GNLP0354

The Town Councils Planning Lighting & Highways Committee has now considered the proposals relating to Wymondham and the plan for an additional 100 dwellings to be added to the existing allocation resulting in an overall commitment of 2563.
The proposed sites reference GNLP0354 at Johnson's Farm and GNLP3013 Land North of Tuttles Lane, each with an allocation of 50 dwellings are considered acceptable.
The Council is pleased that there is only a minimal additional proposed allocation of 100 homes in view of the significant number that already have approval and have not yet been built. Concern was however expressed that there could be a possible contingency of 1000 new dwellings and this seems excessive. The Council wishes to reserve the right to comment on any sites that are recommend(sic) if this contingency, or part thereof, is proposed in the final plan.

Our clients own Site GNLP0354 (land at Johnson’s Farm) and we support the allocation of this land for residential development in the draft Plan. The land in question is in single ownership, it is free of physical or other constraints and it is available immediately. It is highly suitable for residential development and it can be delivered within 5 years thus contributing to the local 5-year housing land supply position. Our clients, the freehold owners of this site, are committed to ensuring its timely delivery.
We have a number of comments on the draft allocation and the Policy wording as follows and we would be pleased to discuss these further with the Local Planning Authority as we believe that an enhanced allocation is possible in this location:
In respect of the actual draft allocation for GNLP0354:
• The site area is defined as 2.34 ha and the allocation is for 50 dwellings. On a site of 2.34ha, we would normally expect a higher dwelling figure and it is unclear how the figure of 50 dwellings has been derived. We would expect that figure, typically, to be more like 80 dwellings on a site of this size;
• We note that the western and northern boundaries of the allocated land do not relate to any specific features on the ground (such as field boundaries, watercourses or other physical features);
• As a result, certain residual areas of land, which are currently in arable use, will not be capable of being farmed due to the resulting size and shape. Alternative boundaries could be considered; and
• In particular, the northern boundary of the allocation does not correspond with the northern garden boundaries of the adjacent housing to the east on Preston Avenue.
In respect of the draft wording of Policy GNLP0354:
• We note that the text refers to ‘more homes may be accommodated ….’. We support that statement and it is quite possible, at this stage, through a site planning exercise, to demonstrate that a higher level of development is possible and that the figure of 50 dwellings could be increased;
• We note the reference to ‘submission of a masterplan that does not prevent further development on the remaining field enclosure …’. We understand this point and it clearly recognises that the location in general, and this field in particular, has scope for a higher level of development;
• The above statement raises the question that, if it is recognised that the ‘remaining field enclosure’ has further development potential, then in the interests of good planning, it may be sensible to consider the allocation of that land now to ensure a comprehensive approach and to assist in assimilating development into the landscape at an early stage;
• The draft Plan suggests that access should be via Abbey Road or Preston Avenue subject to amenity impacts on existing residents. We believe that there is a third option which is access via Old London Road to the south – where, under other already permitted development, a new roundabout is to be constructed on the B1172 to serve development at Gunvil Farm, London Road further to the south;
• In order to minimise amenity impacts on existing residents we suggest that other means of access are considered and that access via Abbey Road or Preston Avenue is possibly limited to pedestrians, cyclists and emergency access (if needed);
• We support the idea of appropriate mitigation in relation to features to the north of the site;
• Existing boundary (east side) trees and hedgerows can be incorporated into a development scheme; and
• Considering possible alternative access arrangements and appropriate site layout planning would minimise any amenity impacts on existing dwellings to the east of the site.
In respect of the footnote to Policy GNLP0354, we agree with the comment that ‘development here would not adversely impact on views of Wymondham Abbey’. The Council has been provided with a copy of the applicant’s detailed Heritage Setting Appraisal (Atkins, August 2017) in the past. This assessment demonstrated that, even for a far higher level of development, potential adverse impacts on views of the Abbey can be mitigated and therefore, this area of Wymondham does offer scope to accommodate some of the contingency housing referred to in the draft Plan.
In the light of the above comments, and to comments on the overall strategy, the landowners are also suggesting a possible alternative approach. We have enclosed a conceptual master plan which shows this alternative approach and the main features of which are as follows:
• The site has been enlarged to the established boundaries of the existing field reflecting the longer-term growth referred to in the Policy;
• The capacity of the site is thus estimated to be approximately 100 dwellings of mixed type on a gross site area of 5.73ha;
• Access is via the Old London Road and thence to the approved roundabout (yet to be constructed) on the B1172;
• Access to Preston Avenue is limited to pedestrians and cyclists to protect residential amenity. No access via Abbey Road is proposed;
• Additional footpath access to the south (to Old London Road) is also proposed;
• The site layout and the primary access road, have been designed to afford views of Wymondham Abbey; and
• New public open space has been located so as to also offer views of the Abbey.
This concept is slightly different to that set out in the draft Plan under Policy GNLP0354, and we believe it builds on the attributes of the allocated site but with additional merit as follows:
1. It specifically responds to the Plans’ recognition that the allocated site should make provision for longer term growth within the ’remaining field enclosure’;
2. It retains and incorporates existing boundary features rather than the artificial boundaries of the draft allocation site;
3. It modestly increases the proposed level of housing (although not above the overall 100 dwelling draft allocations for Wymondham) in a Main Town which is earmarked for a contingency of 1,000 dwellings and where the total housing provision is a minimum;
4. It protects the amenity of existing dwellings through its access arrangements;
5. It utilises key views of the Abbey through design and layout; and
6. It incorporates soft western and northern edges to provide suitable buffers to the open countryside to the west and north.
We therefore conclude that this alternative proposal provides an enhanced allocation for residential development at Wymondham and we ask that this is given careful consideration through the local plan process.

