Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan - Alternative Sites & Focused Changes (Reg. 18)
Search representations
Results for Collins & Coward Limited search
New searchObject
Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan - Alternative Sites & Focused Changes (Reg. 18)
QUESTION 1: The Village Clusters Plan needs to ensure the allocation of 1,200 dwellings on new sites, for delivery in the period up to 2038. In terms of the overall number to be allocated, which of the three options above do you consider the most appropri
Representation ID: 3467
Received: 26/01/2024
Respondent: Collins & Coward Limited
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF December 2023) has removed the need for housing targets. Therefore, the raison d’etre for the 1200 minimum residential units as set out the Plan is no longer a requirement. The new approach is to calculate housing need based on an “advisory starting point” . Therefore, the assumption the plan must provide at least 1200 units is no longer correct. In its place must be a total number of units driven by each proposed site’s ability accommodate residential development.
See attachment for full representation.
Object
Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan - Alternative Sites & Focused Changes (Reg. 18)
QUESTION 6: Do you agree with the boundary of revised allocation VC BAW1 REV, Land to the east of Stocks Hill, Bawburgh, to facilitate a reduced density of up to 35 dwellings on an area of 1.9ha? Please explain your response.
Representation ID: 3468
Received: 26/01/2024
Respondent: Collins & Coward Limited
A number of planning considerations would indicate that planning permission for this site would not be granted.
Council accepts that Bawburgh is not part of a 'Cluster' but has been selected due to its primary school. Sustainability is more than education however. Principle is therefore flawed due to lack of other services. Contrary to NPPF. Despite this still one of largest allocations when this suggests it should be lower. Smaller sites can be delivered more quickly.
Highways not considered safety implications on narrow bridge with no alternative.
Council has not calculated what is 'modest' growth. 35 units represents an increase of 15% which is not considered modest.
1.9ha is more akin to urban development than smaller rural development.
Council accepts that while there is conflict, overall the VCHAP present balanced portfolio of development.
25 dwellings per hectare is wholly inappropriate for rural village. Nearby permission (2018/1550) has a density of 9 per hectare. New density is still twice this with no justification.
NPPF 112 states that density should be optimised where sites are well served by public transport, which Bawburgh is not. NPPF 130 states that increases are inappropriate where it would be wholly out of character.
50 units is not small and wholly unacceptable in rural locations.
No highways or footpath improvements been recommended.
Landscape impact not fully considered despite policy requirement for LVA. Should be carried out as part of site assessment. Need to consider loss of views of Yare Valley.
No consideration of Southern Bypass Landscape Protection Zone or the site being Grade 3 Agricultural land.
Primary school is oversubscribed with out of catchment pupils. It would take a number of years to accommodate 10 new pupils generated.
Not health facilities in village and others oversubscribed.
See attachment for full representation.
