The second site for Aylsham should be withdrawn from Reg. 19. The infrastructure needs of the Town need addressing before any further development. The two recent developments failed to be of benefit for the majority of people who live in the Town.

This land should not be used for residential development as there has been no consultation on a second site, therefore it is not legally compliant. This is also true of the impact on the carbon neutral aims of Central Government, which are challenged by a second site. It is also unsound due to the failure to meet the infrastructure needs of the Town. There has been no consultation on the care home, the road improvements are limited to the vicinity of the site and the community use of the land offered.

The second site for Aylsham proposed by Regulation 19 should be withdrawn because of its negative impact on the character of the town and its community.

There has been no consultation for this second site and therefore it is illegal. The proposed development would place an excessive burden on the town's infrastructure.

The second site for Aylsham should be withdrawn from Reg. 19. The infrastructure needs of the Town need addressing before any further development. The two recent developments failed to be of benefit for the majority of people who live in the Town.

This land should not be used for residential development as there has been no consultation on a second site, therefore it is not legally compliant. This is also true of the impact on the carbon neutral aims of Central Government, which are challenged by a second site. It is also unsound due to the failure to meet the infrastructure needs of the Town. There has been no consultation on the care home, the road improvements are limited to the vicinity of the site and the community use of the land offered.

The second site for Aylsham should be withdrawn from Regulation 19.

Again there has been no consultation on the second site, so it is not legally compliant. The extra traffic that would this site would produce would increase Aylsham's carbon footprint plus there has been no consultation on the care home.

The second site for Aylsham should be withdrawn from Reg 19. the infrastructure needs of the Town need addressing before any further development.
The two recent developments failed to be of benefit for the majority of people who live in the Town.
What I am saying now, is we all need to look at the future focus, out of Brexit uncertainty of imports of food products i.e. Fruit & Veg we seriously need to look to our way forward, once we build on this arable (green field site) as it was once called will be gone, it will be irreversible.
I still cannot understand why Broadland and Norwich Council cannot come to some agreement to partner with landlords in Norwich to develop old unused office blocks and renovate for small shop outlets and more importantly convert to 1 - 2 - 3 or even 4 bed apartments within Norwich area, therefore reduce vehicle traffic coming in from the outer villages and the pollution. 550 houses could equate to 650 more cars and that's just from Aylsham.
Instead of grabbing all the arable farmland, the government is pushing the public hard to go green, how can this be achieved with all this development ongoing in our countryside.

This land should not be used for residential development, as there has been no consultation
on a second site, therefore it is not legally compliant.
This is also true of the impact on the carbon neutral aims of central government, which are challenged by a second site. It is also unsound due to the failure to meet the infrastructure needs of the town.
There has been no consultation on the care home, the road improvements are limited to the vicinity of the site and the community use of the land offered.

The plan shouldn't be scrapped all together or moved to another area.

This housing development does not take into consideration the already very busy Norwich Road into Aylsham between Tesco's and the town centre. The traffic has increased immensely over the last 5 years and the additional housing plan will create an unjustified and dangerous amount of local traffic in Aylsham.

The transportation idea for Aylsham is a good one but further housing and people are not conducive to a settled community. Aylsham is already overcrowded with the many housing projects completed within the last ten years.

The site is illegal due to lack of consultation for two sites in Aylsham. Aylsham has insufficient doctors surgeries, social care, green spaces and leisure facilities.

The most practical change to the plans that I would like to see is the area near to the Buxton Road end of the development being redrawn to form a cul-de-sac of say, 12 to 15 dwellings actually facing and connecting to Buxton Road. This should be laid out and constructed so that there is no cycle or footpath access to Buxton Road. In other words, the rears of these properties should form a barrier to the rest of the development and all foot and traffic movement should be to the Norwich Road end. (The current illustrated emergency access will be of limited value given the nature of the narrow entrance and bend at the north west end of Buxton Road.)

This suggestion almost seems to contradict some of my earlier comments. However, although I would prefer no impact, I believe that Buxton Road and the additional roads, Repton and Soame Closes and Lancaster Gardens, could cope with the additional 20 or so residents' vehicles and pedestrian traffic that would be created. If this was supplemented with traffic calming measures such as speed ramps or tables and additional speed limit signs it would avoid completely changing the character of the Road.