Think this area should be conserved not built upon - the area is in the environs of the abbey and the Mid Norfolk Railway line halt / start platform - this area is a major tourist attraction and also an amenity area for Wymondham residents.

Think this development would spoil the tranquility of this area - be a blot on the landscape - do not accept that view of the abbey would not be impacted. Adverse affect therefore for Wymondham tourism and also impacting as a green / tranquil lung for Wymondham residents.

Plenty of other sites available

Stage C Regulation 18 Draft Strategy and Site Allocations
GNLP 0354
I welcome the opportunity to comment on the site allocations and note that there is a proposal for a preferred housing allocation for at least 50 houses, Land at Johnson’s Farm, GNLP 0354 and that this forms part of the considered suitable amount of growth (100 additional dwellings) for Wymondham, in addition to 2463 existing dwellings commitment to 2038.
I welcome your consideration of previous objections to housing development on a larger scale (75ha) in this area in relation to scale, road safety, impact on amenity, and environmental and landscape damage. I note your assessment of the 75ha site concluded that it was not suitable for allocation due to the harm to the character and the appearance of the area, distance from facilities and services and highway capacity, and more over I welcome that this site is not allocated in this consultation (due to the impact on the setting of Wymondham Abbey and associated landscape) to the ‘reasonable alternatives’ to accommodate 1000 additional dwellings if GNLP does not meet local plan targets.
Although the proposed preferred allocation (GNLP 0354) is restricted to 2.34ha, as most of the site is considered in the strategy to be unreasonable due to the impact on the setting of Wymondham Abbey and associated landscape, I remain concerned that even the proposal for a smaller development of 50 homes (even though access is required to be from Abbey Road or Preston Drive), will have an impact on Bradman’s Lane, Cavick Road and Becketswell Road, and access to the Town from the south west. These highways already carry traffic at a volume, size and speed that is hazardous to all road users, including those who value this part of Wymondham for quiet and recreation in walking, cycling and the enjoyment of the countryside. Further increase in traffic would have a significant impact on the asset this area provides for Wymondham and its visitors. The indication that more than 50 homes may be accommodated subject to layout and design only strengthens this concern.
I would therefore ask that GNLP 0354 is not included as a preferred housing allocation in line with your stated objectives of protecting and enhancing the built, natural and historic environments.

Unlike other allocation policies there is no reference to water efficiency forming part of the design.

Please also see comments relating to Policy 2 of the Sustainable Communities of the Strategy document.

