Publication

I would like to see how this plan integrates with the rest of the county which consists of other district councils and there needs to be some links particularly for shared infrastructure. There should also be some acknowledgement of the joint strategic collaboration between BDC and South Norfolk Council and thier joint management teams. There is also no mention in this introduction of the numerous neighbourhood plans undertaken at great cost and by a lot of hard work by volunteers.

If the consultation also includes the Norfolk Broads Authority then it should also inlcude North Norfolk District Council views. An example would be the Wroxham/Hoveton community which border BDC and North Norfolk. districts. The community share a primary care centre at Hoveton which serves residents of Salhouse, Wroxham, Rackheath and other smaller communities. It also shares the a major shopping and recreational hub, railway line and other public transport links. It seems odd that a decision made here could be undermined by a decision made by North Norfolk District Council or the Hoveton Neighbourhood Plan if there is no consultation.

There should a statement in the introduction on how the plan is going to be continually reviewed and adapted to cope with these rapidly changing times. Plans made now could have very little positive impact in 20 years time particularly with the need to reduce carbon footprints and already county wide illegal vehicle emissions. It seems odd that the Tomorrow's Norfolk, Today's Challenge strategy includes all Norfolk councils yet this growth strategy does not. At the vey least there should be links to the other growth strategies in this introduction so at least residents can access them to see the linkages.

The plan runs from 2018 to 2038 and admits that these are rapidly changing times. This includes the impact of a post Covid 19 and Brexit environment as well as potential changes in central government with at least 4 general elections to have occurred during this time.

I would assume that all GNP member councils would have made some representation to the "Planning for the Future" White Paper and if so then I would like to see links to those representations to see what the individual councils actually stated or was it the GNP that made one representation on thier behalf?

If this plan is to be superseded by 2025 (Whatever the content of the final transitional arrangements and the timing of the adoption of the GNLP, it is thus very likely to be superseded within a few years of adoption) then why bother now. Surely an interim plan would have sufficed in the short term to take us over the next 5 years whilst working on the new plan later?

I would like to see how these plans are future proofed with the expected pace of change outstripping anything seen in the past. Thinks like home working facilities, drone landing capabilities, driverless cars etc.

The long term view is a challenge as well informed pundits have declared 2020 to 2030 as a "Decade in a Century" ie there will be as much change in this decade than in the last century. We have already seen during the Covid 19 pandemic a huge change in peoples behaviours and attitudes particularly among the millenniums who will be the generation most impacted by these plans.

I would like to see how these plans cater for a dynamic village. My village has lost both its Pub and Post Office in the last two years as locals have no affordable housing or employment that allows them to remain in thier village many of who were born in the village.

Interesting use of the term dynamic villages as these plans for large developments on the edge of Norwich City ie an enlarged Norwich footprint do nothing to improve existing villages. Indeed the exact opposite as existing villages and towns are calling up for inward investment to maintain the dynamism. Local village communities are dying as local shops, post offices and schools close as the younger generation move out to large edge of town developments. To ensure rural communities thrive they need a varied supply of housing. ACRE supports appropriate development in rural areas, especially the provision of affordable housing.

I would like to see an acknowledgement of this court finding in the introduction and some admission that lessons learnt from the legacy JCS have been learnt in this Plan.

The original Joint Core Strategy (JCS) was found to be unlawful in 2012 due to the absence of a legally required Strategic Environmental Assessment. Mr Justice Ousley was critical of the methodology used in the development of the original JCS and compared it as "wading through treacle".

I would like to see how the large number of homes planned for the growth actually link to the employment hot spots in the Tech Corridor and particularly how the rare public transport links are between the the two opposite ends of Norwich city.

The Cambridge Norwich Tech Corridor links universities in Cambridge and Norwich, with research institutes and science parks such as the Wellcome Genome Campus, Babraham Research Campus, Hethel Innovation Centre and Norwich Research Park. These are all located in the south and and south west boundaries of Norwich whereas the planned houses are in the North East Growth triangle. I see no correlation between this planned housing and the increased employment opportunities in the tech corridor.

I would like the plan to list these environmental assets and how they are measured as an environmental asset. The System of Environmental-Economic Accounting (SEEA) Chapter 5 (Asset Account) defines environmental assets as “the naturally. occurring living and non-living components of the Earth, together comprising the biophysical environment, that are used in production and that deliver ecosystem services to the benefit of current and future generations”.

What are the environmental assets mentioned here?

Need to ensure compatibility with all measures and inlcude both student accommodation and care homes as permitted.

If Care Home bed spaces can also now be counted against housing need at a suitable discounted rate then why are they not included as are the new purpose-built student accommodation rates?

There needs to be an explanation of those plans that have been submitted and approved that fall OUTSIDE of the Neighbourhood Plans. These plans were an expensive exercise and took up a lot of time of willing volunteers only to see them being ignored.

I fail to see the relevance of Neighbourhood Plans which continually seem to be ignored or overruled. A classic example is the Land at Green Lane East, Little Plumstead for the development of up to 130 market and affordable dwellings, a 92 bed extra care independent living facility (use class C3) and a medical centre (use class D1) with all matters reserved except for access (Outline). Broadland District Council Planning Application ref : 20200202. This is not in th plans for Plump stead or Rackheath.