GNLP0329

The site is landlocked - it makes no sense to develop the site at such a distance from the Reepham Road - we are very worried about the impact this will have on the wooded area/wildlife adjacent to the site. We are also concerned at the impact this will have on both our property and neighbouring properties as we live in a very quiet semi-rural location which is why we moved here almost 20 years ago. We do not agree to this proposed development site under any circumstances. We will vigorously contest any future proposals and/or planning applications for development.

This area is land locked , access to the site is not from the village, the area is a nature area, housing would detract from the nature we see in our Garden and in the area where we walk our dogs This site is a long way from the village facilities

We strongly object to this proposal.
Site is within airport overshoot danger area. Site is a wildlife haven. Over urbanization of a rural village.
Site crisscrossed with established and permissive footpaths.
Dangerous and difficult access to site.

Access to site unsuitable and would put more pressure on already heavily congested roads and infrastructure

The proposed development would run contrary to some of the stated objectives of the Greater Norwich Development Plan which states "To enhance the built and natural environment", also "to grow vibrant and healthy communities giving people a high quality of life and well designed developments".
The existing development achieves an excellent balance of residential development whilst providing and making the most of the natural environment.
The open spaces and public footpaths are widely used and are easily accessed by the Drayton/Hellesdon/Taverham communities.
Further development of the area would be to the detriment of the local residents,wider community and wildlife alike.

landlocked, destroy area for wildlife, increase already excessive pressure on road network, no access to any local shops schools etc. Increase in local crime, noise, congestion and unrest. totally object.

Since we had our property built we understood that no development would take place on this site because this was on the NNI crash contour for Norwich airport. The site is a nature haven for the many varieties of bird life,wildlife,flora,fauna which would be destroyed.The right of access,designated foot paths for walkers/dog walkers would be lost.
Having measured the proposed layout to build the 144 dwellings I assume that the dwellings would be of a high density nature and completely unsuitable for this site. This proposed development would also add even more pressure to the already over stretched road network,schools,doctors

The proposed development would adversely impact on the existing community and contradicts directly the stated objectives of the GNDP. This isolated site would be difficult/dangerous to access/exit ,with potential housing density 4 times greater than that of the adjacent similar area on Bradshaw /Howell Road.It would increase pressure on the already overstretched services and facilities within the village and surrounding area.
As well as being an established walking area enjoyed by local residents this site is a wonderful natural habitat for wildlife which includes many unusual and decreasing bird species. This development must not be allowed to destroy this.

Land-locked site. Object on grounds of: Not sustainable as site is well away from amenities of Drayton and access to the site is unsuitable. Any development here will again put pressure on Hellesdon infrastructure and amenities.

Planning rejected for cemetery if 144 houses approved it would be disgraceful.
Exceptional Wildlife in this area would be disturbed beyond repair. Spotted woodpeckers and Green woodpeckers, Owls etc all seen there.
Would overcrowd an area with no access or facilities.
This land is directly in the crash contours of the airport flight line. Noise in the dwellings would be unacceptable and the vortex from the aircraft wing tips causes localized ground air currents as heard by the whip cracks in the trees. The land is on a site of an old stream and is prone to flooding.

This site is a nature haven for the many varieties of bird life,wildlife,flora,fauna which would be destroyed.The right of access,designated foot paths for walkers/dog walkers would be lost.
Having measured the proposed layout to build the 144 dwellings these would ave to to be high density in nature and completely unsuitable for this site. This proposed development would also add even more pressure to the already over stretched road network,schools,doctors.

The fact that a cemetary can be declined and yet we are now being asked to consider new houses is disgusting. This should never be allowed. The wooded area that is currently there should remain. It has unique wildlife and would not be adding anythng of any value to the curent local community

I live on Howell Road ,a short distance from the proposed development and make full use of the country walks around Canham's Hill and Drayton Woods.The area is used by many local residents as well as people from further afield.It is facility which undoubtedly contributes beneficially to the mental and physical well-being of many people.
Both Canham's Hill and Drayton Woods are places of wild life interest ,last year it was a pleasure to see that a family of Buzzards had taken up residence.
Building on this 'landlocked site'will affect wild life and restrict public access. Not a suitable site!

