Publication

Please see enclosed representations letter for further detail.

A justified and positively prepared strategy would be to allocate additional land for housing within the Key Service Centre of Hethersett and thus, in reflection of the Council’s categorization of GNLP0480 as a ‘reasonable alternative’, allocate it for housing.

Please see enclosed representations letter for detail.

Glavenhill support the identification of Hethersett as a Key Service Centre but object to elements of
the draft GNLP Growth Strategy, notably the amount of dispersal to rural parts of the plan area which is contrary to the vision to support growth in sustainable locations and within the Cambridge-Norwich Hi-Tech corridor.

This is the case within South Norfolk where 1,200 homes could all be allocated in small cluster villages in rural parts of the District, away from Key Service Centres.

The Strategy is not positively prepared or justified and is therefore unsound.

The site would, if allocated, assist the Council in meeting an identified need for new housing in the
Great and Little Plumstead village cluster which fails to be met through draft Policies 7.4 and 7.5 of
the Regulation 19 Consultation Document.

The allocation of the site in response to an identified local housing need is entirely justified and would be considered positively prepared and therefore a ‘sound’ planning approach.

Glavenhill object to Broadland District Council’s strategy for the village cluster of Great and Little Plumstead. They consider it to be neither ‘positively prepared’, ‘justified’ or ‘effective’ in delivering the houses needed within the village over the plan period and is therefore ‘unsound’.

The decision not to allocate the proposed allocation site (GNLP0483R)is also considered unjustified and therefore ‘unsound’. Glavenhill contend that the site is a suitable, available and deliverable option for SME housing that occupies no highway objection and can protect and provide a defensible boundary to, the open countryside to the west.

The site would, if allocated, assist the Council in meeting an identified need for new housing in the
Great and Little Plumstead village cluster which fails to be met through draft Policies 7.4 and 7.5 of
the Regulation 19 Consultation Document.

The allocation of the site in response to an identified local housing need is entirely justified and would be considered positively prepared and therefore a ‘sound’ planning approach.

The decision not to allocate the proposed allocation site (GNLP0483R)is considered unjustified and therefore ‘unsound’. Glavenhill contend that the site is a suitable, available and deliverable option for SME housing that occupies no highway objection and can protect and provide a defensible boundary to, the open countryside to the west.

The proposed allocation site is suitable, available and deliverable and its allocation for residential
use is a ‘sound’ proposition.

The Council’s decision not to allocate more housing in the Poringland Area is considered by Glavenhill to be unjustified and therefore unsound.

It is Glavenhill’s opinion that it is appropriate to supplement local housing provision to support local needs and the continued vitality and viability of this Key Service Centre. This can and should be done through the allocation of suitable and deliverable sites such as Land to the south of Poringland Road, Upper Stoke (GNLP0494R).

GNLP0494R is recommended for allocation. It is suitable, available and deliverable and its allocation for residential use is a ‘sound’ proposition.

The Council’s decision not to allocate more housing in the Poringland Area is considered by Glavenhill to be unjustified and therefore unsound.

It is Glavenhill’s opinion that it is appropriate to supplement local housing provision to support local needs and the continued vitality and viability of this Key Service Centre. This can and should be done through the allocation of suitable and deliverable sites such as Land to the south of Poringland Road, Upper Stoke (GNLP0494R).

Allocate additional sites, including Land to the north of Caistor Lane, Caistor St Edmund (GNLP0485R) for a new country park, a site for a much needed new primary school, in the order of 180 new homes and a generous and beneficial package of community sought facilities.

The Council’s decision not to allocate more housing in the Poringland Area is considered by Glavenhill to be unjustified and therefore unsound.

It is Glavenhill’s opinion that it is appropriate to supplement local housing provision to support local needs and the continued vitality of this Key Service Centre as well as to provide much needed new primary education and recreation facilities. This can and should be done through the allocation of suitable and deliverable sites such as Land to the north of Caistor Lane, Caistor St Edmund (GNLP0485R).

Land to the north of Caistor Lane, Caistor St Edmund (GNLP site reference GNLP0485R) can through its allocation provide for a new country park, a site for a much needed new primary school, in the
order of 180 new homes and a generous and beneficial package of community sought facilities.

The proposed allocation site is a suitable, available and deliverable proposition which can deliver
much needed facilities which fail to be planned for within the GNLP Regulation 19 Document.

The site should be allocated as a justified, positive and a wholly ‘sound’ proposition.

The discounting of the proposed allocation site (GNLP0485R) is unjustified and unsound.

In addition to supplementing housing supply, the allocation of this site, will provide much
needed new primary school and community facilities which the Council has failed to consider.

The benefits to be delivered through the provision of a new Country Park at the site have failed to be assessed by the Council. The discounting of this site as a potential green infrastructure resource is unjustified.

The discounting of the site over access and highway concerns has also been demonstrated to be
unjustified.

See enclosed representations for further detail.

Glavenhill object to the lack of new sites being allocated for housing within Key Service Centres and the amount of dispersal to rural parts of the plan area. This is particularly the case within South Norfolk where 1,200 homes could all be allocated in small cluster villages in less sustainable rural parts of the District.

Glavenhill recommend that the quantum of allocations be redirected to support the stated ambitions for the Cambridge-Norwich Hi-Tech corridor and to reflect the sustainability of Key Service Centres such as Hethersett and Poringland / Framingham Earl.

Glavenhill object to the lack of new sites being allocated for housing within Key Service Centres and the amount of dispersal to rural parts of the plan area. This is particularly the case within South Norfolk where 1,200 homes could all be allocated in small cluster villages in less sustainable rural parts of the District.

Glavenhill recommend that the quantum of allocations be redirected to support the stated ambitions for the Cambridge-Norwich Hi-Tech corridor and to reflect the sustainability of Key Service Centres such as Hethersett and Poringland / Framingham Earl.