Lound with Ashby, Herringfleet and Somerleyton Neighbourhood Plan Regulation 14 Consultation Statement The following Consultation Statement comprises a compilation of all the feedback received from the community and stakeholders from the Regulation 14 consultation process. Feedback was received a number of ways (online, open meetings, letters etc) and is collated here. The feedback was discussed by the Neighbourhood Plan committee and its response and/or action agreed to each point is recorded here. Lound with Ashby, Herringfleet and Somerleyton Neighbourhood Plan Regulation 14 Consultation Feedback - Responses and Action Plan Comment responses – Red Comment responses resulting in an action – Green Numbers in parenthesis denote date that NP Committee discussed comment. Originator Comment Action/Comment Medium Thank you so much for all your hard and diligent work in producing our Gerda Gibbs No action (09/03) Neighbourhood Plan. Webpage It reads well, reflects nicely the results of the 2017 questionnaires and conforms well with Waveney’s Local Plan. Looking forward to the next and final stages If any social housing built could be bungalows it would be amazing as I Theresa Rudrum Policy LAHS1 supports smaller homes live in the village but due to declining health I need a bungalow 2 Webpage bedrooms as my grandson lives with us and I really don’t want leave the The need for single storey dwellings village should be drawn out at the Planning Application stage for a specific design proposal. Public consultation on the proposal will enable a need for bungalows to be included to be considered by the Planning Committee, if none are included in the design. (09/03) I read the neighbourhood plan with interest as I live opposite the Jill Brown No action (09/03) proposed plot for the new properties in Lound. I was pleased and relieved Webpage to see how much thought has gone into this, especially with regard to the planting of shrubs and trees, and the requirement that new properties maintain the feel of the village. This will enhance the area beautifully. I know how much time and work went into this neighbourhood plan, and this shows in the finished product. I look forward to watching it all develop over the course of time. Can we be given assurance that the property Jernigan will be left with a Jean Lindsay Not applicable to NP garden area to the rear of the property? At the moment the plans show Webpage the land is to be used up to the border of the outbuildings. It is would be This issue is one that can be raised at unfair that it would be the only property in the village to not have a rear the Planning Application stage. garden. A lack of garden space that results from the proposal can then be raised and discussed by the District Council Planning Committee. They can require an amended design to retain garden space if the proposal reduces it unnecessarily. (09/03) Natural England does not have any specific comments on this draft Natural England No Action (09/03) neighbourhood plan. Email 1) There is no discussion regarding the provision of school places for Sue Cox (1) SCC have, based on current the larger number of children who will be living in the forecasting, confirmed that neighbourhood. Email Somerleyton School has sufficient capacity (09/03) 2) With additional inhabitants, the village could benefit from, and (2) LAHS 9 supports local support, a convenience store/post office. I’m surprised to see that no businesses, and a proposal for mention is made of this. a shop and/or Post Office would therefore gain Planning support and, recent village initiatives have commenced with a view to providing a community village shop. (09/03) Many thanks for the recent update on the Neighbourhood Plan for Lound Julie Reynolds No Action (09/03) with Ashby, Herringfleet and Somerleyton. It is extremely detailed and thorough. I am pleased with the attention to our natural environment, the Email historical importance of the area and the desire that the new properties will reflect those already built and should ‘fit in’, providing as well the The Design Guidelines forms part of types of dwellings that people need, not just desire. The pedestrian and the NP once it is adopted. The NP then cycle route suggested through the Mill Farm Field in Somerleyton is a becomes part of the Local Plan and its great suggestion for so many reasons. requirements must be followed by any planning proposal. (09/03) I look forward to seeing more detailed building plans but feel it is very important that we ensure the Design Guidelines for each site are adhered to, as they seem very much to reflect what people need and deserve. Policy LAHS 2 Development of Allocated Sites Essex and No Action (09/03) Suffolk Water We note that it is proposed to allocate sites for residential