GNLP0290

This development which is within the Drayton Woods country wildlife site, will be detrimental to the landscape and environment, as well as adding pressure on Hellesdon's facilities and already overburdened highways.

This site is unsuitable for residential development due to its setting. Wooded areas should be preserved for the harmony and enhancement of the parish and to keep a separation between villages.

This site is unsuitable for residential development due to its setting and use could be considered for keeping it for the purpose it was built - a care home for our ageing population. Wooded areas should be preserved for the harmony and enhancement of the parish.

This development is within the Drayton Woods country wildlife site: Object on grounds of: Detrimental to landscape and character of area, rights of way, access and highway issues and will put pressure on facilities in adjoining Hellesdon

This is not appropiate and ruins the country landscape look of the area and will bring an intollerable amount of new people and development tontye area

I object to this land being used to build new homes due to the natural habitat that is included and surrounds the site. This should not be spoilt for the benefit of new homes. Infrastructure will need to be built in to accommodate changes and this is not in keeping with this beautiful wooded area.

This site is outside of the settlement limit and is adjacent to Drayton Wood which is a County Wildlife site The development is contrary to policy 8 of the Drayton Neighbourhood Plan.

This proposal would negatively impact what has been identified as a green corridor (in Hellesdon Neighbourhood Plan) which promotes avenues of increased biodiversity running from the wensum valley as far as the Cromer road. It would negatively impact the residents of Hellesdon being '..one step from the countryside' as also identified in the Plan. In addition and worst off all would be the impact upon established woodland. It Is unnaceeptable to cut down trees to build housing when there is so much open space in Norfolk.

Classed as Drayton but not covered by Drayton Medical Practice according to their website. This puts more pressure onto Hellesdon Medical Practice taking into account the homes already being built on the site of the Royal Norwich Golf Club. It is not acceptable to state you recognise the need for more GPs, is there a realistic action plan in place to address this? This proposal appears to remove some of the woodland; how many trees will be cut down?

Development is within the Drayton Wood Country Wildlife site and would be detrimental to the landscape and character of the area. rights of way issues, access and highway issues and will put pressure on infrastructure and amenities of adjacent Hellesdon

Objection due to this being within Drayton Woods wildlife site which would be detrimental to the character of the woods and access. How many trees will have to be cut down in order to build the proposed houses?

This site is really an extension of Hellesdon. There are no amenities near here, thus it will put more pressure on Middletons Lane and Drayton High Road-in addition to the pressures from the building about to start on the golf course.

This site is outside of the settlement limit and is within Drayton Wood which is a County Wildlife site. Any development is contrary to policy 8 of the Drayton Neighbourhood Plan. The number of trees required to be removed is unacceptable for the very small number of new dwellings that would be created.

Outside of settlement limit, remote from village centre and services. Adjacent to Drayton Wood county wildlife site.

SITE REF: GNLP0289, 0290, 0301, 0302, 0329, 0332, 0333, 0334, 0381, 0419, 0500, 1019, 1020, 1021, 1061.
These areas are not suitable for the proposed buildings because they would put pressure on Hellesdon medical practice and other facilities in Hellesdon.
They would cause traffic problems for the already busy roads of Hellesdon and would be dangerous for vehicles joining the main roads. The loss of habitat for wildlife should also be considered before building on our countryside.

GNLP1019 - this land is recreational and should never be built on.

GNLP1020 - This land is to be kept for a new burial ground.

GNLP1019/GNLP1021- There are major traffic problems in this area already.

GNLP0289/GNLP0290/GNLP0301 - Detrimental to landscape, rare plants and wildlife grow in this wood.

Hellesdon needs more green areas with the loss of the golf course, this will make a huge gap. Traffic and pollution is bad. Doctors, chemists ad others will be over subscribed, including the schools. Someone needs to stand up for Hellesdon VILLAGE.

