Reduce the proposed number of new dwellings.

Thurlton’s infrastructure has not been developed in the 23 years I have lived here, despite further dwellings being built.
The corner at Hall Farm often floods and despite my and other villagers representations at the potential dangers of approaching the village on an acute blind bend, nothing changes.
The potential increase in traffic exponentially increases the potential dangers to residents.
The footpath from Beccles Road to the Rectory will be compromised by the proposed development.

The plans for the developments in Thurlton should be dismissed and natural infil allowed.

The proposed development of the property on the west side of Beccles Road is within the parish plan. I was under the impression that development within this area is restricted to infil only and not a development of 15 houses.

The development adjacent to Blacksmiths Gardens could be moved and continue to be adjacent to that development without impacting on any other houses and without affecting the route of the existing public footpath.

Consideration should be given to the variation in land levels and the impact this will have on adjoining boundaries.

We are very concerned about the proposed plans for a further 25+ houses being built in the village and feel any further development on the proposed scale would compromise the village infrastructure and the facilities we have now. We are concerned about the environment, the wildlife, the road usage (which has already increased in the past few years), the water supply pressure and storm water disposal routing to name a few. With a further 27+ houses being built with an average of two cars per family, the movement of traffic is going to significantly increase further and the safety, particular on the Barn Corner (the main road out of the village) is going to be compromised. Additionally, with the expanse of the land being given over to concrete, we fear water drainage is going to be a concern, particularly to those of us situated on lower ground levels.
The variation in ground levels with the proposed development adjacent to Blacksmiths Gardens, is a major concern. The houses in Links Close which adjoin the boundary are considerably lower than the area of land proposed for development. This is a concern particularly as we do not know what type of properties are being built. If they are houses and are situated on higher ground they will completely overlook our property and our neighbours and thus impact on any privacy we may have. There is also the subject of sunlight and natural light which would be seriously compromised by any building that is built on higher ground than Links Close.
Could I also ask what would happen to the Public Footpath across the field as the proposed development access road would cross the footpath?
Many thanks
Carole Teasdale.

The Parish Council wish to the following in relation to this site
• at present, the village does not require further housing
• the proposed site allocations will use the primary route into the village (Beccles Road C516) which around the notorious problem corner at Hall Farm to which a long-term solution must be provided .
• Thurlton FP3 must be retained in its existing location and guaranteed to be a safe / open footpath
• The Parish Council stress that should the site be taken forward any development on this site MUST be sympathetic to the existing properties surrounding (on 3 sides) the proposed location.
• The Parish Council agree that, should the site be taken forward, all vehicular access to the new site must be via Blacksmiths Gardens.
• Further, the existing access to the rear of the properties on Beccles Road MUST be retained, but must be segregated from the Blacksmith Gardens access, and must not be able to provide an alternate access to the site
• During any planning phase, detailed consideration must be given to the access for construction traffic to and from the site – especially in light of the impact on FP3
• During any planning phase, detailed consideration must be given to the access for agricultural traffic to and from the adjacent fields.
• The Parish Council also wish to stress that should 12 house not be feasible within the allocated site, that the size/area is not simply increased to allow it to fit.

The Parish Council wish to record the following comments in relation to this site
• at present, the village does not require further housing
• the proposed site allocations will use the primary route into the village (Beccles Road C516) which around the notorious problem corner at Hall Farm to which a long-term solution must be provided .
• Thurlton FP3 must be retained in its existing location and guaranteed to be a safe / open footpath
• The Parish Council stress that should the site be taken forward any development on this site MUST be sympathetic to the existing properties surrounding (on 3 sides) the proposed location.
• All vehicular access to the new site must be via Blacksmiths Gardens.
• Eisting access to the rear of the properties on Beccles Road MUST be retained, but must be segregated from the Blacksmith Gardens access
• During any planning phase, detailed consideration must be given to the access for construction traffic to and from the site
• During any planning phase, detailed consideration must be given to the access for agricultural traffic to and from the adjacent fields.
• The Parish Council also wish to stress that should 12 house not be feasible within the allocated site, that the size/area is not simply increased to allow it to fit.

We support this allocation for at least 12 dwellings, which can be delivered as per the policy wording below. The upper limit has only been imposed due to road width restrictions, as the Council recognises that the site is in a sustainable location and is suitable for further development. Thurlton lies outside of the nutrient neutrality catchment area, so this allocation is deliverable in the short-term, whereas allocations within the catchment could face significant delays.

Please see attached.

The Highway Authority would request: Paragraph 40.9 is revised to allocate 11 dwellings. A policy requirement to prevent vehicles from VC THU1 accessing existing public right of way Thurlton FP3. The Thurlton & Norton Subcourse policy map is updated such that proposed allocation VC THU1 extends to meet the end of the Blacksmith's Gardens carriageway to ensure the site could be accessed as per paragraph 40.9.

Please see attached for full submission.

Amend criterion 3 to read ‘Planning applications should be supported by archaeological assessment including the results of field evaluation where appropriate.’

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.