As for the wider development, taking it with the other major development plans for the town, we have to have a much more comprehensive and detailed plan in place before we start. So for example, when the Norwich Road has been widened, what is the impact further up on business and residential properties nearer the town centre? When all the extra traffic gets to the entrance to the Market Place, where is it going to go? All you do is move the bottleneck. And where is another supermarket going to go (not forgetting its parking and access needs). (If you want to see how not to do it, look at the Willow Park estate.)

This vision of our wonderful town needs to be produced in conjunction with townsfolk and their elected representatives and needs to be at a very advanced stage before any more ground is broken. I firmly believe that it is high time to stop and think about just where this is going because right now it is out of control. It seems like people in Norwich are going through the motions of finding the land, finding a developer, getting some plans drawn up, tweak the surrounding roads and then abdicating any responsibility for the ensuing stack of issues and fallout. It all becomes someone­ else's problems and that, quite simply, is not good enough. So please, start thinking about the bigger picture and most importantly, work with the people who have to live with the changes foisted upon them long after your involvement has ceased.

GNLP0596R Regulation 19 development of land between Buxton Road and Norwich Road, Aylsham

I write regarding the above proposed development.

Firstly, I have to express huge disappointment and concern over the lack of public consultation in respect of this development of significant impact on Aylsham. In fact it is suggested that pushing this as a fait accompli under Regulation 19 is not sound and possibly not even legal without public consultation. In any event, it is a travesty not to involve the people of the town and community who are directly affected.

As a longstanding local resident, the development in question has always been expected. However,
I have to question the whole issue of the timescales and the apparent complete lack of forethought in terms of infrastructure and time for facilities to be developed alongside the substantial increase in population. What about open spaces, pavements and walkways, black and grey drainage, additional shopping, doctors and dentists, emergency services and policing, public transport, litter and environmental management, support for local farmers and landowners for crop damage and livestock injury/loss, public footpath management, road and parking capacity and civic administration to name but a few? It feels like this is just expected to be sorted out afterwards. I can tell you now that these example issues are already causing serious problems with the major additions to population and traffic in recent years. You try turning right out of the top of Buxton Road onto Norwich Road on a Saturday morning when the traffic is queued waiting to get into the Tesco car park .

More specifically, Buxton Road cannot safely cope with the anticipated additional pedestrian journeys. For much of its length, there is no pavement and below what verges might be used, there are mains water and gas supply pipes. As for the narrow entrance and bend, the pavement is so narrow that a pushchair/buggy is too wide and those pushing young children or elderly and infirm in wheelchairs are forced to walk in the road on a dangerous bend. In fact, I doubt if the width meets the definition of a pavement.

Delivery vans and visiting trades vehicles show scant regard for the 20mph speed limit. Larger delivery lorries and refuse collection vehicles regularly cause delays and residents' driveways and existing verges are already being misused and eroded.

The most practical change to the plans that I would like to see is the area near to the Buxton Road end of the development being redrawn to form a cul-de-sac of say, 12 to 15 dwellings actually facing and connecting to Buxton Road. This should be laid out and constructed so that there is no cycle or footpath access to Buxton Road. In other words, the rears of these properties should form a barrier to the rest of the development and all foot and traffic movement should be to the Norwich Road end. (The current illustrated emergency access will be of limited value given the nature of the narrow entrance and bend at the north west end of Buxton Road.)

This suggestion almost seems to contradict some of my earlier comments. However, although I would prefer no impact, I believe that Buxton Road and the additional roads, Repton and Soame Closes and Lancaster Gardens, could cope with the additional 20 or so residents' vehicles and pedestrian traffic that would be created. If this was supplemented with traffic calming measures such as speed ramps or tables and additional speed limit signs it would avoid completely changing the character of the Road.

As for the wider development, taking it with the other major development plans for the town, we have to have a much more comprehensive and detailed plan in place before we start. So for example, when the Norwich Road has been widened, what is the impact further up on business and residential properties nearer the town centre? When all the extra traffic gets to the entrance to the Market Place, where is it going to go? All you do is move the bottleneck. And where is another supermarket going to go (not forgetting its parking and access needs). (If you want to see how not to do it, look at the Willow Park estate.)