GNLP 1019
Please, PLEASE, do not build any more houses in Hellesdon and in particular on Cottenham's Park. This land was designated for recreational use for the Hellesdon people! How dare you over rule this licence so that you can build houses, for the people who will effectively be living on the Horsford Boundary!!! This land is one of the few remaining Green areas left in Hellesdon, particularly now you have decided to ruin the beautiful golf course by building on there! I wonder how many Broadland Council Staff actually live in Hellesdon and see the ruin it has become? It takes me over 30 minutes to drive 2.3 miles to work every day! Despite the NDR, which you promised would make a difference, Hellesdon is still gridlocked! I live on the Reepham Road and have lived in Hellsedon nearly 50 years. Shame on you for pursuing with your devastation of our community; for destroying our beautiful green areas and all the wildlife within them - this is our heritage!!!
I reject this proposal on the grounds of: the loss of last remaining green land and impact to wildlife; insufficient road infrastructure (despite the NDR, everyone still passes through Reepham Road for the city centre and they always will!); insufficient proposals/provision given to local doctors and dentists etc.; and let's not forget any CIL money for the development would go to Drayton and Horsford Councils, while residents would, undoubtedly, be using Hellesdon facilities! Just criminal! Please just stop now. No more houses!

GNLP 0290
I object on the grounds of it being detrimental to the landscape and character of the local area. I have grown up in these woods! They are one of the few natural, beautiful woodland areas left in Hellesdon!! They do NOT need to be developed ANY way!! Aside of destroying their natural beauty and the wildlife within them, it will cause access and highway issues and will put, yet MORE, pressure on the facilities of Hellesdon, which the new occupants would undoubtedly use!!

GNLP 0301
I object on the grounds of it being detrimental to landscape and character of the local area. I have grown up with these woods! They are one of the few natural, beautiful woodland areas left in Hellesdon!! They do NOT need to be developed in ANY way!! Aside of destroying their natural beauty and wildlife within them, it will cause access and highway issues and will put, yet MORE, pressure on the facilities of Hellesdon, which the new occupants would undoubtedly use!!

GNLP 0302
I object on the grounds of it removing MORE of the green area left between Hellesdon and Horsford. Although it will be technically based in the parish of Horsford, it will actually be closer to Hellesdon and therefore, it will be the Hellesdon facilities, amenities and road infrastructure that will suffer.

GNLP 0334
I object on the grounds of it removing yet MORE of the green area and natural woodland left between Hellesdon and Horsford. Although it will be technically based in the parish of Horsford, it will actually be closer to Hellesdon and therefore, it will the Hellesdon facilities, amenities and road infrastructure that will suffer.

GNLP 0419
I object on the grounds of it removing yet MORE of the green area and natural woodland left between Hellesdon and Horsford. The access will be straight onto a 50mph road and once again, this development will end up putting stress on the facilities, traffic congestion and amenities of Hellesdon!

GNLP 0419 - 750 houses on this site would put much pressure on the roads and local amenities. The roads now are already congested at peak times of the day. It would also spoil a lovely area which quite a lot of wildlife and birds.
GNLP 0332 - another area which is good for wildlife and birds, and would also put pressure on the amenities of Hellesdon.
GNLP 0302 - another 150-200 dwellings would increase pressure on local roads and amenities.
GNLP 1019 - beautiful recreation grounds and allotments should be kept as they are. Housing here would spoil a lovely area. Cars joining Reepham Road would be accidents waiting to happen.
GNLP 1021 - Jarrold's sportsground should be kept as a recreational area, and more cars on Fifers Lane would add to more congestion.
GNLP 0290 - beautiful area of woodland, building would be detrimental to all the wildlife and birds and the walking in this place. Building here would be criminal.
GNLP 0301 - building of 276 dwellings here would more than double the amount of cars on already congested roads and people using local amenities.
In all these proposals there is no mention of providing the roads or building new doctors surgeries or schools to take all the greater population, not that we want any of these.

