GNLP0415 A-G

Showing comments and forms 1 to 28 of 28

Comment

Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations

Representation ID: 19806

Received: 01/02/2020

Respondent: Mr Mark Kenney

Representation Summary:

Appalling and megalomaniac scheme, wholly inappropriate to what is currently an open rural location. Destroying the vital separation and green space between villages. Completely at odds with the nurturing of the environment and the call for a Norwich Green Belt.
Citing models which are totally unsuitable to this locality - just opportunistic developer wording to make money and blight the area with another housing sprawl. Surely the planners must have learned the lesson by now and can protect us from further countryside destruction. This should never ever be permitted to go further.

Full text:

Appalling and megalomaniac scheme, wholly inappropriate to what is currently an open rural location. Destroying the vital separation and green space between villages. Completely at odds with the nurturing of the environment and the call for a Norwich Green Belt.
Citing models which are totally unsuitable to this locality - just opportunistic developer wording to make money and blight the area with another housing sprawl. Surely the planners must have learned the lesson by now and can protect us from further countryside destruction. This should never ever be permitted to go further.

Object

Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations

Representation ID: 19991

Received: 19/02/2020

Respondent: Councillor Peter Bulman

Representation Summary:

The proposed major development close to the village of Honingham is unacceptable on the following grounds:
- proposal would link the village of Honingham with Easton. Honingham is not urban fringe
- development would swamp Honingham destroying the culture, heritage, ambiance and rural nature
- village has limited infrastructure
- there are few job opportunities and would encourage commuting to Norwich
- drainage in the area is under stress
- development would be entirely counter to the ethos of Norfolk as a rural county

See attached document

Full text:

See attached document

Attachments:

Object

Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations

Representation ID: 20139

Received: 27/02/2020

Respondent: Mr Greg Peck

Representation Summary:

Honingham is not urban fringe, it is therefore erroneous to link the village with Easton. This would swamp Honingham, damaging the heritage of the village and adversely affect its rural nature
Inhabitants of proposed houses, would have to commute to Norwich or elsewhere, adding to further traffic congestion. The drainage in this area is already under stress as flooding on the Dereham Road has become a significant issue and further housing would only exacerbate the problem. The result of such development would be to turn a small rural village with considerable identity and heritage into an urban fringe of Norwich.

Full text:

Honingham is not urban fringe, it is therefore erroneous to link the village with Easton. This would swamp Honingham, damaging the heritage of the village and adversely affect its rural nature
Inhabitants of proposed houses, would have to commute to Norwich or elsewhere, adding to further traffic congestion. The drainage in this area is already under stress as flooding on the Dereham Road has become a significant issue and further housing would only exacerbate the problem. The result of such development would be to turn a small rural village with considerable identity and heritage into an urban fringe of Norwich.

Object

Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations

Representation ID: 20447

Received: 07/03/2020

Respondent: Mr David Hooker

Representation Summary:

The logic behind the proposal to make this a "reasonable alternative" for the longer term after it had been refused once is not the slightest bit compelling and appears only as a tactic to keep the sites open for further consideration. It is an affront to a normal democracy and simply involves the planning department and the public in yet more work and expense. The proposal should be refused in the strongest possible terms.

Full text:

The logic behind the proposal to make this a "reasonable alternative" for the longer term after it had been refused once is not the slightest bit compelling and appears only as a tactic to keep the sites open for further consideration. It is an affront to a normal democracy and simply involves the planning department and the public in yet more work and expense. The proposal should be refused in the strongest possible terms.

Object

Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations

Representation ID: 20652

Received: 11/03/2020

Respondent: Mr Shaun Harvey

Representation Summary:

Wholly inappropriate for open prime agricultural land
The development is out of scale.
Links Honingham to a designated urban fringe.
Limited infrastructure for the development.
Would add to traffic congestion.
Add to existing drainage stress and flooding.

Full text:

Wholly inappropriate proposal on what is currently an open rural location of prime agricultural land which would destroy the vital separation and green space between villages.
The development is out of scale, would swamp Honingham, link it to Easton (a designated urban fringe) destroy the rural nature of the village and adversely affecting the ambiance of the locality.
Honingham village cannot adequately cope with further housing as it has very limited infrastructure of road networks, no village shop, and no medical facilities or school.
There a few job opportunities in the area. Inhabitants of the proposed development, would be forced to commute by road adding further traffic to already congested systems
Drainage in this area is already under stress. Flooding on Dereham Road has become a significant issue and further housing could only exacerbate the problem.
Another awful scheme, proposed by an opportunistic developer seeking to make money, blight the area with another housing sprawl and do so at the expense of existing residents.

