QUESTION 88: Do you support

Comment

Representation ID: 1115

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.

Support

Representation ID: 1429

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Bennett Homes

Agent: Lanpro Services Ltd

Bennett Homes support the allocation. The 1.6 ha site would be capable of accommodating more than 25 dwellings and up to 40 dwellings at a density of 25dph. The policy should be worded accordingly. The SNC site assessment and reasoned justification for the allocation is inaccurate with regard to identified flood risk and landscape concerns and this should be corrected. Justification for any footway improvements from the site to Mulbarton Primary School should be provided. If required, the works should be proportionate to the scale of the proposal. Adjacent land under the control of Bennett Homes is available if necessary.

Object

Representation ID: 1517

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Humphrey Berney

Agent: La Ronde Wright Ltd

This site neither represents the type of new site that the Village Clusters Plan is aiming to deliver, nor would it appear from the reasoned justification to be preferable to other potential sites in this cluster in respect to its viability or deliverability. Objective 2 of the Plan will only be met if residential sites are found across the settlements within a cluster, rather than continuing to expand existing development sites and villages that have undergone considerable recent expansion.

Object

Representation ID: 1678

Received: 31/07/2021

Respondent: Mulbarton Parish Council

Object. Where will the children from the new houses on this preferred site go to school? Where will the families access medical facilities? Development on this site will simply add to the cumulative impacts on the village of Mulbarton, already unacceptable.
Our comments on this site include the answers given above for Questions 1 to 4, and 87.

Comment

Representation ID: 1958

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Water Management Alliance

See attachment for full response.
SN0204 – Bobbins Way, Swardeston
Outside the IDD boundary, within the Norfolk Rivers IDB watershed catchment.
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: 2069

Received: 14/07/2021

Respondent: Norfolk County Council - LLFA

Please 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 - 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?: No IDB referenced
7.] The site predominantly has superficial deposits of DIAMICTON. 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: 2198

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.
Site comprises a former plant nursery site including grassland, buildings, and glasshouses. MAGIC identifies the presence of priority habitat along the southern boundary (traditional orchard), but this will need to be verified. Hedges are priority habitat so losses should be minimised (use existing access), and as a last resort compensated for. Site within green habitat zones for great crested newts, and in 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.