GNLP 0419 - the loss of an open field site with boundaries of woods and trees would be such a loss to Reepham Road, Hellesdon, and the building of 750 houses would be awful. We walk around here and you can hear skylarks and other birds, wildlife would suffer greatly.
750 houses would generate double that amount of cars down the road which is already busy especially work and school run times this also would put more pressure on doctors (of which I see no mention of building another practice to ease patient pressure). To sum it up not a good idea to build these houses especially as we already live here and would see the dreadful results of this.
GNLP 0332 - much the same as the above site. Another open field site with much wildlife and birds, as well as putting pressure on the amenities of Hellesdon.
GNLP 0302 - another 150 -200 properties would put much pressure on roads and amenities which are already busy.
GNLP - 1019 beautiful recreational grounds and allotments should be allowed to stay as they are and would be totally spoilt with housing again putting pressure roads and amenities.
GNLP - 1021 Jarrold's sports ground, recreational area would be totally spoilt, more cars on an already congested Fifers Lane would be terrible.
GNLP0290 - Beautiful area of woodland, detrimental to all the wildlife and walking, criminal to develop here.
GNLP 0301 - large development of 276 dwellings double the amount of cars using already congested roads and people using local amenities.
In all of these proposals I see no mention of improving or building new amenities, doctors, schools etc. or improving the already poor road systems.

GNLP0289
Object to the change of use from care home to apartments. The Care Home ii an valuable resource for those requiring residential and day care. Further, the closure of the Bellecare Home reduces employment opportunities in the area
The 39 -76 vehicles entering and leaving Drayton High Road will add to the congestion and hazards on this highway.

GNLP0290
This development is on part of Drayton Wood- a County Wild life Site and will reduce the area of woodland and block the entrance to the Public Rights of Way in the wood. The Rights of Way are regularly used for parties of health walkers , and daily by dog walkers and joggers.
The traffic from the new properties will add to traffic and hazards on Drayton High Road.
It will ill destroy the green belt between Drayton and Hellesdon

GNLP0329
This development will block the entrance from Hurn Road to the Public Right of Way FP11 to Reepham Road, the path off FP11 to FPs 12/13 round and from Canham's Hill. Further it will destroy a Green Link to Drayton Wood behind Howell Road (presently a Permissive path). The area cannot be developed for housing as it is designated clear area for planes leaving and approaching Norwich Airport. Further ,foul water from the properties will add to the overload of sewage at the Low Road pumping station. This is adjacent to the protected River Wensum Valley SSI area.

GNLP0301
This development will add to strain on local facilities and roads. and could lead to infill of area next to I to Manor Park.

20170196
Why is this site omitted from the GNLP map of development sites?

Site Proposals:

0344 - Object - This is a wildlife site, remote from Horsford. Would increase pressure on ameniteies and facilities in Hellesdon. Traffic concerns.

0289 & 0290 - Object - Detrimental to landscape, rights of way, increased pressure on services provided by Hellesdon.

0301 & 0329 - Object - Site unsuitable, splits boundaries Loss of arable/pasture land. Pressure on Hellesdon services.

1019 - Object - Recreation Land - Designated for Hellesdon Parish, No, No, No.

0332 - Object - Green Buffer twixt Hellesdon/ Horsford. Pressure on all services traffic implications etc within Hellesdon.

0333 - Object - Norwich Airport safety zone remote from Horsford. Pressure on all services and traffic concerns provided by Hellesdon parish.

0419 - Object - Remote from Horsford. Loss of green space has environmental impact. Pressure on all Hellesdon services. Traffic issues, access - to a 50mph road

0302 - Object - Noise pollution from NDR

GNLP 0289/ 0290/ 0301/ 0329/ 0302/ 0332/ 0333/ 0334/ 0419/ 0381
Strongly object!
Agree with all Hellesdon Parish Council objection comments regarding loss of green space/ environmental impact, pressure on already stretched Hellesdon amenities and horrendous traffic problems

General comments:
All allocations need to be considered in relation to the Greater Norwich GI Strategy and the emerging Norfolk GI maps, in relation to both opportunities and constraints.
As for previous consultations, our comments on site allocations relate to information that we hold. This relates mainly to impacts on CWS. These comments are in addition to previous pre-consultation comments on potential allocations. However, we are not aware of all impacts on priority habitats and species, or on protected species and further constraints may be present on some proposed allocations. Similarly, we have flagged up impacts on GI corridors where this is related to CWS but there should be an assessment of all proposed allocations against the emerging GI maps for Norfolk, which should consider both locations where allocations may fragment GI and areas within allocations that could enhance GI network. As a result, lack of comment on sites does not necessarily mean that these are supported by NWT and we may object to applications on allocated sites, if biodiversity impacts are shown to be present?

