South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 18 Draft)

Object

Representation ID: 477

Received: 20/07/2021

Respondent: Lanpro Services Ltd

No, we do not agree with the settlement limits changes which would effectively see the preferred allocations included within the defined area. Site SN0078 Land off Loddon Road, Ditchingham should be included in the settlement limits as it is deliverable, viable and available with no known constraints or ownership issues that would restrict its development.

Object

Representation ID: 478

Received: 20/07/2021

Respondent: Lanpro Services Ltd

We object to the allocation of this site. It’s not being promoted for the allocation being offered and there is no evidence that it would deliver the housing suggested.
The site would impact negatively on both landscape and amenity and we also consider that the access road is not suitable for the increased traffic levels that would be experienced from this site if developed to its full potential.

Comment

Representation ID: 1441

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Lanpro Services Ltd

Although Lanpro offers support to the concept of village clusters, agreeing that there is a need to allocate new housing in accessible, rural locations to help support sustainable patterns of growth, we cannot support the significant emphasis that is placed upon rural village clusters (outside of the old Norwich Policy Area (NPA)). An alternative strategy is suggested within these representations.

Comment

Representation ID: 1444

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Lanpro Services Ltd

The principle of having ‘standard requirements’ is a sensible approach and avoids repetition within the site specific policies of the draft plan. However, in this instance we consider them unnecessary and in the case of some of the requirements, inappropriate. We suggest that Policy SNVC1 be deleted and any specific requirements be included within the policy wording of individual allocations.

Comment

Representation ID: 1445

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Lanpro Services Ltd

It is Lanpro’s view that a policy on ‘design’ is not required. Question 3 highlights the local design documents that are already in place to ensure the high-quality design of developments and as such, any design policy would be considered duplication. It is respectively requested that the draft plan be amended to refer developers / applicants to the relevant design guidance.

Comment

Representation ID: 1447

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Lanpro Services Ltd

It is Lanpro’s view that a ‘housing mix’ policy is unnecessary as it duplicates other documents and policies. Lanpro respectfully request that this section of the document be amended to refer developers / applicant to the relevant housing need assessments and GNLP policies which establish housing mix.

Comment

Representation ID: 1653

Received: 30/07/2021

Respondent: Lanpro Services Ltd

Taking the above into consideration site SN0425 is considered to be suitable for residential development, and doesn’t generate any significant harm that could not be dealt with during the normal course of preparing a planning application. Given the village cluster strategy which is now being proposed by GNLP and South Norfolk requiring more sites to fulfil the identified need for 1,200 new homes in these locations. Marlingford has been considered to be a suitable location for development and this is the only site that has been put forward for development in the village and should be considered further.

Comment

Representation ID: 1724

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Lanpro Services Ltd

Ref SN4029SL
Reasons the site has been considered unreasonable:
1. Access/Highways - an enclosed note from Schema Engineering advises that a new footpath will be required to link the site to the village. A footpath could be provided from the site westwards on the northern side of Stratton Road. There are limited existing footpath links within most villages and a more flexible approach may be needed in assessing sites.
2. Historic Environment - SNC Heritage Officer states that they consider there will be minimal impact on the setting of Wacton Hall. The scheme is considered unreasonable due to impact on historic character, but this is not reflected in the comments from SNC's Heritage Officer.

Object

Representation ID: 1739

Received: 17/08/2021

Respondent: Lanpro Services Ltd

Development of these greenfield sites will have a significant adverse impact on public views across the open landscape to the north of the village of Brooke; • Development of these important gateway sites will cause harm to the setting of the village and its conservation area; • Development in this location is at odds with the historic spatial development pattern of the village and will result in new housing that is unrelated and physically divorced from existing village shops and services; • Due to the lack of any existing footway or cycleway new housing development in this location will certainly result in excessive motor car use to access local shops and services; • New vehicular access points into the proposed residential sites on either side of the A1332 (and in close proximity to existing access points either side of the layby if SN0432REVB were delivered in advance of as a stand-alone scheme) will result in a serious highway safety hazard; and • Measures required to design-out the severe landscape and highway safety problems will only increase the level of harm already identified.

Object

Representation ID: 1741

Received: 17/08/2021

Respondent: Lanpro Services Ltd

As such it is clear that there are better development options to accommodate local housing needs within the Brooke, Kirstead and Howe cluster.
My client also does not agree with the reasons for rejection used to rule out a similar level of new residential development within discounted site SN0490 that is within the centre of the village. It simply cannot be the case that the heritage, townscape and landscape impacts that are relied upon to reject site SN0480 are so severe that this site should be discounted in favour of the serious landscape and highway safety harm that would result from the preferred sites SN0432REVA and SN0432REVB.