Object

Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations

Representation ID: 20813

Received: 12/03/2020

Respondent: Colin Norman

Representation Summary:

Far too big.It totally swamps the character of the area.This area will become a dormitory and add to traffic flow to and from Norwich.It will swamp what is already there and so we would lose another decent area.No real thought has gone in to the effect it would have on existing residents of the area.Maybe their feelings are not important.However as taxpayers and locals their concerns should be top priority.At this rate Norwich and Dereham will become one sprawl.

Full text:

Far too big.It totally swamps the character of the area.This area will become a dormitory and add to traffic flow to and from Norwich.It will swamp what is already there and so we would lose another decent area.No real thought has gone in to the effect it would have on existing residents of the area.Maybe their feelings are not important.However as taxpayers and locals their concerns should be top priority.At this rate Norwich and Dereham will become one sprawl.

Object

Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations

Representation ID: 20945

Received: 14/03/2020

Respondent: Mr Alan Smith

Representation Summary:

I object to this proposal. We are countryside not urban fringe!
Nothing about this development proposal has any merit, this should never be taken forward.
Land is needed for food production, the negative impact on the countryside would be massive.
If we are serious about being carbon neutral by 2050, this type of scheme has no place, in planning policy, we need to focus on city redevelopment of brown field sites.

Full text:

I object to this proposal. We are countryside not urban fringe!
Nothing about this development proposal has any merit, this should never be taken forward.
Land is needed for food production, the negative impact on the countryside would be massive.
If we are serious about being carbon neutral by 2050, this type of scheme has no place, in planning policy, we need to focus on city redevelopment of brown field sites.

Object

Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations

Representation ID: 20950

Received: 14/03/2020

Respondent: Mr. John Smith

Representation Summary:

The development of this site just continues the sprawl from Norwich through Easton into our precious countryside.
The area can not support a development of this magnitude as there are no shops, medical facilities or local schools etc.
There is already too much of a loss of good quality agricultural land to development within this location & is destroying the natural heritage.

Full text:

The development of this site just continues the sprawl from Norwich through Easton into our precious countryside.
The area can not support a development of this magnitude as there are no shops, medical facilities or local schools etc.
There is already too much of a loss of good quality agricultural land to development within this location & is destroying the natural heritage.

Comment

Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations

Representation ID: 20955

Received: 14/03/2020

Respondent: Easton Parish Council

Representation Summary:

At this time the parish council is reserving its comments in relation to this site allocation until a better understanding of infrastructure that will be provided along side this development. We feel that other sites along the A11 tech corridor are better placed at this time are better suited to develop housing of this scale. New schools will need to be built as well as medical facilities to cater to the increase in population. Any site of this size needs good transport links including bus and rail to encourage an environmental benefit to the region.

Full text:

At this time the parish council is reserving its comments in relation to this site allocation until a better understanding of infrastructure that will be provided along side this development. We feel that other sites along the A11 tech corridor are better placed at this time are better suited to develop housing of this scale. New schools will need to be built as well as medical facilities to cater to the increase in population. Any site of this size needs good transport links including bus and rail to encourage an environmental benefit to the region.

Object

Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations

Representation ID: 20958

Received: 14/03/2020

Respondent: Mrs Adele Stephenson

Representation Summary:

To propose linking Easton to Honingham is not urban development, it is urban sprawl along the route from Norwich to Kings Lynn. It would mean the end of Honingham as an entity and equally other similar small Norfolk villages. Surely our planners are aware of our countryside & villages and capable of less obvious solutions than this ?

Full text:

To propose linking Easton to Honingham is not urban development, it is urban sprawl along the route from Norwich to Kings Lynn. It would mean the end of Honingham as an entity and equally other similar small Norfolk villages. Surely our planners are aware of our countryside & villages and capable of less obvious solutions than this ?

Object

Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations

Representation ID: 20962

Received: 14/03/2020

Respondent: Mr Raymond Smith

Representation Summary:

This proposal is completely inappropriate for this beautiful rural area.
Massive development concentrated in this area is wrong.
We need to protect and cherish our beautiful countryside.
Far better to build on brownfield sites, particularly in urban areas, the rural heritage should be be protected.

