QUESTION 1: Do you agree

Support

Representation ID: 34

Received: 08/06/2021

Respondent: Mrs julia Robathan

Having selected the village ourselves due to the reasons you state i appreciate and understand the growing need under the condition that it is done with sympathy to the village size/feel and not over populated for the school etc

Object

Representation ID: 93

Received: 16/06/2021

Respondent: Mrs Michelle Flynn

Have serious concerns with regards to access as central to the village by the local shop that already has delivery issues due to narrowness of Main Street. Why has land beside The Oaks not been considered to make them more of the village and would also solve the lack of footpath issues that gives major safety problems with risk to life?

Object

Representation ID: 204

Received: 27/06/2021

Respondent: Mr Oliver Clarke

Alpington and Yelverton can't cope with traffic going through the village as it is, the village has always had a problem with speeding cars already.

Comment

Representation ID: 220

Received: 24/06/2021

Respondent: Mr Philip Clarke

Perhaps you should further investigate the benefit of a new larger scale development area, and not spread so much through the villages; a proper arterial road link, scope to develop new service provisions, and reduce the commuting across the county. Is a new town viable? Where one might locate this is likely to be contentious, but such a choice might provide better rail access, and simpler implementation for modern living requirements.

Comment

Representation ID: 294

Received: 30/06/2021

Respondent: Mr Brian Falk

Objective 1 establishes an assessment based on housing need calculated plan-wide. There is no effort to tailor or explain housing allocation for and to the individual settlements. Why should Bressingham require an extra 52 (or is it 77) new dwellings? What impact and additional facilities will this impose on the village? Without justification or reason it fails to be planning and becomes just a scattering of housing across the countryside.
Objective 2 is ‘to support local services and facilities’ but not to encourage or create improvements. This should be extended to deal with the impact housing additions will have on settlement facilities and how to achieve the needed extra services, facilities and infrastructure.
There is no specific objective requiring quality design or ‘building beautiful’. Omission allows for swathes of builder standard house types, typical of those in Diss by Persimmon, unrelated to the settlement in look or layout. ‘Design Quality’ should be added to SNVCHA’s Objective 3 requirements of ‘scale, location and density’.

Object

Representation ID: 323

Received: 06/07/2021

Respondent: Brockdish & Thorpe Abbotts Parish Council

No. The Plan is not in conformity with the Greater Norwich Local Plan. The quantity of development is unnecessarily high. The distribution of development is unsustainable and there is no reasoned justification for the Cluster Plan. There are no policies or measures which will ensure that those most in housing need will have access to the houses built. There is little point in tinkering with the objectives of this Plan - the whole concept is wrong.

Comment

Representation ID: 403

Received: 14/07/2021

Respondent: Stuart Carruthers

Acts of institutional corruption of the South Norfolk Planning function needs to be corrected.

Allocations for accommodation for boat dwellers and caravan dwellers (not just dogs that have a 100% success rate in obtaining planning consent) needs to be identified at Parish level. The Council's ANA is deeply flawed.

Object

Representation ID: 480

Received: 06/07/2021

Respondent: Mr David Brackenbury

I note we have been asked to comment on the "South Norfolk Village Cluster Housing Allocation Plan" but I fail to see how this can be classed as a "Plan".
I keep reading these kind of documents from various councils, all prepared with the help of expensive consultants, but they never tackle the real questions that effect the people who will have to live with the consequences.
There are various comments about the need for foot paths, public transport. utilities, Doctors, Dentists, Schools, etc., etc., recognizing there should be a need to discuss these matters, but as usual there are no definite proposals.
It must be possible for planners, consultants and councilors to realize that before anyone can give a considered response to any proposals there need to be definite plans explaining when the necessary services would be provided and completed before any extra housing as started.
Anything other than this is once again causing insult to the public who are being asked to comment and also causing immediate negative reaction.
I would suggest these documents are withdrawn until they have been prepared properly and there complete definite proposals are in place to comment on.

