Minutes of the Parish Council sub-committee meeting held on Tuesday 22nd January 2008 at 7.30pm in The Loft of the Village Hall.





Chairman Geoffrey Moulton, Vice Chairman David Hook, Peter Workman (to question No 20) and Clerk - Ian Nelson. 



Members of the public present                                                                                                         





Apologies were received from Hamish Rose.



Public Participation





Greater Norwich Development Area

Mr Hook guided the meeting through questions, the agreed summarized responses to which are as follows:




  1. No, although there are laudable aspects to the vision it is impossible to obtain with the level of the proposed development. The level of development envisaged will lead to large scale development of green field sites, a policy that this council disapproves of.
  2. No, although the objectives express the aspiration to protect the environment the overall strategy is not in line with the views of Hempnall parish council, which does not wish to see this high level of growth. In particular we have reservations regarding:  enhancing the infrastructure; allocation of land for social housing; promotion of commercial growth and diversity, all of which will lead to a level of growth that is incompatible with the stated aims of the environmental objectives.
  3. Agreed with the hierarchy classification. Hempnall parish council would like the growth to be concentrated in the locale of Norwich and has a policy not to allow the development of Hempnall to cause it to be elevated from secondary settlement status.
  4. Agree that the more accessible parts of Norwich should be those favoured for growth. We would also like to see Norwich centre to continue to be a thriving environment.
  5. Yes but the growth of market towns should be limited to preserve their unique character.
  6. Yes but it does not mean that we do not approve of there large scale development.
  7. Various tick boxes were completed. Re population size, it was felt that a secondary settlement should enjoy a reasonable level of facilities without its population growing unduly to destroy the village character.
  8. Possibly but it is undesirable as once grouped it will encourage infill.
  9. Yes we believe that in line with government policy “development in the countryside will be strictly controlled.”
  10. No, these factors are not of equal value. The environmental impact is most important and should be limited, hence our belief that the development should be centred around Norwich. We have serious reservations about releasing green field land for development.
  11. None of these options are preferred, as previously stated any growth should be carried out within the area bounded by the Norwich southern bypass and the proposed northern distributor road.
  12. Question a and b – see answer to question 11.
  13. See answer to question 11, the level of growth proposed in the other options is not desirable.
  14. We prefer small scale affordable housing development not linked to any development gain.
  15. A11, A47.
  16. No.
  17. No, we do not agree with permanent sites.
  18. Use existing facilities.
  19. No.
  20. Option B but in identified larger settlements.
  21. Option A.
  22. Option B.  Do not wish for new location.
  23. Retail outlets to take priority over housing in the city centre to minimise travel. Protect agricultural employment land, i.e.   green field sites.
  24. Option A but we emphasise the need for it to be small scale in country areas.
  25. Agreed and do not suggest any change.
  26. Option A.
  27. No, the key attraction is the tranquil rural area. The level of growth envisaged in this strategy serious threatens this.
  28. Yes but it is important to protect all green field sites and open countryside.
  29. Option A, any new development will increase CO2 emissions irrespective of the building regulations.
  30. Yes on the condition that visual impact is not detrimental to the environment
  31. No as a percentage does not limit the problem of an every expanding demand for energy. A better solution would be to set a target to reduce overall energy use, by for example restricting housing growth.
  32. No as it is undesirable that Long Stratton be greatly expanded.
  33. Option A. The level of growth envisaged makes reducing car access impractical, but public transport facilities must be increased.
  34. Option B.
  35. Option C.
  36. Option A.
  37. Encourage community self help.
  38. Option E – Keep the rural character.
  39. Option A.
  40. Option A.
  41. No please retain the concentration in Norwich.
  42. As needed in Norwich as determined by Norwich residents.
  43. Yes, shrink it to the area bounded by the Norwich southern bypass and the proposed northern distributor road as development outside this area seriously erodes the character of the rural county.
  44. Option C.
  45. Option B.
  46. Option A.
  47. Option A.
  48. Option A but we are opposed to the principle of planning gains.
  49. Option B but we are opposed to the principle of planning gains.
  50. No.
  51. Mr Hook to summarise general issues.
  52. No.

The accompanying letter to raise the issue of the environmental lighting policy of Norfolk CC and Hempnall parish council.


Mr Hook to draft the response on the official form based on the above and distribute it to the sub-committee for final review and comment before by 1st February to allow time for amendment before Mr Hook makes the final submission  by the deadline of 8th February.


































































































Planning Application validation checklist

The clerk had circulated the documentation prior to the meeting.


It was agreed to recommend that lighting be considered for all types of application in line with the parish council’s existing policy which followed SN’s own policy.


Mr Hook to responded to the consultation.









Due to the time taken to consider the above issues, it was agreed to re agenda the following matter at a main meeting:


  • Environmental and other Policies







Next Meeting

The next main meeting will be held on Wednesday 19th March 2008 at 8.00pm in The Nelson Suite of the Village Hall.





There being no further business, the meeting was closed at 22.35pm







Signed _____________________________________________ Date 19th March 2008