QUESTION 124: Do you support

Object

Representation ID: 483

Received: 19/07/2021

Respondent: Stoke Holy Cross Parish Council

The PC considers that the village has had more than its fair share of development over the last few years, which has greatly exceeded that proposed for it in the adopted Greater Norwich Development Plan Core Strategy. It feels let down however that insufficient provision was made in relation to these developments for greatly needed social infrastructure improvements, which were meant to accompany such developments. This is particularly the case regarding a replacement for the existing village pavilion that also houses the village pre-school, and is totally inadequate for the size of village that Stoke Holy Cross now is.

The PC would therefore support a limited amount of additional residential development in Stoke Holy Cross if it facilitated the provision of a fit for purpose community hall that included up-to-date accommodation for the pre-school. On this basis, site SN0202 would appear to be the logical choice, being accessible by foot to the main village facilities, having potentially good highway and services connections, and which would represent a ‘squaring off’ of the settlement boundary presently defined by the edge of the Broomefield Road development on the opposite side of Long Lane

Object

Representation ID: 633

Received: 26/07/2021

Respondent: Mrs Diane Barrell

With the high proportion of new builds already more would alter the nature of SHX. Access to the site would be extremely problematical. Traffic issues on long lane and access roads to the village already exist. Flood, drainage and sewerage problems exacerbated. Impact on the wider landscape and countryside. The site is not considered acceptable in landscape terms. Using the traffic light system it does not score well with mainly amber and a red.

Support

Representation ID: 789

Received: 29/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Henry Caswell

Site SN0202 should go ahead to provide much needed high quality bungalows for the village..

Object

Representation ID: 1063

Received: 31/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Simon Harper

The PREFERRED categorisation to site SN0202 is completely at odds with the individual conclusions made across many considerations, not least Flood Risk, Access, Transport & Roads/Highways, Safety of existing residents in Harrold Place, Local Facilities, Utilities Capacity, Landscape Concerns, Biodiversity & Geodiversity. Many of these rate only as Amber and with one Red it is hard not to draw a conclusion that the PREFERRED status/elevation to Green is a convenient "fudge" to perhaps satisfy certain vested interests. In banking terms the Site Assessment Form is "Words and Figures Differ" and in my view this site should be reclassified as UNREASONABLE.

Object

Representation ID: 1072

Received: 31/07/2021

Respondent: Mrs.

As resident in Harrold Place, object to the access to the site that has been proposed. An additional development would impede on Harrold Place which is a narrow road. Long Lane is very busy with parked cars during school drop off and pick up making visibility to turn onto Long Lane dangerous. This danger is compounded further with the junction with Broomefield Road (Hopkins Homes Estate) on the opposite side of the road to Harrold Place. Concerns with sewerage as we share pipeline with Hopkins estate and have problems, therefore additional housing would increase problems if same system used.

Comment

Representation ID: 1354

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: A Squared Architects

We support the allocation of the preferred site. Impact on the landscape setting can be mitigated by planting and wish to highlight that the site falls away to the north, and is at a consideraby lower level than, the housing on the south side of Long Lane. The housing mix would also include a significant proportion of single storey dwellings. The north boundary of SN0202 indicated on the Preferred Sites Plan should align with the north boundary of the recently completed adjacent development to the north of Long Lane, it is currently shown south of this.

Comment

Representation ID: 1977

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Water Management Alliance

See attachment for full response.
SN202 – Land north of and adjoining Long Lane, Stoke Holy Cross
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: 2068

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 - Internal Flooding|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: 2221

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 bounded on several sides by hedges (priority habitat) -no other priority habitats identified (see MAGIC). Site in amber and green habitat zones for great crested newts. Site in SSSI IRZ, but residential development doesn't 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.