This vision of our wonderful town needs to be produced in conjunction with townsfolk and their elected representatives and needs to be at a very advanced stage before any more ground is broken. I firmly believe that it is high time to stop and think about just where this is going because right now it is out of control. It seems like people in Norwich are going through the motions of finding the land, finding a developer, getting some plans drawn up, tweak the surrounding roads and then abdicating any responsibility for the ensuing stack of issues and fallout. It all becomes someone­ else's problems and that, quite simply, is not good enough. So please, start thinking about the bigger picture and most importantly, work with the people who have to live with the changes foisted upon them long after your involvement has ceased.

I am writing to express my anger at the cavalier way in which the latest version of the Greater Norwich Local Plan has been imposed upon Aylsham.

We were extremely shocked to find that Aylsham had been allocated a further 250 houses in addition to the 300 which had already been approved under Regulation 18. This addition has been imposed without discussion or any thought to the local infrastructure or character of the Town.

Many of us took part in the consultation on the local plan in the Town during 2018/9. As a result of that consultation additional one additional site for housing was, albeit reluctantly, agreed. Our infrastructure is already struggling to cope, our schools are already full, the water and sewage systems are inadequate to cope at the moment and our roads are clogged with the additional cars that previous development in the Town has engendered. It seems that this new allocation has been rushed through GNLP without thought to sound principles of local planning and I believe that the legality and soundness of the new GNLP should therefore be called into question.

I think I am right in thinking that even our elected representatives on Broadland Council were not consulted about the increased allocation. This is not democracy in action, it is more like institutionalised thuggery. It is being imposed on the Town against its wishes and with absolutely no thought to how it might impact Aylsham.

We should all protest in the strongest possible terms.

GNLP0596R – Aylsham Housing Allocation
At the Consultation Meeting in 2018/19 there was mention of one site for an additional 300 houses to be built. Even here the numbers have risen from 300 – 780.
Imagine our surprise and dismay to find another additional site of 250 houses has appeared out of nowhere without consultation with us the residents, or our local councillors or representatives. Corporate bullying and total lack of thought for us all comes to mind.
This makes one question the legality of this being pushed through by the GNLP at an advantageous time for them (Covid 19) without due consultation.
Our infrastructure is already straining under the pressure of recently built homes. The schools are at capacity, doctor surgeries are full, sewage and water systems unable to cope.
We here in Buxton Road have had to call the waterboard out several times due to the stench of sewage systems backing up under the strain. Some residents have sold up and moved on because they were unable to cope. What do you think is going to happen with an additional (unwelcome) 250 houses?
Our roads are already straining to cope and our lovely Market Town is fast losing it’s beautiful character.
What is the point of having such meetings, only to be overruled whenever “the powers to be” choose? We feel the GLNP have, with no advance notice, completely disregarded people’s and our town council’s opinions.
We protest vehemently….

I believe that this allocation has been rushed through GNLP without any thought to the local planning and should therefore be reviewed and reconsidered – this was proposed without public consultation so should not be considered as legal or sound!

I am writing regarding POLICY GNLP0596R – Aylsham Housing Allocation; I am extremely upset at the way the additional 250 houses between Buxton Road and Norwich Road have been added to the plan for Aylsham.

The local infrastructure cannot cope with this addition as it is struggling already - the schools are operating to maximum capacity as are the roads, car parking, doctor surgeries etc. I live at the bottom of Buxton Road and in the summer I cannot even have my windows open because the smell is so bad from the sewage.

Aylsham is a Market Town and should remain as close to that size as it possibly can – the town is a perfect area for tourism and this will fade if more houses are built because we will become a town that people simply want to pass through.

I believe that this allocation has been rushed through GNLP without any thought to the local planning and should therefore be reviewed and reconsidered – this was proposed without public consultation so should not be considered as legal or sound!

