Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan - Reg. 19 Pre-submission Addendum

Object

Representation ID: 4123

Received: 07/10/2024

Respondent: Rainier Developments and Strategic Land

Agent: Ceres Property

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Looking first at VC BAR2, Land at Chapel Street, Barford we note that the Parish Council has raised what appear to be significant concerns regarding the development of this potential allocation. In its response (representation ID 3910) to the Regulation 19 Addendum, the Council states:

“The site is unlikely to be available within 5 years. There is a 99-year lease (36 years remaining) which requires (unlikely) agreement by the villagers and the Charity Commission before it is surrendered.”

On the basis of the above, this proposed allocation could not be considered deliverable as defined by the NPPF. Whilst the Parish Council refer to development of the site not being achievable within 5 years, based on the information they have provided it is difficult to see how it could be considered capable of coming forward during the plan period at all.

Object

Representation ID: 4124

Received: 07/10/2024

Respondent: Rainier Developments and Strategic Land

Agent: Ceres Property

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

At paragraph 3.18 there is reference to a potential constraint to development of this proposed allocation, as Anglian Water infrastructure crosses the site. It states that “the developer is encouraged to enter into earlier engagement with AW”. We note the objection from the Broads Authority (representation ID 3900) stating that wording should be strengthened such that a developer ‘must’ enter into early engagement with Anglian Water over this matter. Regardless, whether text states ‘should’ or ‘must’ it is unclear at this juncture from the Regulation 19 Addendum whether the proposed allocation is deliverable.

Separately, we note an objection from Norfolk Wildlife Trust (representation ID 3959) in relation to the proposed allocation’s proximity to Broome Heath County Wildlife Site (CWS) and Broome Heath Pit Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), and the potential impact of development on these.

Whilst Norfolk Wildlife Trust recommend additional policy text is added to require mitigation of any impact, it is again not clear if development of the site as the current draft policy envisages and incorporating the requisite mitigation is deliverable.

Object

Representation ID: 4125

Received: 07/10/2024

Respondent: Rainier Developments and Strategic Land

Agent: Ceres Property

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

We note the objection from Norfolk County Council in its capacity as the Mineral Planning Authority (representation ID 3989). The County Council notes this proposed allocation is located within the consultation area for the safeguarded mineral extraction site (Earsham Quarry), that this quarry is on 25m from the boundary of the proposed allocation, and that it has permission for mineral extraction and processing until 2040.

The County Council requests additional policy text that includes a requirement that the development of the site “must not prevent or prejudice the use of the existing mineral extraction site unless suitable alternative provision is made, or the applicant demonstrates that the site no longer meets the needs of the aggregate industry”.

However, it is not clear from the Regulation 19 Addendum if development of the site as the current draft policy envisages and incorporating the requisite mitigation is deliverable.

Additionally, it is not clear what the impact of the existing quarry on the amenity of future occupiers of the proposed allocation would be, or whether this would be acceptable.

Object

Representation ID: 4126

Received: 07/10/2024

Respondent: Rainier Developments and Strategic Land

Agent: Ceres Property

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

As confirmed through case law (see Heard), whilst it is not necessary to keep open all options for the same level of detailed examination at all stages, at each stage the preferred option and reasonable alternatives must be assessed to the same level of detail.

GNLP3033 (‘the Site’) was expressly identified earlier within the plan-making process as a reasonable alternative. However, it does not appear to have been assessed at all as part of the Regulation 19 Addendum SA, let alone to the same level of detail as the sites that are proposed for allocation.

The lack of assessment of this site-specific alternative is a concern in terms of compliance with the SEA Regulations.

Additionally, no consideration appears to have been given as part of the SEA process as to whether Long Stratton, as a settlement, should accommodate some of the new residential site allocations required for the VCHAP.

Separately, Regulation 13 concerns the procedural requirements of consultation on the SEA. It requires inter alia that, as soon as reasonably practicable after the preparation of the SEA, the responsible authority should bring it to the attention of persons who are affected or likely to be affected by, or have an interest in its findings.

Two concerns arise from this relating to the Regulation 19 Addendum SA .

Firstly, it is not clear if an Environmental Report was prepared to support the Regulation 18 iteration of the Addendum to the VCHAP. If it was, then Rainier should, as interested persons, have been consulted on this. If it was not, then this would give rise to a different concern, given the need for plans to be informed by sustainability appraisal which meets legal requirements throughout their preparation (NPPF paragraph 32).

