Information on the Local Planning Development Framework is available from Broadland District Council.
If anyone has any views on the proposals that they would like to put forward, Consultation Response Forms are available from the Bircham Centre, Market Place, Reepham or from Broadland District Council’s website. The Consultation period ends Monday 19th December 2011.
Reepham Town Council discussed the plans for the Local Development Framework at the last Planning Committee meeting which was held on the 22nd November 2011. Minutes from this meeting are available to view under Planning Committee Minutes. The Council have submitted the following response to Broadland District Council:
REEPHAM TOWN COUNCIL RESPONSE TO LDF PROPOSALS:
| Mr J Walchester
Interim Spatial Planning Manager
Broadland District Council
By e-mail only: john.walchester@broadland.gov.uk |
Dear Sir
Site Allocations Development Plan Document (DPD) – ‘Shortlisted Sites’
Local Development Framework
Deadline for response: 5.00pm on Monday 19th December 2011
We write this letter following a planning meeting at the Town Hall on Tuesday 22 November 2011 when 54 members of the public attended and 24 members of the public spoke in response to the above consultation. In addition, Counsellors have been approached individually by residents of Reepham about the above matter.
Proposals for consultation
The proposed site allocations shortlisted site for Reepham, within the Broadland District Council Local Development Framework, shows three sites shortlisted as follows:
1. Reepham 1: A site showing potentially 200 units on 8.7 hectares (approximately 30 dwellings per hectare) identified as Cawston Road / Wood Dalling Road, annexed onto the North Eastern end of the Town and outside the existing settlement limit and being built upon open farmland.
2. Reepham 2: A site showing potentially 250 units, on 11.9 hectares (approximately 30 dwellings per hectare) identified as ‘Dereham Road’, again annexed to the existing settlement limit and being built upon open farmland.
3. Rep 1: A site proposed for mixed use of residential and employment where Stony Lane and Station Road are located, for approximately 10 dwellings on 2.8 hectares (approximately 10 dwelling per hectare).
Reasons for objections made by the Town to the proposed sites known as Reepham 1 and
Reepham 2:
In the Joint Core Strategy (Policy 14) there are approximately 100 – 200 new homes proposed for Reepham up to 2026 (subject to overcoming sewage capacity constraints), with the encouragement of appropriate job growth.
In addition, it must be remembered that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of ‘sustainable’ development. ‘Sustainable development’ means development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. It… is the core principle underpinning planning. (p.3 of the Draft National Planning Policy Framework).
Members of the public and the Town Council are of the view that two of the sites will result in a detrimental impact upon the Town and are unsustainable for the following reasons:
1.1 The proposed sites known as Reepham 1 and Reepham 2 result in an ‘over-allocation’ in terms of numbers of housing for Reepham, as the two sites are for a total of 450 houses when the existing policy is for between 100 and 200 new homes proposed up to 2026. This is not ‘justified’ nor is it ‘sound’.
1.2 There are too many houses in each group known as Reepham 1 and Reepham 2.
1.3 The over-allocation is likely to prejudice the long term planning of the Town and blight future development for it and does not take into account the needs of future generations of inhabitants of Reepham and so it does not fit into ‘sustainable’ planning. For example, the building to the North of Dereham Road will mean that the Town will not be able to build a ‘relief road’ around it in the future, to avoid heavier traffic being funnelled through the Town centre (from future development in neighbouring Towns and within the Town itself). This area of land must be kept clear for a future corridor.
2.1 The number of houses allocated to the area of land is at the upper end of the density requirement. Within Reepham 1, the Local Authority have already included landscaping to the North and Western ends of the site. Within Reepham 2, significant landscaping has been added around its edges. This evidences that the Local Authority already recognise that the sites will result in a detrimental visual impact.
2.2 In addition, annexing large areas for development to the existing Town of Reepham in large contained areas results in the Town becoming another Thorpe Marriot type of build and puts it in danger of losing its character and its visual beauty.
3. Both sites do not relate to the existing facilities of the Town in a sustainable way as follows:
3.1 Each site is isolated to the existing settlement as they are designed to be ‘self contained’.
3.2 As the sites are large and are annexed onto the existing Town at each end they will, more likely than not, result in continued reliance on travelling by car. This will result in a greater carbon footprint for a Town that has been working hard to reduce its carbon footprint in the last few years.
3.3 As the two sites are at a distance from the Town Centre, it is more likely than not (and in particular this applies to Reepham 1) that residents will use their cars to exit the site and, as they are in their cars, they are more likely to travel to Aylsham or Dereham to shop, rather than using the shopping facilities within the Town.
