QUESTION 2: Do you agree

Support

Representation ID: 35

Received: 08/06/2021

Respondent: Mrs julia Robathan

Please add consideration for Sport Englands principles of Active Design including walkable routes and cycle paths, access to co location of facilities as a means to go above and beyong to support the health and wellbeing of residents in the natural village environment.

Support

Representation ID: 50

Received: 09/06/2021

Respondent: Niall Cook

I support the inclusion of a policy on 'standard requirements' but I think that the criteria need to take into account the variations in access and sustainable transport solutions between clusters, in line with NPPF paragraph 103, and should therefore not be so prescriptive as to automatically exclude sites in clusters which are inherently more 'rural' than others.

Comment

Representation ID: 216

Received: 24/06/2021

Respondent: Mr Philip Clarke

The roadways provided for these housing sites are often “unadopted” which leads to problems in maintenance, and equitable cost allocation. These may often be narrow, and may inhibit access of service vehicles, whether refuse, emergency, or even household services.
Being “village” properties, are these locations going to be placed where footpaths exist or will these be included in the builder’s provision (cost responsibility)?
Some of our local roads have difficult junctions and narrow pinch points which will be aggravated by additional volume of housing, and increased commuting. Increased Infrastructure costs may be necessary outside the new patches. We hope that future/ probable traffic volumes will be reviewed within this consultation. Several roads accessing the Loddon to Norwich road have access issues.

Support

Representation ID: 238

Received: 30/06/2021

Respondent: Mrs Dawn Turnbull

I agree that they are appropriate but should take into consideration people's access to safe, unspoilt natural surroundings, as well as access to good facilities, doctors, dentists, leisure/sports facilities, transport. I do NOT agree to the current Village Clusters Plan.

Object

Representation ID: 324

Received: 06/07/2021

Respondent: Brockdish & Thorpe Abbotts Parish Council

We do not agree with the concept of a Village Cluster Plan. If there is to be a Village Cluster Plan then of course there should be a set of standard requirements to include reference to Conservation Areas, Flooding and Drainage Capacity, Availability of Services & Facilities. Access and Public Transport. We would assume these requirements to be a pre-requisite of any development.

Comment

Representation ID: 334

Received: 05/07/2021

Respondent: Norfolk Gardens Trust

We have reviewed the proposed site allocations in the 48 village clusters and mapped them against both registered parks and gardens and other non-designated heritage assets of which we are aware.
We have no objections to raise regarding the proposed sites. However, as you will be considering further sites as part of this consultation process, we would like to propose the addition of a policy that is a standard requirement “to avoid harm to the character and setting of heritage assets, including designated and non-designated parks and gardens.”
We look forward to responding to any further consultation as the South Norfolk VCHAP progresses.

Comment

Representation ID: 404

Received: 14/07/2021

Respondent: Stuart Carruthers

There should be a standard requirement for each parish to make provision for alternative accommodation (caravans and/or boats)

Comment

Representation ID: 517

Received: 21/07/2021

Respondent: CPRE Norfolk

CPRE Norfolk does not agree there is a need for a Village Clusters Plan for the reasons stated in Q1. If, despite this, the Village Clusters Plan goes ahead it should include the suggested criteria. In addition, reference to adopted Neighbourhood Plans and Conservation Areas should be explicit, along with the need for supporting surveys and studies to be clarified. These should include a heritage assessment in line with NPPF para. 189 when any heritage asset, including the contribution made by their setting, could be affected by development.

Comment

Representation ID: 523

Received: 21/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Dave Loader

i think that certain actions should be taken regardless of the location of the development. These are road enhancments to improve access and safety , pedestian access ( upgrade some paths to all weagther surfaces, use permitted paths to provide safer pedestrian access at pinch points in the road system), and look to provide subsidised public transport .

