Wiveton Parish Council.

Response to NNDC's LDF Proposals 2. 11. 2006

In general we think that NNDC have done a good job considering the hand they were dealt by government, although we do feel that both they and the County Council could have done very much more to resist proposals for so much unnecessary development. We are much less satisfied with the consultation process, which is complicated and bureaucratic and is why our response takes the form of an enclosed letter rather than a few comments crammed into the small space provided on the form, and are presented as general rather than specific comments on the LDF proposals affecting the Blakeney area.

We broadly support the concept of development being confined to the principle towns, and service villages, but feel that while this will protect smaller villages from over development it may also stifle them if absolutely no development or change is allowed. The issue of affordable housing should also be considered important in small villages. Locating all affordable housing in one place as is proposed for Blakeney where there is already a concentration creates a ghetto, and separates local people from their rightful place in the heart of their village, this of course is assuming that the affordable housing proposed for Blakeney is for those who actually live in and around the village of Blakeney. (These proposals for Blakeney will in fact create another separate village).

Confining development to the towns and service villages may encourage some brown-field development but will only do so to a limited extent (there is only so much of it after all) and not prevent the huge and inevitable loss of green-field land this level of housing will require; and this is our principle concern with the LDF; the sheer number of houses (including affordable housing) being proposed. The need for them has nothing do with local demographics and cannot possibly be justified by any assessment of genuine local need.

It is a totally extrapolated volume of housing which is being forced upon us by a remote and unelected authority that has no understanding of the social and environmental issues that prevail here. We also feel that there has been a weak response to it from the local authorities, who really ought have done more to resist such disproportionate and unrealistic policies.

The 40% of affordable housing proposed is far in excess local needs, ( Although NNDC's understanding of 'local' may differ from that of the indigenous population) which means that people with housing needs from other areas would have to be brought in, this is assuming of course that those needs are not being met by the equally large numbers of houses that are being proposed for those other areas, but it certainly looks as if in the case for Blakeney quite large numbers of families from other parts of the North Norfolk Ward and maybe even further afield will have to be brought in.

If one assumes that most affordable housing is for younger families and make a further assumption that these would have on average 1.5 children per household (A low estimate) then the school pupil numbers we have at present would be doubled.

We assume that the remaining 60% of houses will be of a mixed size and design that will appeal to buyers in the open market and here again there is no' local' market that could possibly fill so many houses, so will these also have to be promoted? If so and if present trends continue (and there is no reason to suppose that they will not) they will almost certainly be sold to retired people, people who are moving toward the dependency stage of their lives and who will therefore, sooner rather than later, have extra health needs.

The last decade has seen tourism push north Norfolk's infrastructure to its absolute limit. Roads filled with cars nose to tail, Wells, Holt and Blakeney long ago reaching their respective car parking capacities and the minor road network seriously damaged by the intensity of use.

1. How can the vehicles of all these new residents, and those needed to service their needs be accommodated?

2. How will all the extra children be schooled?

3. How will so many extra people be employed locally? And if they cannot, how much extra travelling will that entail at the expense of the environment?

4. How will the health needs of so many extra people be met?

Water, sewerage, and recreational spaces are all near or over capacity and if these needs are to be met within what NNDC optimistically imagines is possible what will the consequences be for this precious and irreplaceable environment?

In conclusion we would have to say that we are doubtful that these comments will have any significant influence on any of these proposals, firstly because these decisions have already been be made without recourse to local consultation and secondly because as we have already said we feel this consultation is overly complex and bureaucratic. NNDC officers may find it a simple document, but for those unfamiliar with council administration it is dense and impenetrable and responses having to be framed in such a limited and prescriptive way make it difficult for people get their points across while at the same time making it easier for NNDC to ignore those that do not fit precisely into it. This therefore, is why we have little confidence that this 'very general' response, which doesn't, will be heeded. However that may be, we do have one final question that we would like answered.

1. How are all these extra houses to be built and filled, will it be as it is at present, as a gradual and natural response to economic and social need?

2. Or will developers be invited to build them and then promote them with advertising and recruitment campaigns to find the people to live in them?

Yours sincerely

Godfrey Sayers

Chairman Wiveton Parish Council