to provide opportunities for a modest number of new houses in a location that is eminently sustainable and with good existing highways & travel standards. This extension to the Limit would not amount to an erosion of the gap between the villages of Bracon Ash and Mulbarton as it would include land that already forms part of the edge of Bracon Ash village, and would instead help define & maintain the gap especially with appropriate landscaping & development layout.

Comment

Representation ID: 1677

Received: 31/07/2021

Respondent: Mulbarton Parish Council

The description of the form and character of Mulbarton is inadequate, wrong, and contains factual errors which should be corrected, including the map on page 347.

Services and Community Facilities
Comment: This section of the VCHAP also contains errors which should be corrected.
“The cluster possesses a good range of facilities which includes infant and junior schools”.
No – there is only one primary school serving the cluster.

Settlement Limit and Constraints
Mulbarton and Bracon Ash

Comment: Whilst the settlement limit may be appropriate, with no changes proposed for the village of Mulbarton, the full range of constraints has not been properly identified. The answers already given to Question 2 also apply here.

Comment

Representation ID: 1794

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Hopkins Homes

Hopkins Homes continues to submit that Mulbarton is suitable location to accommodate up to 325 dwellings, however, in order to present various options to the Council, these representations are also supported by a Concept Masterplan which identifies an alternative site area that could accommodate up to 200 dwellings, together with up to 2.35Ha of associated public open space.
8. Mulbarton is wholly sustainable as a location for new development. It has a population in excess of 3,500 residents and approaching 1,500 dwellings. The village is well served by local education, sports and community facilities with good transport links to the nearby city of Norwich, approximately 7 miles to the north-east. The current local plan, together with the adopted Mulbarton Neighbourhood Plan, would see only 20 or so further homes added to the housing stock over a 15-year period, a paltry figure which must be regarded as disproportionately low in the context of the growth aspirations of South Norfolk and the wider Greater Norwich area.
In conclusion, Hopkins Homes Ltd therefore requests that the level of growth in Mulbarton is increased to at least 200 and in turn, the residential allocation boundary is amended to accord with the site plan below, with the settlement limit for the village extended to likewise encompass the totality of this site.

Comment

Representation ID: 2044

Received: 21/07/2021

Respondent: Historic England

See attachments for full response.
Although we understand that changes are proposed to the settlement limits, these are not clearly shown on the maps.