Comment

Representation ID: 786

Received: 29/07/2021

Respondent: Barford & Wramplingham Parish Council

NO. WE DO NOT AGREE WITH THE CONCEPT OF A VILLAGE CLUSTER PLAN . There should already be in place a set of standard requirements to include reference to Conservation areas, Flooding and Drainage and Sewage capacity, availability of services and facilities, Access and Public transport.
In addition, reference to adopted Neighbourhood Plans and Conservation Areas should be explicit, along with the need for supporting surveys and studies to be clarified. These should include a heritage assessment when any heritage asset, including the contribution made by their setting, could be affected by development.

Support

Representation ID: 810

Received: 29/07/2021

Respondent: JCPC Ltd

Agree with ‘standard requirements’ and the criteria set out

Object

Representation ID: 815

Received: 29/07/2021

Respondent: Thurlton Parish Council

Thurlton Parish Council do not agree with the concept of a Village Cluster Plan. Each village is a small environment and each needs to be considered in its own rights, applying “one size fits all” policies on developments will inevitably lead to poor design, not in keeping with the existing form of those villages.
Every application needs to consider Conservation Areas, Local Wildlife/Ecology, Flooding and Drainage Capacity, availability of Services & Facilities (including access to GP’s and Dental surgeries) , Access and Public Transport as a matter of course.

Object

Representation ID: 888

Received: 30/07/2021

Respondent: Bressingham and Fersfield Parish Council

Representing the stated views of Bressingham & Fersfield’s parishioners, we do not agree that there is a need for a Village Clusters Plan and we oppose the sites proposed for Bressingham.

If the plan goes ahead despite this, additional criteria should be added:
- Leisure facilities exist already for the existing community and can be extended for the new homes.
- Schools and public services can be extended to meet additional needs.
- Public transport supports the existing community and can be extended to new houses.
- New developments must not affect the existing community, its lifestyle or its infrastructure.

Comment

Representation ID: 915

Received: 30/07/2021

Respondent: NHS Norfolk and Waveney Integrated Care System

While the VCHAP will see allocation sites of between 1 and 50 dwellings, from a health infrastructure perspective, this needs to be seen in the context of the overall pressures in terms of demand on general practice for new patient registrations, as well as the wider NHS healthcare services and other local partners.

Support

Representation ID: 939

Received: 30/07/2021

Respondent: Bunwell Parish Council

It is agreed that there should be a policy on ‘Standard requirements’. However, the levels of suggested density of 25 dwellings per hectare may clash with some of these good intentions such as landscaping, impact on amenity and provision of open spaces. This therefore requires appropriate wording within stated policies to allow a bespoke approach, depending upon individual village housing and landscape.

Support

Representation ID: 962

Received: 30/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Phil Gledhill

The standard of estate housing continues to be poor, undermined by maximising profit. Houses are very boxy and the exterior design and finish are rarely in keeping with the local housing form. Why is there still so much cladding for example - hideous. More landscaping by way of trees and verges should be encouraged and a serious attempt made to better understand house design appropriate to Norfolk village standards.

Comment

Representation ID: 1041

Received: 31/07/2021

Respondent: Ms Susan Stacey

If the Plan goes ahead it should include the suggested criteria and in addition should explicitly include references to any adopted Neighbourhood Plan and Conservation Areas, along with clarification of supporting surveys, studies and heritage assessments of any heritage asset including the contribution made by their setting which could be affected by development.

Support

Representation ID: 1117

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Little Melton Parish Council

Little Melton PC agrees with the policy on Standard Requirements and notes the policies for -
-Minimising impact on amenity of existing residents
-landscaping consistent with a rural, edge of village location

Comment

Representation ID: 1223

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Ms Tamsin Watt

I agree that the Village Clusters Plan should include a policy on standard requirements to ensure any developments are in line with core policies. This should also ensure that any development has consideration for protecting amenity and landscape areas, removing impacts on protected sites and features while ensuring a standard of developments are maintained.
To ensure truly sustainable development, environmental factors should be considered alongside social factors with criteria defined that consider distances to protected sites and features and direct line of sight to footpaths and landscape character areas.

Support

Representation ID: 1224

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Dr Stephen Absalom

Any development must meet Specific requirements but:
A specific requirement should be included to minimise the impact on the Heritage value of the location.
The requirements must specify who will determine if the standards have been met, eg. Who will determine if the impact on the amenity of existing residents has been compromised? Clearly the developer cannot do this, and local opinion is important.