Extends town boundary, encroaching on setting of western approach to Abbey and Grade 1 Cavick House estate. Access difficulties via Abbey Road. marginal increase in housing vs plan needs. Increased vehicle movements, emissions and light pollution. Negligible CIL, Section 106 contribution so nothing to mitigate infrastructure demands - schools, doctors etc. Does nothing for town centre too remote. No public transport links. Scope for development creep on site up to historic hedge line. Abbey Road was genuine in-fill this is virgin agricultural land spoken environmental considerations. Lazy allocation not thought through.

At least 50 houses - what does this mean - will there be more than 50? It would appear that the landowners are attempting to move the goal posts and propose that 100 houses could be accommodated on this site. Accordingly they have set out their objectives (see Search Representations) and have sited housing over the whole of this field, thereby severely compromising views of the Abbey which would only be seen obliquely through housing. Views of the Abbey from Bradmans Lane are excellent but this proposal will effectively destroy these views, particularly as proposed development on the 'remaining field enclosure' is mentioned. This site lies on the outskirts of the designated river valley landscape, is in a Conservation Area, there are County Wildlife Sites at nearby Wymondham Abbey Meadows and Tiffey Meadows South and North, is outside the existing settlement boundary. Currently, there is a lack in infrastructure - hospital, dentists, doctors, schools. There is potential impact upon Preston Avenue and the old London Road and there is a new estate being developed nearby - William's Park for 335 houses. This landowner originally applied for 400 houses in one of the most sensitive areas of Wymondham although the GNLP states that the majority of the site is considered unreasonable due to the impact on the setting of Wymondham Abbey and associated landscape. However, it does state : "Submission of a masterplan that does not prevent further development on the remaining field enclosure beyond the plan period of 2038." It is worth noting that there is a National Trust restrictive covenant in place to protect the Cavick Estate and the valley to the west. I am totally opposed to any form of development here.

We are concerned that the agents for the landowners have attempted to increase the number of houses on this site from 50 to 100 and have prepared plans and representation to substantiate this. This is a sensitive elevated area with wide sweeping views. There are excellent views of the Abbey from Bradmans Lane which brings the 'remaining field enclosure' into question, development of which would destroy the wide sweeping landscape views from this elevated site. The new proposals will effectively destroy any views of the Abbey contrary to the comments of the agents. This particular landowner originally proposed 400 houses on this site which attracted many objections. WAAP Environment Objective : "....................conserving the historic landscape setting of the town and abbey ................" The site is in the Conservation Area, is close to the Tiffey river valley and there are three County Wildlife Sites nearby. WAAP Environment Objective 7.3. "........ large scale arable farmland which is crossed by numerous rural lanes ...the woodland blocks ae mostly deciduous and some of these .... are ancient woodlands ... the overall character of the area is rural ... the valley floor is in pastoral use...the valley is mostly open in character...there are pockets of small valley-side woods ...the predominant land use is arable farmland...". Development Management 4.5 Landscape Character and River Valleys : "All development should respect, conserve and where possible enhance the landscape character of its immediate and wider environment. Development proposals that would cause significant adverse impact on the distinctive landscape characteristics of an area will be refused." There is a National Trust covenant in existence to protect the Cavick estate and the countryside to the west. This development will detrimentally impact upon the rural character of the river valley landscape and narrow lanes in the area. Wymondham does not have the capacity for this further development i.e. doctors, dentists, schools, roads and hospitals. New housing would not sit well with the existing older properties, particularly in the Cavick area. Wildlife would also be severely affected and pollution including light pollution would also be detrimental. We note "submission of a masterplan that does not prevent further development on the remaining field enclosure beyond the plan period of 2038" which leaves the area open to further development.
~ There is a National Trust restrictive covenant in place to protect the Cavick Estate and the valley to the west.
~ We would ask that SNC takes note of the constraints in regard to GNLP0354 when determining the final Plan. We do not agree that this area of Wymondham offers scope to accommodate some of the contingency housing referred to in the draft Plan.
~ "To the west of the town, the River Tiffey Valley remains a largely intact rural landscape. Likewise to the south-west, undeveloped views remain of the Abbey from a considerable distance."
~ We are concerned that there is a development contingency of 1,000 dwellings for Wymondham which is excessive.