This area is not accessible and is an important area for recreation and wildlife, with footpaths alongside the fields and woodland areas. It is not close enough to any amenities which should be within walking distance. It is an area of local beauty.

We strongly object to Site GNLP0329 (Bradshaw Road/Reepham Road) being allocated for Housing in the new Local Plan - the Site and access to the Site are completely unsuitable. The piece of land put forward is landlocked. The Site is also completely remote / isolated from any amenities and therefore completely unsustainable. Development of the Site would be detrimental to the landscape and character of the area and would erode away the purposeful hard edge created for Drayton at this location when the permission for the development of Bradshaw Road was granted.
There are other Sites that have been put forward for Housing which are much more suitable and more sustainable.
There is NO access to the Site from Bradshaw Road so it is actually unsuitable and misleading for the Site to have been named `Bradshaw Road / Reepham Road` and we would strongly oppose any such access should this be applied for in the future.
The piece of land that has been put forward is a considerable distance from the Reepham Road and completely landlocked. Since the applicant owns the whole of the stretch of land between Bradshaw Road and Reepham Road, it is unclear why he has only put forward part of the land he owns for housing or why he has put forward the strip of land that he owns on this site that is furthest from the access point to it on the Reepham Road. We can only assume that it is to pave the way to get planning permission to infill the remaining part of the site should he wish to build on it in the future.
The ONLY existing access to the piece of land put forward is via a very small track off the Reepham Road. Accessing the entrance to this track on the Reepham Road would be extremely dangerous. The additional traffic that the development would generate would also put unacceptable additional pressure on the Reepham Road and other already heavily congested roads nearby and on the infrastructure of the surrounding area.
Additional housing in this location was NOT included in the traffic models for the NDR
The piece of land put forward is also immediately under one of the main flight paths into Norwich Airport and also serves as a crash safety zone for the airport and for this reason has always previously been purposefully left undeveloped.
The Applicant is suggesting that this piece of land will facilitate up to 144 houses - this is virtually four times more than the amount of houses in the adjacent development of Bradshaw / Howell Road which is of a similar size. We fail to see how 144 properties on this site would or could possibly be in keeping with the current dwellings and character of the nearby Hurn Road Estate.
Site GNLP0329 is adjacent to the existing County Wildlife Site at Drayton Woods and also in close proximity to the valued ecological area of Canham`s Hill. Development of this site would seriously endanger the fine ecobalance of the area in which it lies.
Drayton currently has insufficient Pumping Station facilities to deal with the current amount of surface water that runs into the village from the existing surrounding built up areas and as a result the village centre frequently suffers from flooding. Additional development in the Drayton area would serve only to exacerbate the existing flood and drainage problems in the village. It would be completely inappropriate to facilitate ANY additional development in the Drayton area until the existing flood and drainage issues have been fully resolved. We note that recently granted permission for housing at both the Manor Farm and Low Farm Sites have in fact now been rescinded pending further investigation for this exact reason
Site GNLP0329 is also covered by a covenant prohibiting any building on the Site. No doubt there may be ways for this to be overturned but the covenant was put in place for a reason - the land on which the site lies was deemed as `white land` under the provision of the Norwich Fringe Area Town Map and it was the intention of the Local Authority for the existing land use to remain undisturbed. Whilst there are other sites available that can be freely built on to meet the 5 year land supply requirement for housing, there is insufficient grounds for this covenant to be discharged.

The site is landlocked and access on to Reepham Rd is unsuitable. The site is remote from the village facilities and is outside of the settlement limit. It is adjacent to a County Wildlife site and is contrary to policy 8 of Drayton Neighbourhood Plan. Some sections could be affected by surface water flooding. The site is also within the Norwich Airport safety crash zone. Drayton Parish Council and its residents engaged fully with NCC on traffic flows for the NDR feeder roads. Identified point A77 (between Reepham Rd and Drayton Wood Rd) on the annual average daily traffic (AADT) as part of the document 5.6 of the DCO approved by the Planning Inspectorate and Government showed an increase by 2032 by over 23% because of the NDR opening. These figures were modelled on all known housing development as identified in the site allocation DPD 2016. Any development on this road would challenge the validity of the NDR and would be challenged by Drayton Parish Council at the highest level. For your information a planning application ref 82.2048 was refused by Broadland District Council on 5.11.82

