QUESTION 4: Do you agree

Support

Representation ID: 51

Received: 09/06/2021

Respondent: Niall Cook

I support the inclusion of a policy on 'housing mix', but it must include provision for self-build and custom housebuilding. There should be a specific provision for self-build and custom housebuilding in the 'housing mix' policy to ensure that such sites are adequately accommodated when choosing preferred sites.

Support

Representation ID: 205

Received: 27/06/2021

Respondent: Mr Oliver Clarke

Yes there should be more council houses as Alpington is currently under a rural exemption, which means I can buy my council house.

Comment

Representation ID: 217

Received: 24/06/2021

Respondent: Mr Philip Clarke

Small housing patches (25 properties) have less revenue generation for the developers to provide new community services, and affordable provision is often whittled away as development commences. These commitments often ‘evaporate’!
Housing size? Too often these properties are sized parsimoniously and have no generosity in room sizes, let alone family friendly gardens. Poorly designed sewers lead to garden space blighted by manhole covers. People will still tend to prefer older residences where there is more scope to change and adapt their home. Will efficient modern property standards be imposed, so replacement windows (example) will not be needed soon. Solar panel technology and placement pre-planned?
We have had much experience of new housing and its limitations (incl. unadopted roadways, small garden plots, over-development etc.), and would hope that new build standards for the 21st century might try to provide homes that will endure, and be loved into the future, not just the next poor housing level that needs tearing down within thirty years.

Support

Representation ID: 240

Received: 30/06/2021

Respondent: Mrs Dawn Turnbull

People want to live in a rural location, so you take the rural location and build on it. Great! However, there should be properties to suit an aging population. Young people, in my opinion, still prefer to live closer to a city environment with easy access to nightlife and facilities. We also need more doctors/dentists/care facilities, not just houses.

Object

Representation ID: 326

Received: 06/07/2021

Respondent: Brockdish & Thorpe Abbotts Parish Council

We do not agree with the concept of a Village Cluster Plan. It is delusory to imagine that giving land to private developers for their land banks will in any way help the homeless, single parents or unemployed / low paid people - they will only build houses they can sell. Until a multi-agency approach to housing is adopted then the problem will remain. Public and private sectors must be involved in providing a full range of housing tenures and types.

Object

Representation ID: 519

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 only allocate new sites for housing which meet a clearly demonstrable need. This need is highly unlikely to be for large ‘executive-style’ houses which have tended to proliferate in small housing developments across South Norfolk villages in recent years: these houses should not be part of the SNVCHAP. Instead, mechanisms should be in place to ensure that needed affordable housing in particular is provided.

Comment

Representation ID: 524

Received: 21/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Dave Loader

These comments pertain to Wreningham. Whilst maintaining a mix of housing is desirable any development should recognise that there is no public transport and therefore any new resident needs accesst to their own personal transport. This immediiately precludes many of the potential future residents on the basis of cost and/or infirmity

Comment

Representation ID: 788

Received: 29/07/2021

Respondent: Barford & Wramplingham Parish Council

NO. WE DO NOT AGREE WITH THE CONCEPT OF A VILLAGE CLIUSTER PLAN. However it should only allocate new sites for housing which meet a clearly demonstrable need. This need is unlikely large ‘executive-style’ houses. In order to meet housing need the Plan needs to look at housing need and then design an appropriate answer. It is necessary to commit to an inter-agency approach to give access to housing for those people which must include both public and private housing.

This does not mean that we oppose "organic" growth of villages adding housing estates to villages is not organic development.

Comment

Representation ID: 812

Received: 29/07/2021

Respondent: JCPC Ltd

Agree, although additional criteria could suggest that ‘in determining the appropriate mix and type of housing regard will also be had to the character and form of existing housing in the locality of the site’.

Object

Representation ID: 817

Received: 29/07/2021

Respondent: Thurlton Parish Council

Thurlton Parish Council do not agree with the concept of a Village Cluster Plan. The housing mix does not take into account the actual types of home that need to be built – more often they are building large(r) houses which are still out of reach of the very people the policies are supposed to help. As long as housing is only being built by private sector developers this situation will continue.

Comment

Representation ID: 890

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 criteria should be amended.
- The plan should only allocate new sites for housing which meet a clearly demonstrable need.
- housing mix should mirror the community’s demographics, enabling families to grow and younger people to be able to find a first home in particular.
- affordable housing pricing should be based on the community’s demographics and incomes- not on average house prices.

Support

Representation ID: 941

Received: 30/07/2021

Respondent: Bunwell Parish Council

Bunwell is very understanding and progressive towards affordable housing needs and a further specific development is currently in progress. This appears to work well rather than including such housing in say 1 hectare developments of a large mix of owned housing. Perhaps as mooted by Government, owners/developers should contribute to a local fund to support dedicated new affordable housing sites within the village setting, plus local authorities consider more actively housing for older people wishing to downsize.

Support

Representation ID: 967

Received: 30/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Phil Gledhill

All villages require a good balance of generations and therefore suitable housing must go with that. I fully support affordable housing and the grouping of such new houses near the village centre appears to work very well for the residents, some of which do not have independent transport. A mix of large and small houses and single storey are essential for those wishing to stay local as their circumstances change. More self builds are appearing which again is supported but number and location needs careful planning to avoid distress of neighbouring residents due to multiple 24/7 builds all at once.