3.4 New residents on these large proposed developments would in reality be working and travelling in and out of Reepham to Norwich, making the Town more ‘commuter’ in nature causing it to lose its sense of identity, sense of community spirit and sense of history
3.5 There is no potential to deliver community facilities to the Town. The Town requires better infrastructure to include pavements where there are none (i.e. to the High School and 6th Form College) and at the moment, there is no potential to realise the Town’s infrastructure needs through the proposed development on either site.
4. The Government’s objective within the National Planning Policy Framework is to delver the right community services, schools and other services to meet local needs. The present proposals do not appear to have considered community services at all. For example the existing school facility is at full capacity now and there is no viable regular bus route into Norwich or Kings Lynn to transport new residents to their likely place of work. In addition, Reepham already has a sufficient number of allotments to offer its residents. In addition, should space be offered as an extension to the Town’s cemetery, the management cost would add an unwelcome financial burden to the rate payer of Reepham. The offer of community services has not been made through a consultation process with the Town.
5. It is not the case that the two proposed sites would have less impact on the landscape and environment than other options for the following reasons:
5.1 The two sites are not in keeping with the definition of sustainable planning to protect and enhance our natural, built and historic environment within the Draft National Planning Policy Framework. The housing will encroach onto open countryside and neither Reepham 1 nor Reepham 2 are in keeping with the form and character of the surrounding landscape around Reepham, adversely impacting upon that open landscape.
5.2 It is also not in keeping with the Landscape Character Assessment Supplementary Planning Document. In particular there will be a loss of; open countryside, walks / bridle ways, wildlife and tree species.
5.3 There is an adverse environmental impact. Statistically, one household is known to have 10 vehicular movements in and out in one day. Multiply that by 100 to 450 houses and this confirms significant congestion and pollution when developing large sites.
5.4 There is an additional adverse impact on the Town’s carbon footprint from the use of solid fuel and oil as the Town has no gas supply.
6. One of the reasons provided for the short listing of the sites known as Reepham 1 and Reepham 2 was that the Local Authority believed that the two sites would provide safe vehicular access. This is not the case for the following reasons:
6.1 Entrances and exits to both sites will result in ‘choke points’.
6.2 Cawston Road where Reepham 1 is intended to be built is already a dangerous stretch of road. Cars are currently being recorded as travelling too fast along that stretch by our Community Speedwatch Team and one child has already been hit. There would be a significant risk to the general public with a jump in the increased usage of that road.
7. In respect of Core Strategy Policy 14 there exists a servicing constraint of the safe disposal of waste water resulting in:
7.1 A real risk of contamination to the Wensum due to the volume of proposed housing. The existing pipe work system is struggling to cope with the existing housing and there are already problems with the disposal of waste water.
7. 2 In addition, the existing sewerage system is already overloaded. Residents reported existing problems with effluent escaping onto land to the South of the Town with the current sewage system being inadequate. The Town’s system will not be able to cope with additional sewage from either the Reepham 2 or Reepham 1 sites.
8. Other issues raised as having a detrimental impact upon the existing Town were as follows:
8.1 Problems with the water supply (pressure and quality) as there are existing problems with this in houses surrounding the Reepham 1 site.
8.2 Problems with the existing electricity supply.
8.3 Residents also reported concern about the emergency services response times being adversely impacted resulting in problems with safety and an adverse impact to the Townspeople.
9. The sites Reepham 1 and Reepham 2 reflect a site selection consultation carried out by Broadland during March to September 2009 and is out of date in current national policy terms regarding countryside protection and sustainable transport set out in the draft NPPF document.
Reepham Town Council would like to remind the Local Planning Authority that a number of local authority plans and proposals have recently been rejected by the Minister Eric Pickles, due to local opposition not being taken into account by the Local Planning Authority and it is strongly recommended that the Local Authority considers the new effect of the Localism Bill when considering Reepham Town and the Town Council’s response to the proposed development sites.
The Town Council acknowledge that it is important for some development to take place in Reepham in the future either by infill or from smaller developments. Members of the public present (by show of hands) indicated that no one was against development per se, but the Townspeople felt that the current LDF proposal sites known as Reepham 1 and Reepham 2 were detrimental to Reepham and unsustainable. It is also important to note that no-one raised an objection to the proposed site known as ‘Rep 1’.
Yours faithfully
Reepham Town Council
This is the new website for your Town Council. Please be advised that while we are making changes to the new site, some items may be awaiting update. As soon as this is completed we will advise you. Thanks for your patience.
