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

Support

Representation ID: 2832

Received: 06/03/2023

Respondent: Durrants

Please refer to detailed representations submitted on 6/3/23. In summary, we find the settlement limit for Wortwell to be sound. It allows for an allocation and modest infill in sustainable locations. Wortwell has the added benefit of being outside of the Nutrient Neutrality catchment and therefore represents an opportunity to compensate for inevitable under-delivery of housing in areas within the catchment elsewhere in the District.

Support

Representation ID: 3179

Received: 06/03/2023

Respondent: Durrants

The proposed settlement boundary for Saxlingham Nethergate is sound.
The site to the south of Norwich Road (SN4007SL) was submitted for consideration through the Call for Sites process. This was assessed by the local authority and scored ‘green’ or ‘amber’ against all metrics. The only reason it was not proposed as an allocation is because it was deemed suitable for inclusion within the settlement boundary.
The site is in a sustainable location, forming an ‘infill’ gap, with potential to improve the entrance to the village from the north-west, which is currently marked only by a small white gate. It is a logical location for further housing development, and we would encourage the settlement boundary to be maintained in its proposed form within the final submission version of the Plan.
The landowner of this land is able to confirm that the site remains available for development, and that concerns raised through the call for sites assessment process can be addressed through a suitable planning application, subject to the necessary third party consents.

Support

Representation ID: 3185

Received: 06/03/2023

Respondent: Durrants

The site was assessed by the Council to be a ‘reasonable’ addition to the existing settlement limit (May 2022), with capacity for around 8 dwellings.
The site scored ‘green’ against nearly all metrics, with any ‘amber’ areas deemed surmountable by the relevant consultees. The assessment concluded that the site was available and achievable, and that the highlighted landscape and heritage impacts could be addressed within a planning application. Any application would also need to be accompanied by a suitable ecological survey.
The landowners of the land within SN5045SL are able to confirm that the site remains available for development, and are confident that the issues highlighted within the site assessment, and summarised above, can easily be addressed through a planning application.
The site is in a sustainable location, forming an ‘infill’ gap, with residences on either side. It is a logical location for further housing development, and we would encourage the settlement boundary to be maintained in its proposed form within the final submission version of the Plan.
Wortwell has the added benefit of being outside of any Nutrient Neutrality catchment area, meaning any proposed housing can come forward without delay, unlike in some other villages within the District. SN5045SL is therefore highly deliverable and could provide much-needed housing when allocations within the catchments are delayed.

Object

Representation ID: 3202

Received: 06/03/2023

Respondent: Durrants

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Site SN2119 was submitted as part of the call for sites process for the Greater Norwich Local Plan, and considered a ‘reasonable alternative’. Following the submission of representations to inform the Regulation 18 stage, including the provision of further technical information to address concerns raised by the Council, the site was shortlisted for allocation, ‘subject to demonstrating access from Astley Cooper Place’.
The Regulation 19 version of the Plan sees SN2119 rejected, for reasons we believe to be unfounded.
The attached documents demonstrate that the assessment of the site’s suitability was flawed, and failed to take into account the evidence provided by the landowner and agent in 2018.
The site appears to have ultimately been rejected for three reasons, all of which can be mitigated: doubt that a footway link can be delivered; poor visibility; and impact on the setting of 66 High Green. It is also evident that the preference for access via Astley Cooper Place informed the decision to reject the site, but Astley Cooper Place was never a reasonable access solution.
The disregard for the evidence provided and the relevant areas of the NPPF, combined with the negative approach to overcoming technical constraints, make the plan unsound.