Publication
Search representations
Results for Colby & Banningham Parish Council search
New searchObject
Publication
Settlement Map
Representation ID: 23913
Received: 15/03/2021
Respondent: Colby & Banningham Parish Council
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
Aylsham is our nearest market town and any proposals to increase housing, with the resultant impact on services, would undoubtedly affect our residents.
1. The proposals suggest 550 new houses for Aylsham, spread across two sites.
2. The first, on Burgh Road, of 300 homes, included provision for a primary school.
3. The second, on Norwich Road, was added without warning or consultation with the town; this is unreasonable and represents an increase of 83% - a failure to consult on a significant change.
4. Infrastructure issues have not been addressed, in particular water/sewerage, plus parking in the town to cope with the increased demand on primary care, dentists, shops and supermarkets.
5. Schools are at capacity now – the new primary school proposed as part of the first development would probably be built after completion, There would also be increased pressure on secondary and early years provision – there is no mention of this in the plan.
6. Planning and community involvement has not been met as detailed in the National Planning Policy Framework, neither has the duty of co-operation to engage with various stakeholders during the preparation of the plan.
7. The proposed 325 houses at Badersfield would also impact on Aylsham
8. The Covid crisis is likely to reduce footfall in the City, but increase it in surrounding towns; it would make more sense to concentrate new housing nearer to existing retail capacity and employment opportunities – i.e. in the larger towns and the City, particularly using existing brownfield sites.
For the reasons outlined above, the Council does not consider the plan to be sound as defined under Regulation 19.
A
Aylsham is our nearest market town and any proposals to increase housing, with the resultant impact on services, would undoubtedly affect our residents.
1. The proposals suggest 550 new houses for Aylsham, spread across two sites.
2. The first, on Burgh Road, of 300 homes, included provision for a primary school.
3. The second, on Norwich Road, was added without warning or consultation with the town; this is unreasonable and represents an increase of 83% - a failure to consult on a significant change.
4. Infrastructure issues have not been addressed, in particular water/sewerage, plus parking in the town to cope with the increased demand on primary care, dentists, shops and supermarkets.
5. Schools are at capacity now – the new primary school proposed as part of the first development would probably be built after completion, There would also be increased pressure on secondary and early years provision – there is no mention of this in the plan.
6. Planning and community involvement has not been met as detailed in the National Planning Policy Framework, neither has the duty of co-operation to engage with various stakeholders during the preparation of the plan.
7. The proposed 325 houses at Badersfield would also impact on Aylsham
8. The Covid crisis is likely to reduce footfall in the City, but increase it in surrounding towns; it would make more sense to concentrate new housing nearer to existing retail capacity and employment opportunities – i.e. in the larger towns and the City, particularly using existing brownfield sites.
For the reasons outlined above, the Council does not consider the plan to be sound as defined under Regulation 19.
A