For full representation, please refer to attached documents

General
I support the general approach the team has adopted for the GNLP 2026-38. They are to be commended for all the detailed work that they have put into this exercise.
Infrastructure (Introduction and Draft Strategy Appendix 1 pages 116-7, Q24)
In any future text could the team give greater emphasis to the work that is going on with respective partner organisations to ensure that planning for healthcare and education and transport links is taking place. I appreciate these areas are not in your gift and you are reliant on these partners being broadly in sync with your timescales. However, I note that, when confronted particularly with housing growth in their area, the complaint is often raised that “they” are doing nothing to increase access to GPs or to school places. From a presentational perspective at least, more updates and greater prominence in the report and any press releases, to these aspects, to allay fears, might help to make subsequent housing/ employment development more acceptable. Cecilia Riccardi 12 Abbey Road Wymondham NR18 9BY 3 March 2020 GNLP 1st
Options: Draft Strategy on Growth Options and Main Towns Policy 7.2. p103 onwards, paragraph 329, Q41 and 42)
Option 1: support. Option 2: support.
Garden Village Proposal: Support
I know this is not generally a favoured approach, not least because of the long lead times involved. However, it provides an ideal opportunity to develop something truly ground breaking, visionary and fit for the second half of the 21st century. Any area that can back the RIBA Stirling Prize winner for 2019 surely already has a head-start in the quest for the eco-friendly design that will be required. There must be national grants available to ensure that future communities can be built e.g.to meet climate change targets. It could have a share in the wind-farm bounty Norfolk provides. And simultaneously make a virtue of and preserve sympathetically existing environmental, historical and heritage features. Local authorities must be able to share best practise nationally. Creation of such a village should be standalone, with appropriate infrastructure - roads, healthcare, education - developed and not impinging upon already stretched local towns. Silfield Village, (GNLP2168) if chosen, could be built with all necessary facilities and access onto the A11 growth corridor and not via the Wymondham railway bridge. Such a strategy might also obviate the need for Wymondham to provide for the 1000 homes contingency should e.g. Carrow Road not be available, and thus remove the burden on Wymondham.

Policy 7.2: The Main Towns - Wymondham – preferred sites
GNLP0354 Land at Johnson’s Farm: preferred site for Wymondham
Position: Oppose access proposals.
The good news is that, subject to a 1000 homes contingency, Wymondham is initially only being required to take 100 new homes in the period up to 2038. This is surely in recognition that it took a disproportionate share in the planning period to 2026.
The 50 (of the 100) homes planned under GNLP0354 are neither here nor there given that we are already taking 335 homes on the B1172 Gonville site opposite. (These 335 are additional to the 2200 originally allocated to Wymondham to 2026). However, as the accompanying explanation makes clear, this is likely to lead to an unacceptable expansion (from 50) of up to 400 homes over time. Given that Johnson’s Farm has for some years been keen for development this is surely likely to be sooner rather than later. I am less than confident that the “protecting heritage aspects”, including any covenants currently in place, arguments, will hold much sway given the Gonville Hall experience.
A Request
Would planners, and especially highways, please reconsider the requirement for access/exit for the 50 homes to be through Abbey Road. There is one narrow entrance/exit to Abbey Road for the currently situated 77 homes. Abbey Road leads directly from the B1172 roundabout and at entry has a crossing point with a light which further restricts access. This estate road bends round to the left past the children’s park and then curves right to a left turn with a narrow access point (two cars width) on to Johnson’s field behind. Unless the plan is to remove the entry, crossing point and install double yellow lines all along this narrow road to prevent parking, further development is NOT feasible by this route. More worrying is the 18 months to 2-year building phase when this narrow road could not take all the JCBs, construction lorries, heavy machinery and low-loaders etc. safely. Surely new developments should not be designing in traffic chaos? I ask for a rethink and on- the- ground inspection. I enclose a map which shows the roundabout and unsuitability of this road for access/exit.