Secondly, it is not clear from the information available via the website that comments are being invited on the Regulation 19 Addendum SA itself. The online consultation portal does not appear to have a facility for commenting on the Regulation 19 Addendum SA, only the Regulation 19 Addendum.

Object

Representation ID: 4166

Received: 07/10/2024

Respondent: Rainier Developments and Strategic Land

Agent: Ceres Property

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Looking first at VC BAR2, Land at Chapel Street, Barford we note that the Parish Council has raised what appear to be significant concerns regarding the development of this potential allocation. In its response (representation ID 3910) to the Regulation 19 Addendum, the Council states:

“The site is unlikely to be available within 5 years. There is a 99-year lease (36 years remaining) which requires (unlikely) agreement by the villagers and the Charity Commission before it is surrendered.”

On the basis of the above, this proposed allocation could not be considered deliverable as defined by the NPPF. Whilst the Parish Council refer to development of the site not being achievable within 5 years, based on the information they have provided it is difficult to see how it could be considered capable of coming forward during the plan period at all.

Object

Representation ID: 4167

Received: 07/10/2024

Respondent: Rainier Developments and Strategic Land

Agent: Ceres Property

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

At paragraph 3.18 there is reference to a potential constraint to development of this proposed allocation, as Anglian Water infrastructure crosses the site. It states that “the developer is encouraged to enter into earlier engagement with AW”. We note the objection from the Broads Authority (representation ID 3900) stating that wording should be strengthened such that a developer ‘must’ enter into early engagement with Anglian Water over this matter. Regardless, whether text states ‘should’ or ‘must’ it is unclear at this juncture from the Regulation 19 Addendum whether the proposed allocation is deliverable.

Separately, we note an objection from Norfolk Wildlife Trust (representation ID 3959) in relation to the proposed allocation’s proximity to Broome Heath County Wildlife Site (CWS) and Broome Heath Pit Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), and the potential impact of development on these.

Whilst Norfolk Wildlife Trust recommend additional policy text is added to require mitigation of any impact, it is again not clear if development of the site as the current draft policy envisages and incorporating the requisite mitigation is deliverable.

Object

Representation ID: 4168

Received: 07/10/2024

Respondent: Rainier Developments and Strategic Land

Agent: Ceres Property

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

We note the objection from Norfolk County Council in its capacity as the Mineral Planning Authority (representation ID 3989). The County Council notes this proposed allocation is located within the consultation area for the safeguarded mineral extraction site (Earsham Quarry), that this quarry is on 25m from the boundary of the proposed allocation, and that it has permission for mineral extraction and processing until 2040.

The County Council requests additional policy text that includes a requirement that the development of the site “must not prevent or prejudice the use of the existing mineral extraction site unless suitable alternative provision is made, or the applicant demonstrates that the site no longer meets the needs of the aggregate industry”.

However, it is not clear from the Regulation 19 Addendum if development of the site as the current draft policy envisages and incorporating the requisite mitigation is deliverable.

Additionally, it is not clear what the impact of the existing quarry on the amenity of future occupiers of the proposed allocation would be, or whether this would be acceptable.

Object

Representation ID: 4169

Received: 07/10/2024

Respondent: Rainier Developments and Strategic Land

Agent: Ceres Property

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

As confirmed through case law (see Heard), whilst it is not necessary to keep open all options for the same level of detailed examination at all stages, at each stage the preferred option and reasonable alternatives must be assessed to the same level of detail.

GNLP0321 and GNLP1023 (which together constitute the Site) were expressly identified earlier within the plan-making process as reasonable alternatives. Despite this, it appears that they have not been considered as potential allocation through the Regulation 19 Addendum SA, let alone to the same level of detail as the sites that are proposed for allocation.

The lack of assessment of this site-specific alternative is a concern in terms of compliance with the SEA Regulations.

Additionally, no consideration appears to have been given as part of the SEA process as to whether Poringland / Framingham Earl, as a settlement, should accommodate some of the new residential site allocations required for the VCHAP.

In considering the Site in relation to the SA objectives and framework in the Regulation 19 Addendum SA, we consider it would be assessed as having a number of positive impacts and identified as a sustainable site for residential development.

Located in sustainable location, access to bus services, no ecological designations, low agricultural value, not located close to Conservation area.