Object

Representation ID: 516

Received: 21/07/2021

Respondent: CPRE Norfolk

See attachment for full response.
Housing need for Greater Norwich is 40,541 with necessary buffer of 5%, giving total of 42,568. GNLP figure of 49,492 new dwellings to 2038 including buffer of 22% is therefore unnecessarily high.
GNLP forecast that ‘windfall delivery is likely to remain robustly high.’ Therefore no need to allocate new sites in the SNVCHAP.

Very little evidence that new housing estates on the edges of villages will bring boost to local services. Rather they will over-burden these services, leading to more car and delivery vehicle journeys, with residents travelling farther to access services.

Best way to protect character is to have no new allocations in these settlements, other than windfalls and those sites already allocated through JCS.

Comment

Representation ID: 522

Received: 21/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Dave Loader

In general I think the principles laid out are sound. However i do think more emphasis needs to be put on the environment and on investment in services and infrastructure. I live in Wreningham and therefore my comments primarily relate to here. Drainage and flooding need to be a primary consideration. Also although the village has a school many of the classrooms are temporary and old. Further investment is necessary to meet the objectives of sustainability. Also any development must recognise that there are no other significant amenities in the village and that any new housing will require new residents to have there own transport as there is next to no public transport.

Comment

Representation ID: 619

Received: 25/07/2021

Respondent: Ms Susan Stacey

Housing need under the GNLP is too high. In the VCHAP the 1,200 should be a maximum not a minimum as there’s likely to be a higher number of windfall housing coming through. It is better to have organic growth in small villages such as through smaller sites.
New housing estates unlikely to boost local services as likely to put increased pressure on services and existing infrastructure. Also there’s likely to be an increase in vehicle journeys for secondary schools, medical needs, main shopping and employment with consequent impact on climate change.

Object

Representation ID: 623

Received: 25/07/2021

Respondent: Ms Kathleen Hinchley

A summary of 100 words or less would be meaningless for such weighty and important topics. and therefore expect our full consultation response submitted by email attachment to lp@s-norfolk.gov.uk and via the consultation portal to be read and fed into the consultation for this consultation exercise to be considered valid.

Comment

Representation ID: 784

Received: 29/07/2021

Respondent: Barford & Wramplingham Parish Council

NO. WE DO NOT AGREE WITH THE CONCEPT OF A VILLAGE CLIUSTER PLAN. The Plan is not in conformity with the Greater Norwich Local Plan. The quantity of development is unnecessarily high. The distribution of development is unsustainable and there is no reasoned justification for the Cluster Plan. There are no policies or measures which will ensure that those most in housing need will have access to the houses built.

There is little point in tinkering with the objectives of this Plan - the whole concept is wrong.

Comment

Representation ID: 785

Received: 29/07/2021

Respondent: Barford & Wramplingham Parish Council

Barford & Wramplingham Parish Council considers the Village Cluster approach to housing distribution proposed for inclusion in the GNLP to be neither necessary nor desirable. It is unnecessary because the housing need requirement, together with a reasonable buffer (5%), can be met without the need to disperse development in this way. It is undesirable because the additional dispersal of housing that will be generated via village clusters will cause an unnecessary loss of countryside and be more environmentally damaging than an approach in which development is concentrated in and near to Norwich.

Comment

Representation ID: 809

Received: 29/07/2021

Respondent: JCPC Ltd

Broadly agree, but SNVC Objective 1 should be fully consistent with Policy 7.5 of the GNLP

Comment

Representation ID: 814

Received: 29/07/2021

Respondent: Thurlton Parish Council

Whilst Thurlton Parish Council agree with the principles of the Core Objectives, the preferred sites do not appear to match up to these ideals. Many sites are seeing housing density proposals (ours included) which would undermine objectives 2 & 3.
Objective 1 talks about supporting “Self-Build”, generally within existing settlement boundaries, which is a far more sustainable and long term benefit to the community, as the developer has a vested interest in the protection of the local area and environment.