GNLP0596R – Aylsham Housing Allocation
At the Consultation Meeting in 2018/19 there was mention of one site for an additional 300 houses to be built. Even here the numbers have risen from 300 – 780.
Imagine our surprise and dismay to find another additional site of 250 houses has appeared out of nowhere without consultation with us the residents, or our local councillors or representatives. Corporate bullying and total lack of thought for us all comes to mind.
This makes one question the legality of this being pushed through by the GNLP at an advantageous time for them (Covid 19) without due consultation.
Our infrastructure is already straining under the pressure of recently built homes. The schools are at capacity, doctor surgeries are full, sewage and water systems unable to cope.
We here in Buxton Road have had to call the waterboard out several times due to the stench of sewage systems backing up under the strain. Some residents have sold up and moved on because they were unable to cope. What do you think is going to happen with an additional (unwelcome) 250 houses?
Our roads are already straining to cope and our lovely Market Town is fast losing it’s beautiful character.
What is the point of having such meetings, only to be overruled whenever “the powers to be” choose? We feel the GLNP have, with no advance notice, completely disregarded people’s and our town council’s opinions.
We protest vehemently….

GNLP0596R – Aylsham Housing Allocation
At the Consultation Meeting in 2018/19 there was mention of one site for an additional 300 houses to be built. Even here the numbers have risen from 300 – 780.
Imagine our surprise and dismay to find another additional site of 250 houses has appeared out of nowhere without consultation with us the residents, or our local councillors or representatives. Corporate bullying and total lack of thought for us all comes to mind. This makes one question the legality of this being pushed through by the GNLP at an advantageous time for them (Covid 19) without due consultation.
Our infrastructure is already straining under the pressure of recently built homes. The schools are at capacity, doctor surgeries are full, sewage and water systems unable to cope.
I am aware the waterboard was called out several times due to the stench of sewage systems backing up under the strain. Some residents have sold up and moved on because they were unable to cope. What do you think is going to happen with an additional (unwelcome) 250 houses?
Our roads are already straining to cope and our lovely Market Town is fast losing it’s beautiful character.
What is the point of having such meetings, only to be overruled whenever “the powers to be” choose? We feel the GLNP have, with no advance notice, completely disregarded people’s and our town council’s opinions.
We protest vehemently….

Obviously there needs to be a proper consultation giving due regard to almost doubling the number of homes now envisaged.

Although Aylsham Town Council, residents of the town and its District Councillors were consulted on regulation 18 concerning one site for 300 homes there has been no such consultation with regard to an additional site for a further 250 homes. Since there would have to be significant changes to the infrastructure referred to in regulation 18 again the original consultation was insufficient to sustain the new regulation.

Obviously there needs to be a proper consultation giving due regard to almost doubling the number of homes now envisaged.

The Reg19 plans for the Norwich Road site need to be scrapped because they are neither legal or sound.

The site on Norwich Road is not legally compliant as Reg18 stated that Aylsham would have one site and that was put forward for consultation. Reg19 states there will be two sites but that has never been consulted on and therefore not legal.
The Reg19 plan is not sound because it hasn’t considered the needs of the town’s infrastructure, rural environment and the Government’s carbon neutral plans.

The second site for Aylsham should be withdrawn. There are no firm proposals to ensure that a second site would meet the needs of the community in terms of environmental benefits. Indeed, proposed sites like this in unsustainable rural locations, where there is poor access to public transport and local jobs, and a reliance on private cars, as well as delivery vehicles to support these new dwellings, should be withdrawn.

The table on page 80 of the 23 June 2017 GNDP Board Papers demonstrates that the most reasonable alternative for the location of housing in terms of the environment is Option 1: urban concentration close to Norwich.
In terms of all the environmental and other factors taken together, the least desirable option as shown on this chart is Option 4: dispersal of development. Hence Reg 19 for Aylsham.
However, the opportunity to address climate change - including "reducing the need to travel and promoting the use of sustainable transport modes; minimising the use of the best agricultural land; maintaining and enhancing water quality and its efficient use and other sustainability measures - is not taken with respect to Aylsham, with a combination of development location options being chosen instead.
To make Reg 19 sound, the location of the second site should address the significant issues for infrastructure and, as a consequence, the associated needs resulting from climate change. There are no specific measures identified in the plan.
Nor does it include clear evidence-based carbon reduction targets, which are needed for the GNLP to demonstrate how it will meet its legal obligations.

There should not be a second site. If it is to be considered, there should be full public consultation and due consideration must be made to the infrastructure of Aylsham with any development phased so that infrastructure can improved before houses are built

One site was agreed for Aylsham under Regulation 18. This proposal for another site under regulation 19 has had no consultation locally and is therefore not legally compliant. Regulation 19 fails to consider the impact of two sites for Aylsham on the infrastructure of the town, schools, health facilities, roads and traffic, and is therefore not sound.