We are aware that the GNLP process will be taking place at the same time as Natural England work on licensing with regard to impacts of development on great-crested newt. This work will include establishment of zones where development is more or less likely to impact on great-crested newt. We advise that this ongoing work is considered as part of the evidence base of the GNLP, if practicable to do so in the time scale.

Broadland
Coltishall:
0265 There is a substantial block of mature trees within this proposed allocation which we understand provides nesting site for common buzzard and is part of wooded ridge. Although not protected under schedule 1 of the Wildlife & Countryside Act, in our view this should be seen as a constraint on development and wooded ridge should be protected.

Drayton
0290: In our view development within the Drayton Woods CWS is not acceptable and this site should not be allocated.
We agree with constraints due to proximity to CWS that are assessed for other proposed allocations in Drayton

Frettenham:
0492 we are pleased to see that impact on CWS is recognised as a major constraint and the need for area within CWS to be recognised as GI, if there is any smaller development outside of CWS

Hevingham:
Adjacent CWS represents a potential constraint as has been recognised.

Honingham:
We note that the presence of CWS and river valley are recognised as constraints, although assessment is that impacts on these areas can be avoided by becoming green space in a larger development. If taken forward, plans would need to include a buffer to all CWS and assessment of biodiversity value of each CWS to establish whether they have particular sensitivity. At this stage, NWT take view that 0415 should not be allocated, even if part of a large development.

Horsford:
0469 and 0251 should be recognised as having CWS or priority habitat constraint. There should be no development on CWS and should be a buffer to CWS.

Postwick:
0571 This would be a new settlement and we are pleased to see that a biodiversity constraint is recognised. However, Witton Run is a key GI corridor linking to Broads National Park. It is essential that impacts on GI corridors, such as Witton Run, are recognised even when not made up of designated sites, if the Greater Norwich GI strategy is to have any value.

Reepham:
1007: This is STW expansion. If expansion is necessary at this STW, there will need to be mitigation and/or compensation with regard to impacts on CWS
1006: There are potential impacts on CWS 1365, which need to be considered

Sprowston:
0132 We are pleased to see that GI constraints and opportunities are recognised. However, need to ensure that allocation allows for protection and enhancement of GI corridor.

Taverham:
0563: Recognition of impact on CWS is recognised but need to ensure no development within CWS, plus buffer to the CWS, if this is taken forward.
0337: Buffer to Marriott's Way CWS needs to be recognised

Thorpe St Andrew:
0228 and 0442: Pleased to see that the impact on CWS 2041 and GI corridor seen as a major constraint and that all sites proposed will have an adverse impact. These sites should not be allocated.

Norwich:
Deal ground 0360: Previous permissions allow for protection and enhancement of Carrow Abbey Marsh CWS. There is great potential for restoration of this CWS as a new nature reserve, associated with the development and a key area of GI linking the city with Whitlingham Park. This aim should be retained in any renewal of the allocation and new permissions

0068: Development should not reach up to riverside but allow for creation of narrow area of natural bankside semi-natural vegetation to link with similar between adjacent river and Playhouse. This will help to deliver the (Norwich) River Wensum Environment Strategy

South Norfolk

Barford:
0416: We are pleased to see that biodiversity constraints are recognised but there is a need to mitigate for impacts on adjacent CWS 2216 though provision of buffer.
1013: There are potential biodiversity constraints, with regard to semi-natural habitats
 
Berghapton:
0210: We are pleased to see that impacts on CWS, existing woodland and protected species seen as major constraint.

