QUESTION 133: Do you support

Object

Representation ID: 331

Received: 07/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Brian McGuire

In the previous Site Specific Allocations and Policy Document (Section 5) published in 2015 this site was allocated for development within the range of 10-20 dwellings. The site size remains at 1.14 hectares, a 50% increase in dwellings to 30 is far too dense and not justified.
The previous 10-20 dwelling range should be retained with a mix of housing sizes to reflect existing development in Tasburgh.
Existing constraints with regard to safe vehicular access, pedestrian and cycle access and allowance for any expansion or improvement to the school facilities to be factored into any proposed housing development.

Support

Representation ID: 973

Received: 30/07/2021

Respondent: Tasburgh Parish Council

Supportive of site SN4079 and the increased numbers. If planning is approved would reiterate concerns raised in previous consultations that sole vehicle access to the development should be from Church Road, as vehicle access from Henry Preston Road would cause considerable danger to school children attending Preston Primary School. The development should also host a housing mix that includes affordable housing and bungalows in keeping with the design and character of the nearby area.

Support

Representation ID: 1588

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Orbit Homes

Agent: Armstrong Rigg Planning

See attached letter for full response.
We support the re-allocation of this site for up to 30 dwellings.
Points for further consideration:
1. NCC Highways access recommendations - we can confirm that these are deliverable.
2. We disagree that an increase in dwellings is dependent on there being no requirement for school expansion. JCS only allocated 10-20 dwellings to each Service Village, therefore site was allocated at low density. Would expect any requirement for school expansion as a result of proposed development to be small.
Density of c.35 dph is achievable on site with similar levels of building coverage to surrounding area. Design would reflect local character and use land efficiently.
30 dwellings could be delivered on the site, whilst retaining sufficient land for any small school expansions that are required.

Support

Representation ID: 1750

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Steven and Janice Beckett

I wish to support the preferred allocation of site 4079 in principle, but wish to make the following comments over the details suggested and ask that they be included in the allocation policy and guide for the site.
• I am concerned that the acceptance of a high density will result in a development uncharacteristic of the area. The development on Church Lane must follow the pattern of single storey dwellings on this stretch of the road. Any attempt to repeat the form of dwellings on the Henry Preston estate would be totally out of keeping.
• Dwellings along Church Road could be served by a single access at the east end enabling a continuous grass verge and hedge to be planted on the road side.
• I think it would be a mistake to upgrade the loke to a road and connect it to Henry Preston Road. The junction with Church Road is not good enough to cope with additional traffic as this road will lead to a rat run of traffic heading to and from the school. I imagine the owners of the bungalow on the corner and the converted barn would also object to such an increase in use and impact. A footpath connection alone would be an improvement.
• The development should take account of the setting of the listed barn.
• Two storey dwellings could be built on the extension of Henry Preston Road but it would be an opportunity to create a village green type space to compliment the school fields, help with the turning and parking of cars used by the parents of the school children, and provide amenity space that is lacking on the present estate.

Comment

Representation ID: 1980

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Water Management Alliance

See attachment for full response.
SN4079 – Land north of Church Road and west of Tasburgh School
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: 2018

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Environment Agency (Eastern Region)

Sites SN0412REV, SN4052, SN2065REV and SN4079 are located within 250 metres of an existing landfill that could result in the nearby community being exposed to impacts including odour, noise, dust and pests. The severity of these impacts will depend on the size of the landfill, the nature of the waste it takes and prevailing weather conditions.
Planning policy requirements (paragraph 182 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)) state that new development should integrate effectively with existing businesses and not place unreasonable restrictions upon them. Where the operation of an existing landfill could have significant adverse effects on new development (including changes of use), the applicant should be required to provide suitable mitigation for these effects. Mitigation can be provided through the design of the new development to minimise exposure to the neighbouring landfill and/or through financial contributions to the operator of the landfill to support measures that minimise impacts.
Environmental Permitting Regulations require operators to demonstrate that they have taken all reasonable precautions to mitigate impacts of their operations. This is unlikely to eliminate all emissions and there is likely to be residual impacts. In some cases, these residual impacts may cause local residents concern. There are limits to the measures that the operator can take to prevent impacts to residents. Consequently, it is important that planning decisions take full account of paragraph 182 of the NPPF. When a new development is built near to an existing landfill this does not automatically trigger a review of the permit.

Comment

Representation ID: 2057

Received: 21/07/2021

Respondent: Historic England

Please see attachments for full response.
Site: SN4079, Land north of Church Road and west of Tasburgh School
While there are no designated heritage assets within the site, the grade II listed Old Hall Farmhouse lies immediately to the north west of the site. In addition, the scheduled monument (a hillfort, known as ‘Camp in Village’, lies to the north of the site, which also includes the grade I listed Church of St Mary, and grade II listed war memorial and Rectory.
Therefore, any development of this site has the potential to impact upon the significance of these heritage assets. We are particularly concerned about the potential impacts on the Farmhouse, given its proximity. We do however appreciate this is seeking to increase the density of an existing allocation.
A heritage impact assessment of the site should be undertaken to assess the impact of the proposed development on the listed buildings and conservation area 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: 2110

Received: 14/07/2021

Respondent: Norfolk County Council - LLFA

SN4079
See attachment for full details.
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 - 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: Yes
* Within proximity to site (~100.00m): Yes
5.] Source Protection Zone?: No
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: 2225

Received: 28/09/2021

Respondent: Norfolk County Council - Senior Ecologist

Amber - measures required - priority habitat onsite or proximity to SSSI (recreational impact concerns) and or buffer required
Application to increase density of allocated site. Amber habitat zone for great crested newts. Site includes land identified as deciduous woodland (priority habitat (see MAGIC). Loss of priority habitat should be avoided - increase in density should avoid land identified as priority habitat. 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. (Southern field/hedge boundary forms parish boundary). Although site in SSSI IRZ, increasing density of dwellings would not trigger NE consultation.