Full text:

This proposal is completely inappropriate for this beautiful rural area.
Massive development concentrated in this area is wrong.
We need to protect and cherish our beautiful countryside.
Far better to build on brownfield sites, particularly in urban areas, the rural heritage should be be protected.

Object

Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations

Representation ID: 20996

Received: 14/03/2020

Respondent: Honingham Parish Council

Representation Summary:

Honingham Parish Council object to sites GNLP0415 A-G. The proposal of a major development in a rural area so close to the small village of Honingham is unacceptable and completely unsuitable for the area. A development of this size would destroy the current nature and heritage of the village, swamping it and changing its character forever. The Parish Council see no justifiable reason why this site should be considered as a Reasonable Alternative and by considering it for future development this would lead to the permanent loss of a significant area of the countryside.

Full text:

Honingham Parish Council object to sites GNLP0415 A-G. The proposal of a major development in a rural area so close to the small village of Honingham is unacceptable and completely unsuitable for the area.
The proposed development would lead to the connection of Honingham with Easton, two very different and separate villages, and would destroy the rural community and nature of the area. Honingham is a rural village, and not part of the Urban Fringe as the Greater Norwich Local Plan intends to categorise it. This categorisation is mis-leading and is not representative of the area, its history or those who choose to live there due to its rural nature. By approving these sites for future development, regardless of this being as a reasonable alternative, would destroy the current nature and heritage of the village, swamping it and changing its character forever.
The village has no shop, school, doctors and a very poor bus service and is unable to cope with further large scale development. The creation of a large development such as GNLP0415 would lead to a huge increase in the number of residents having to commute to other local areas to access services, increasing traffic congestion and pressure on these services. There are few job opportunities in the area. This again would lead to an increase in those having to commute elsewhere causing further problems on the local road network.
The area is particularly susceptible to problems with drainage and by removing such large areas of agricultural land this would only contribute to and increase these problems. The centre of the village sits at a low point in the drainage system and is not able to cope with further influxes of water.
The Parish Council see no justifiable reason why this site should be considered as a Reasonable Alternative and by considering it for future development this would lead to the permanent loss of a significant area of the countryside.

Object

Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations

Representation ID: 21003

Received: 14/03/2020

Respondent: R Sapey

Representation Summary:

Another plan by greedy landowners with not a thought for the effects on local people or the environment.
Development far to big.
Catastrophic environmental impact.

Full text:

If the development of the 'Food Hub' by a greedy landowner wasnt bad enough now this wholesale development of the surrounding area has been proposed. How many more greenfield sites are going to be concreted over in Norfolk in persuit of profit? In the current period of Climate Emergency the authorities should be seeking ways of enhancing the natural environment not bulldozing it. Of course with an ever expanding population more AFFORDABLE housing (shouldn't all housing be affordable?) needs to be built. But brownfield sites should be exhausted before greenfield sites are considered for development. The area's size alone makes this proposal shocking, Colton will be in effect consumed by the development. Not only would the development be a massive blot on the landscape, with the attendant envrionmental impact, it would also put a massive strain on the local roads, services, medical and educational providers. Additionally it would destroy or irrecoverably damage areas of woodland, wetland and Grange Lane an ancient sunken roadway.

Object

Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations

Representation ID: 21017

Received: 15/03/2020

Respondent: Parish Cou David Bishop

Representation Summary:

I totally object to this development this would mean dragging Honingham into Easton. it would destroy the heritage village of Honingham . The road structure could not take that this would generate and would cause flooding problems for Honingham village which would be at the bottom of the hill where is the river Tud.

Full text:

I totally object to this development this would mean dragging Honingham into Easton. it would destroy the heritage village of Honingham . The road structure could not take that this would generate and would cause flooding problems for Honingham village which would be at the bottom of the hill where is the river Tud.

Object

Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations

Representation ID: 21029

Received: 15/03/2020

Respondent: Mrs Jean Smith

Representation Summary:

Unacceptable urban sprawl of Norwich into valuable agricultural land and destroying the benefits of rural living in this area.
Already in this area Doctors are overstretched.
Honingham would become engulfed and no longer be separate from Easton.
With the local area being blotted by road developments and the ever evolving food hub at Easton /Honingham Thorpe. A47 Dualling and Western link road are necessary but this “Garden Village” most definitely NOT!

