GNLP0411

Showing comments and forms 1 to 30 of 31

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 13978

Received: 14/03/2018

Respondent: Mr Tony Roberts

Representation:

The proposal will not be beneficial to Honingham residents and will change the character of the village ; putting a strain on services and infrastructure whilst increasing the flood risk to Mill Lane.

Full text:

As a resident of Honingham I strongly object to this proposed development for the following reasons:

1st, Mill Lane is a footpath hardly a Road, that opens out onto the junction of Colton Road, Norwich Road and The Street. It is a blind turning that is already very dangerous to use.

2nd, The extra housing would add additional strain on our already exhausted infrastructure and services. Including but not limited to Water supply, Water drainage and Telecommunications.

3rd Should Mill lane be tarmac'd over it would loose its character and would transform what is part of our only established country walk into nothing more than entrance to a housing estate.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 13997

Received: 14/03/2018

Respondent: Mr David Hooker

Representation:

Limited access will prevent use of emergency vehicles

Full text:

Limited access will prevent use of emergency vehicles

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 14032

Received: 15/03/2018

Respondent: Mrs Diane Savage

Representation:

Honingham is a small village with no school or shops and to build lots of new house within its boundaries would just swallow Honingham up we would lose all of the charm the wild life and peace of the village life, People moved here for this in the first place and that is why I reject the plan for new houses to be built in Honingham

Full text:

Honingham is a small village with no school or shops and to build lots of new house within its boundaries would just swallow Honingham up we would lose all of the charm the wild life and peace of the village life, People moved here for this in the first place and that is why I reject the plan for new houses to be built in Honingham

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 14131

Received: 16/03/2018

Respondent: mr shaun peel

Representation:

obect to the new houses plan as it would kill the wildlife we have around honingham . we have birds of prey nettins in the area also bats and other birds we also have other animals that have made there homes in the fields around honingham some of the birds of prey include buzzards,red kite family which you can sit and watch in the summer mouths flying around ,sparrow hawk. ect just to name a few and every year we have a family of canada goose that have made there home a field in honingham (green belt land)

Full text:

i obect to the new houses plan as it would kill the wildlife we have around honingham . we have birds of prey nettins in the area also bats and other birds we also have other animals that have made there homes in the fields around honingham some of the birds of prey include buzzards,red kite family which you can sit and watch in the summer mouths flying around ,sparrow hawk. ect just to name a few and every year we have a family of canada goose that have made there home a field in honingham i believe the land should be turned into green belt so they dont lose there homes

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 14137

Received: 16/03/2018

Respondent: Parish Cou David Bishop

Representation:

I believe that this is a total rape of the Norfolk countryside in a beautiful part of a great county where sits an old fashion proper village call Honingham. Since the Domesday Book the Village has worked hand in hand with the farming community called Honingham Thorpe this land is about to be concrete over and its crops will be lost fore ever. On your head Broadland District Council and also the head of the very greedy farmer.

Full text:

I believe that this is a total rape of the Norfolk countryside in a beautiful part of a great county where sits an old fashion proper village call Honingham. Since the Domesday Book the Village has worked hand in hand with the farming community called Honingham Thorpe this land is about to be concrete over and its crops will be lost fore ever. On your head Broadland District Council and also the head of the very greedy farmer.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 14343

Received: 18/03/2018

Respondent: Colin Norman

Representation:

Thirteen homes in a small village of this size would not be appropriate as there are no shops, schools or local facilities. Access to the proposed development is unsatisfactory, leading to more vehicles in an already congested area of Fellowes Road. The environmental impact should be given serious consideration.

Full text:

Thirteen homes in a small village of this size would not be appropriate as there are no shops, schools or local facilities. Access to the proposed development is unsatisfactory, leading to more vehicles in an already congested area of Fellowes Road. The environmental impact should be given serious consideration.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 14472

Received: 19/03/2018

Respondent: mr tony canning

Representation:

The infrastructure around the village will not cope ie roads doctors schools as they are struggling now & this always seems to play 2nd fiddle in building schemes.

Full text:

The infrastructure around the village will not cope ie roads doctors schools as they are struggling now & this always seems to play 2nd fiddle in building schemes.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 14528

Received: 19/03/2018

Respondent: Mrs Tanera Birchall

Representation:

No thank you, this is a quiet village and doesn't require more housing in this village.

