QUESTION 125: Do you think

Comment

Representation ID: 433

Received: 16/07/2021

Respondent: Caistor St Edmund and Bixley Parish Council

Caistor St Edmund and Bixley Parish Council agrees with the rejection of site SN0532.

Comment

Representation ID: 1356

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: A Squared Architects

We believe site SN0197 should be further considered. Having consulted with their solicitor, the landowner has confirmed there is no ransom strip and they retain full access rights to their land. The landowner's highways consultants also believe there would be scope to discuss and address NCC Highways concerns if they are raised at this stage and landscape mitigation could also be further considered.

Comment

Representation ID: 1521

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Glavenhill Limited

Agent: Lanpro Services Ltd

Please see attachments for full response.
We seek an extension to the existing settlement limit of the village to include an additional 0.7ha of land along Norwich Road. The site forms part of SN2091 which has been rejected within the current VCHAP.
Due to site’s accessibility and capacity of settlement to accommodate growth, these representations address the Council’s concerns on SN2091 and promote a much-reduced area of land to the West of Norwich Road for residential development.
We wish the reduced site to be included within a minor extension to the existing settlement limit as opposed to previously suggested site-specific allocation. Also proposed that remainder of the SN2091 and wider land ownership be safeguarded/designated for new publicly accessible habitat improvement area.

Comment

Representation ID: 1604

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Durrants

We disagree that a development on the two sites would have an impact on the landscape character of the area. There are numerous dwellings on this road and this is effectively infill between two parts of the settlement and is adjacent to the settlement limit. We believe the site would make a sensible extension to the settlement limit and would be for a minimal increase in dwellings potentially including self-build sites. The site is still within relatively close proximity to the rest of the village and we believe any landscape or townscape issues could be reasonably mitigated. We would politely request that the refusal of this site is reconsidered and looked at as a potential settlement limit extension for a smaller number of dwellings.

Comment

Representation ID: 2172

Received: 14/07/2021

Respondent: Norfolk County Council - Minerals and Waste Team

The Mineral Planning Authority is pleased to note the inclusion within the site assessments of its previous comments on the potential allocation sites regarding mineral resource safeguarding. Currently, the reasoned justification for the sites does not include reference to mineral resource safeguarding. We would like to reiterate from our previous comments that the need for mineral resource safeguarding to be addressed needs to be included within the requirements of the respective site’s allocation policy.

The Site assessment for SN0532, at Caistor St. Edmund does not contain reference to the active mineral extraction site within 250m which was mentioned in our previous response. The site assessment should be revised to contain this information.

There are existing residential properties nearer to the active mineral extraction site than the proposed housing location. The active mineral operation has not given rise to complaints from these existing residential properties, regarding amenity impacts from its existing operation and therefore is not expected to cause unacceptable amenity impacts for the proposed housing location.