Comment

Representation ID: 1046

Received: 31/07/2021

Respondent: Ms Susan Stacey

If the Plan goes ahead it should include a policy on housing mix so that the housing meets local needs and is not just large executive type housing.
Properly affordable housing should be included as well as housing that meets the needs of people at different stages of life.

Support

Representation ID: 1121

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Little Melton Parish Council

Particular attention should be given to providing accommodation that is attractive to older people wishing to downsize. There should be communal facilities such as visitor accommodation and flexible support arrangements. There are many large houses that are occupied by single elderly residents, these houses would become available for families if better alternatives were provided for the elderly.

Comment

Representation ID: 1157

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Dave Loader

Whilst it is reasonable to have a housing mix policy it should take account of the location and transport. In Wreningham It is not easy for residents to get to work or services without reliable personel transport. I have noted that the smaller properties ( so called affordable housing) seem to hang around longer than others when they come up for sale.

Support

Representation ID: 1233

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Dr Stephen Absalom

There must be a policy on housing mix.
The Policy must require local assessment of housing needs, employment opportunities and school capacity not a simple distribution across the South Norfolk area with housing mix determined by what Developers want to build or we will end up with the wrong houses in the wrong places.
Addressing the climate emergency is a government priority and development must minimise the need for people to travel to work or school etc by motor vehicle by ensuring the right houses in the right places are built.
Any policy must be enforceable and enforced.

Comment

Representation ID: 1274

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Professor Keith Waldron

I support the views of Barford and Wramplingham Parish Council:
I DO NOT AGREE WITH THE CONCEPT OF A VILLAGE CLIUSTER PLAN. If the Village Clusters Plan goes ahead it should only allocate new sites for housing which meet a clearly demonstrable need. This need is highly unlikely to be for large ‘executive-style’ houses which have tended to proliferate in small housing developments across South Norfolk villages in recent years. Instead, mechanisms should be in place to ensure that needed affordable housing in particular is provided.

Comment

Representation ID: 1351

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:
- it should only allocate new sites for housing which meet a clearly demonstrable need.
- housing mix should mirror the community’s demographics, enabling older people to stay, families to grow and younger people to be able to find a first home.
- affordable housing pricing should be based on the community’s demographics and incomes and not on average house prices.

Comment

Representation ID: 1359

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Mr J Collen

Agent: Wilson Wraight LLP

This Plan does not need to include a policy on Housing Mix as it is already covered by the emerging Greater Norwich Local Plan. With this in mind, any policy on housing mix should simply replicate the policy in the Greater Norwich Local Plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 1364

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: M. Gaze & Co Ltd

Agent: Wilson Wraight LLP

This Plan does not need to include a policy on Housing Mix as it is already covered by the emerging Greater Norwich Local Plan. With this in mind, any policy on housing mix should simply replicate the policy in the Greater Norwich Local Plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 1447

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Lanpro Services Ltd

It is Lanpro’s view that a ‘housing mix’ policy is unnecessary as it duplicates other documents and policies. Lanpro respectfully request that this section of the document be amended to refer developers / applicant to the relevant housing need assessments and GNLP policies which establish housing mix.

Comment

Representation ID: 1454

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Glavenhill Limited

Agent: Lanpro Services Ltd

It is Glavenhill’s view that a ‘housing mix’ policy is unnecessary as it duplicates other documents and policies. Glavenhill respectfully request that this section of the document be amended to refer developers / applicant to the relevant housing needs assessments and GNLP policies which establish housing mix.

Object

Representation ID: 1481

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: 1486

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 Housing Mix so that the level of affordable housing is ALWAYS met by developers and it is interspersed among full price houses in the same way that villages have organically grown in the past.

Object

Representation ID: 1585

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Orbit Homes

Agent: Armstrong Rigg Planning

See attached letter for full response.
Orbit Homes objects to the inclusion of Policy SNVC3 – Housing Mix as it would only serve to repeat existing policy requirements contained elsewhere. The consultation document states that a housing mix policy could include requirements for development to meet the affordable housing and housing mix requirements of the most up to date SHMA (or equivalent). A requirement for developments to meet the housing mix requirements of the current SHMA is already set out at Policy DM3.1 and the affordable housing requirement for the district is set out at emerging GNLP Policy 5.

Comment

Representation ID: 1639

Received: 30/07/2021

Respondent: Hopkins Homes Limited

In response to Question 4, in a similar vein to our response to Questions 2 and 3, given the acknowledgement that the Development Management Policies DPD already seeks to address matters of ‘Housing Mix’ through Policy DM3.1, it appears wholly unnecessary and unhelpful to add a further Policy within this Village Clusters Plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 1676

Received: 31/07/2021

Respondent: Mulbarton Parish Council

There is no reference in the Village Clusters plan to social housing. Affordable housing is not social housing. Even where a Neighbourhood Plan has not been produced, local communities will be aware of their existing housing mix and should be consulted on what is actually needed.
The relationship between the proposed housing mix and the need for educational and healthcare provision has not been explored in the supporting evidence.

Object

Representation ID: 1755

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.

Comment

Representation ID: 1770

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Little Melton Parish Council

Particular attention should be given to providing accommodation that is attractive to older people wishing to
downsize. There should be communal facilities such as visitor accommodation and flexible support
arrangements. There are many large houses that are occupied by single elderly residents, these houses
would become available for families if better alternatives were provided for the elderly.