Full text:

No thank you, this is a quiet village and doesn't require more housing in this village.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 14564

Received: 19/03/2018

Respondent: Mr James Taylor-Bennett

Representation:

Honingham Village is an area of historical beauty and further development will impact its value, with history from the old hall and the mill. The village is not suitable for further development due to the roads. The village was designed with single traffic roads which do not allow for 2 vehicles passing. Potential for 13 additional houses could bring up to 30 cars 2/3 per household. This location backs onto Mill Lane which is un-adopted leading to domestic properties, this road is not suitable for any additional traffic and is not managed under the governance of the local authorities.

Full text:

Honingham Village is an area of historical beauty and further development will impact its value, with history from the old hall and the mill. The village is not suitable for further development due to the roads. The village was designed with single traffic roads which do not allow for 2 vehicles passing. Potential for 13 additional houses could bring up to 30 cars 2/3 per household. This location backs onto Mill Lane which is un-adopted leading to domestic properties, this road is not suitable for any additional traffic and is not managed under the governance of the local authorities.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 14629

Received: 19/03/2018

Respondent: Mr Stuart Clark

Representation:

I am a resident of Fellowes Road and i totally object to this application. The close is very quiet and has great community spirit, building these houses will take away this spirit. We don't need anymore houses in our village, it is a quiet rural village which just has a pub, no shops or any other amenities. Leave the village as it, dont start to ruin what a beautiful village it is. This development will affect the wildlife which includes Badgers and the Red Kites that nest in the area, plus other wildlife.

Full text:

I am a resident of Fellowes Road and i totally object to this application. The close is very quiet and has great community spirit, building these houses will take away this spirit. We don't need anymore houses in our village, it is a quiet rural village which just has a pub, no shops or any other amenities. Leave the village as it, dont start to ruin what a beautiful village it is. This development will affect the wildlife which includes Badgers and the Red Kites that nest in the area, plus other wildlife.

Comment

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 14779

Received: 20/03/2018

Respondent: David Laurie

Representation:

Site GNLP0411 (0.7ha) is within the village of Honingham but currently has no made road access. This would have to be either via Fellowes Road (increasing local traffic) or via Mill Lane. Fellowes Road and Mill Lane are no more than 300m apart so "improving permeability" is not an important point.
I am neutral on the pros and cons of this one and would need more detail to make a decision.

Full text:

Site GNLP0411 (0.7ha) is within the village of Honingham but currently has no made road access. This would have to be either via Fellowes Road (increasing local traffic) or via Mill Lane. Fellowes Road and Mill Lane are no more than 300m apart so "improving permeability" is not an important point.
I am neutral on the pros and cons of this one and would need more detail to make a decision.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 14796

Received: 20/03/2018

Respondent: Mrs Sue Roberts

Representation:

Mill Lane is the only public lane in the village for people to walk their dogs off lead safely without traffic to access the fen/fields off Berry's Lane. Odd cars use this to access their drives. The road is narrow and refuse vehicles are unable to access it. A development built here would cause huge disruption and additional traffic to the junction of Colton Road which is only wide enough for 1 vehicle and The Street which already has a dangerous junction. Rain water/mud gathers at the bottom here freezing/blocking drains and is already a health and safety issue.

Full text:

Mill Lane is the only public lane in the village for people to walk their dogs off lead safely without traffic to access the fen/fields off Berry's Lane. Odd cars use this to access their drives. The road is narrow and refuse vehicles are unable to access it. A development built here would cause huge disruption and additional traffic to the junction of Colton Road which is only wide enough for 1 vehicle and The Street which already has a dangerous junction. Rain water/mud gathers at the bottom here freezing/blocking drains and is already a health and safety issue.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 14881

Received: 20/03/2018

Respondent: Mr Alan Smith

Representation:

There are concerns about the access to this site
Fellowes Road already has a considerable number of cars being parked in the road and Mill Lane is a narrow rough track, which is completely unsuitable for any access to a new development

Full text:

There are concerns about the access to this site
Fellowes Road already has a considerable number of cars being parked in the road and Mill Lane is a narrow rough track, which is completely unsuitable for any access to a new development

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 14885

Received: 20/03/2018

Respondent: Mrs Sally Blyth

Representation:

I believe that the development of this site for homes is not very suitable. Mill Lane is too narrow and cannot be widened. So all access would have to be via Fellowes Road where I understand one of the properties would have to be demolished in order to give access. This would make considerable more traffic in Fellowes Road which already has quite a high density of homes and vehicles for the size of the road. Emergency vehicles could have problems getting through.

