South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 19 Pre-submission Draft)

Object

Representation ID: 2919

Received: 07/03/2023

Respondent: Clayland Architects

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

It is unsound to allocate a site which (as stated) adjoins the River Waveney Valley to the east with no hard boundaries, roads or visual breaks to enclose or separate the site from the wider landscape setting of The Broads. Increased development in this location will unavoidably lead to negative impact upon this scenic back drop. The site intrudes on the open countryside of the River Valley and does not offer an infill of the building pattern in Earsham. The Sustainability Appraisal recognised this issue, “SN0390 at Earsham is considered to have the greatest sensitivity (to the River Waveney Valley)

Object

Representation ID: 2922

Received: 07/03/2023

Respondent: Clayland Architects

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Unacceptable heritage impacts in conflict with NPPF and local Design Guides. There are no clear and convincing justifications as to why this development cannot be achieved on reasonable alternative sites which do not have this level of heritage impact.

Object

Representation ID: 2923

Received: 07/03/2023

Respondent: Clayland Architects

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

The current access relies upon demolition of The Rectory (Third Party Landowner) for which the deeds, covenants and title documents have been lost prior to 2008. On this basis it would appear to be unsound to allocate a site without a reasonable certainty it can be delivered un-encumbered of legal restrictions and covenants. If the site is delivered, there is a possibility of legal issues and unknown land registry risks for future owners. This issue of third party land ownership is not an issue on other reasonable alternative sites and does not appear to have been considered in this policy.

Object

Representation ID: 2925

Received: 07/03/2023

Respondent: Clayland Architects

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

The allocation of a 1.3ha site is unsound in this location as it pushes development behind the existing rural development pattern which is predominantly linear thus creating a development at odds with the local heritage and landscape setting. The size of the development in this location is too great and may hinder future expansion of the school.

Object

Representation ID: 2927

Received: 07/03/2023

Respondent: Clayland Architects

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

The policy in relation to this site has been shown to be unsound throughout early rounds of consultation stages, local opinion, HELAA Assessments and Sustainability Assessments.
The site has numerous issues and restrictions which are well documented relating to Heritage, Landscape, Flooding, Access, Land Ownership, Proximity to School and Highways Access. It is not sound to allocate a site with this level of constraints where other sites have been demonstrated as preferable or reasonable alternatives.