Will create much needed housing in Wortwell including affordable housing so the younger generations don’t have to move away from rural villages.low impact of flooding at this end of the village,properties proposed are in keeping with surrounding houses,also would be a plus extending the 30mph speed limit as cars tend to speed out of the village into redenhall.

It would be nice to see affordable housing for village people to buy, i.e. 1 mile radius of Wortwell. The dog exercising area is what the village need. It is a great idea for people to meet and exercise their dogs.

I am writing to you about the proposed development on Mill Hill Site High Road Wortwell (ref VC WOR1). After living in the village all my life it would be nice to see affordable housing for village people to buy, i.e. 1 mile radius of Wortwell. The dog exercising area is what the village need. It is a great idea for people to meet and exercise their dogs.

As a natural extension to the end of the village this site provides an ideal location for much needed additional housing including affordable housing

We are pleased to support VC WOR1 to be included in the VCHAP/LDS, on the basis of compliance to the duty to co-operate and its soundness in terms of its preparation, justification, effectiveness and consistency to national policies.

We are pleased to support VC WOR1 to be included in the VCHAP/LDS, on the basis of compliance to the duty to co-operate and its soundness in terms of its preparation, justification, effectiveness and consistency to national policies.

As planning consultant acting on behalf of the land owners, I can confirm that the site is available and deliverable and that the planning requirements of the draft Policy (VC WOR1) are noted, understood and accepted. The allocation and policy is, therefore, supported.

We are writing to convey our support for the proposed development to the Mill Hill site, High Road, Wortwell. Your reference - VC WOR1.
We have lived in the village for 43 years and feel that it would be beneficial to the parish to allow the housing project, especially with the mix of affordable housing and a dog exercising area.

My family and I have for many years run and lived in The Black Swan, Homersfield.
I have recently seen details of the Wortwell Cluster plan and, as a local businessman, would like to offer my support to the development at Mill Hill, High Road, Wortwell (Ref. VC WOR1 inclusively). I believe it offers a good mix of affordable and town housing, hence going some way to addressing the local housing problem. In addition, the dog exercising area would be a valuable asset to the village.

We are the joint owners of the parcel of land at High Road, Wortwell which, together with the land to the south of High Road Wortwell, makes up the application for South Norfolk Cluster Project designated VC WOR1.

We would just like to put forward a few thoughts that your team may want to include.

We have entered into open and honest conversation with the people and Parish Council of Wortwell for almost two years now. The proposal has constantly been adapted and improved over that period of time to get to the development we are now pleased to present. For example, after discussion with the Parish Council and Norfolk Cluster Committee, it was proposed the two sites be amalgamated to provide 12 dwellings, the minimum for Cluster to provide the appropriate ratio of affordable housing.

We also took into account the request of the Parishioners to provide a dog exercising area to the north of Mill Hill. This was proposed after public presentation at Wortwell Community Centre in May 2021.

We believe that this is a well thought out and deliverable project which, through the collaboration of the site owners, can provide much needed commercial and affordable housing and an asset to the Parish of Wortwell.

Prepare HIA and amend policy, if necessary, with appropriate mitigation measures.

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.