QUESTION 121: Do you support

Object

Representation ID: 1379

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Mrs Karen Dunn

This site was rejected under the existing SN Local Plan but only granted planning permission because of the Council’s lack of a 5-year housing land supply. Building on this site would pose an increased safety risk on the highway to Station Road, which is already a dangerous road to both vehicles and pedestrians.
It would create an urbanised look to the character of the village.
Increase the flood risk and storm flow to lower parts of Station Road and surrounding area which was subjected to serious flooding only a few months ago.

Support

Representation ID: 1480

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Mr T.A. Cullum

Agent: Ingleton Wood LLP

On behalf of our client, we wish to support SN0567 & SN2082(Part) for residential development of up to 25 dwellings on an area of 1.6 hectares, as shown on the Preferred Sites Plan. The site is well related to the existing settlement, providing a logical and sustainable extension to the village.

We also wish to support some further development on the remaining part of SN2082, for which further assessments and representations are submitted.

The sites are suitable, available and achievable and, as demonstrated in the attached supporting documents and masterplan, there are no material planning considerations that would restrict development.

Support

Representation ID: 1559

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Durrants

We support the preferred site SN0567 and agree that this site should be considered suitable for allocation. The site has a good relationship with the existing settlement and a linear form of development along the frontage of the site would complement the existing pattern of development.

Object

Representation ID: 1647

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: 1712

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 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.

SN0567 This site has not been given planning permission. The latest proposal was granted an extension of time which expired a considerable time ago. The application last requested was for a hybrid development. This resulted in two affordable being built at a nearby location presently being marketed at over £220,000 each! This was obviously to placate the original development plan which is now unrecognisable. The location is as you enter the village, rural; views with mature trees and hedging. The landscape of the area needs to be maintained and not further ruined by unnecessary development

Comment

Representation ID: 1765

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Brown & Co

We are supportive of the preferred site allocation of this site for up to 25 dwellings on a site of 1 hectares. It would appear as a natural extension to the built form, and sit neatly into an extended settlement boundary for the village. In support of the proposed allocation, an indicative plan is submitted as part of these representations in support which highlight hoe the site could be developed.
The land is currently available for development.
It should be noted that planning permission was previously granted at the site for the erection of 8 no. dwellings, although this has since lapsed (LPA Reference 2017/1321). A hybrid planning application is currently under consideration by South Norfolk District Council which seeks outline planning permission for 5 no. dwellings at land west of Queensland, and full planning permission for 3 no. dwellings at land west of Queensland.
Acceptable highways and footpath provision
Utilities - is not considered that there is any fundamental impediment to the delivery of the site through any constraints relating to utilities capacity.
Accessibility to Services - Spooner Row is currently designated as a Service Village. The village has a range of services.
No flood issues
Historic environment - A number of listed buildings are located within the wider area. is not considered that the proposed development would have a significant detrimental effect upon the significance of the buildings, or their settings by virtue of the distance of separation and intervening built form of the village, and landscaping.

Comment

Representation ID: 1976

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Water Management Alliance

See attachment for full response.
SN0567 - Land south of Station Road and west of Queensland, Spooner Row & (Part) SN2082, Land south of Station Road and east of Top Common
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: 2129

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]: Minor flooding
* 3.33% AEP Event [Depth]: 0.00 - 0.60cm.
* 1.0% AEP Event [Extent]: Minor flooding
* 1.0% AEP Event [Depth]: 0.00 - 0.60cm.
* 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."
Assessment: Green

Comment

Representation ID: 2220

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 in part by hedges (priority habitat) - loss of hedge should be avoided (use existing access?), minimised, and as a last resort, compensated for (adjacent to traditional orchard priority habitat (see MAGIC) (habitat needs confirming). Site located within a SSSI IRZ, but residential development would not trigger consultation with Natural England. Site in both amber and green 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.