Full text:

I believe that the development of this site for homes is not very suitable. Mill Lane is too narrow and cannot be widened. So all access would have to be via Fellowes Road where I understand one of the properties would have to be demolished in order to give access. This would make considerable more traffic in Fellowes Road which already has quite a high density of homes and vehicles for the size of the road. Emergency vehicles could have problems getting through.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 14910

Received: 20/03/2018

Respondent: mrs carol guest

Representation:

FULLY OBJECT TOO THIS . LIVING IN THE VILLAGE FOR 25 YRS .,THE PIECE OF LAND PROPOSED FOR HOUSING IN A HAVEN FOR WILDLIFE , WITH DEER , FOXES AND RABBITS . ALSO I BELIEVE THE SITE ENTRANCE WILL BE OFF FELLOWES RD , WITH LORRIES ETC USEING THE ROAD FOR ACCESS , WITH MANY YOUNG CHILDREN AND PEOPLES PETS IN DANGER. THE HOUSING WOULD ALSO SPOIL THE CHARACTOR OF THE VILLAGE, AND ADD MORE CARS,AND WILL SPOIL THE VIEWS ACROSS THE VALLEY.

Full text:

FULLY OBJECT TOO THIS . LIVING IN THE VILLAGE FOR 25 YRS .,THE PIECE OF LAND PROPOSED FOR HOUSING IN A HAVEN FOR WILDLIFE , WITH DEER , FOXES AND RABBITS . ALSO I BELIEVE THE SITE ENTRANCE WILL BE OFF FELLOWES RD , WITH LORRIES ETC USEING THE ROAD FOR ACCESS , WITH MANY YOUNG CHILDREN AND PEOPLES PETS IN DANGER. THE HOUSING WOULD ALSO SPOIL THE CHARACTOR OF THE VILLAGE, AND ADD MORE CARS,AND WILL SPOIL THE VIEWS ACROSS THE VALLEY.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 15178

Received: 21/03/2018

Respondent: Mr Austen Allen

Representation:

This is a flood plain in the River Tud valley, most unsuitable for further development.

Full text:

This is a flood plain in the River Tud valley, most unsuitable for further development.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 15195

Received: 21/03/2018

Respondent: Mr Raymond Smith

Representation:

There is great concern about the access to this site, both from Fellowes Road and Mill Lane
The constraints outweigh any possible benefits

Full text:

There is great concern about the access to this site, both from Fellowes Road and Mill Lane
The constraints outweigh any possible benefits

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 15206

Received: 21/03/2018

Respondent: Honingham Parish Council

Representation:

Mill Lane is too narrow to develop, the access from Fellows Road is narrow. The site is wet, a flood plain in the River Tud valley

Full text:

Mill Lane is too narrow to develop, the access from Fellows Road is narrow. The site is wet, a flood plain in the River Tud valley

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 15231

Received: 21/03/2018

Respondent: Mrs Julie Turner

Representation:

Object strongly
No facilities in village and unlikely to be
will change village for the worse
will increase flood risk to existing buildings which are at lowest level
Mill Lane is a narrow and unadopted rural lane-borders are privately owned
No purpose served by opening Mill Lane to Fellowes Road - there is appropriate access already.
This proposed development is speculative and profiteering.

Full text:

I totally object to this proposed development. Honingham has no services, no shops, no school, no bus, no doctors, and previous single appropriate requests have been refused as "outside village envelope"! Suddenly this seems to be irrelevant? There is no point to access Fellowes Road from Mill Lane - which is an unadopted public bridleway barely wide enough for 1 car. There are private gardens either side and a very old and substantial historice flint wall to one side. The ground drops down to the river Tud and drains through private land which is already saturated most of the year. The development would increase the flood risk to the existing houses and businesses. It is not needed or wanted and will ruin the nature of this village.

