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

Object

Representation ID: 516

Received: 21/07/2021

Respondent: CPRE Norfolk

See attachment for full response.
Housing need for Greater Norwich is 40,541 with necessary buffer of 5%, giving total of 42,568. GNLP figure of 49,492 new dwellings to 2038 including buffer of 22% is therefore unnecessarily high.
GNLP forecast that ‘windfall delivery is likely to remain robustly high.’ Therefore no need to allocate new sites in the SNVCHAP.

Very little evidence that new housing estates on the edges of villages will bring boost to local services. Rather they will over-burden these services, leading to more car and delivery vehicle journeys, with residents travelling farther to access services.

Best way to protect character is to have no new allocations in these settlements, other than windfalls and those sites already allocated through JCS.

Comment

Representation ID: 517

Received: 21/07/2021

Respondent: CPRE Norfolk

CPRE Norfolk does not agree there is a need for a Village Clusters Plan for the reasons stated in Q1. If, despite this, the Village Clusters Plan goes ahead it should include the suggested criteria. 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 in line with NPPF para. 189 when any heritage asset, including the contribution made by their setting, could be affected by development.

Comment

Representation ID: 518

Received: 21/07/2021

Respondent: CPRE Norfolk

CPRE Norfolk does not agree there is a need for a Village Clusters Plan for the reasons stated in Q1. 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.

Object

Representation ID: 519

Received: 21/07/2021

Respondent: CPRE Norfolk

CPRE Norfolk does not agree there is a need for a Village Clusters Plan for the reasons stated in Q1. If, despite this, the Village Clusters Plan goes ahead it should only allocate new sites for housing which meet a clearly demonstrable need. This need is highly unlikely to be for large ‘executive-style’ houses which have tended to proliferate in small housing developments across South Norfolk villages in recent years: these houses should not be part of the SNVCHAP. Instead, mechanisms should be in place to ensure that needed affordable housing in particular is provided.

Comment

Representation ID: 2000

Received: 27/07/2021

Respondent: CPRE Norfolk

Please see attachment for full response.
We comment on problems with the preferred sites for housing with a SL suffix in the SNVCHAP reg. 18 draft. It would appear that SL in this context stands for “settlement limit (extensions)”, as they are for sites smaller than 12 dwellings, as outlined in ‘the Introduction and Background’ section under ‘Village Clusters’. However, their status is not fully explained, other than an implication that they are not “new allocations” as they are covered under a separate point.
it is clear that the SNVCHAP preferred sites with a SL suffix should not be described as ‘windfall sites’ or counting towards the GNLP’s ‘windfall allowance’ as they are all sites which have clearly been identified for housing in the development plan i.e. the SNVCHAP. Therefore, either these sites should be removed from the SNVCHAP or they should be re-designated as allocated sites, and thus count towards the 1,200 houses allocated in the SNVCHAP.

Comment

Representation ID: 2001

Received: 27/07/2021

Respondent: CPRE Norfolk

See attachment for full response.
Inaccuracy of the definition of this site within the ‘Village Clusters’ section of the ‘Introduction and Background’. Here, the Settlement Limit Extension sites are defined as being “for sites smaller than 12 dwellings”. On examination it is found that this site is not for fewer than 12 dwellings:
SN0220SL Land at Millfields, Hempnall for up to 15 dwellings. It is stated this will now be an allocated site, yet is included in the SNVCHAP.

Comment

Representation ID: 2002

Received: 27/07/2021

Respondent: CPRE Norfolk

See attachment for full response.
Inaccuracy in the definition of this site within the ‘Village Clusters’ section of the ‘Introduction and Background’. Here, the Settlement Limit Extension sites are defined as being “for sites smaller than 12 dwellings”. On examination it is found that the following ‘SL’ site is not for fewer than 12 dwellings:

SN4045SL Land south of Hackford Road, Wicklewood for up to 12 dwellings, which is described as a “small allocation”.

Comment

Representation ID: 2003

Received: 27/07/2021

Respondent: CPRE Norfolk

See attachment for full response.
Inaccuracy in the definition of this site within the ‘Village Clusters’ section of the ‘Introduction and Background’. Here, the Settlement Limit Extension sites are defined as being “for sites smaller than 12 dwellings”. On examination it is found that the following ‘SL’ site is not for fewer than 12 dwellings:
SN0017SL Land to the west of New Road, Ashwellthorpe & SN0242 – Land to the west of New Road, Ashwellthorpe for an allocation of 12 dwellings.