I am fully supportive of the whole plan as it aims to provide additional accommodation in many rural parts of the District. This will enable young people, especially, to remain in their locality and to sustain local services and facilities. Overall the plan will also contribute to the required increase in housing during the next few years.

To address these issues and to make the two plans sound they should run to the same timetable. As outlined above the inclusion of unnecessary housing numbers within the SNVCHAP in unsustainable locations also makes the SNVCHAP unsound and therefore it should not be adopted.

CPRE Norfolk challenges the decoupling of the housing allocations for the South Norfolk Village Clusters and its associated policy from the rest of the GNLP as being unsound. The GNLP Regulation 19 consultation commenced before the South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations document (SNVCHAP) was published for its Regulation 18 consultation. This was despite the South Norfolk Local Development Scheme (accessed 18 February 2021 when it was labelled as “final”) stating that the SNVCHAP would be consulted on in February/March 2021, whereas it took place later in the year, ending on 2 August 2021. While it is reasonable for a Local Plan to comprise several separate documents, the GNLP and the SNVCHAP to be sound should follow the same, or at least a very similar timetable, otherwise it is impossible to judge whether the two (or more) documents are based on proportionate evidence.

CPRE Norfolk and others made several challenges to the soundness of the Reg. 19 GNLP in the consultation and at its Public Examination. The result of these challenges is not known at present (31 January 2023) e.g. whether they will result in the GNLP not being adopted or in Major Modifications being necessary. Now that the SNVCHAP has gone to its Reg. 19 consultation this difference in timelines for the two plans makes them both unsound. Without knowing the outcome of the GNLP’s Public Examination with regard to issues around the SNVCHAP it is unsound to make any judgement about the latter.

These challenges to the GNLP included questioning the housing numbers, which if found to be unsound, would impact on the numbers to be allocated in the SNVCHAP. The housing numbers within the draft GNLP include the 1,228 in the draft SNVCHAP, within a total delivery target of 49,492 new dwellings to 2038. This figure would accommodate 22% more houses than “need”, along with a “contingency” location for growth. Additional housing, on top of these 49,492 will be provided by windfall development which will be in excess to that accounted for in the 49,492 figure, as only 1,296 windfall dwellings have been included, despite the Reg. 19 GNLP document forecasting that 4,450 windfalls will come forward during the plan period. Across the combined districts covered by the draft GNLP, sites already allocated by the current Local Plan, the Joint Core Strategy (JCS), should be delivered before there is any consideration of additional new sites, including all of those within the SNVCHAP. This is because any newly allocated sites will be in less sustainable locations than those already allocated in the JCS, and will therefore make it more difficult to adhere to Climate Change targets. The SNVCHAP is a means to deliver a policy of dispersal of housing, in largely less-sustainable car-dependent locations, with few employment opportunities. The development of greenfield sites, often on Best and Most Versatile (BMV) agricultural land, should be avoided, given the 1,228 dwellings in the SNVCHAP are unnecessary development.

To address these issues and to make the two plans sound they should run to the same timetable. As outlined above the inclusion of unnecessary housing numbers within the SNVCHAP in unsustainable locations also makes the SNVCHAP unsound.

Bawburgh is one of the prettiest villages (which is why it is conservation area) near Norwich don't turn it into a town centre , respect the term "Conservation Area"

No more mass housing in Bawburgh, or under pressure go for far less dense maybe 4/5 houses which would hav eless impact on the view, services and amenities

The Cluster plan is unsound , little villages like Bawburgh deserve to stand on their own and not be swallowed up, 35 houses would make no difference on a big site. This is huge , we can't cope. The road is already a rat run, unleashing 70 odd more cars plus service vehicles on and off a small hill will be dangerous . the village green is already over crowded particularly in the summer months. The school is overcrowded. The sewage system overflows, The river can't cope with more rain water surges. Few pathways or public transport. Leave the view.

Bunwell has an ideal windfall site GNLP 2126 of 0.52 hectares which is conveniently placed in the village centre. The Settlement Limit passes across one third of the site. Given the above consultation statement, this would have been a good opportunity to reposition the Settlement Limit to the site borders for future development opportunities of the entire site. Other than three developed sites, no ‘provision’ whatsoever appears to have been made to the village limits and we would question the soundness of the Settlement Limit assessments by not doing so.

Breckland Council supports the South Norfolk Village Cluster development strategy proposals, and has particular interest in the proposals at Spooner Row coupled with other proposals within the Greater Norwich Local Plan in that area. It is recognised that there are infrastructure limitations in this location in power, transport connections, water capacity and waste water management capacity, consequently Breckland would welcome the opportunity to engage with South Norfolk and its Greater Norwich Partners when these proposals come forward under the duty to cooperate requirement and in line with the Statement of Common Ground agreed between Breckland District Council and the Greater Norwich Partnership of which South Norfolk Council is a partner

Please see attached.