Hainford's Responses
to proposals
for Village Re-classification

- Greater Norwich Local Plan -

- March 2018 -


Web Site for further information and responses: www.gnlp.org.uk

  1. Select 'Have Your Say'

  2. Section 2 (of the 4) - Growth Options consultation document: Select 'go online here' in the white box

  3. Register and then log in, if you have not already done so

  4. Select 'Section 4 - The Strategy' - NOTE THAT THIS IS WHERE THE QUESTIONS ARE HIDDEN!!!

  5. The questions that you may wish to answer - if you do not have time to read through the entire document - are suggested below. Please note that there is a 'Submit' button after EACH question; probably a good idea to click on this and submit your responses as you complete EACH question, in case you get to the bottom and then miss submitting any of your earlier answers:
        (a)    9. Housing options 1-6: NOTE that the 'Dispersals' options seem to be another word for 'Development', so you may wish to base your response accordingly.
        (b)    10.   Green Belt.
        (c)    24b. This is important, as they are trying to re-classify us from an 'Other Village' to 'Service Village' using patently erroneous data, and this will open the back door to effectively more development.
        (d)    25a. This is where some of us have responded point-by-point to the GNLP's erroneous reclassification data, although no place is actually given for that.


GNLP Team

County Hall

Hainford Parish Council Objections to Proposed Reclassification of Hainford to 'Service Village'

The Parish Council are writing to object in the strongest terms to the proposal contained within the Greater Norwich Local Plan to reclassify Hainford as a Service Village from its current status as Other Village.

The GNLP specifies that to qualify as a service village we must EITHER have access to 4 key areas or availability of at least 6 services from the menu of 12. Appendix 3 page 144 of the document.

Hainford does not meet the criteria for status of service village in either category.

The 4 Key Areas

1. Accessible primary school within 2 miles of the centre of the settlement and accessible via a pavement for the whole of the distance from the outskirts.

Response- The school does not meet the essential criteria.

There is only one pavement enabling access from the waterloo and Stratton Rd areas of the village. The greater population are living in the southern part of the village, in the chapel road area. There are no pavements enabling safe access for residents living on the south and east sides of the village nor for residents living to the west on the Cromer road who would have to walk the whole distance down along the busy B1354 with no verge or pavement.

2. Village Hall : Yes

3. Food shop : No

4. Journey to work by public transport : No

Response- there is only a very limited bus service, early morning bus is at 06.59 and 07.21 at Newton Rd which is too early for many commuters and school children travelling into Norwich. All other buses are after 09.00 am and are very intermittent. The last one back from the city is at 17.06 which is too early for commuters working 9 till 5. The bus service is also very inconvenient for part time workers due to its infrequency.

Sanders Bus Company have previously indicated their reluctance to bring buses through the village due to uneven humps and dips in the road along Newton Road right through. The road is also very winding and narrow in places with overhanging branches etc and damage has been caused to their vehicles. Buses are forced to mount the verge in places along Newton Rd to avoid oncoming vehicles. Consequently there is a very high and inevitable reliance on the private motor vehicle in Hainford.

In commenting very recently on a single dwelling proposal in the Grange Rd area the highways response was:

In regard to transport sustainability, Hainford, which has very limited standard every day facilities is not Considered an acceptable location, the site is not connected to footway links which, in any case, are sporadic in the village and public transport services are very limited. Accordingly the proposed Development will result in an over reliance of the private car contrary to sustainability objectives.

Therefore Hainford only meets 1 of the above key areas.

 

Availability of at least 6 services from the menu of 12

1. Must include an ‘accessible’ primary school. Hainford school is not accessible - see definition and comment above.

2. Post office : No

3. Village Hall : Yes

4. Food shop : No

5. Pub : Yes

6. Pre school facilities : Yes

7. Petrol station : No

8. Outdoor recreation : Yes - playground for small children and playing field

9. Community groups : No community groups, some small independently run leisure activities and events take place at Village Hall

10. Employment : No

11. Health care facility : No

12. Journey to work by public transport : No - transport services are inadequate - see above.

Therefore Hainford only meets 4 out of 12 of these service criteria and including failure to meet the essential criteria of having an accessible school.

Additionally we wish to point out that there is a planning requirement to direct development to areas with a lower possibility of flooding. Hainford is well known for being an area at high risk of flooding and development has been refused on these grounds in the past. Furthermore wider development is unsustainable in Hainford due to lack of adequate infrastructure, services and facilities, transport services etc to support this level of development

We are additionally concerned to learn from your team that the proposal for redefinition of village status in the settlement hierarchy is a ‘member’ driven initiative to enable wider development and furthermore that there is an inclination to be ‘relaxed’ about the criteria which applies in the definition of status within the hierarchy. The Parish Council as civic members for this local area wish to emphasise that they do not support in any way the changes that are proposed, have not been previously consulted and would expect that any defining criteria which has been specified should be adhered to.

We are also concerned to note that there are other nearby villages more suitable for upgrading to Service Village having more facilities than Hainford but we note that the data has not been correctly recorded. For example Frettenham, where the village is well defined and well served with pavements throughout and having a pre school and community activities.

 

Growth Options

The Parish Council has been informed that the Norwich Urban Growth Area is currently defined by the JCS, however there is a likelihood that this will be extended as evidenced by the area indicated in Option 1 of the Growth Options diagram on page 132 ("Urban Concentration Close To Norwich").

We understand that this may result in the Norwich urban growth area being extended out via Hellesdon to Horsford and Horsham St Faiths.

We wish to express in the strongest terms that Hainford should not be included in this growth area because of its rural nature and all of the development constraints as listed above.

Page last updated 21/03/18 21:31

© Hainford Village 2018. All rights reserved.