Additional potential sites put forward for Greater Norwich Local Plan
You will be aware that there was a Regulation 18 consultation between January and March this year for the Greater Norwich Local Plan (GNLP). During this consultation, additional sites were proposed by landowners, agents and developers for possible future development and some of the previous site boundaries were revised. Approximately 200 additional or revised sites have been put forward throughout the three districts of Broadland District Council, Norwich City Council and South Norfolk Council. In addition, small sites below 0.25ha, which were not subject to the Regulation 18 consultation, will need to be considered by us in the context of potential changes to settlement boundaries.
There will be another Regulation 18 consultation later this year (probably starting in October) during which the parish council and your residents will be able to make comments on the additional and revised sites and settlement boundary proposals. Until this time there is no mechanism for recording comments against sites, but we wanted you to have as much time as possible to consider sites put forward in your parish. The information about the additional sites, revised sites, and proposals to change the settlement boundaries has been published on our website at the following link:
the key thing to look for is the maps marked as sites submitted since the Reg 18 stage in red hatch. The easiest to read is map called Wymondham CP
This is for info and some changes for our patch, where development could be approved both sides of Chapel road up to the railway crossing and back as far as the railway line and a new massive chunk of land, bigger than the entire village on the right hand side, just past the bridge which stretches from Suton lane as far across to the Wattlefield road. Of course nothing set in stone yet BUT what annoys me most is that this already a work of fiction. Developments in Station road have been applied for and given permission so should be committed sites but appear as proposed areas for development and we have seen already a proposal for land near the Boars and more housing , which once again is supposed to be for 2036. Developers simply play the lack of 5 year land supply card and ignore permitted development numbers. Meanwhile the Planners at GNDP carry on regardless, apparently completely out of touch with what is going on, on the ground , producing an out of date plan which is just having carts and horses being driven through it, whilst the Planners at our District apparently just lie down dead and approve everything, scared witless of appeals.
Planners get very sensitive to criticism ( I know because they monitor this site) and perhaps they might like to get this right before passing it for further consultation in October , because for some bizarre and unexplained reason ( see above ) comments at this time are not possible.
You would think that with all the emphasis and expenditure put into the GNLP that the planners and decision makers would somehow take it upon themselves to incorporate the 5-year land supply shortage. I don't think this is just a case of being out of touch, how can it be? it's their job to know what is going on with planning and development within their area.
I think, but I might be wrong, that the small sites (below 025ha), such as the proposed single dwelling at Top Common that didn't get planning approval, despite an appeal, is because the planners have already met their 5-year land quota on small sites. If this is the case, then planning permissions are biased in favour of large swathes of development that suit big landowners.
The London property market is slowing down and this usually has a knock on effect elsewhere.
Wymondham used to be an attractive, laid-back market town - a historic gem in a rural setting. Now it is subject to such urban sprawl it is losing its character and joining the rat-race. Informal open spaces and green areas are fast disappearing. New developmental approvals have not included essential forward-thinking infrastructure provisions. Local plans are not thought through properly and are by-passed by the 5-year housing land supply. South Norfolk did so much better before it joined up with Norwich and Broadland Councils. Is this progress or is it just a disappointment all round?
The village of Spooner Row takes a building development here, then a building development there, gradually turning the village into a suburb of Norwich by a piecemeal approach. The allocation of Spooner Row as a "Norwich Service Village" is a derogatory term especially as no one in the village was aware of this allocation at the time - there was no public consultation on this specific change in status. Who actually wants to be part of a Norwich service village or suburb?
Rather then a piecemeal approach to housing developments (where development sites always get approval), the authorities need to provide an upgrade on all the necessities such as an adequate highway system through (or around) the village, essential flood drainage measures throughout, a proper sewage system, pavements throughout, a workable public transport system etc. We require proper infrastructure with joined-up thinking to accompany these housing developments and extensive funding made available for this.
Is Broadland Council now involved in the planning process for South Norfolk?
