Publication
Search representations
Results for Honingham Parish Council search
New searchObject
Publication
Policy 7.1 The Norwich Urban Area including the Fringe Parishes
Representation ID: 24167
Received: 22/03/2021
Respondent: Honingham Parish Council
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Response to the Greater Norwich Local Plan Regulation 19 consultation: Policy 7.1 – Norwich Urban Area including the fringe villages
Policy 7.6 – Preparing for New Settlements
This response addresses significant flaws in the classification of Honingham as being part of the urban fringe, linked to Easton, under Policy 7.1, and the proposal of a Garden Village at Honingham Thorpe under Policy 7.6.
The proposals are flawed on the following grounds:
• Insufficient account has been taken of the dramatic change and decrease in the retail offering in Norwich, which provides for a significant redevelopment from retail to housing. These changes are very likely to provide a significant increase in housing development, thereby reducing the need for “garden villages” in Norfolk.
• Policy 7.1 links the village of Honingham with Easton, which is designated as urban fringe. Honingham is, however, a rural village with a long history and certainly not urban fringe. Hence it is erroneous and damaging to link the village with Easton and consider the impact of massive development in this context. Arguably, this is deliberately misleading and seeks to provide justification for the plans.
• The proposed garden village at Honingham Thorpe under Policy 7.6, if it were to proceed would swamp the village of Honingham and totally destroy the culture, heritage and ambiance of the locality.
• The provision of the garden village will significantly and adversely affect the rural nature of this village being in a prominent position near to the heritage assets of the war memorial and heritage cottages.
• The village cannot adequately cope with further housing; it has very limited infrastructure of road networks, and no medical facilities, shops or schools.
• There are few job opportunities in the area. The inhabitants of the proposed houses in the urban fringe of Easton and Honingham, and the garden village, would almost certainly have to commute to Norwich, adding to further traffic congestion.
• The village has a very limited bus service, with a request stop only outside of the main village. The bus schedule is not conducive to being used by those travelling to work as the service stops at 5pm.
• The drainage in Honingham is already under stress and flooding on The Street has become a significant issue, further housing would only exacerbate the problem.
• The result of any development in Honingham would turn a small rural village with considerable identity and heritage into an urban fringe of Norwich. Such a development would be entirely counter to the ethos of Norfolk as a rural county.
Response to the Greater Norwich Local Plan Regulation 19 consultation: Policy 7.1 – Norwich Urban Area including the fringe villages
Policy 7.6 – Preparing for New Settlements
This response addresses significant flaws in the classification of Honingham as being part of the urban fringe, linked to Easton, under Policy 7.1, and the proposal of a Garden Village at Honingham Thorpe under Policy 7.6.
The proposals are flawed on the following grounds:
• Insufficient account has been taken of the dramatic change and decrease in the retail offering in Norwich, which provides for a significant redevelopment from retail to housing. These changes are very likely to provide a significant increase in housing development, thereby reducing the need for “garden villages” in Norfolk.
• Policy 7.1 links the village of Honingham with Easton, which is designated as urban fringe. Honingham is, however, a rural village with a long history and certainly not urban fringe. Hence it is erroneous and damaging to link the village with Easton and consider the impact of massive development in this context. Arguably, this is deliberately misleading and seeks to provide justification for the plans.
• The proposed garden village at Honingham Thorpe under Policy 7.6, if it were to proceed would swamp the village of Honingham and totally destroy the culture, heritage and ambiance of the locality.
• The provision of the garden village will significantly and adversely affect the rural nature of this village being in a prominent position near to the heritage assets of the war memorial and heritage cottages.
• The village cannot adequately cope with further housing; it has very limited infrastructure of road networks, and no medical facilities, shops or schools.
• There are few job opportunities in the area. The inhabitants of the proposed houses in the urban fringe of Easton and Honingham, and the garden village, would almost certainly have to commute to Norwich, adding to further traffic congestion.
• The village has a very limited bus service, with a request stop only outside of the main village. The bus schedule is not conducive to being used by those travelling to work as the service stops at 5pm.
• The drainage in Honingham is already under stress and flooding on The Street has become a significant issue, further housing would only exacerbate the problem.
• The result of any development in Honingham would turn a small rural village with considerable identity and heritage into an urban fringe of Norwich. Such a development would be entirely counter to the ethos of Norfolk as a rural county.
