QUESTION 120: Do you support

Support

Representation ID: 1648

Received: 05/08/2021

Respondent: KCS Development Ltd

Agent: Barton Willmore

We object to the allocation of Site STN0567/SN2082.
Whilst we support the draft allocation for 15 dwellings on Site SN0444 within Spooner Row, the allocation should be increased to include the wider land parcel that was previously submitted in order for the allocation to deliver up to 65 dwellings. If the Council do not consider this option to be suitable, then the allocation on Site
SN0444 should instead be increased to 40 dwellings.
If the Council disagree with both of these options, then it is considered that the 25 dwellings currently allocated on STN5067/SN2082 should be distributed between
the following sites; Site SN0445 (Parcel 2) or Site SN0447 (Parcel 4) (both of which have been shown as having a capacity for up to 61 dwellings).

Object

Representation ID: 1711

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Spooner Row, Suton & Wattlefield Community Council

Both the proposed site are uphill from areas which have suffered recent flooding and would either drain into the water table or river which would contribute to further drainage or flooding issues.

The site on Bunwell Rd would place a new development in a 40 mph speed limit within the boundaries of the village and would be incompatible with road safety.

The affordable housing included should be housing which is suitable for purchase by housing associations and so is actually affordable rather than so called affordable housing being built which is actually too expensive for first time buyers or families with a lower income.

The site of Bunwell Rd would bring further traffic through the village and past the school which creates environmental and road safety concerns.

SN0444 This development is totally unacceptable in this area. The surrounding fields and ditches suffered significant flooding last Christmas. This caused neighbouring property to be unhabitable which is still the case whilst remedial work to water damage is rectified. This is further proof that the entire development is totally foolhardy.

Object

Representation ID: 1746

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: J Alston & Sons Ltd.

Agent: Bidwells

We object to the allocation for the reasons set out below:
The proposal goes against Objective 3 of the VCHAP.
SN0444 would result in loss of part of the open space which provides separation between linear developments in village and contributes to character of area, as acknowledged in SNC Site Allocations Document.
SN0444 would also have detrimental impact on approach to the village from the south; access to site would also require loss of hedgerow.
Nearby designated heritage asset, the Orchards (Grade II Listed) not mentioned. May have adverse impact on the setting.
Location of preferred site therefore not appropriate and should be rejected.

Comment

Representation ID: 1975

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Water Management Alliance

See attachment for full response.
SN0444 – Land west of Bunwell Road, Spooner Row
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: 2056

Received: 21/07/2021

Respondent: Historic England

Please see attachments for full response.
Site: SN0444, Land west of Bunwell Road, Spooner Row
Whilst there are no designated heritage assets within the site, the site lies immediately to the north east of the grade II listed property, The Orchards. Therefore, any development of this site has the potential to impact upon the significance of this heritage asset. We appreciate that the property is well screened by existing landscaping.
However, a heritage impact assessment of the site should be undertaken to assess the impact of the proposed development on the listed building and determine if allocation of this site is appropriate, and if it is what mitigation may be required. The findings of the HIA should inform whether the site is allocated and if it is, the policy criterion including any mitigation and enhancement.
Complete an HIA to inform the allocation of the site including any mitigation, enhancement and policy wording.

Comment

Representation ID: 2119

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?: Yes
* 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]: Minor flooding
* 0.1% AEP Event [Depth]: 0.00 - 0.60cm.
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): Yes|Ordinary Watercourse
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." The site is adjacent to a flow path. This must be considered in the site assessment.
Assessment: Green

Comment

Representation ID: 2219

Received: 28/09/2021

Respondent: Norfolk County Council - Senior Ecologist

Green no major ecological constraints identified from desk-top search. Surveys, and biodiversity enhancement in accordance with policy required.
Agricultural field bordered by ditches with odd tree. Site is not identified as being priority habitat and although located within a SSSI IRZ, residential development would not trigger consultation with Natural England. Site on edge of Strategic Green Infrastructure corridor and in amber habitat zone for great crested newts. 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.