Full text:

Unacceptable urban sprawl of Norwich into valuable agricultural land and destroying the benefits of rural living in this area.
Already in this area Doctors are overstretched.
Honingham would become engulfed and no longer be separate from Easton.
With the local area being blotted by road developments and the ever evolving food hub at Easton /Honingham Thorpe. A47 Dualling and Western link road are necessary but this “Garden Village” most definitely NOT!

Object

Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations

Representation ID: 21031

Received: 15/03/2020

Respondent: Ms Natasha Cargill

Representation Summary:

Inappropriate and far too large for a small village to accommodate. Massive and we haven’t the infrastructure to cope. The bus services and roads would be hard pressed to cope and the other services such as shops and doctor surgery and dentists are all miles away in Wymondham, Dereham and Norwich. I absolutely oppose this proposal.

Full text:

Inappropriate and far too large for a small village to accommodate. Massive and we haven’t the infrastructure to cope. The bus services and roads would be hard pressed to cope and the other services such as shops and doctor surgery and dentists are all miles away in Wymondham, Dereham and Norwich. I absolutely oppose this proposal.

Object

Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations

Representation ID: 21045

Received: 15/03/2020

Respondent: Mr Richard KIRKHAM

Representation Summary:

I am appalled by this proposal and strongly object to the spread of the urban environment into the countryside of Norfolk. Norwich has considerable brownfield opportunities that should be used. The rural fringes should be protected from this kind of unnecessary sprawling growth. Honingham has no infrastructure to support this development which will create unstainable needs for car journeys to access shops, jobs and schools indeed Honingham doesn't even have a functioning bus stop. The area is prone to flooding (existing A47 and Honingham village centre) and removing open countryside and farmland for urban development will only exacerbate this further.

Full text:

I am appalled by this proposal and strongly object to the spread of the urban environment into the countryside of Norfolk. Norwich has considerable brownfield opportunities that should be used. The rural fringes should be protected from this kind of unnecessary sprawling growth. Honingham has no infrastructure to support this development which will create unstainable needs for car journeys to access shops, jobs and schools indeed Honingham doesn't even have a functioning bus stop. The area is prone to flooding (existing A47 and Honingham village centre) and removing open countryside and farmland for urban development will only exacerbate this further.

Object

Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations

Representation ID: 21094

Received: 15/03/2020

Respondent: Mr Mike Eales

Representation Summary:

Totally inappropriate for this rural area.
The loss of productive farmland and valuable environmental habitat.
Lovely rural area which would be destroyed by a development of this size.
Crazy to be ever considered.

Full text:

Totally inappropriate for this rural area.
The loss of productive farmland and valuable environmental habitat.
Lovely rural area which would be destroyed by a development of this size.
Crazy to be ever considered.

Object

Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations

Representation ID: 21104

Received: 15/03/2020

Respondent: Mrs Linda Human

Representation Summary:

Flooding is main issue, Honingham lies in the Tud valley below this proposed development. Concreting over this land will mean that water previously absorbed by these fields will wash off and head for the river valley - causing river level to rise and flooding the village. Added to that will be the pollutants from increased traffic which will poison the Tud irreparably. Noise levels from increased traffic will be intolerable. Loss of habitat for wildlife, and valuable agricultural land in these challenging times post Brexit, also major concern. The “build” phase will also endanger wildlife and bring misery to Honingham.

Full text:

Flooding is main issue, Honingham lies in the Tud valley below this proposed development. Concreting over this land will mean that water previously absorbed by these fields will wash off and head for the river valley - causing river level to rise and flooding the village. Added to that will be the pollutants from increased traffic which will poison the Tud irreparably. Noise levels from increased traffic will be intolerable. Loss of habitat for wildlife, and valuable agricultural land in these challenging times post Brexit, also major concern. The “build” phase will also endanger wildlife and bring misery to Honingham.

Object

Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations

Representation ID: 21113

Received: 15/03/2020

Respondent: Honingham Parish Council

Representation Summary:

Far too large, would swamp the countryside and develop huge urban sprawl. No infrastructure, maybe a reasonable alternative in 50 years time.

Full text:

Far too large, would swamp the countryside and develop huge urban sprawl. No infrastructure, maybe a reasonable alternative in 50 years time.

