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

Comment

Representation ID: 1579

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Orbit Homes

Agent: Armstrong Rigg Planning

See attached letter for full response.
Objective 1: To ensure delivery of target would recommend an over-allocation of c.20%. (for any sites that fail to come forward).
Support objective to ensure appropriate mix of house
types, sizes and tenures, but object to inclusion of specific policy on housing mix.
• Objective 2: Support objective to provide opportunities for new housing in a range of settlements to support local services/facilities.
• Objective 3: support objective to ensure scale/location/density of housing is well related
to form/character of existing villages, but consider that Objective fails to recognise NPPF para 124 focus on making efficient use of land. Therefore needs amending to ensure it achieves efficient densities that also relate well to local character.

Comment

Representation ID: 1582

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Orbit Homes

Agent: Armstrong Rigg Planning

See attached letter for full response.
Support the principle but care needs to be taken to ensure that these requirements don’t simply repeat and contradict policies n the GNLP and Development Management Policies.
- 'minimising the impact on the amenity of existing residents': this repeats existing requirements set out in Policy DM 3.13 Amenity, noise and quality of life, and should be deleted.
- 'landscaping consistent with a rural, edge of village location, taking into account the South Norfolk Landscape Character Assessments': this repeats Policy DM 4.5 Landscape Character and River Valleys.
- 'provision of open space on sites of 15+ dwellings': this repeats Policy DM3.15: Outdoor play facilities and recreational open space and the Guidelines for Recreation Provision in New Residential Developments SPD.

Object

Representation ID: 1584

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Orbit Homes

Agent: Armstrong Rigg Planning

See attached letter for full response.
The new NPPF includes key changes with respect to how design policies and guidance are provided at a local level. At paragraph 128 it requires all local planning authorities to prepare design guides or codes consistent with the principles set out in the National Design Guide and National Model Design Code, and which reflect local character and design preferences. In this context, we object to the inclusion of a policy on design in the VCHAP as it would fail to provide the level of detailed guidance now required by the NPPF.
Further, the criteria currently proposed only serve to repeat other more detailed policies in other existing plans
and guidance document, such that the proposed Policy SNVC2 – Design is unnecessary.

Object

Representation ID: 1585

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Orbit Homes

Agent: Armstrong Rigg Planning

See attached letter for full response.
Orbit Homes objects to the inclusion of Policy SNVC3 – Housing Mix as it would only serve to repeat existing policy requirements contained elsewhere. The consultation document states that a housing mix policy could include requirements for development to meet the affordable housing and housing mix requirements of the most up to date SHMA (or equivalent). A requirement for developments to meet the housing mix requirements of the current SHMA is already set out at Policy DM3.1 and the affordable housing requirement for the district is set out at emerging GNLP Policy 5.

Support

Representation ID: 1587

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Orbit Homes

Agent: Armstrong Rigg Planning

See attached letter for full response.
Orbit Homes supports the proposed Settlement Limit shown on the Map Booklet for Tasburgh as it includes Land north of Church Road and west of Tasburgh School that is allocated for development by Policy TAS1 of the Site Specific Allocations and Policies Document (2015). As set out below, Orbit Homes has an interest in this site and can confirm that it is deliverable for the level of development now proposed.

Support

Representation ID: 1588

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Orbit Homes

Agent: Armstrong Rigg Planning

See attached letter for full response.
We support the re-allocation of this site for up to 30 dwellings.
Points for further consideration:
1. NCC Highways access recommendations - we can confirm that these are deliverable.
2. We disagree that an increase in dwellings is dependent on there being no requirement for school expansion. JCS only allocated 10-20 dwellings to each Service Village, therefore site was allocated at low density. Would expect any requirement for school expansion as a result of proposed development to be small.
Density of c.35 dph is achievable on site with similar levels of building coverage to surrounding area. Design would reflect local character and use land efficiently.
30 dwellings could be delivered on the site, whilst retaining sufficient land for any small school expansions that are required.

Comment

Representation ID: 1589

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Orbit Homes

Agent: Armstrong Rigg Planning

See attached letter for full response.
Orbit Homes has reviewed the three other sites submitted for residential development in Tasburgh and it is clear that none of them are suitable for residential development due to their distance from the settlement, access and
highways issues and their impact on the historic environment and local townscape and landscape. We therefore agree with the Council’s assessment of these sites.