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

Comment

Representation ID: 834

Received: 26/07/2021

Respondent: John Putman Ltd Architectural Services

• The site has the benefit of many green and amber ratings but is apparently not acceptable as it is backland development. I attach a drawing (2209.2) which clearly demonstrates that in this vicinity backland sites are part of the grain of development so the site should not be rejected on this basis. I would remind you that planning authorities have a statutory duty to be consistent in their decision making and rejecting this site does not conform to this stipulation.
• the option on the land covers widening the access track to 4.5m, erecting an acoustic fence 1800h on the East side of the access and taking a part of the front garden of No.130 to provide a 2.4 x 43m visibility splay. The new fence does no material harm to the amenity of No.130 as there are no habitable rooms on the West elevation of the bungalow and in any event there is at present a tall and dense hedge enclosing the property. A new bungalow would be sited some 36m from the rear of No.130.
• The site has received an amber rating due to its location within the Waveney Rural River Area. I attach a drawing showing the location of the site in relation to the drawn boundary of this area. Examination of this plan, together with a site visit shows clearly that there is no aspect of the rural river valley which could be harmed by developing the site. The defined area narrows at this point and consists almost entirely of of developed land which has no relation to the rural river valley defined parameters. The defined river area at this point is also nowhere near to the river itself or appreciable landscape area.
• If the site becomes accepted for development a subsequent planning application should include a Landscape Impact Assessment report to confirm the above. The site is surrounded at West, South and East boundaries with tall mature hedges which screen the site from any long views, as will be seen on a site visit.
• The site is in Flood Zone 1 as shown on the attached flood map.

Comment

Representation ID: 1635

Received: 29/07/2021

Respondent: John Putman Ltd Architectural Services

Site SN4002SL
• Siite gets green markups, although it has failed so far due to blanket TPO on site with its landscape value.
• The promoter acknowledges the blanket TPO although many of the trees are in poor condition so will not live for full lifespan.
• Therefore suggested that northern section of site retained and south portion cleared to allow erection of c.four dwellings with density of 19 per/ha.
• Loss of trees will be counteracted by planting of trees elsewhere in district at rate to be established, thus mitigating loss. Promoter has a land holding nearby.

Urge Council to reconsider site for development of four dwellings, with mitigating planting elsewhere.