Move the housing to an infrastructure town already set up to cope and facilitate

The area proposed is frequented by Owls Buzzards and other species, the area in general has no facilities ie shops medical centres very limited schooling and social facilities the children play parks are extremely tired and not managed even the grass doesn’t get cut, and no winter modern multi sport facilities, it has no streetlights and no paths for people to exercise or either they are ridiculously narrow and present trip hazards due to the poor surfaces, utility’s are very limited Wi-Fi capability is very low mbps, no gas, and we are always having water and electricity blackouts, and limited sewage many have private drainage, building houses here with no infrastructure will affect wildlife encroachment massively and the environment as people will have to travel to at the closest, poringland or Bungay for basic facilities through travel in cars, why not build housing where the infrastructure is instead of settlements without human functioning facilities

WPC would like the plan to be changed to revert back to the Reg 18 plan, which stated that the preferred sites of SN0278, SN02062 and SN0268 had been accepted and adopted (VCH Plan of mid-2021). We believe that site SN0268SL was turned down as was not in an appropriate position for development due to its separation from the main area of development. WPC would therefore request plan reverts back to the two agreed sites SN0278 and SN02062 as per Reg 18. With regards to facilities the village has lost its shop in 2022 and the nursery will close in July 2023. Therefore, it is a shop that this village desperately needs above anything else.

Under the terms of soundness we do not believe that the evidence supplied by the promoter is proportionate regarding the scale of the development and the provision of adequate benefits to the village. We do not consider that Reg 19 meets with Objective 3 for Woodton: ‘That the scale of development is in keeping with the village size and rural aspect of location.’ With 27 houses currently under construction, the additional 50 homes is not proportionate with the size or infrastructure of a small rural village as it represents an increase of over 30% at a time when the shop has closed in 2022 and the pre-school will close in 2023.

On this basis, Woodton Parish council believes that the amended plan is not justified as there were two reasonable alternatives which have now been disregarded (see below). The ‘new evidence’ supplied by the promoter appears to be based on a new pathway and space for a pre-school which is no longer relevant as the pre-school is closing in July 2023. The third benefit of additional community space was never requested by the village or required as we already have three well-used community spaces for Woodton. Woodton PC does not believe that this meets your Objective 2: ‘To deliver improvements to local service facilities and infrastructure.’

We also consider that the legal process has not been followed correctly as within your SCI documentation it is stated that Parish Councils are considered a ‘specific’ consultation body and we do not consider that Woodton Parish council has been fully consulted up to the end of the Reg 18 phase. You state in your SCI (updated 2022) ‘that the Council must involve any of the specific and general consultation bodies that it feels may have an interest in the proposed document. Therefore in failing to make Woodton PC aware of the amended site (signed off in May 2022) we do not believe we have been fully consulted.

We were not informed of the changes to the Reg 18 plan in which Woodton PC had made recommendations upon and given support of the preferred sites (a smaller site at SN0278 and SN0262 and SN0268 with low level development in a linear fashion alongside Church Road). Two sites were subsequently accepted and adopted as the preferred sites in the former draft of the VCH Plan in mid-2021 with Woodton PC’s consent. Woodton PC feels that these reasonable alternatives do meet Objective 3 for Woodton: That the scale of development is in keeping with the village size and rural aspect of location.

In May 2022, these preferred sites were apparently amended to include the deselection of SN0268 which was downgraded to Shortlisted without consulting Woodton PC. Also a newly drawn site plan for SN0278 (now identified in Reg 19 as VCW001) was submitted in May 2022 stating that ‘new evidence from the promoter had suggested that this single site would be more suitable for development of up to 50 homes’ as infill rather than the previous reasonable alternatives offering low level development alongside Church Road. The amended site (VCW001) now runs south of the school and immediately to the west of existing houses in The Street.

Significantly, Woodton PC was never consulted about this change of location by South Norfolk Council in May 2022 under the Reg 18 phase. We were only made aware of the extent of the proposed single development when the Reg 19 plan was issued and we were approached directly by the promoter ESCO (in conjunction with Crocus) at a Woodton Parish Council meeting on 10 January 2023. We were then able to view the full Documentation which subsequently became public on 23 January 2023.

In conclusion Woodton Parish Council does not think the plan has been produced in accordance with South Norfolk Council’s SCI in relation to site VCW001.

Woodton should be removed from the Plan, but if not the smaller identified sites would be more suitable. Site numbers should be limited to 5 to 10 houses maximum.

Woodton does not have a Post Office, or Shop, and will soon see it's Pub close. It already has a Village Hall and Community Woodland. It therefore has nothing to offer another 50 properties. The existing Primary School could not accommodate the numbers this amount of development would see. The local character and landscape would be severely compromised, and the view from Norwich Road would not be screened by 'established hedgerows and trees'. Woodton is a village and does not need this scale of housing, particularly as the current development is still unsold. More agricultural land loss!

The sites originally proposed in the Reg. 18 consultation should be adopted and only the original, northern part, of this site considered.

I would echo all of the comments made by WPC.
The proposed extended development to the south of the site will be extremely prominent and will destroy the whole visual impact of the village in the landscape. The existing dwellings on The Street are in a small valley and hidden from view by the surrounding landscape.
Village amenities are limited and dwindling.
The local PS cannot cope with the current demand from existing families and there is extremely little scope for expansion of the site.

Amend policy VC WOO1 to add the following wording as a policy requirement:
‘The site is underlain by a defined Mineral Safeguarding Area for sand and gravel. Any future development on this site will need to address the requirements of Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy Policy CS16 - ‘safeguarding’ (or any successor policy) in relation to mineral resources, to the satisfaction of the Mineral Planning Authority.’

Please see attached for full submission.

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.

We agree with the allocation of the site. However we believe the wording should be ‘at least 50 dwellings’….

See attached document.

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 local water recycling network

See attached document.