The plan needs to be reviewed so that the access road does not cause a hazard to existing dwellings to access their driveways safely.

Concerns over the location of the entry road for new estate being in close proximity to existing dwellings access on Church Lane. Highways must consider existing driveway access on Church Lane so that the new development does not create a hazard with driveway access joining/crossing into a T junction. Currently the proposal contradicts the 10m rule that is applied to dropped curb access and T Junctions as started on Norwich County Councils website.

Silverley Properties supports the allocation of this site. The site is available now and would provide a medium sized development that could be built out relatively quickly and early on in the Plan period.

See attached letter and appendices for full comments.

A 10 to 15 year pause to allow the village to absorb the development that's in progress to be concluded. Also a chance for this village to feel it's being listened to. Michael Gove has conceded that over development of rural communities is like vandalism and has taken pressure of local government to push for cluster builds!

The drainage is inadequate for the existing properties, excluding the 15 already in progress as raw sewage spews into the river. There are also issues with the volume of traffic on very small poorly maintained roads and although the highways have not objected to this I sincerely hope that should there be a fatality on these roads that whoever signs off on this has done their research properly and if not should be challenged legally should this come to pass. Also we have recently been made aware of huge challenges with the electricity to the proposed new development.

Muir Lane should be widened to its junction with Aslacton Road in order that the traffic restrictions which are currently experienced are removed.
To ensure a safe pedestrian and cyclist route Northwards from the proposed development, a footpath and a 40 mph speed limit should be introduced. This would also provide a more safe pedestrian access to and between recognised footpaths and in order that pedestrians and cyclists are provided with a safe route

The centre of Aslacton contains just 61 houses with 15 more in the process of build and 33 being planned as part of the VCHAP.
There are 6 roads which leave the village centre, five are single track with passing places and only one has a speed restriction once it has left the village centre. The only road which leaves the village centre on which two cars can pass each other without the use of passing places is that which heads South, away from Long Stratton and Norwich for which the village is meant to act as a feeder settlement. There are two long distance footpaths which pass through the outskirts of the village and which use this road system to walk between the distinct field paths.
It is stated by South Norfolk Council that the effects of multiple developments should be considered as a whole and therefore the village centre is in the process of a 78% increase. To do so without increasing the road capacity in the direction of Long Stratton and Norwich renders the proposed development unsound.
I cannot find a comprehensive Transport Assessment to explain why there are no plans to widen Muir Lane, the road which leads directly towards Long Stratton and Norwich and which forms a boundary to the proposed development. Nor can I find any Travel Plan which considers the detrimental effect of the two developments referred to in the first paragraph on walking and cycling in the area, either recreational or for work purposes. These two documents are key to the correctly considering the proposed development and should be presented within any consultation document.

Muir Lane should be widened to its junction with Aslacton Road in order that the traffic restrictions which are currently experienced are removed.
To ensure a safe pedestrian and cyclist route Northwards from the proposed development, a footpath and a 40 mph speed limit should be introduced. This would also provide a more safe pedestrian access to and between
recognised footpaths and in order that pedestrians and cyclists are provided with a safe route.

Our objection is that the site does not have any support within the village and that the services in the area are not sufficient for a 33 house development. To make the Plan sound, the site should be removed from the Plan.

The plan is not sound in respect of location VC ASL1, Church Road, Aslacton because:

i) It does not have any support from within the village. The Parish Council have held three public meetings where the Plan was discussed. There was no support from within the parishioners with many objections being raised. The Plan is therefore not sound as it contravenes para 13of the South Norfolk Council’s Statement of Community Involvement (updated 2022) in that ignoring community opinion it is not meaningfully involving communities and stakeholders.

ii) The services available in the village are not sufficient for a 33 house development in that:

iia) The sewage system for the village regularly overflows into the main road through the village at times of heavy rainfall. This situation has been extant since the Parish Council first complained in 1975 yet nothing has been done to alleviate the situation which is both an immediate health problem and a pollution issue as the runoff is directly into the Tas river system. The Parish Council consider that it is not enough to say that the sewage system will be upgraded to suit when this has been previously promised but never delivered. The Plan is currently unsound as the sewage system is unfit for further homes to be added and the 33 houses represents an almost 50% increase in the homes within the central village area where the flooding occurs. If the wishes of the people are to be overruled we would recommend that the Plan is resubmitted when the sewage system has been suitably upgraded and proven to be fit for purpose.

iib) A recent development across the road from that proposed has had great difficulty in accessing a suitable electricity system for 15 new houses. The demands of 33 houses, each with the legal necessity for a greater
electricity drawdown than previous new build is considered to be unmanageable within the current village
electricity distribution system. The Plan is therefore currently unsound in that the electricity requirement cannot be met from the current supply system.

iic) The land on which the development is planned is heavy clay and provides restrictions to the SUDS soakaway requirements which will need to be followed. Recent single property applications in the area have had extreme difficulty in providing suitable drainage for rainwater disposal and it is unlikely that a SUDS solution can be found for 33 houses and the required access roads within the planned development area. The Plan is therefore unsound as correct rainwater drainage cannot be provided within the development land.

Our objection is that the site does not have any support within the village and that the services in the area are not sufficient for a 33 house development. To make the Plan sound, the site should be removed from the Plan.

I believe the proposal cannot be made legally compliant and sound as it goes against NCC's policies.