Comment

Representation ID: 1242

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Sid Anverali

I agree that the Village Clusters Plan should include a policy on standard requirements to ensure any developments are in line with core policies. This should also ensure that any development has consideration for protecting amenity and landscape areas, removing impacts on protected sites and features while ensuring a standard of developments are maintained.
To ensure truly sustainable development, environmental factors should be considered alongside social factors with criteria defined that consider distances to protected sites and features and direct line of sight to footpaths and landscape character areas.

Comment

Representation ID: 1257

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Professor Keith Waldron

I do not agree with the Village Cluster Plan concept.
I fully support the comments of Barford and Wramplingham Parish Council, and those of CPRE.
In Barford, the sewage system is unable to cope with the current number of houses and pollution of residents’ gardens is a regular occurrence. Additional poorly located homes will add to the problem and create more misery and despair to current residents. A standard requirement should be that additional houses do not exacerbate such problems.

Support

Representation ID: 1357

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Mr J Collen

Agent: Wilson Wraight LLP

We support the inclusion of a policy on 'standard requirements' and believe the criteria suggested are appropriate.

Support

Representation ID: 1362

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: M. Gaze & Co Ltd

Agent: Wilson Wraight LLP

We support the inclusion of a policy on 'standard requirements' and believe the criteria suggested are appropriate.

Comment

Representation ID: 1444

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Lanpro Services Ltd

The principle of having ‘standard requirements’ is a sensible approach and avoids repetition within the site specific policies of the draft plan. However, in this instance we consider them unnecessary and in the case of some of the requirements, inappropriate. We suggest that Policy SNVC1 be deleted and any specific requirements be included within the policy wording of individual allocations.

Comment

Representation ID: 1452

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Glavenhill Limited

Agent: Lanpro Services Ltd

The principle of having ‘standard requirements’ is a sensible approach and avoids repetition within the site specific policies of the draft plan. However, in this instance Glavenhill consider them unnecessary and in the case of some of the requirements, inappropriate. Glavenhill suggest that Policy SNVC1 be deleted and any specific requirements be included within the policy wording of individual allocations.

Object

Representation ID: 1478

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Silverley Properties Ltd

Agent: Turley

In response to questions 2 – 4 concerning these new policies, Silverley are of the view that the suggested areas that these policies would cover (standard requirements, Design and Housing Mix) are addressed via the documents comprising the adopted Development Plan. Where the Development Plan is silent on these matters, then one would revert to the NPPF on such matters.

As such, Silverley are of the view that the inclusion of such policies would be repetitive and would cause more complexity to those preparing applications for the site allocations and for the decision-maker.

Comment

Representation ID: 1582

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Orbit Homes

Agent: Armstrong Rigg Planning

See attached letter for full response.
Support the principle but care needs to be taken to ensure that these requirements don’t simply repeat and contradict policies n the GNLP and Development Management Policies.
- 'minimising the impact on the amenity of existing residents': this repeats existing requirements set out in Policy DM 3.13 Amenity, noise and quality of life, and should be deleted.
- 'landscaping consistent with a rural, edge of village location, taking into account the South Norfolk Landscape Character Assessments': this repeats Policy DM 4.5 Landscape Character and River Valleys.
- 'provision of open space on sites of 15+ dwellings': this repeats Policy DM3.15: Outdoor play facilities and recreational open space and the Guidelines for Recreation Provision in New Residential Developments SPD.

Comment

Representation ID: 1631

Received: 29/07/2021

Respondent: Ms Eileen Fife

Re Question 2 - Villages differ in many ways as S. Norfolk is aware. They need individual consideration.

Comment

Representation ID: 1637

Received: 30/07/2021

Respondent: Hopkins Homes Limited

In response to Question 2, Hopkins Homes would suggest that all of the suggested criteria would effectively apply to any development proposals put forward within the District, and hence are all already addressed via the existing Development Management Policies proposed to be retained as part of the new Local Plan. As such, there is no need to seek to repeat their various requirements within this Village Clusters Plan.