Support

Representation ID: 4325

Received: 12/08/2025

Respondent: Historic England

7.2.11 Whilst underground cables would not affect the openness of the NSBLPZ, they do have other potential negative effects including impacts on below ground archaeology. Routing should give careful consideration of archaeology.
RECOMMENDATION: Include reference to consideration of archaeology in routing selection

Object

Representation ID: 4331

Received: 20/08/2025

Respondent: Norfolk County Council - Minerals and Waste Team

3.6. Of particular concern is paragraph 7.2.8 which states:
3.7. “…Similarly, if an AD plant were to be proposed at the sewage works for the treatment of sewage it would be accepted that the location is determined by the existing infrastructure. Larger AD Plants, including those which process municipal waste, are not constrained in terms of their location, and there is no reason why they should be sited within the sensitive NSBLPZ.”

3.8.These type of developments are waste management development that would be County Matters determined by the County Planning Authority, and the South Norfolk SPD should therefore not contain any policy related to these types of development and these sentences should be deleted from the SPD.

Object

Representation ID: 4341

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: CODE Development Planners Ltd

Given the urgent national and local need for renewable energy generation, the SPD should adopt a more balanced and criteria-based approach, recognising that solar PV within the NSBLPZ can, in certain locations, be delivered in a manner that preserves the overall landscape objectives of the SPD while contributing to biodiversity enhancement and climate change mitigation. We therefore suggest the SPD wording is revised to allow for case-by-case consideration based on Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment evidence, rather than a blanket presumption of conflict.