QUESTION 3: Do you agree

Support

Representation ID: 239

Received: 30/06/2021

Respondent: Mrs Dawn Turnbull

I think the design and build of many new properties is quite poor. Small gardens, thin walls, tightly packed, little privacy, little in the way of environmentally friendly technology is disappointing. Developments tend to be for maximum profit, minimum effort.

Object

Representation ID: 325

Received: 06/07/2021

Respondent: Brockdish & Thorpe Abbotts Parish Council

We do not agree with the concept of a Village Cluster Plan. If such a Plan is produced there should be no need for a separate policy on design. There should already be a sound development control process, wherever development takes place. This should ensure that it meets the essential criteria of being of good design, to be in keeping with the local scale and character and of sustainable construction.

Comment

Representation ID: 518

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 a Design Policy should include the stated points, and also include further requirements to meet the highest possible standards of design to help address Climate Change.

Comment

Representation ID: 787

Received: 29/07/2021

Respondent: Barford & Wramplingham Parish Council

NO. WE DO NOT AGREE WITH THE CONCEPT OF A VILLAGE CLIUSTER PLAN for the reasons stated above. If, despite this, the Village Clusters Plan goes ahead a Design Policy should include the stated points, and also include further requirements to meet the highest possible standards of design to help address Climate Change, to be in keeping with the local scale and character and of sustainable construction. Consideration should be given to the capture and recycling of run off water.

Support

Representation ID: 811

Received: 29/07/2021

Respondent: JCPC Ltd

Agree, criteria are appropriate, subject to the phraseology being linked to the emphasis placed on good design in the National Planning Policy Framework (2021).

Object

Representation ID: 816

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. Many sites are seeing housing density proposals (ours included) which will lead to poor design through overcrowding to maximise developer profits.

Comment

Representation ID: 889

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, the design policy should be revised to ensure that design of any new developments adheres to the design and layout of the existing settlement.

Support

Representation ID: 940

Received: 30/07/2021

Respondent: Bunwell Parish Council

Yes we agree. Unfortunately recent site developments are including new houses which do not match the village general housing design form which has been followed for decades. Wood/plastic cladding is more widespread on unattractive new houses and often clashes with existing redbrick houses etc. Some Victorian house extensions are clad for economy. Quality in design and build must be addressed to improve standards.

Support

Representation ID: 963

Received: 30/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Phil Gledhill

As mentioned in previous response, new house design is boxy and generally dire compared with what it could be. I am not optimistic re change given developers appear to be well in control and build houses to maximise profits. There needs to be a radical change and for Gov Ministers to distance themselves from the big developers who appear to influence national standards to suit themselves. I am pleased that local small builders will be given more opportunity to build Cluster developments but caution must be exercised with self build to confine them to small numbers away from village centres.

Comment

Representation ID: 1044

Received: 31/07/2021

Respondent: Ms Susan Stacey

If the Plan goes ahead. Design policy should include the stated points and also include further requirements to meet the highest possible standards of design to help address Climate Change.

Support

Representation ID: 1120

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Little Melton Parish Council

Little Melton PC agrees that there should be a policy for design and that developments on the edge of villages should be appropriate for the locality. Three of the recent developments have not made adequate provision for parking and this has led to cars being parked on nearby roads and pavements.. There is poor public transport in LM and most houses have at least two cars.

Support

Representation ID: 1225

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Dr Stephen Absalom

Good design is critical in any development.
A serious omission is any mention of sustainable building methods to tackle climate change, or designs which mitigate the effects of severe climate events such as sustained severe heat or flooding on residents.

Object

Representation ID: 1259

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.
If this village cluster plan goes ahead, then at the least, and as should be the case in ALL NEW DEVELOPMENTS, housing should be designed to the highest standards of sustainability, and in character with surrounding houses (including height and appearance), minimising the use of high carbon footprint building materials, maximising use of solar panels and insulation and ground/air source heating, and water conservation.

Comment

Representation ID: 1350

Received: 02/08/2021

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, the design policy should be revised to ensure that design, style and layout of any new developments blend with the existing settlement, which consists of dwellings alongside narrow roads.

Support

Representation ID: 1358

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Mr J Collen

Agent: Wilson Wraight LLP

We agree that achieving a high quality of design will be paramount and support the application of the criteria suggested.

Support

Representation ID: 1363

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: M. Gaze & Co Ltd

Agent: Wilson Wraight LLP

We agree that achieving a high quality of design will be paramount and support the application of the criteria suggested.

Comment

Representation ID: 1445

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Lanpro Services Ltd

It is Lanpro’s view that a policy on ‘design’ is not required. Question 3 highlights the local design documents that are already in place to ensure the high-quality design of developments and as such, any design policy would be considered duplication. It is respectively requested that the draft plan be amended to refer developers / applicants to the relevant design guidance.

