Object

Representation ID: 24199

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Barratt David Wilson Homes

Number of people: 2

Agent: Savills

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Please see attached letter

In summary: The HELAA assessment is factually incorrect and there is no remaining evidence or justification for the non-allocation of Site Ref. GNLP2160. As such, the Pre-Submission Plan has not been positively prepared, is not justified, will not be effective, and is not consistent with national policy.

Object

Representation ID: 24252

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Samantha / Guy Simpson / Watts

Number of people: 2

Agent: Sequence (UK) Ltd

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Sequence has been instructed to act for the Owners of Firbank, Green Lane, Horsford. The property has recently been acquired through probate and therefore no previous representations have been made to the Greater Norwich Local Plan. Firbank is a detached dwelling on a plot of 0.28ha. This includes a separate access to the east to a redundant workshop building to the south of Firbank. Removal of the workshop building would provide a sustainable site for up to 3 new homes. A Site Location Plan is enclosed (drawing reference 2021.03.22.Site.Location.Plan).

Sequence consider that the Draft Sites Plan for Horsford is not 'sound' as the approach is not justified or effective under paragraph 35, parts b&c of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

Specifically the position of the Settlement Boundary is not considered to be an appropriate strategy taking into account the reasonable alternatives.

The Horsford proposals map demonstrates an inconsistent approach to the inclusion of land within the Settlement Boundary.

Land to the east of Mill Road between Mill Lane to the south and Green Lane to the north benefits from various planning permissions and has been significantly constructed, to the extent that the majority of these properties appear on the base map for Horsford. However the status of this land is not reflected on the Draft Sites Plan, either by reference to a housing commitment, inclusion within the Settlement Boundary, or definition as a Housing Allocation. Sequence would consider that with full planning permission having already been granted, and the majority of houses constructed, an appropriate strategy would be to include this land within the Settlement Boundary. The plan is effectively already out-of-date before it has been submitted for examination and is not an appropriate strategy.

A suggested alternative to the Settlement Boundary is shown on the enclosed plan (drawing reference 2021.02.15.BR0001-1.Horsford.Amended.Settlement.Boundary).

There are a number of examples of inconsistencies throughout the Part 2 Pre-Submission Draft Sites Plan in terms of the treatment of sites with planning permission / under construction and whether they are included within the Settlement Boundary. There are a number of examples of sites under construction that are included within the Settlement Boundary such as the Draft Sites Plans for Hethersett, Poringland and Thorpe St Andrew and given that the Horsford scheme is largely complete, the sound and justified approach is to also include it within the Settlement Boundary as shown on the enclosed drawing.

As a general point, to ensure the plan is sound and based on an appropriate strategy, a consistent approach should be taken throughout the plan both to allocations and sites that have planning permission and/or are under construction. As set out under these representations for Horsford, Sequence would contend that an appropriate strategy is to include all allocations and those sites with planning permission and under construction within the Settlement Boundary. Similar representations have been made by Sequence in this regard with reference to the Draft Sites Plan for Redenhall with Harleston but there are inconsistencies throughout the Part 2 Plans.

Sequence contend that the current inconsistent approach is not an appropriate strategy - it is therefore not justified, nor effective and accordingly is not sound.

Object

Representation ID: 24396

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Carl Palmer

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Comments regarding Horsford in relation to sites GNLP0283 and GNLP0283R.

Please see attachment for full representation