Object

Representation ID: 843

Received: 29/07/2021

Respondent: Mrs Joanne Hart

I object to any further development in Little Melton that exceeds the 10-20 dwellings in the 2022 plan. We need to protect the character of the village and it's setting and the proposals are too high in density SNVL objective 3 with queries around highway safety, loss of visual amenity and servicing constraints with the gp surgery already oversubscribed. It is virtually impossible to obtain an appointment already.

Local walks have been of great benefit to the health of villagers especially during the pandemic and it would be very detrimental if this wellbeing benefit is eroded.

The two sites are in the land protection zone and have previously been protected from development. I concur with the parish council that if approved this sets an unwelcome precedent.

Development generates an increase in traffic adding to pollution and will result in loss of hedgerows and trees.

This does not contribute to the UK target of reducing net zero carbon emissions and does not adhere to the Biodiversity action plan which protects the harvest mouse, foraging bats and roosting birds all of which are found in the village.

The noise and disturbance must be taken into consideration and we must protect the strategic gap between Hethersett and Little Melton.

Object

Representation ID: 887

Received: 30/07/2021

Respondent: Bressingham and Fersfield Parish Council

Plan does not meet Objective_1
Greater Norwich’ housing need to 2038: 42568 including buffer. GNLP’s 49,492 new dwellings including buffer is excessive.
GNLP forecasts 4,450 “windfall” dwellings, but only counts 1,296.
Conclusion: Sites allocated in the Plan are not needed.

Bressingham proposals do not meet Objective_2.
Three new estates will double the village’ population. The primary school is full, cannot accommodate expansion. Bressingham has no public transport.

Bressingham proposals do not meet Objective_3
Bressingham’s community consists of dwellings along narrow streets, no estates. Infrastructure cannot cope with increased through traffic. Building estates is not organic growth and will destroy it.

Support

Representation ID: 938

Received: 30/07/2021

Respondent: Bunwell Parish Council

The principles and objectives of Cluster villages are understood and agreed for sites of 0.5 hectares or more. However, the same objectives should not be applied to all building applications of a lesser area. Bunwell is of linear form with ‘dispersed groups of dwellings’ some of which exceed the required distance to the school and services. With the significant increase in electric vehicles during 2021 – 2038 and reducing carbon fuel vehicle numbers, local trips to school etc by car should be of reducing concern and allow a wider spread of housing to suit a range of occupiers.

Support

Representation ID: 960

Received: 30/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Phil Gledhill

With the significant increase in electric vehicles I question why Cluster Village development is still being concentrated, as it is, around primary schools and services. In future more people will be working from home and might prefer to live in more remote areas of a village which can help wellbeing and maintain a better village balance.

Outlying single and small number housing applications are now being rejected because they are not within a specified distance from the school or services. This is ridiculous given not every household has young school children and weekly shops are generally in main centres.

Comment

Representation ID: 1045

Received: 31/07/2021

Respondent: Ms Susan Stacey

The number of houses proposed seems high and not enough credit has given to windfall sites or existing housing allocated sites in many of these settlements in the JCS.
New housing estates are unlikely to provide a boost to local services but more likely to put a strain on them. In addition they are likely to lead to increased vehicular journeys to access services not provided locally with consequent impact on climate change.
Many of the proposed sites a on the edge of settlements in land designated open countryside and the scale of some is out of proportion.

Comment

Representation ID: 1116

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Little Melton Parish Council

LMPC broadly agrees with the Objectives but does not agree that the current process has met the aims described in Objective 1. LMPC was expecting the VCHAP process to provide an opportunity for local people to comment on possible changes to the settlement boundary.

Support

Representation ID: 1221

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Dr Stephen Absalom

Agree with the objectives but:
Developers have been allowed to set the agenda by submitting their proposals before consultation. Objective 1 should be changed to ensure local requirements are determined before developers proposals are considered.
Village communities will not be protected if Developers set the agenda. Objective 2 should require local consultation on what is sustainable in each cluster.
The character of villages must be protected, this will not happen if Developers are allowed to pursue plans unrelated to any local concerns. Objective 3 should be changed to ensure any development proposal is in response to locally determined plans.