Comment

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 15262

Received: 21/03/2018

Respondent: Mrs Linda Human

Representation:

Honingham is a low lying village, Mill Lane frequently floods and is bounded by a water meadow, this development will exacerbate the problem as drain off will go directly into Mill Lane. This in turn will cause flooding in the village as water will look for an exit into the river. Colton Road is the access to Fellowes Road for site traffic, it is single track bordered by ancient hedgerows/banks which will be damaged. Access for locals will be curtailed and dangerous. Ditto access for bus top of Colton Rd, dangerous to walk. Drs/shops impossible.

Full text:

Honingham is a low lying village, Mill Lane frequently floods and is bounded by a water meadow, this development will exacerbate the problem as drain off will go directly into Mill Lane. This in turn will cause flooding in the village as water will look for an exit into the river. Colton Road is the access to Fellowes Road for site traffic, it is single track bordered by ancient hedgerows/banks which will be damaged. Access for locals will be curtailed and dangerous. Ditto access for bus top of Colton Rd, dangerous to walk. Drs/shops impossible.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 15282

Received: 21/03/2018

Respondent: Jerry Bart

Representation:

The development of houses off Fellows Road with access up Mill Lane is surely not viable. Mill Lane is an unadopted track and footpath with just about room for one vehicle. Widening it would mean taking away Gardens from seven properties. One of which is the Old Mill with a 300 year old wall.
This proposed development puts and even bigger strain on the areas already stretched amenities and will potentially cause an even bigger drainage issue in Mill Lane.

Full text:

The development of houses off Fellows Road with access up Mill Lane is surely not viable. Mill Lane is an unadopted track and footpath with just about room for one vehicle. Widening it would mean taking away Gardens from seven properties. One of which is the Old Mill with a 300 year old wall.
This proposed development puts and even bigger strain on the areas already stretched amenities and will potentially cause an even bigger drainage issue in Mill Lane.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 15346

Received: 21/03/2018

Respondent: Miss Julie Wvendth

Representation:

Totally object to this application as there is not the infrastructure to support it, people would be at risk by increased traffic and areas of natural beauty and green land will be lost

Full text:

This is a small rural community and whilst we should not look to be 'stuck in the dark ages', the development of this number of houses in such a small location will simply be overwhelming. There is not the infrastructure to support this number of additional houses and most certainly not the appropriate highways / road networks. This development would spoil what is an area of natural beauty, regularly used by dog walkers, residents and other visitors to the village and any construction here would ruin this aspect of the village. We have no school, no shops and no local amenities other than a pub so there is a real risk about increased traffic through the village posing a risk to those of us who walk around the village regularly. Such an increase is not wanted and will disrupt and ruin what is a traditional, natural Norfolk rural village.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 15465

Received: 22/03/2018

Respondent: Honingham Parish Council

Representation:

It is felt that the constraints to development are greater than acknowledged in the Settlement Summary at Paragraph 3.21. and the Council strongly object to this proposal.

Full text:

With regard to site GNLP0411(0.7HA)

This small piece of land is being currently grazed by horses and is positioned between Fellowes Road, a row of predominantly semi detached council houses and bungalows, and Mill Lane an unmade track which is no more than a wide footpath which contains five owner occupied small semi detached and detached houses. To suggest that there is the opportunity to connect Fellowes Road and Mill Lane is absurd. There is no space for a road to be built along Mill Lane, service vehicles do not at present traverse the length of Mill Lane, and it is considered that were Highways consulted the construction of a pavement would be mandatory thereby necessitating land acquisition from the front of the existing dwellings.
The access as shown on the site, being from Fellowes Road is equally narrow it being between two semi detached bungalows at number 16 and 18, and hardly suitable for more extensive traffic use.
This site is within the river valley and close to a considerable flood plain and further development would add to the height of the water table.

It is felt that the constraints to development are greater than acknowledged in the Settlement Summary at Paragraph 3.21. and the Council strongly object to this proposal.