Regarding policy VC ASL1 - Land off Church Road, para 3.11, it states access to the site will need to be from Church Lane.It states that vehicular access from Church Lane and retention of hedgerows/trees along western & Muir Lane boundaries. I believe this is in direct opposition to Norfolk County Council's vehicle access crossing and guidance version 12. Section 11 states distance form road junctions:
"If the location of the proposed crossing is closer than 10m to a road junction it would create a serious hazard and the application will be refused."
In the plans, it shows access to the new development would be creating a junction directly opposite a driveway (No.14 Coopers Close). If the junction/entrance to the proposed development was in place prior to No14 Coopers Close had been built, the dropped kerb/driveway for No.14 Coopers Close would be refused as it would create a 'serious hazard'. Surely, this cannot be allowed the other way round - i.e. No.14 Coopers Close is already there, surely a junction cannot be created opposite. If the entrance was moved either way, it would be opposite/too close to the driveway of the house on the corner of Church Road/Muir Lane/Woodrow Lane, too close to the entrance to Coopers Close. I believe that the entrance cannot, therefore, be on Church Road. As that is where is 'required' to be accessed from, I believe the development cannot be built on the land opposite Cooper Close, off Church Lane as it would not be following NCC rules.

I believe the proposal cannot be made legally compliant and sound as it goes against NCC's policies.

Thank you for consulting Historic England on the South Norfolk Village Clusters Local Plan Regulation 19 Draft Consultation. As a statutory consultee, our role is to ensure that the conservation of the historic environment is fully integrated into planning policy and that any policy documents make provision for a positive strategy for the
conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment.
Please also see our detailed comments in the attached table. We provide a summary of the main comments below.
SUMMARY
We very much welcome the completion of the Heritage Impact Assessments for a number of sites. The assessments have helped to inform many of the policies
providing helpful recommendations for mitigation and enhancement which is welcomed.
Whilst we consider many aspects of the plan to be sound, we have identified issues with some of the policies and site allocations which do compromise the overall soundness of the plan.
Under paragraph 35 of the NPPF some aspects of this Plan are unsound as they have not been positively prepared, are not justified, effective, or consistent with
national policy. We have identified below some of the key areas where we find the Plan unsound and what measures are needed to make the Plan sound. In summary we highlight the following four issues.
1. Heritage Impact Assessments
We are delighted to see that Heritage Impact Assessments have been prepared for
many sites. However, there are a few allocations where we recommend the preparation on an HIA now prior to EiP (e.g. VC BRO1 West, VC WOR1). The policy wording should then be amended accordingly. In the absence of an HIA we consider these sites are not sufficiently justified. There are also some settlement limit extensions where an HIA should also be prepared now ahead of EiP (e.g. SN0020SL, SN0588SL). Finally, there are some recommendations in HIAs that have not been incorporated into policy. The policies need to be amended to incorporate these HIA recommendations. This applies to a number of sites as set out in the attached table. Further details of all the relevant sites are given in Appendix A.
2. Settlement Limit extensions
We note that the smaller sites have not been included as allocations but instead the settlement limit has been extended to include that land. However, there are some extensions which would have an impact on the historic
environment and yet, in the absence of a site-specific policy, we are concerned about how the recommendations of the HIAs and any necessary mitigation/enhancement will be secured through an appropriate policy framework. The NPPF (para 16d) makes it clear that Plans should contain policies that are
clearly written and unambiguous, so it is evident how a decision maker should react development proposals. Further advice on the content of policies is given in the PPG at Paragraph: 002 Reference ID: 61-002-20190315 Revision date: 15 03 2019. It states that, ‘Where sites are proposed for allocation, sufficient detail should be given
to provide clarity to developers, local communities and other interested parties about the nature and scale of development’.
3. Archaeology Criterion
Many of the policies include an archaeology criterion which states that ‘The HER should be consulted to determine the need for any archaeological surveys prior to development’. Whilst we welcome the inclusion of a criterion for archaeology, in our view some
assessment is needed to inform any planning application (rather than waiting until after permission is granted but before development). This is consistent with the
policy set out in para 194 of the NPPF. We therefore advise that the archaeology criterion should be amended to read, ‘Planning applications should be supported by archaeological assessment including the results of field evaluation where appropriate.’ This applies to a number of sites in the Plan.
4. Site-Specific Issues
We have raised a number of quite site-specific issues in relation to the Bressingham, Little Melton, Rockland St Mary and Tasburgh sites. See the attached table for
further details of our concerns.
Closing comments
We have suggested a series of other changes to the Plan. Many of these changes suggested do not go to the heart of the Plan’s soundness, but instead are intended to improve upon it. We believe that these comments can be addressed by changes to wording in the plan.
In preparation of the local plan, we encourage you to draw on the knowledge of local conservation officers, the county archaeologist and local heritage groups.
Please note that absence of a comment on a policy, allocation or document in this letter does not mean that Historic England is content that the policy, allocation or
document is devoid of historic environment issues. We should like to stress that this response is based on the information provided by the Council in its consultation. To
avoid any doubt, this does not affect our obligation to provide further advice and, potentially, object to specific proposals, which may subsequently arise as a result of
this plan, where we consider that these would have an adverse effect upon the historic environment.
If you have any questions then please do get back to me. We suggest it would be helpful for us to meet and discuss our comments, resolve any outstanding issues and
begin to prepare a Statement of Common Ground. Please contact us to suggest some possible meeting dates.

Modify policy text to read:

Early engagement with Anglian Water to ensure that there is adequate capacity, or capacity can be made available, in the wastewater network.

See attached document.