Object

Representation ID: 1222

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Ms Tamsin Watt

I understand the need for provision of additional sustainable housing developments to support rural communities and services. However, I do not agree that the core objectives of the plan are sufficient. Truly sustainable development should have a greater consideration of climate change, future proofing new homes for future generations and loss of greenfield sites. Environmental impacts including loss of amenity, impacts to protected sites and features and impacts to landscape character should also be given greater consideration. While these are cited as criteria within the allocations assessment, they are given little weight in any of the conclusions drawn.

Object

Representation ID: 1227

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Gareth Ward

Inevitable increased road safety and pedestrian safety risk posed by proposed new dwellings particularly on Wheel Road site. Existing road infrastructure is already inadequate and couldn’t safely cope with additional traffic burden.

Object

Representation ID: 1241

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Sid Anverali

I understand the need for provision of additional sustainable housing developments to support rural communities and services . However, I do not agree that the core objectives of the plan are sufficient. Truly sustainable development should have a greater consideration of climate change, future proofing new homes for future generations and loss of greenfield sites. Environmental impacts including loss of amenity, impacts to protected sites and features and impacts to landscape character should also be given greater consideration. While these are cited as criteria within the allocations assessment, they are given little weight in any of the conclusions drawn.

Object

Representation ID: 1255

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Professor Keith Waldron

I fully support the comments of Barford and Wramplingham Parish Council, and those of CPRE.
1) The target of “at least 1200 dwellings” is not a sustainable approach for the Cluster Plan. It also fails to take into account the contribution of windfall sites.
2) The GNLP requires 42568 new dwellings including a 5% buffer. There is no justification in seeking 49492 dwellings which is some 20% above recent high building rates.
3) Putting houses on the edges of villages will just stretch current services, and increase car journeys.
4) Farm land should be kept for future food production.

Object

Representation ID: 1349

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Bressingham and Fersfield Parish Council

Plan does not meet Objective_1
Greater Norwich’ housing need to 2038: 42568 including buffer. GNLP’s 49,492 new dwellings including buffer is excessive.
GNLP forecasts 4,450 “windfall” dwellings, but only counts 1,296.
Conclusion: Sites allocated in the Plan are not needed.

Bressingham proposals do not meet Objective_2.
Three new estates will double the village’s population. The primary school is full, cannot accommodate expansion. Bressingham has no public transport.

Bressingham proposals do not meet Objective_3
Bressingham’s community consists of dwellings along narrow streets, no estates. Infrastructure cannot cope with increased through traffic. Building estates is not organic growth and will destroy it.

Object

Representation ID: 1352

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Bressingham and Fersfield Parish Council

Plan conflicts with its own Objective_1
Greater_Norwich’ housing need to 2038: 42568 including buffer. GNLP’s 49,492 new dwellings including buffer is excessive.
GNLP forecasts 4,450 “windfall” dwellings, but only counts 1,296.
Conclusion: Sites allocated in the Plan are not needed.

Bressingham proposals do not meet Objective_2.
Three new estates will double the village’ population. The primary school is full, cannot accommodate expansion. Bressingham has no public transport.

Bressingham proposals do not meet Objective_3
Bressingham’s community consists of dwellings along narrow streets, no estates. Infrastructure cannot cope with increased through traffic. Building estates is not organic growth and will destroy it.

Support

Representation ID: 1355

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Mr J Collen

Agent: Wilson Wraight LLP

We support the three objectives for the Village Clusters Plan which will assist with the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the three sustainability objectives of the NPPF as set out in Paragraph 8.

Overall, the three Objectives for the Village Clusters Plan will assist the Council with meeting the national policy objectives set out in the NPPF by providing much needed new housing which will contribute towards maintaining a supply of deliverable sites and protect village communities whilst supporting rural services and facilities.