Comment

Representation ID: 1453

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Glavenhill Limited

Agent: Lanpro Services Ltd

It is Glavenhill’s view that a policy on ‘design’ is not required. Question 3 highlights the local design documents that are already in place to ensure the high-quality design of developments and as such, any design policy would be considered duplication. It is respectively requested that the draft plan be amended to refer developers / applicants to the relevant design guidance.

Object

Representation ID: 1479

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.

Object

Representation ID: 1484

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Hales & Heckingham Parish Council

Hales & Heckingham Parish Council do not agree with the objectives of the Village Cluster Plan. If, despite this, the Village Clusters Plan goes ahead it should include a policy on Design demanding the highest possible levels of sustainable development so that houses are not built unless they include high levels of insulation and power generation.

Object

Representation ID: 1584

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Orbit Homes

Agent: Armstrong Rigg Planning

See attached letter for full response.
The new NPPF includes key changes with respect to how design policies and guidance are provided at a local level. At paragraph 128 it requires all local planning authorities to prepare design guides or codes consistent with the principles set out in the National Design Guide and National Model Design Code, and which reflect local character and design preferences. In this context, we object to the inclusion of a policy on design in the VCHAP as it would fail to provide the level of detailed guidance now required by the NPPF.
Further, the criteria currently proposed only serve to repeat other more detailed policies in other existing plans
and guidance document, such that the proposed Policy SNVC2 – Design is unnecessary.

Comment

Representation ID: 1638

Received: 30/07/2021

Respondent: Hopkins Homes Limited

In response to Question 3, in a similar vein to our response to Question 2, given the acknowledgement that the Development Management Policies DPD already seeks to address matters of ‘Design’, coupled with the recent plethora of design ‘guidance’ produced at a national level, it appears wholly unnecessary to try and produce any further design-based Policy within this Village Clusters Plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 1675

Received: 31/07/2021

Respondent: Mulbarton Parish Council

Policy SNVC2 – Design
Comment: Yes, there should be a policy on Design, but it is highly likely that the specific design requirements of each site will be quite different. The policy should make this clear.
“Encourage good quality design” – who decides this and what is the definition of good quality design? Experience shows that general encouragement cannot be relied upon.
The draft GNLP states the need for a “radical shift away from the use of private car, with many people walking, cycling or using clean public transport”. As this is unlikely to happen before new homes are built then plans need to assume at least two cars per dwelling and the need to specify that all parking is off road.
The phrase “massing for the locality” is obscure, and should be replaced by plain English.

Object

Representation ID: 1754

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: 1769

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Little Melton Parish Council

LMPC agrees that there should be a policy for design and that developments on the edge of villages should be
appropriate for the locality. Three of the recent developments have not made adequate provision for parking
and this has led to cars being parked on nearby roads and pavements.. There is poor public transport in LM
and most houses have at least two cars.

Comment

Representation ID: 1776

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Edward Gosling

Yes, I agree, but I don’t think this goes quite far enough:

1) I believe the development should particularly take into account adjacent &/or surrounding properties, not only from the point of view of design, density, layout etc. but also from the point of view of integration and accessibility. If possible existing residents should feel that any development has enhanced their own amenity.

Comment

Representation ID: 1820

Received: 16/07/2021

Respondent: Broads Authority

Policy SNVC2 – Design
• ‘However, the many of these Preferred sites’
• Not just the SNDC landscape character assessment, but please consider ours: Landscape Character Assessment (broads-authority.gov.uk)

Comment

Representation ID: 2024

Received: 21/07/2021

Respondent: Historic England

Please see attachments for full response.
We broadly support the criterion in this policy. However, specific reference should be made to local vernacular and materials. Reference should also be made to heritage assets and their settings.
Refer to local vernacular and materials.
Refer to heritage assets and their settings.

Comment

Representation ID: 2153

Received: 14/07/2021

Respondent: Norfolk County Council - Strategic Planning Team

Please see attachment for full response.
Response to Question 3 – Policy SNVC 2 (Design) – Support the need for a policy on design; and welcome the proposed broad criteria. However, it is felt that the criteria should be expanded to include reference to healthy living – i.e. ensuring opportunities for cycling and walking and life-long-housing in line with Agreement 20; and Section 7 (Health) of the Norfolk Strategic Planning Framework (2021).
(Please see further detailed comments provided by the Lead local Flood Authority – below in respect of Policies SNVC 1 and 2).

Comment

Representation ID: 2159

Received: 14/07/2021

Respondent: Norfolk County Council - LLFA

In Policy SNVC2 – Design, we request that the any development application made will be required to demonstrate that it would need to be consistent with the Norfolk LLFA Developer Guidance, the Local Flood Risk Management Strategy and national policies on the management of flood risk.