development including a site which currently appear in the Local Plan. Anglian Water has no objection to the principle of residential development on the sites identified in the Neighbourhood Plan. The adopted Waveney Local Plan includes district wide policy relating to sewerage, sewage treatment and the use of Sustainable Drainage Systems to manage surface water (Policy WLP1.3 - Infrastructure and Policy 8.24 - Flood Risk) As the Development Plan is intended to be read as a whole it is not considered necessary to include similar requirement in Policy LAHS2 the Neighbourhood Plan. Neighbourhood Plan Broads Authority ∙ Objectives – should landscape and the Broads be mentioned Objectives – We have reviewed the in the objectives? They are mentioned in the vision. EMail Objectives and, are satisfied that the BA mention in 5.3 is sufficient (09/03) ∙ LAHS1 only includes numbers of bedrooms, but 7.1.7 The emphasis on the design principles implies that it endorses design elements – but the policy does not would be better placed preceding say that. You may wish to clarify 7.1.7 and LAHS1. LAHS4 and the NP will be revised accordingly. (09/03) Action taken 7.1.7 deleted, LAHS 4 already has preceding ∙ 7.2.2 – what about the fact that with less than 10 dwellings ref to Design Guide. there is likely to be no affordable housing. Does that contradict the objectives and vision? Especially the social objectives. 7.2.2 No, it is accepted that affordable housing will be incorporated in line with Waveney Local Plan policies, however LAHS1 supports smaller dwellings. (09/03) ∙ 8.1 para 2- what about mitigating climate change – reducing emissions in the first place? This section talks of adapting to a changing climate and not reducing emissions. 8.1 This point is agreed and the text is ∙ 8.1 we suggest this change ‘New developments will be changed to “New developments will be expected to take into account the impacts on enhance biodiversity expected to enhance biodiversity and and climate change’ needs to be updated to keep step with new mitigate against climate change” biodiversity gain requirements. (09/03) (17/06 ESC correction) ∙ Map on page 11 shows a Neighbourhood Plan allocation. I Correct observation. The reference think it is called LAHS4, but it is not clear on the map. LAHS4 LAHS4 will be revised to LAHS7 however is a design policy. Is the Neighbourhood Plan allocating (09/03) the land shown as blue on the map on page 11, and if so, where is the policy? Τhe Design Guide Broads Authority Note that Masterplanning and Design ∙ The design guide does not adequately reflect the Broads. There are Guidelines has been produced by a many comments made on the design guide below. The issue is that what EMail third party consultant and cannot be is in the design guide is effectively made policy by policies in the revised. Any comments that require Neighbourhood Plan. The design guide needs to be amended to reflect inclusion will be incorporated into the the Broads and related documents and our comments. NP text. The Masterplanning and Design Guidelines is specifically written for the three allocated sites, as identified. The NP requires any further developments to adopt the requirements of the Masterplanning and Design Guidelines. Any development that is within or abuts the BA area will be subject to the BA planning requirements, however all other developments are not compelled to do so. In recognition of the above the following is added as 7.5.9 to LAHS4 preamble – “The allocated sites do not impact the Broads Authority, but any future development that does should take the Broads Authority requirements into account” (09/03) Design Guide Broads Authority ∙ In terms of the special qualities of the Somerleyton village See above itself, you would say that one of the most distinctive things about it EMail is the cottages presumably built by the estate and giving it almost the appearance of an ‘Estate village’. I can understand why they have therefore focussed on that in terms of their policies / design guide for the main village itself. However, the village is on the edge of the Broads and the western edge is within the BA area so this does need to be considered. ∙ Page 7 talks of three allocations. See comment previously A map of Somerleyton which has two about the NP map showing one allocation with no policy. Can this site allocations, and the third allocation situation be clarified please? is shown on the Lound map both of which can be found in the NP (09/03) ∙ Page 7 – last set of bullet points. Why have no Broads Authority documents been considered/assessed/mentioned? Reference to BA planning requirements has been included into the LAHS4 preamble (09/03) The Design Guide was current at the ∙ Page 7 – reference is made to Homes England’s Urban time of writing.