This area is one I use daily along with many other people when walking my dog. There is a footpath running from Bradshaw Road through the fields up to Reepham Road where it looks like the access road for the houses will be. There is a high pressure gas pipeline along this path - what provision has been made or considered as to the cost and potential risk of re-routing this? One assumes that the Health and Safety Executive has already been made aware of this, if not, at what point are you required to do this?
This area is used daily by dog walkers, recreational walkers/runners and cyclists along the permissive and designated public footpath leading into both Drayton Woods and Cannon Woods. Building on this plot will have a detrimental impact on such people as more and more green space is lost within villages. It is also adjacent to a county wildlife site. Ultimately dog walkers (who are able to), may have to drive to exercise their dogs which in turn contributes to environment pollution as well as increased traffic numbers.
I observe daily aircraft coming in to land at Norwich Airport across this site. Only last week on two consecutive days while weather conditions were misty, pilots were forced to throttle up more power to climb as they were coming in too low to land. Again, another significant risk that cannot be ignored.
Potentially up to 144 new homes on this site will have a significant negative impact on the traffic volumes on the Reepham Road, a road already heavily used as personally witnessed on a daily basis. If the recycling centre relocates out of Norwich somewhere within this vicinity near the NDR the volume of traffic on Reepham Road is also likely to increase.

a site which is not sustainable, well away from the amenities of Drayton with poor access. any development here would add to pressures on adjacent Hellesdon

Ref GNLP0329

I wish to object to the proposed site for housing for the reasons listed:

The proposed development is under the flight path of Norwich Airport.

More traffic onto Reepham Road approximately 400 traffic movement per day if the proposed 144 properties were built. Planning was turned down for a cemetery on the grounds of vehicular access onto Reepham Road these houses would give more movements than a cemetery I'm sure!

How much more housing land is needed when there is already planning for 200 houses off Drayton High Road (Golf Course) land which is an allotment at Hellesdon, Hall Road Drayton and the old Daid Rice Hospital Drayton High Road.

It makes no sense developing a site which is effectively land locked.

We are concerned about the impact the development would have on the wildlife in the woodland which is adjacent to the site and on the quiet semi-rural location in which we live.

Rex & Patricia Chipp

This is lovely bit of open land that is rich in wildlife and a pleasant countryside walk within reach of Hellesdon. It is connected to both Drayton and Hellesdon by footpaths and is used by people of both parishes. As such it should stay as it is.

Objection due to this area being a wildlife haven for many different animals/birds/flowers. It is also a space that is used daily by many for running, walking/dog walking, giving a positive benefit to people's well being. This is a land locked site that is not close to local amenities and has a gas pipeline running down the proposed access point. Access to this site would be from Reepham Road which already sees high volumes of traffic.

No access off Bradshaw Rd - site is landlocked.
Access off Reepham is poor and unsuitable
Outside of the settlement limit
Adjacent to County Wildlife site
Within Norwich Airport Public Safety Zone
Contrary to Drayton Neighbourhood Plan

Would prejudice a no development policy near the NDR. Development of this nature will aid the congestion of the radial roads to and from the City thus undoing a key objective of the NDR and would prejudice the sustainable transport measures in the NDR DCO>

Outside of settlement limit, remote from village services and centre. Contrary to policy 8, Nature Conservation, of Drayton Neighbourhood Plan. Within Canhams Hill wildlife site. Within Airport public safety zone. Unsuitable vehicular access onto Reepham Road. Would invalidate the traffic flows (AADT) reference point A77 used for approval of the Development Consent Order for the NDR. Although in the Parish of Drayton the road access would be in the parish of Horsford and remote from both parishes and would be very detrimental to the parish and residents of Hellesdon. Totally unacceptable location for housing.

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.

Effects on environment. Visually as well as pollution. Plants and wildlife. Noise. Too much traffic already and doctors and schools are at saturation point already.
Quality of life for existing properties. Concerns over the number of properties considered for the size of land.
Unnecessary development of land. Local walkers and dog walkers will lose this lovely place.

My concerns are the number of properties being considered for the size of the area. I am concerned that they will be high-rise (3 or more high)
The impact on noise and quality of life
The impact on the environment, the infrastructure - roads are always busy and congested now. Local doctors and schools will not be able to cope.

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