Bixley:
1032: There may be biodiversity constraint in relation to habitats on site

Bracon Ash:
New settlement 1055: We are pleased to see that affects CWS and priority habitats are recognised. There is potential for significant additional impact on Ashwellthorpe Wood SSSI. This site is open to the public but is sensitive and not suitable for increased recreational impacts, owing to the wet nature of the soils and the presence of rare plants, which are sensitive to trampling. We are also concerned about increased recreational impacts on of a new settlement on Lizard and Silfield CWS and on Oxford Common. These sites are already under heavy pressure owing to new housing in South Wymondham. Unless impacts can be fully mitigated we are likely to object to this allocation if carried forward to the next stage of consultation.

Broome:
0346: We are pleased to see recognition of constraints relating to adjacent Broome Heath CWS

Caistor
0485: see Poringland

Chedgrave:
1014: There may be biodiversity constraints with regard to adjacent stream habitats

Colney
0253: Constraints relating impacts on existing CWS 235 and impacts on floodplain may be significant and should also be recognised as factors potentially making this allocation unsuitable for the proposed development

Costessey
0238: We are pleased to see constraints in relation to CWS and flood risk are recognised.
0266: We are pleased to see constraints recognised. The value of parts of this porposed allocation as a GI corridor need to be considered.
0489: We are pleased to see that constraints relating to river valley CWS recognised. This site should not be allocated

Cringleford
0461: The whole of 0461 consists of semi-natural habitat, woodland and grazed meadow and should not be allocated for development. In addition adjacent land in the valley bottom is highly likely to be of CWS value and should be considered as such when considering constraints
0244: This site is currently plantation woodland and part of the Yare Valley GI corridor. It should not be allocated, for this reason

Diss:
We support the recognition that constraints regarding to biodiversity need to be addressed. Contributions to GI enhancement should be considered. 1004, 1044 & 1045 may cause recreational impact on CWS 2286 (Frenze Brook) and mitigation will be required.

Hethersett
0177: We are concerned that constraints with regard to impacts on CWS 2132 and 233 are not recognised. These two CWS require continued grazing management in order to retain their value and incorporation as green space within amenity green space is not likely to provide this. Development of the large area of 0177 to the south of the Norwich Road would provide an opportunity for habitat creation and restoration

Marlingford:
0415: We are concerned with the biodiversity impacts of development along Yare Valley and on CWS and habitats on the valley slopes (including CWS in Barford parish). If this area is allocated it should only be as a semi-natural green space that is managed as semi-natural habitat

Poringland:
0485: We are pleased to see recognition of constraints relating to CWS. Any country park development should ensure continued management and protection of

Roydon
0526: There is potential for recreational impacts on Roydon Fen CWS. This impact needs to be considered for all proposed allocations in Roydon and if taken forward mitigation measures may be required. We are also concerned about water quality issues arising from surface water run-off to the Fen from adjacent housing allocations and these allocations should only be taken forward if it is certain that mitigation measures can be put in place. Roydon Fen is a Suffolk Wildlife Trust nature reserve and SWT may make more detailed comments, with regard to impacts.
Although appearing to consist mainly of arable fields this 3-part allocation contains areas of woodland and scrub, which may be home to protected species. These areas should be retained if this area is allocated and so will represent a constraint on housing numbers.

Toft Monks:
0103: We are pleased to see that a TPO constraint recognised and value as grassland habitat associated with trees should be considered.

Woodton
0150: Buffer to CWS could be provided by GI within development if this allocation is taken forward.
1009: Impacts on CWS 94 may require mitigation.

Wymondham:
Current allocations in Wymondham have already led to adverse impacts on CWS around the town, through increased recreational pressure. Although proposals for mitigation are being considered via Wymondham GI group, further development south of town is not possible without significant GI provision. This applies particularly to 0402. Similarly, there is very limited accessible green space to the north of the town and any development will require significant new GI. 0354 to north of town includes CWS 215, which needs to be protected and buffered from development impacts and CWS 205 needs to be protected if 0525 is allocated.

