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

Support

Representation ID: 1593

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Durrants

We support the preferred site SN2007 and agree that this site should be considered suitable for allocation. suitable access can be achieved and the site is well related to the services and facilities in the village. The landowners of site SN2007 and SN0531 have agreed to work in collaboration to allow the development of the allocated site to take place as preferred.

Support

Representation ID: 1595

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Durrants

We support the preferred site SN0218 and agree that this site should be considered suitable for allocation. The site is well related to Earsham village, facilities and services. Suitable access could be obtained to the south east as the site benefits from a long site frontage. It is expected that any landscape and townscape issues could be mitigated and the site is achievable and developable in the timescales of the plan.

Object

Representation ID: 1601

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Durrants

We believe site SN4005 should be allocated or an allowance for a settlement limit extension to the north of the village. The site would allow for an extension of the linear development pattern of Norwich Road and would match the development to the south of the road. Mitigation to allow for a safe walking route to the centre of the village could be included and the site appears to be a clear extension to the village to round off the settlement limits. The landowner would look at a smaller scale development if a settlement limit extension was preferred.

Comment

Representation ID: 1602

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Durrants

We disagree that site would have unacceptable impact on townscape and heritage assets. Recent development in the village has occurred close to heritage assets and we do not believe a development on this site would cause unacceptable impact to listed buildings in the vicinity. Landscape mitigation could be included to address and issues and the site could form a suitable settlement extension to match that of the opposite site of Colegate End road to the west.

Comment

Representation ID: 1604

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Durrants

We disagree that a development on the two sites would have an impact on the landscape character of the area. There are numerous dwellings on this road and this is effectively infill between two parts of the settlement and is adjacent to the settlement limit. We believe the site would make a sensible extension to the settlement limit and would be for a minimal increase in dwellings potentially including self-build sites. The site is still within relatively close proximity to the rest of the village and we believe any landscape or townscape issues could be reasonably mitigated. We would politely request that the refusal of this site is reconsidered and looked at as a potential settlement limit extension for a smaller number of dwellings.

Comment

Representation ID: 1612

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Durrants

We believe site SN4009 should be allocated or an allowance for a settlement limit extension made as the settlement boundary is to the east of Rode Lane and directly to the south of the proposed site. This would allow for an extension of the linear development along the Road and would match the east side of the road leading to the cross roads. Mitigation can be easily put in place for any heritage assets, landscape mitigation or surface water flooding.