Thank you for consulting Historic England about the Proposed Modifications to the Greater Norwich Local Plan. We have the following comments to make on the suggested changes to the Plan:

We welcome many of the proposed Main Modifications. Our detailed comments on the proposed Main Modifications to the Plan are set out in Appendix A.

MM22 GNLP0360/3053/R10 East Norwich Strategic Regeneration Area
The key outstanding issue relates to East Norwich. We remain particularly concerned about the location of development around the Abbey. We have suggested revised policy wording in Appendix A, reflecting our earlier advice in our hearing statement and at EiP. We have raised these concerns in relation to the emerging SPD too.

Other policies
There are a number of other more minor issues relating to wording for the following policies/sites:
MM8 Policy 2 Sustainable Communities
MM13 Policy 7.1The Norwich Urban Area including the Fringe - East Norwich
MM22 GNLP0360/3053/R10 East Norwich Strategic Regeneration Area
MM33 GNLP1061R Norwich Airport
MM43 CC8 King Street Stores
MM92 GNLP0596R Land at Norwich Road, Aylsham
MM100 Hethel2 Land south and south west of Lotus Cars, Hethel
Our concerns in relation to the above sites set out in Appendix A reflect the proposed wording set out in our SOCG with the Council.

Archaeology Criterion
In a number of policies in the Local Plan, there have been amendments made to a policy criterion relating to archaeology. The criterion previously read 'Historic Environment Record to be consulted to determine any need for archaeological surveys prior to development' and now reads, 'An archaeological assessment will be required prior to development'.

Whilst this is an improvement on the previous wording, we suggested that the policy would be even better is it read, 'Planning applications should be supported by a desk based archaeological assessment and, where necessary, the results of a field evaluation as advised by the LPAs archaeological advisors'. This is accordance with para 194 of NPPF.

Finally, we would like to stress that this opinion is based on the information provided by the Council in its consultation. To avoid any doubt, this does not affect our obligation to provide further advice and, potentially, object to specific proposals, which may subsequently arise where we consider that these would have an adverse effect upon the historic environment.

I am concerned that increasing the provision from 8 to 18 pitches in one small rural village seems out of proportion and is necessitated more by the lack of any alternative option and the failure of other schemes (for unedifying reasons) than by any proper strategic overview of where the provision should be, and how it should be distributed across the county.
I would also like the concerns expressed by the parish concerning land drainage (not for the site but for the land to which it will drain) and the access gates to be taken seriously and addressed.

I am the County Councillor for this village.

Object. Concerns over the water run off on to neighbouring highway and land which is already a problem with the existing scale of the site. This would only get worse by doubling the hard standing.
No access to local amenities without own transport, residential applications in the area have already been refused on this ground.
Size of development disproportionate to the Parish as whole.
The current 6 pitches are not fully occupied (planning obtained to allow non family members) this shows a lack of need in Carleton Rode.

We object on the size and scale of the development in proportion to the size of the Parish and access to local amenities.