Object

Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations

Representation ID: 21149

Received: 15/03/2020

Respondent: Mrs Kimerley Dewah

Representation Summary:

OBJECT to this development. No houses needed in this area and village cannot take it. Keep Honingham a rural village and not ruin the community. We have no shop, doctors, school. Flooding is already a problem.

Full text:

OBJECT to this development. No houses needed in this area and village cannot take it. Keep Honingham a rural village and not ruin the community. We have no shop, doctors, school. Flooding is already a problem.

Object

Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations

Representation ID: 21151

Received: 15/03/2020

Respondent: Mr Colin Eagle

Representation Summary:

This area should not be considered a reasonable alternative for many reasons. Quite obviously this scale of development would have a detrimental affect on a large surrounding area as highlighted at this current time with much concern from many local parishes about the affect of increased traffic resulting from proposed new road schemes terminating in the Honningham area. This site could have far more impact on these people.
As already pointed out these sites are proposed on irreplaceable prime agricultural land.
A development of this scale should only be part of the city of Norwich not annexed in the countryside.

Full text:

This area should not be considered a reasonable alternative for many reasons. Quite obviously this scale of development would have a detrimental affect on a large surrounding area as highlighted at this current time with much concern from many local parishes about the affect of increased traffic resulting from proposed new road schemes terminating in the Honningham area. This site could have far more impact on these people.
As already pointed out these sites are proposed on irreplaceable prime agricultural land.
A development of this scale should only be part of the city of Norwich not annexed in the countryside.

Object

Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations

Representation ID: 21394

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Mr Jonathan Smith

Representation Summary:

I object to this proposal - development of this extensive area is an extension to the urban sprawl from Norwich and would significantly change the local area. Honingham, Colton and Easton are currently distinct villages this proposal essentially merges these villages together - not something I would like to see.

Full text:

I object to this proposal - development of this extensive area is an extension to the urban sprawl from Norwich and would significantly change the local area. Honingham, Colton and Easton are currently distinct villages this proposal essentially merges these villages together - not something I would like to see.

Object

Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations

Representation ID: 21701

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Mr Sean Dewah

Representation Summary:

I STRONGLY OBJECT TO THE PLANS.
• There is very little employment, people will have to travel out of the area for work, means using
cars as public transport is very limited.
• There are NO shops in the village. Again more car use.
• There are no schools within walking distance • No additional doctors surgeries planned. Honingham
residents are already using Mattishall Surgery. These GP’s are not coping
with the patients that they have already, getting an appointment is already difficult!
• The area suggested for housing ruins the rural village feel and is unnecessary .

Full text:

I STRONGLY OBJECT TO THE PLANS.
• There is very little employment, people will have to travel out of the area for work, means using
cars as public transport is very limited.
• There are NO shops in the village. Again more car use.
• There are no schools within walking distance • No additional doctors surgeries planned. Honingham
residents are already using Mattishall Surgery. These GP’s are not coping
with the patients that they have already, getting an appointment is already difficult!
• The area suggested for housing ruins the rural village feel and is unnecessary .

Comment

Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations

Representation ID: 21721

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Mrs Christine Cramp

Representation Summary:

An immense detrimental cost to the natural landscape. The irrevoc able lose of agricultural land is a major concern. The housing would impact on drains, roads, medical and education services which are struggling to cope now. Look at the impact on the village in the recent floods. No youth services. Or school. Just more polluting traffic on inadequate roads. How can small hamlets and agricultural land continue to be ridden over rough shod?

Full text:

An immense detrimental cost to the natural landscape. The irrevoc able lose of agricultural land is a major concern. The housing would impact on drains, roads, medical and education services which are struggling to cope now. Look at the impact on the village in the recent floods. No youth services. Or school. Just more polluting traffic on inadequate roads. How can small hamlets and agricultural land continue to be ridden over rough shod?

Comment

Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations

Representation ID: 21746

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Mrs Christine Cramp

Representation Summary:

A huge concern for the irrevocable loss of agricultural land. A huge impact on services. Inadequate drains as shown in local village flood. Pressure on inadequate roads. I local medical or educational services.

Full text:

A huge concern for the irrevocable loss of agricultural land. A huge impact on services. Inadequate drains as shown in local village flood. Pressure on inadequate roads. I local medical or educational services.