This site should be omitted.

Response to GNLP Regulation 19
Submitted on behalf of Diggens Farmhouse

Background

Diggens Farmhouse, Aylsham is located to the east of proposed residential allocation GNLP0596R in the emerging GNLP.

It is noted that six reasonable alternative sites were considered and identified at Stage 5 of the settlement based appraisal of reasonable sites.

In addition to these sites, two further sites are considered to be reasonable alternatives (including GNLP0596) if more growth is required in the towns. It is stated in the appraisal that both sites would need to satisfy highway concerns regarding access and footpaths. Furthermore, a school would need to be delivered on one of the sites.

It is noted that the preferred site is land to the south of Burgh Road, the allocation of which is supported.

This proposed reasonable alternative site (GNLP0596) was not considered at the Regulation 18 stage of the plan making process. Instead, it is proposed at the Regulation 19 stage when representations are meant to be restricted to matters of legal compliance and soundness.

Diggens Farmhouse

Key issues of land use planning concern to the occupiers of Diggens Farmhouse are impact on setting and amenity by virtue of the following:
1. Diggens Farmhouse is a listed building (Grade 2) and, as such, its setting is afforded protection.
2. There is an existing well at the property. There are concerns surrounding surface water management and ability to provide a surface water drainage solution that does not impact on the farmhouse, its surrounds, the existing well and ground water level.
3. Foul water considerations and other utilities matters that may affect the farmhouse or its surrounds.
4. Noise relating to the proposed development.
5. Landscape and visual impacts that could affect the farmhouse setting or amenity.
6. General development layout, height, style and other impacts that may affect the farmhouse or its immediate surrounds.
7. Access to site, noting that two access points would be required to accommodate 250 dwellings.
8. Prospective school, catchment and additional traffic.

• Aylsham Town Council, the residents of the town and the District Councillors were consulted on Regulation 18 when there was one site put forward for Aylsham with 300 homes.
• There has been no consultation with Aylsham Town Council or the residents on the changes regarding the content of the sites section of Regulation 19. There are two sites in Regulation 19 with 550 homes, an increase of 83% on the homes consulted upon in Regulation 18.
• There was no consultation on Regulation 19 with Aylsham Town Council or residents in regard to the infrastructure as it was assumed by the GNLP board that Regulation 18 consultation was sufficient, despite the significant changes in the two plans.
• The GNLP suggested that the feedback for Reg 18 gave ‘confidence to the deliverability of new residential development in Aylsham’. The only supportive responses came from the developers. Therefore, the understanding of the response is inadequate and therefore both not legally compliant and unsound.


Soundness of the Plan and Legal Compliance

This site did not feature in the Regulation 18 consultation. As a consequence, the residents of Diggens Farmhouse, and other residents in the locality were not afforded an opportunity to comment upon its inclusion.

It is not appropriate, or legally compliant, to introduce a further site at this stage without the level of scrutiny afforded to other sites in the plan. To that extent, it is not considered that this element of the plan meets the test of being justified.

Furthermore, it is not clear how the addition of this site, in combination with the other proposed site would impact on existing infrastructure and services and the extent to which improvements would be required. This is more piecemeal than a sustainable approach to future place making, contrary to the objectives of National Policy.

The plan needs to be scrapped as it is neither legal nor sound.

There was no consultation on Regulation 19 with the residents of Aylsham or the Town Council. This makes this regulation illegal. The proposal is unsound as it proposes two sites for development and more than double the houses suggested in Regulation 18. There has been extensive development already in our town with two housing estates recently completed with no infrastructure put in place to support it ie schools, doctor’s surgeries, dentists etc.

Withdraw Reg 19 and consult

Reg 19 fails to justify how two sites with 550 homes would not have an adverse impact on the health and social care of the town. The consultation in Reg 18 concerning the issue of health and social care was in regard to 300 homes. Aylsham Care Trust (ACT) responded to an earlier consultation that they would like to see a day unit built to try and keep people in their own home, which is in keeping with government policy. In addition, there are already urgent problems regarding medical care within the town, which Reg 19 fails to consider.
In putting forward a second site, Reg19 offers a 90-bed care unit/extra care housing. However, without consultation, the response to the needs of health and social care and infrastructure in general within Aylsham have not been met and there is a real problem of soundness and in reality, neglect.