Object
Publication
Policy 7.6 Preparing for New Settlements
Representation ID: 24168
Received: 22/03/2021
Respondent: Honingham Parish Council
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Response to the Greater Norwich Local Plan Regulation 19 consultation: Policy 7.1 – Norwich Urban Area including the fringe villages
Policy 7.6 – Preparing for New Settlements
This response addresses significant flaws in the classification of Honingham as being part of the urban fringe, linked to Easton, under Policy 7.1, and the proposal of a Garden Village at Honingham Thorpe under Policy 7.6.
The proposals are flawed on the following grounds:
• Insufficient account has been taken of the dramatic change and decrease in the retail offering in Norwich, which provides for a significant redevelopment from retail to housing. These changes are very likely to provide a significant increase in housing development, thereby reducing the need for “garden villages” in Norfolk.
• Policy 7.1 links the village of Honingham with Easton, which is designated as urban fringe. Honingham is, however, a rural village with a long history and certainly not urban fringe. Hence it is erroneous and damaging to link the village with Easton and consider the impact of massive development in this context. Arguably, this is deliberately misleading and seeks to provide justification for the plans.
• The proposed garden village at Honingham Thorpe under Policy 7.6, if it were to proceed would swamp the village of Honingham and totally destroy the culture, heritage and ambiance of the locality.
• The provision of the garden village will significantly and adversely affect the rural nature of this village being in a prominent position near to the heritage assets of the war memorial and heritage cottages.
• The village cannot adequately cope with further housing; it has very limited infrastructure of road networks, and no medical facilities, shops or schools.
• There are few job opportunities in the area. The inhabitants of the proposed houses in the urban fringe of Easton and Honingham, and the garden village, would almost certainly have to commute to Norwich, adding to further traffic congestion.
• The village has a very limited bus service, with a request stop only outside of the main village. The bus schedule is not conducive to being used by those travelling to work as the service stops at 5pm.
• The drainage in Honingham is already under stress and flooding on The Street has become a significant issue, further housing would only exacerbate the problem.
• The result of any development in Honingham would turn a small rural village with considerable identity and heritage into an urban fringe of Norwich. Such a development would be entirely counter to the ethos of Norfolk as a rural county.
Response to the Greater Norwich Local Plan Regulation 19 consultation: Policy 7.1 – Norwich Urban Area including the fringe villages
Policy 7.6 – Preparing for New Settlements
This response addresses significant flaws in the classification of Honingham as being part of the urban fringe, linked to Easton, under Policy 7.1, and the proposal of a Garden Village at Honingham Thorpe under Policy 7.6.
The proposals are flawed on the following grounds:
• Insufficient account has been taken of the dramatic change and decrease in the retail offering in Norwich, which provides for a significant redevelopment from retail to housing. These changes are very likely to provide a significant increase in housing development, thereby reducing the need for “garden villages” in Norfolk.
• Policy 7.1 links the village of Honingham with Easton, which is designated as urban fringe. Honingham is, however, a rural village with a long history and certainly not urban fringe. Hence it is erroneous and damaging to link the village with Easton and consider the impact of massive development in this context. Arguably, this is deliberately misleading and seeks to provide justification for the plans.
• The proposed garden village at Honingham Thorpe under Policy 7.6, if it were to proceed would swamp the village of Honingham and totally destroy the culture, heritage and ambiance of the locality.
• The provision of the garden village will significantly and adversely affect the rural nature of this village being in a prominent position near to the heritage assets of the war memorial and heritage cottages.
• The village cannot adequately cope with further housing; it has very limited infrastructure of road networks, and no medical facilities, shops or schools.
• There are few job opportunities in the area. The inhabitants of the proposed houses in the urban fringe of Easton and Honingham, and the garden village, would almost certainly have to commute to Norwich, adding to further traffic congestion.
• The village has a very limited bus service, with a request stop only outside of the main village. The bus schedule is not conducive to being used by those travelling to work as the service stops at 5pm.
• The drainage in Honingham is already under stress and flooding on The Street has become a significant issue, further housing would only exacerbate the problem.
• The result of any development in Honingham would turn a small rural village with considerable identity and heritage into an urban fringe of Norwich. Such a development would be entirely counter to the ethos of Norfolk as a rural county.