Object

Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations

Representation ID: 21786

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Brown & Co

Representation Summary:

It is considered that a new settlement is a suitable option now. Traditional strategic development in Greater Norwich has placed pressure on existing infrastructure and communities, resulting in the need for significant investment in upgrades in order to provide power, waste water treatment and other social infrastructure. The programme of works required to facilitate a number of strategic and non-strategic proposed and existing allocations is significant, requires significant investment and will, and already has, detrimentally impacted upon the timely delivery of development.

Full text:

We object to the site being considered as a 'Reasonable Alternative'. It is not considered that continuing to ‘bolt-on’ development to existing large settlements constitutes sustainable development. Rather, such housing estates often result in higher densities and lower quality, with little in the way of placemaking and identikit housing, and urban sprawl which reduces ‘walkability’. It is considered that a new settlement is a suitable option now. Traditional strategic development in Greater Norwich has placed pressure on existing infrastructure and communities, resulting in the need for significant investment in upgrades in order to provide power, waste water treatment and other social infrastructure. The programme of works required to facilitate a number of strategic and non-strategic proposed and existing allocations is significant, requires significant investment and will, and already has, detrimentally impacted upon the timely delivery of development.
Provision of a new settlement provides the opportunity to deliver an infrastructure-led community, properly planned to meet the needs of future residents. Clarion have the ability and experience to deliver a new settlement at Honingham Thorpe which would overcome the issues and challenges of traditional housing development. As such, the proposed development could come forward quickly and achieve a significant delivery rate throughout, with a realistic prospect that the entire community could be delivered within the Plan period.
The proposed new settlement Honingham Thorpe would offer the opportunity to provide housing in a holistic and sustainable way in order to create a vibrant and resilient community and support the move to a post-carbon economy.

Comment

Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations

Representation ID: 22207

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Environment Agency (Eastern Region)

Representation Summary:

GNLP0415R-E and GNLP0415R-F
Allocations adjacent to the River Yare of a nature reserve and Country Park (GNLP0415R-E, GNLP0415R-F) are welcomed, especially if we can secure riparian habitat improvements for this often overlooked chalk stream. In Marlingford just downstream we have been working to undertake natural flood management works, we could build on this partnership work to restore a better connection with the flood plain, plant trees and slow the flow.

GNLP0415R-A, GNLP0415R-C
There are two sites adjacent to the River Tud another chalk stream (GNLP0415R-A, GNLP0415R-C), we need to ensure that any water discharging from the development is as clean as possible and that SuDS are sufficient, a WFD compliance assessment must be undertaken. The River Tud has a population of white-clawed crayfish, an endangered species. If there is any opportunity to improve the river habitat to compensate for the additional run off then this would be welcomed.

GNLP0415R-E
The south of this site allocation, adjacent to the river lies in Flood Zones 2 and 3. Our detailed modelling shows that much of the area covered by Flood Zone 3 is actually Flood Zone 3b Functional Floodplain, with an annual probability of flooding of 5% (1 in 20) and classed as ‘land where water needs to flow and be stored in times of flood’. As a county park would be classed as ‘water compatible’ development in Table 2 under ‘Amenity open space, nature conservation and biodiversity’ then this would be an acceptable land use within the flood zones, including Flood Zone 3b, providing that it is designed to: ‘remain operational and safe for users in times of flood; result in no net loss of floodplain storage; and not impede water flows and not increase flood risk elsewhere’
Therefore it would be preferable if any associated built development is located within Flood Zone 1, and all development within the flood zones meets the above requirements.
GNLP0415R-F
The north of the site adjacent to the river lies in Flood Zones 2 and 3. Our detailed modelling shows that quite a lot of the area covered by Flood Zone 3 is actually Flood Zone 3b Functional Floodplain, with an annual probability of flooding of 5% (1 in 20) and classed as ‘land where water needs to flow and be stored in times of flood’. As a nature reserve would be classed as ‘water compatible’ development under ‘Amenity open space, nature conservation and biodiversity’ then this would be an acceptable land use within the flood zones, including Flood Zone 3b, providing that it is designed to: ‘remain operational and safe for users in times of flood; result in no net loss of floodplain storage; and not impede water flows and not increase flood risk elsewhere’ Therefore it would be preferable if any associated built development is located within Flood Zone 1, and all development within the flood zones meets the above requirements.

Full text:

Please see attached for full submission

Attachments: