Lound with Ashby, Herringfleet and Somerleyton Neighbourhood Plan
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
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 • 1.3 – and the Broads Authority. Text added EMail New objective added: To protect and • Objectives – should landscape and the Broads be mentioned in the enhance the rural, and historic objectives? They are mentioned in the vision. qualities, the scenic beauty of the upland countryside and its margins with the Broads. • LAHS1 only includes numbers of bedrooms, but 7.1.7 implies that The emphasis on the design principles it endorses design elements – but the policy does not say that. You would be better placed preceding 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 ref to Design Guide. Preference means ‘supported’ in this • LAHS1 Housing Mix. What does ‘preference’ really mean? As a context. The policy articulates the developer do I need to just say ‘I can make more money on one 5 community’s aspirations. bed house’ and that will be accepted as ok? Do you want a more formal sequential approach? Do you want a more robust approach? • 7.2.2 – what about the fact that with less than 10 dwellings there is 7.2.2 No, it is accepted that affordable likely to be no affordable housing. Does that contradict the housing will be incorporated in line with objectives and vision? Especially the social objectives. Waveney Local Plan policies, however LAHS1 supports smaller dwellings. (09/03) • 7.2 and 7.5 and 9.2 part of 9.3 and 9.4 – there is no policy. So, is this This section is commentary and section just commentary? How would Development Management background information for readers of Officers at the LPAs be expected to use this section? Can its status the plan. be clarified? Is it just background? • The photo on page 10 – what is that linked to? Is it meant to show This is an example of an attractive local the green space, parking or homes? housing development for illustration. • Should section 7.3 refer to the allocation for residential moorings at Reference added Somerleyton Marina in the Local Plan for the Broads? The design principles may not apply, but reference to that might be prudent to show that the NP acknowledges various types of housing need. Reference added • 7.3.5 – and the Local Plan for the Broads. Paragraph numbering updated • The para after 7.4.3, 7.5.8 may need a number? • LAHS3 – it would be prudent for the supporting text to refer to the Reference added open space policies in the Waveney Local Plan and Local Plan for the Broads. It could be stated that LAHS3 expands on those. • 8.1 para 2- what about mitigating climate change – reducing 8.1 This point is agreed and the text is emissions in the first place? This section talks of adapting to a changed to “New developments will be changing climate and not reducing emissions. expected to enhance biodiversity and mitigate against climate change” (09/03) (17/06 ESC correction) • 8.1 we suggest this change ‘New developments will be expected to This has been addressed within the take into account the impacts on enhance biodiversity and climate NP documents change’ needs to be updated to keep step with new biodiversity gain requirements. • 8.1 does not mention the Broads. Reference added • 8.1 we suggest this change ‘New developments will be expected to Text updated take into account the impacts on enhance biodiversity and climate change’ needs to be updated to keep step with new biodiversity gain requirements. • 8.3.4 – is there scope for a community project to tackle this? Text updated to reflect this. Perhaps a school travel plan? Text updated • 8.4 – and the Local Plan for the Broads. • LAHS6 – have you liaised with Suffolk County Council Highways ESC and SCC have been consulted about this? Also, with East Suffolk? on the plan • Map on page 11 shows a Neighbourhood Plan allocation. I think it Correct observation. The reference is called LAHS4, but it is not clear on the map. LAHS4 however is a LAHS4 will be revised to LAHS7 design policy.