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

Object

Representation ID: 1673

Received: 31/07/2021

Respondent: Mulbarton Parish Council

SNVC Objective 1

No. Those communities that wish to build more houses should be provided with help and support to allow them to do so. This can already be achieved through the Neighbourhood Plan process and other schemes. Conversely, communities which are not seeking any more house-building in their area should not be required to allocate their own resources to oppose allocations derived from the Greater Norwich Local Plan target.
The first sentence of this Objective should read to ‘allocate viable and deliverable sites in response to requests from, and in consultation with, local communities and consistent with existing Neighbourhood Plans
SNVC Objective 2 – No. This objective, as worded, is meaningless and unnecessary. Where local schools are at risk of closure, or bus services are not economically viable, dialogue should be initiated with the affected community to resolve the difficulties by considering a range of alternatives. This may or may not lead to more houses. Conversely, where local services have reached the point of collapse due to past developments, more houses will make the situation worse for at least the next ten years. These communities can be protected and supported by concentrating house building in urban areas with economies of scale.
The objective, as worded, makes no reference how new housing development will support local services and facilities, rather than overwhelm them. No reference is made for the need to protect local services and facilities. The objective should be removed entirely.
SNVC Objective 3 – No. Experience of local planning shows that ‘ensure appropriate landscaping measures’ cannot be relied upon to produce acceptable outcomes. The word “appropriate” is not defined. What does “appropriate” mean, what will it look like, how will anyone know if it's “appropriate” and what criteria will be used against which it is measured? The wording should be changed to give the local community a formal role in approving any landscaping measures, with the clear possibility of the site not being allocated if the proposals rejected.

Comment

Representation ID: 1674

Received: 31/07/2021

Respondent: Mulbarton Parish Council

Policy SNVC1 – Standard requirements
There should be a policy on Standard Requirements, but the proposed criteria should be extended to include:
• A requirement to obtain and publish a statement from the local education authority detailing available capacity in the primary and secondary school catchment area.
• A requirement to obtain and publish a statement from the local health authority detailing available capacity for health and dental care in terms of patients per GP, etc. with a comparison against national standards, guidelines and benchmarks.
• A requirement for the developer to produce and publish an environmental impact statement, however brief, describing the effect of additional journeys to work, etc.
The use of vague and undefined terms such as: “proportionate”, “minimising the impact” and
“landscaping consistent with” should be changed to include a requirement to consult with the local community as to what is proportionate or acceptable.
The phrase “minimising the impact on the amenity of local residents” should be changed to
“enhancing the amenity of local residents, subject to the approval of the local community”.
In this context, we support the broad comments made by CPRE Norfolk and the South Norfolk Green Party, to the effect that further house-building in rural villages should be on an exceptional basis, and subject to a maximum limit, and not a minimum of 1,200 units.

Comment

Representation ID: 1675

Received: 31/07/2021

Respondent: Mulbarton Parish Council

Policy SNVC2 – Design
Comment: Yes, there should be a policy on Design, but it is highly likely that the specific design requirements of each site will be quite different. The policy should make this clear.
“Encourage good quality design” – who decides this and what is the definition of good quality design? Experience shows that general encouragement cannot be relied upon.
The draft GNLP states the need for a “radical shift away from the use of private car, with many people walking, cycling or using clean public transport”. As this is unlikely to happen before new homes are built then plans need to assume at least two cars per dwelling and the need to specify that all parking is off road.
The phrase “massing for the locality” is obscure, and should be replaced by plain English.

Comment

Representation ID: 1676

Received: 31/07/2021

Respondent: Mulbarton Parish Council

There is no reference in the Village Clusters plan to social housing. Affordable housing is not social housing. Even where a Neighbourhood Plan has not been produced, local communities will be aware of their existing housing mix and should be consulted on what is actually needed.
The relationship between the proposed housing mix and the need for educational and healthcare provision has not been explored in the supporting evidence.

Comment

Representation ID: 1677

Received: 31/07/2021

Respondent: Mulbarton Parish Council

The description of the form and character of Mulbarton is inadequate, wrong, and contains factual errors which should be corrected, including the map on page 347.

Services and Community Facilities
Comment: This section of the VCHAP also contains errors which should be corrected.
“The cluster possesses a good range of facilities which includes infant and junior schools”.
No – there is only one primary school serving the cluster.

Settlement Limit and Constraints
Mulbarton and Bracon Ash

Comment: Whilst the settlement limit may be appropriate, with no changes proposed for the village of Mulbarton, the full range of constraints has not been properly identified. The answers already given to Question 2 also apply here.

Object

Representation ID: 1678

Received: 31/07/2021

Respondent: Mulbarton Parish Council

Object. Where will the children from the new houses on this preferred site go to school? Where will the families access medical facilities? Development on this site will simply add to the cumulative impacts on the village of Mulbarton, already unacceptable.
Our comments on this site include the answers given above for Questions 1 to 4, and 87.

Object

Representation ID: 1679

Received: 31/07/2021

Respondent: Mulbarton Parish Council

Where will the children from the new houses on this preferred site go to school? Where will the families access medical facilities? Development on this site will simply add to the cumulative impacts on the village of Mulbarton, already unacceptable.
Having drawn the settlement boundary, why is this proposed development outside of it?
• The site extends into the countryside, outside the built area, adding yet more cumulative impact onto the fast disappearing but highly valued rural area surrounding Mulbarton.
• It is contrary to the adopted Mulbarton Neighbourhood Plan
- not well located in terms of access to services and facilities. Access would be via a narrow road through an existing estate
Extra traffic generated would need to exit the site through the existing estate onto Long Lane, and joining the 20mph restricted zone around the primary school.
There is already a deficit of amenity land on the Bluebell Road estate. The proposed housing density of 23 units per hectare would not reduce the overall density of the estate.
The design of the site should be laid out to prevent any further expansion eastward.
Mulbarton School is FULL
The local secondary school at Hethersett is at present oversubscribed
Medical facilities with the village are already overwhelmed
traffic pressures on B1113

Comment

Representation ID: 1680

Received: 31/07/2021

Respondent: Mulbarton Parish Council

MPC agrees with SNC’s decision to reject the listed sites for the reasons given above in answer to Questions 1 to 4, Question 88, and the following reasons:
Education. This will impact on the already full Mulbarton Primary School and on the local secondary school
Medical facilities with the village are already overwhelmed
Current transport infrastructure cannot support more cars using the already congested B1113 with its bottleneck at the Harford Bridge junction

Comment

Representation ID: 1681

Received: 31/07/2021

Respondent: Mulbarton Parish Council

SN0026SL Jasmine Cottage, The Street, Bracon Ash Agree with the reasons given for rejection, and:
• Cumulative impact on medical and educational provision in Mulbarton.
• Added traffic to the already congested B1113 to access Norwich.
• Lack of local amenities.

Comment

Representation ID: 1682

Received: 31/07/2021

Respondent: Mulbarton Parish Council

SN0195 Land off the B1113 Norwich Road, Bracon Ash Agree with the reasons given for rejection, and:
• This site is amenity land adjacent to the Lark Rise estate, and should not be considered as available, suitable, or deliverable. Mulbarton Parish Council will oppose development.
• Cumulative impact on medical and educational provision in Mulbarton.
• Added traffic to the already congested B1113 to access Norwich.
• Lack of access to local amenities.
• No access to south of plot.
• North access/egress not to Highways standards.
• No access to existing infrastructure.
• Flood risk.