QUESTION 2: Do you agree

Comment

Representation ID: 1674

Received: 31/07/2021

Respondent: Mulbarton Parish Council

Policy SNVC1 – Standard requirements
There should be a policy on Standard Requirements, but the proposed criteria should be extended to include:
• A requirement to obtain and publish a statement from the local education authority detailing available capacity in the primary and secondary school catchment area.
• A requirement to obtain and publish a statement from the local health authority detailing available capacity for health and dental care in terms of patients per GP, etc. with a comparison against national standards, guidelines and benchmarks.
• A requirement for the developer to produce and publish an environmental impact statement, however brief, describing the effect of additional journeys to work, etc.
The use of vague and undefined terms such as: “proportionate”, “minimising the impact” and
“landscaping consistent with” should be changed to include a requirement to consult with the local community as to what is proportionate or acceptable.
The phrase “minimising the impact on the amenity of local residents” should be changed to
“enhancing the amenity of local residents, subject to the approval of the local community”.
In this context, we support the broad comments made by CPRE Norfolk and the South Norfolk Green Party, to the effect that further house-building in rural villages should be on an exceptional basis, and subject to a maximum limit, and not a minimum of 1,200 units.

Object

Representation ID: 1753

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Hempnall Parish Council

Hempnall Parish Council does not support the Village Clusters approach. It is misguided and damaging because it involves dispersing an unnecessary level of development into villages with very negative consequences for climate and landscape. Pursuing such a policy would result in significant loss of countryside and green spaces.
Furthermore we consider that the VCHAP is unnecessary because the Total Housing Potential suggested for the GNLP is too high (49,492) and if it were reduced to the level required to address local housing need, as assessed by the standard method i.e. 40,541 dwellings, then allocations in village clusters would not be needed.
Please see the attached representation for full response.

Support

Representation ID: 1768

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Little Melton Parish Council

LMPC 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: 1775

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Edward Gosling

Yes, but again with some reservation:
1) There would seem to be an assumption here that the number of dwellings in any proposed development would exceed twelve, but, suggested specific requirements include “Minimising the impact on the amenity of existing residents.” Again I believe more consideration should be given to smaller scale of less than 12 properties in developments and even the encouragement of building individual properties where appropriate (all counting towards the 1200 dwelling requirement). While I appreciate building 12 or more properties on a single site gives economy of scale, Larger developments may easily act counter to protecting the character of the village and its setting

Comment

Representation ID: 2023

Received: 21/07/2021

Respondent: Historic England

Please see attachments for full response.
We support the principle of a standard policy to avoid un-necessary repetition in policies.
However, there is currently no mention of the historic environment in this policy.
We suggest that there should be a criterion to reference the historic environment.
Include criterion for the historic environment to read
Development should conserve/sustain or where appropriate enhance the significance of designated and non-designated heritage assets both on-site and in the surrounding area. This includes any contribution made to its significance by its setting.

Support

Representation ID: 2150

Received: 14/07/2021

Respondent: Norfolk County Council - Strategic Planning Team

Please see attachment for full response.
Response to Question 2 - Policy SNVC 1 (Standard Requirements) – Support the need for a Standard Policy covering over-arching requirements to ensure specific infrastructure constraints are addressed. The policy and/or supporting text would need to indicate clearly:
(a) those infrastructure types and services which potentially may need enhancing to support the proposed housing growth (e.g. local schools; library service etc); and
(b) indicate the appropriate funding / /delivery mechanisms, for example, use of community infrastructure funds; planning obligations; or planning condition.

Comment

Representation ID: 2158

Received: 14/07/2021

Respondent: Norfolk County Council - LLFA

The Policy SNVC1 - Standard Requirements confirms the need to acknowledge the existing and typical requirements for developments, however at present the current policy is limited in its provision and even indicates that specifics requirements are potentially optional. With this in mind, we question whether appropriate consideration to supporting policies (such as Flood Risk and Water Management policies) have been given due consideration and representation by the proposed VCHAP.
The Greater Norwich Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Level 2 has not considered the effects of the VCHAP sites within the assessment or it’s Cumulative Impact Assessment relating to flood risk. As the VCHAP considers the allocation of approximately 1200 homes, an appropriate level of consideration to the strategic flood risk would be reasonable to be consider both within the plan and its supporting evidence base. At present this consideration has not been observed.

Given the recent flooding events in South Norfolk during August 2020 and Christmas 2020, better consideration of flood risk and its management should be included in the housing allocation process and the supporting documentation (such as the Level 2 GNSFRA) should be adjusted to reflect the proposed VCHAP.
The LLFA would request that the VCHAP policies requires that any future development (or re-development) proposals show there is no increased risk of flooding from an existing flood source and mitigation measures are implemented to address surface water arising within the development site.

Comment

Representation ID: 2186

Received: 28/09/2021

Respondent: Norfolk County Council Childrens Services

Since the production of the RAG assessment in March 2019 the annual intake at primary schools in the area has dropped sharply and many schools are now down to a half form entry (15 pupils/year) or less, which can be difficult to sustain. This change in position is attributed to a combination of lower birth rates and parental choice. On this basis a modest level of growth could prove to be beneficial to a number of schools within the District. New primary schools at Hethersett, Trowse and Wymondham College have eased the pressure on a number of schools that previously took overflow pupils from these areas. A further new primary school is currently timetabled for delivery at South Wymondham in 2024. A new primary school in Poringland is still a possibility if a site can be identified, although there is also now the potential to expand Trowse Primary School as an alternative option. The high costs of extending schools means this is only an option if significant development is proposed, rather if a school is operating at capacity, which can be managed through a combination of parental choice and alternative schools as many children now attend schools out of their catchment areas. Reference to a school being landlocked (or otherwise) reflects the existence of green space or the presence of existing development adjacent to the school rather than a future intention to expand the school. Some existing planning commitments will already have been taken into account in the pupil forecasting, however this usually only includes commitments with full planning permission at March 2019.