Publication

Object

Representation ID: 24261

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Rosconn Group

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

In summary, RSL objects to Policy 1 on the basis that further consideration should be given to directing a greater proportion of the residual housing requirement
through new allocations towards the Main Towns and Key Service Centres, particularly those that are located outside the SGA, in order to enable the sustainability benefits of housing growth to be distributed more widely and fairly. Settlements such as Long Stratton and Aylsham for instance play a wider role in serving a principally rural hinterland and growth can assist in maintaining and enhancing services and facilities and delivery of affordable housing to meet local needs that these wider rural communities are reliant on. This approach would remain aligned with the preferred growth option of directing the majority of growth around the Norwich Urban Area and within the SGA, whilst allowing a greater level of dispersal to support thriving rural communities as well as flexibility. Such an approach will also be more deliverable than the current “all the eggs in one basket” approach where almost all of the growth is directed to the Norwich Urban Area / SGA with very little being directed to highly-sustainable settlements
elsewhere within the plan area.

See attachment for full representation (section 2)

Object

Representation ID: 24262

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Rosconn Group

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

RSL objects to Policy 7.2 as it apportions no additional growth to Long Stratton. This is unjustified as it is inconsistent with the approach taken to other locations
in Greater Norwich with similar characteristics (e.g. Wymondham) where the GNLP has made new allocations. Furthermore, this choice has not been informed by a review of the JCS approach to Long Stratton to ensure that it remains justified and effective in light of the most up-to-date evidence and the considerable delays and challenges encountered to date with delivering the LSAAP’s strategic allocation. Specific deliverable allocations should be made at Long Stratton to enable the settlement to grow sustainably in the short and medium term and contribute to meeting the need for new housing across Greater Norwich.

See attachment for full representation (section 3)

Object

Representation ID: 24263

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Rosconn Group

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

RSL objects to Policy 7.4 as the current approach in the GNLP regarding the Village Clusters would not lead to a sustainable pattern of growth and would undermine the Plan’s stated spatial strategy in Policy 1 to distribute growth according to the settlement hierarchy. Rather than directing significant growth to rural villages, the GNLP should allocate more land at the Main Towns at sites that
have been judged to be both suitable and deliverable.

See attachment for full representation (section 4)

Object

Representation ID: 24264

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Rosconn Group

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

In respect of Long Stratton, RSL wish to object to the fact that no allocations are proposed within the Part 2 Sites Plan for the settlement. The Part 2 Sites Plan sets out
the rationale for this approach but does not add any further explanation to that already provided the Part 1 Plan. Hence RSL’s reasoning for its objection to this approach is set out with reference to our representations on the Part 1 Plan.

See attachment for full representation (section 6.1)

Object

Representation ID: 24542

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Rosconn Group

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

RSL considers the spatial strategy of the GNLP to be unsound for want of justification as it has not been underpinned by a sufficiently robust SA process. Reasonable alternatives to the preferred spatial strategy have not been adequately appraised in the same detail or on the same basis.

See attachment for full representation (section 5)

Object

Representation ID: 24543

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Rosconn Group

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

RSL considers the ENSRA allocation to be unsound for want of compliance with national policy, justification and effectiveness. It is very unlikely that this site will deliver even close the anticipated quantum of development within the plan period thereby leaving a considerable hole in the GNLP’s strategy. The ENSRA should be identified as a longer-term growth aspiration that will start to yield dwellings beyond 2038 and alternative suitable sites should be allocated to make up the shortfall.

See attachment for full representation (sections 6.3 - 6.8)

Object

Representation ID: 24544

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Rosconn Group

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

RSL considers that more deliverable contingency sites should be identified in the GNLP to offset the risk of under-delivery and to provide the flexibility to respond to changing circumstances. For the reasons discussed above, provision of a reserve site at Costessey at the scale proposed would not perform this function.

See attachment for full representation (sections 6.9 - 6.12)