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

Comment

Representation ID: 782

Received: 29/07/2021

Respondent: Barford & Wramplingham Parish Council

NO. We see no need for any other site to be allocated. As a Service Village the Joint Core Strategy (JCS) states that between 10-20 new dwellings are expected during the life of the plan, so far we have an increase of 16 dwellings (including 2 holiday lets) over the plan period to date, with still (in theory) five years of the JCS to run. There is also a pending application, which if granted permission would bring the total of new JCS dwellings in Barford to 23, which is beyond the upper limit of that expected for a Service Village.

Comment

Representation ID: 783

Received: 29/07/2021

Respondent: Barford & Wramplingham Parish Council

We consider that the shortlisted village cluster sites in the Barford and Wramplingham area should be completely rejected because we do not agree with the concept of a village cluster plan and we see no case or need for any other site to be allocated.

Comment

Representation ID: 784

Received: 29/07/2021

Respondent: Barford & Wramplingham Parish Council

NO. WE DO NOT AGREE WITH THE CONCEPT OF A VILLAGE CLIUSTER PLAN. The Plan is not in conformity with the Greater Norwich Local Plan. The quantity of development is unnecessarily high. The distribution of development is unsustainable and there is no reasoned justification for the Cluster Plan. There are no policies or measures which will ensure that those most in housing need will have access to the houses built.

There is little point in tinkering with the objectives of this Plan - the whole concept is wrong.

Comment

Representation ID: 785

Received: 29/07/2021

Respondent: Barford & Wramplingham Parish Council

Barford & Wramplingham Parish Council considers the Village Cluster approach to housing distribution proposed for inclusion in the GNLP to be neither necessary nor desirable. It is unnecessary because the housing need requirement, together with a reasonable buffer (5%), can be met without the need to disperse development in this way. It is undesirable because the additional dispersal of housing that will be generated via village clusters will cause an unnecessary loss of countryside and be more environmentally damaging than an approach in which development is concentrated in and near to Norwich.

Comment

Representation ID: 786

Received: 29/07/2021

Respondent: Barford & Wramplingham Parish Council

NO. WE DO NOT AGREE WITH THE CONCEPT OF A VILLAGE CLUSTER PLAN . There should already be in place a set of standard requirements to include reference to Conservation areas, Flooding and Drainage and Sewage capacity, availability of services and facilities, Access and Public transport.
In addition, reference to adopted Neighbourhood Plans and Conservation Areas should be explicit, along with the need for supporting surveys and studies to be clarified. These should include a heritage assessment when any heritage asset, including the contribution made by their setting, could be affected by development.

Comment

Representation ID: 787

Received: 29/07/2021

Respondent: Barford & Wramplingham Parish Council

NO. WE DO NOT AGREE WITH THE CONCEPT OF A VILLAGE CLIUSTER PLAN for the reasons stated above. If, despite this, the Village Clusters Plan goes ahead a Design Policy should include the stated points, and also include further requirements to meet the highest possible standards of design to help address Climate Change, to be in keeping with the local scale and character and of sustainable construction. Consideration should be given to the capture and recycling of run off water.

Comment

Representation ID: 788

Received: 29/07/2021

Respondent: Barford & Wramplingham Parish Council

NO. WE DO NOT AGREE WITH THE CONCEPT OF A VILLAGE CLIUSTER PLAN. However it should only allocate new sites for housing which meet a clearly demonstrable need. This need is unlikely large ‘executive-style’ houses. In order to meet housing need the Plan needs to look at housing need and then design an appropriate answer. It is necessary to commit to an inter-agency approach to give access to housing for those people which must include both public and private housing.

This does not mean that we oppose "organic" growth of villages adding housing estates to villages is not organic development.