GNLP 0298/ 0290/ 0301/ 0329/ 0302/ 0332/ 0333/ 0334/ 0419/ 0381
I agree with all Hellesdon Parish Council comments regarding the loss of green space, the environmental impact, pressure on already stretched Hellesdon infrastructure, amenities and the already and existing traffic problems in spite of the 'NDR'. I strongly object to any of the above!!
GNLP 1020 A cemetery application was turned down because of bad access and egress to the site, also because of Norwich Airport. Take off flight lines, remember the aircraft crash years ago. The planning applications to build houses on any of the land owned by R.G Carter is complete madness and detrimental to public safety.

GNLP0301 - Land East of Drayton Lane and North of Hall Lane.
RESOLVED: Site is away from the village centre and unstainable. This site could not be supported.

GNLP0270 - Land Between Taverham Road and Costessey Lane.
RESOLVED: The site has a considerable fall across the site and drainage could be a problem. This site could not be supported.


GNLP0271 - Land South of Low Road.
RESOLVED: Site has already been pushed forward for permissions under application number 201702012. Objections have already been lodged with the planning authority.


GNLP0289 - Behell Care Services 189A Drayton High Road.
RESOLVED: Subject to receipt of more detailed plans and proposals the site could be given consideration by the Parish Council.

GNLP0290 - Land Adjacent to Drayton Wood Care Home, 189A Drayton High Road.
RESOLVED: Subject to receipt of more detailed plans and proposals the site could be given consideration by the Parish Council.

GNLP0465 - Land off North Norwich Distributor Road.
RESOLVED: Subject to receipt of more detailed plans and proposals the site could be given consideration by the Parish Council.

GNLP0329 - Land to Rear of Bradshaw Road and Accessed via Reepham Road.
RESOLVED: This site is within the flight path and crash site of Norwich Airport. In addition, the planning inspectorate had ruled against development of a cemetery on this site. The site could not be supported.

GNLP0289 - Conversion of care home. Adjoins County Wildlife Site and will encroach on Gertrude Jeckyll garden (see attached)
GNLP290 - proposed development to side of driveway to Benell Care Home. Is oil pipe which served Norwich International Airport still active? (running alongside existing driveway)
GNLP0301 - within safety zone of Norwich International Airport.
GNLP0329 - loss of agricultural land. Access poor and within safety zone of Airport.
GNLP0334; GNLP0332; GNLP0333; GNLP0419: This is currently agricultural land and needs to continue likewise. Within safety zone and high noise levels from aircraft using Norwich International Airport
.

I am objecting to the proposed building because both wild birds and wild mammals would lose their homes. There are skylarks and other rare birds there also hedgehogs which are under threat of extinction.

There is currently too much traffic on surrounding roads, this would increase considerably.

The local doctors surgery would not be able to cope with any more patients. We already have to wait 2-3 weeks for an appointment.

Local school could not accept hundred of extra children.

I object in principle to any development being permitted on the following sites, for reasons of damage to the local landscape, loss of open green space, damage to wildlife habitat and further intrusion into and despoilation of the countryside in / around the existing settlements:-

0290
2027 (which appears to be the woodland 'garden' at the top of the hill running perpendicular to Fakenham Road? If so, whoever owns this ought to be ashamed of promoting it for development)
0457
0159
0062
2051
2012
0465
2106 (which is a 3.3 hectare site south of Taverham Rd, which was once a nursery but has been derelict for at least 50 years. The site is on chalk just below topsoil level and as such is likely to be of botanical interest. The fact that natural succession has been taking place over this site for so long means that it will almost certainly have acquired a large and diverse flora and fauna. Full ecological surveys must be carried out here. In addition to general ecological surveys, specific surveys for reptiles, amphibians and bats should be undertaken. The site is of great value as undisturbed green open space and should be preserved as such.

0284 (Old Costessey, 'Mann's' field - must be retained as green open space.
0206 (land adjoining) also must be retained as green open space
2004 - this seems to be part of the Tud marshes and shouldn't even be remotely considered for any kind of development, as shouldn't any of the rest of the Tud marshes (either on / adjacent to the golf course or between Longwater Lane and Townhouse Road).