Deletion of this site from the Plan.

See my representations on 352 and Policy 7.2 However it appears to me that this site with its proposal to include specialised extra care housing and a sustainable transport hub offers more benefit to the community and more opportunity for sustainable development than the site to the south of Burgh Road.

Add new paragraph to supporting text to read:

There is an existing foul sewer in Anglian Water’s ownership within the boundary of the site and the site layout should be designed to take these into account. This existing infrastructure is protected by easements and should not be built over or located in private gardens where access for maintenance and repair could be restricted. The existing sewers should be located in highways or public open space. If this is not possible a formal application to divert Anglian Water’s existing assets may be required.’

Add new criterion to Contingency Site Policy GNLP0596R:
‘the safeguarding of suitable access for the maintenance of foul drainage infrastructure.’

There is existing foul within the boundary of the site. We would ask that this be considered as part of the site design and layout to ensure that we can continue to serve our customers. In the event that there is a need to divert our existing assets a formal application to Anglian Water would be required.

Include a requirement for open space and landscaping at the eastern end of the site.

We suggest a detailed HIA is undertaken for this site prior to EiP to assess the suitability or otherwise of the site and consider any appropriate mitigation.

Thank you for consulting Historic England on the Greater Norwich Local Plan Regulation 19 Draft including The Strategy and The Sites. As a statutory consultee, our role is to ensure that the conservation of the historic environment is fully integrated into planning policy and that any policy documents make provision for a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment.

Our comments below should be read with reference to our previous comments dated 1.2.17, 15.3.18, 4.12.1, 26.4.19 and 16.3.20. Please also see our detailed comments in the attached tables, Appendix A in relation to The Strategy and Appendix B regarding The Sites.

SUMMARY
The Greater Norwich Local Plan covers the Strategy and Site Allocations. While commenting on the plan as a whole, Historic England is particularly concerned, for its implications for Norwich itself. Norwich is one of England’s great historic cities, and its architectural and historic character, and the sense of place associated with that, make a profound and wholly beneficial contribution to the city’s well-being.

In line with paragraph 185 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) it is important that the Plan should set out a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment, including heritage assets most at risk through neglect, decay or other threats.

See above.

Representations regarding site GNLP0596R in Aylsham submitted by Cornerstone Planning on behalf of Norfolk Homes

See attachment for masterplan

What does the parish council consider should be altered as a result of reg 19 consultation? That the addition of a second site should be removed, as this was not consulted and any possible infrastructure issues identified or examined or considered there for is not legally sound or properly prepared. If the second site is not removed at this stage, then to ensure that this is legally sound and properly prepared then this should be consulted on as per reg 18 stage again to make legally sound, compliant and properly prepared, which may mean the second site is removed or phasing takes place once infrastructure has been examined and considered or it is demonstrated that the infrastructure can support, then proceed to reg 19 to ensure legally sound, compliant and properly prepared.

The PC (Buxton with Lamas) does not believe that the second additional site for Aylsham should have been added within regulation 19 without full consultation and that if they were to get permission the infrastructure would not cope. Schools are full, doctors' surgeries are full, the parking is totally inadequate . The impact of infrastructure of an additional site could not have been examined or considered by the officers , Broadland district council as the second site was not included for housing allocation in reg 18 consultation, so could not be consulted on and therefore is not sound or legally compliant.

That phasing of two sites to aid any identified infrastructure problems which may have been identified via consultation could not be considered as the second site was not consulted on in reg 18, therefore, is not legally sound or properly prepared.

Section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 [F133 Duty to co-operate ] requires Broadland to engage constructively, actively and on an ongoing basis with neighbouring authorities and certain other bodies over strategic matters during the preparation of the plan. Buxton with Lamas parish council were not consulted on with regard to the second site as this was not put forward in reg 18 and therefore is not sound or legally compliant or properly prepared.

At a Joint Public Consultation with Aylsham District Council in 2018 a Planning Application for 300 dwellings for Aylsham was approved but no further developments were to be allowed until infrastructure was improved to support such additional building. See rep summary for full details.