Publication

The speed in wish this has been put through at the later stages is solely based on the government white paper - a paper that is widely disputed by its own MPs. Whilst understanding the reluctance to start again the undue haste and lack of 18d consultations does not make sense either. Go back a stage and look at real consultation on changes made

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.
This would seem to be to allow the plan to be fast tracked before the new regulations came into place

Undertake or commission better analysis on the effects of both covid and brexit and adapt the plan to the findings rather than enthusiastic but possibly misplaced optomism.

Reg 19 states that it has considered the impact of Covid. However, there is a lack of analytical analysis to show how that will impact on Aylsham’s way of life and economy post pandemic. In Reg 18, Aylsham was allocated one site. Then, in the middle of the Covid crisis, the town was allocated two sites without consultation, or consideration that more brownfield sites may become available when the crisis is over. This indicates that Reg 19 has not been positively prepared and opportunities to look beyond the large-scale developments on the edge of towns and cities have been lost.

There is a similar lack of thought in Reg 19 concerning Brexit, which will have a significant impact on the greater Norwich area. To commit, without consultation, two sites for a small market town such as Aylsham, when the country will be in a significant period of economic flux demonstrates a lack of preparation and thought.

Withdraw the plan to allow full consultation

Reg 19 describes the uniqueness of the town highlighting its history and the importance of retaining this. This has been a severe problem with the recent developments of 550 new homes at Willow Park and Bure Meadows, to add a further 300 as in Reg 18 would strain this considerably. However, to increase the number of new homes by a further 83% on the edge of the town indicates that Reg 19 could not have been positively prepared as the evidence points to significant damage to the uniqueness of the medieval town.

Consultation at Reg 18 was on one development that should be the plan for Reg 19

On the original Reg 18 consultation there was a policy for a school in Aylsham, but this is watered down in Policy GNLP0311, 0595 and 2060 where it merely states “2 ha of land at nil value to be provided for a new primary school on site”. There are no details as to when this will come forward. The school needs to come before the houses. There is no capacity in Aylsham schools currently and the full impact of the new housing at Bure Meadows and Willow Park is still to be felt. Also, we understand, this is not a new school, but a replacement of the existing school and there is no indication of the increase in size. There is a lack of urgency in this policy. Schools in neighbouring villages are also at capacity and Aylsham High School is also near capacity. In Reg 18 there was consultation on one site and the provision of a school. As there has been no consultation for two sites, the significant impact this will have on the provision of education in Aylsham and the surrounding area has not been addressed. Therefore, the decision to allocate two sites is not justified.

To insist on the work coming before the development

It is stated that Anglian Water have 'plans' to increase capacity. Where are the guarantees? Where are the time scales? Any future development should not be approved until this work has been completed

Withdraw the plan until consultation has been made

There are inaccuracies within the information provided on Aylsham, such as the day of the main market and the cycle route to Norwich. This brings into question how well the GNLP understand Aylsham. If simple information such as this is incorrect how can the rest of the plan be trusted?

Withdraw Reg 19 and consult fully

The road network through the town will not cope with the extra traffic generated by the new school and the increased population. The developers of this site and the GNLP have put in some mitigating factors in the immediate vicinity of the sites but ignored the fact that the road from the town to the site is already busy and in places needs to be single tracked and cannot be widened to accommodate additional traffic. These road problems will be magnified with the second site on Norwich Road and the proposed site at Badersfield. In addition, creation of nearly 900 new homes within a short distance of Aylsham town centre will create severe parking problems, which, pre-Covid, was already a major issue in Aylsham and once some normality is returned will continue to be. These issues highlight that the plans for Aylsham in Reg 19 are not sound as the document has failed to make a case that they are justified and will not significantly harm the town.

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.

Withdraw Reg 19

The road network through the town will not cope with the extra traffic generated by the new school and the increased population. The developers of this site and the GNLP have put in some mitigating factors in the immediate vicinity of the sites but ignored the fact that the road from the town to the site is already busy and in places needs to be single tracked and cannot be widened to accommodate additional traffic. These road problems will be magnified with the second site on Norwich Road and the proposed site at Badersfield. In addition, creation of nearly 900 new homes within a short distance of Aylsham town centre will create severe parking problems, which, pre-Covid, was already a major issue in Aylsham and once some normality is returned will continue to be. These issues highlight that the plans for Aylsham in Reg 19 are not sound as the document has failed to make a case that they are justified and will not significantly harm the town.