It is felt by the Council that Honingham is being confronted by development from all directions, namely A47 dualling , the Western quadrant of the NDR dualling, The Food Hub, and the route of the Onshore Cable Corridor and now the GNLP proposals, and despite reassurances we still lack confidence that the voice of the people is being heeded.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 15512

Received: 21/03/2018

Respondent: Daryl Allen

Representation:

There is no need for these properties and it will ruin the tranquil outlook of the village and overload the road to the village

Full text:

There is no need for these properties and it will ruin the tranquil outlook of the village and overload the road to the village

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 15576

Received: 22/03/2018

Respondent: Anna French

Representation:

* Changing the nature of the village with increased traffic
* Loss of ancient trees and land affecting plants and animal life
* Loss of green pleasant walk along Mill Lane to go on round walk back to Honingham
* Increased run off into River Tud from concreting over fields risking more frequent flooding for homes along River Tud
* Loss of privacy to those already living in Fellowes Road and along Mill Lane
* Pressure on lanes within Honingham as Colton road and Mill Lane are both effectively single track lanes and too narrow to extend

Full text:

* Changing the nature of the village with increased traffic
* Loss of ancient trees and land affecting plants and animal life
* Loss of green pleasant walk along Mill Lane to go on round walk back to Honingham
* Increased run off into River Tud from concreting over fields risking more frequent flooding for homes along River Tud
* Loss of privacy to those already living in Fellowes Road and along Mill Lane
* Pressure on lanes within Honingham as Colton road and Mill Lane are both effectively single track lanes and too narrow to extend

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 15611

Received: 22/03/2018

Respondent: Ms Natasha Cargill

Representation:

I think it's short sighted and wouldn't alleviate the housing crisis to build in a tiny villlage such as Honingham. Small developments in villages won't help, using existing brownfield sites within Norwich would be useful.
The village can't sustain any extra housing and developments, we don't have the infrastructure.

This will be loudly opposed.

Full text:

I feel that this proposed development would impose badly on the village most especially to Mill Road, a small and private lane leading to water meadows and woodland which would be forever changed to its detriment. Honingham is a small village with no amenities save for a pub and village hall, it has no through village bus service. It cannot feasibly sustain any more development and it would change the character of the village permanently and irreversibly. The village is prone to flooding at the best of times and this spill be exacerbated by new buildings and paved spaces.

I vehemently oppose building on this site, as do many other villagers, and will be very vocal about this should it go any further. I do however think building on brownfield sites is a solution to the housing crisis, of which there are loads in Norwich. Build there before attacking our countryside.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 15651

Received: 22/03/2018

Respondent: Mr. John Smith

Representation:

The is inappropriate development of an area of pasture land within the Tud river valley.The site has no recognized access from Mill Lane which is too narrow to construct a suitable road to service the site. Access from Fellowes Road would create futher problems as most residents have to park on the road so the addition of 13 dwellings using the same road would cause further congestion & problems for emergency vehicles.Fellowes Road was not designed with this capacity in mind.

Full text:

The is inappropriate development of an area of pasture land within the Tud river valley.The site has no recognized access from Mill Lane which is too narrow to construct a suitable road to service the site. Access from Fellowes Road would create futher problems as most residents have to park on the road so the addition of 13 dwellings using the same road would cause further congestion & problems for emergency vehicles.Fellowes Road was not designed with this capacity in mind.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 15843

Received: 22/03/2018

Respondent: mr Robert French

Representation:

Nature of the village will change, privacy of the nearby properties will be adversely affected, access to the site will cause major problems on what are single lane tracks. Habitat loss will occur which will not be replaced. More traffic congestion will take place and without adequate public transport this will only increase carbon emissions and global warming. The sites natural drainage into the Tudd by filtration will be adversely affected.

Full text:

Nature of the village will change, privacy of the nearby properties will be adversely affected, access to the site will cause major problems on what are single lane tracks. Habitat loss will occur which will not be replaced. More traffic congestion will take place and without adequate public transport this will only increase carbon emissions and global warming. The sites natural drainage into the Tudd by filtration will be adversely affected.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 15913

Received: 22/03/2018

Respondent: mrs JESSICA KIRKHAM

Representation:

I very much agree with all the previous objections. This development would be highly detrimental to the character of the village and there is not the infrastructure to support it. The destruction of such a wonderful wildlife habitat would be very sad and something that cannot be replaced. There must be brownfield sites in Norwich that could be regenerated rather than destroying our precious countryside.

Full text:

I very much agree with all the previous objections. This development would be highly detrimental to the character of the village and there is not the infrastructure to support it. The destruction of such a wonderful wildlife habitat would be very sad and something that cannot be replaced. There must be brownfield sites in Norwich that could be regenerated rather than destroying our precious countryside.

Comment

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 16474

Received: 20/03/2018

Respondent: Norfolk Wildlife Trust

Representation:

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.

Full text:

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.