Support

Representation ID: 4295

Received: 21/07/2025

Respondent: National Highways

It has been noted that once adopted, the SPD will become a material consideration in the determination of planning applications. Where relevant, National Highways will be a statutory consultee on future planning applications within the area and will assess the impact on the SRN of a planning application accordingly.

Notwithstanding the above comments, we have reviewed the document and note the details of set out within the draft document are unlikely to have an severe impact on the operation of the trunk road and we offer No Comment.

Support

Representation ID: 4296

Received: 31/07/2025

Respondent: Natural England

Whilst we welcome this opportunity to give our views, the topic of the Supplementary Planning Document does not appear to relate to our interests to any significant extent. We
therefore do not wish to comment.

Object

Representation ID: 4299

Received: 31/07/2025

Respondent: Topcroft Parish Council

The study relates to the following solar photovoltaic schemes: "small scale up to 5MW, medium-field scale up to 15MW, and larger-scale 15to 50MW" i.e. it does not specifically cover NSIPS - however it states that part of the funding for the project: "has enabled the council to commission a study to assess the sensitivities and capacities of the various landscapes of South Norfolk district to accommodate energy-related NSIP and non-NSIP projects." So it does mention a a relevance to NSIP projects

Furthermore it does not specifically say (at any point in the text) that NSIP schemes should be considered unacceptable due to their huge impacts on the South Norfolk landscape.

Object

Representation ID: 4304

Received: 30/07/2025

Respondent: Saxlingham Nethergate Parish Council

Number of people: 3

The study relates to the following solar photovoltaic schemes: "small scale up to 5MW, medium-field scale up to 15MW, and larger-scale 15to 50MW" i.e. it does not specifically cover NSIPS - however it states that part of the funding for the project: "has enabled the council to commission a study to assess the sensitivities and capacities of the various landscapes of South Norfolk district to accommodate energy-related NSIP and non-NSIP projects." So it does mention a relevance to NSIP projects

While it does not specifically cover NSIPs this does not mean that NSIP developers are precluded from using the study to justify the choice of sites where the sensitivity to solar PV is less than in other places.

Furthermore it does not specifically say (at any point in the text) that NSIP schemes should be considered unacceptable due to their huge impacts on the South Norfolk landscape. There is a need to add this in to the document and I ask that this is included.

Object

Representation ID: 4309

Received: 01/08/2025

Respondent: Hempnall Parish Council

In conclusion, while the SPD does not specifically cover NSIPs this does not mean that NSIP developers are precluded from using the study to justify the choice of sites where the sensitivity to solar PV is less than in other places.  As already stated, the SPD needs to specify that it is not applicable for NSIP schemes, and it should be clearly stated that all mega solar NSIP schemes are considered unacceptable in South Norfolk due to their huge impact on the landscape and countryside.

Support

Representation ID: 4311

Received: 12/08/2025

Respondent: Historic England

1.1.4 We welcome the reference to protecting and enhancing local character.
1.1.5 We welcome the reference to locally distinctive characteristics.