GNLP0442

As a resident of Thorpe St Andrew I strongly object to the proposal to build on the Plantation site. This development has been strongly opposed by the local community for many years as it threatens a vital green space within an increasingly built-up area. Building on the woods would threaten wildlife and biodiversity as well as losing a beautiful woodland which is used and cherished by the local community. There would also be a negative impact on the local infrastructure as traffic is already bad at peak times and services such as GPs and schools are already heavily stretched.

I strongly object to the high number of proposed residences in a vital green space betwen the surrounding villages and town. It would have a hugh impact on local infrastructure resulting in even more heavy increased traffic and fumes. GP surgeries and schools are already stretched.

The Friends of Thorpe Woodlands was formed in 2010, its aims are to protect these beautiful woods from the threat of development and to help maintain and enhance them for the wildlife that depends on them.

The Friends have a membership of approximately 1000, the overwhelming majority of whom come from Thorpe St Andrew and Norwich. Over the last 8 years we have campaigned with local councils and conservation groups such as the Norfolk Wildlife Trust, CPRE and RSPB to protect these woods.

We are opposed to any plans that we believe will have a negative impact on the wildlife that depends on this woodland, this includes White Admiral butterflies, Great Crested Newts, Glow Worms, Badger and many species of bat. We believe that as a designated County Wildlife Site, recognised as being of county value for wildlife, that the woods should be protected for future generations.

There has been longstanding public opposition to any development in these woods, for example in 2013 Broadland District Council held a consultation on the where development should be sited within the Growth Triangle planned for the east of Thorpe St Andrew. Two of the questions asked whether people would support any development within these woods, in response 2445 people responded by saying they opposed any development, this accounted for 80% of all of the responses to this consultation.

Racecourse Plantation was not zoned for housing in the adopted Growth Triangle Area Action Plan. The woodland is surrounded by areas of arable land of lesser ecological value which are zoned and subject to planning applications. In addition, the adopted Area Action Plan already includes reserve sites where further housing allocations would be allowed. In view of the large amounts of housing proposed in the AAP it is vital that Racecourse Plantation is retained in its entirety as a large area for wildlife on Norwich urban fringe.

The Friends support the continued use of Thorpe Woods as commercial woodland. We believe that it is possible for the woods to be used for the production of timber whilst continuing to provide a valuable haven for wildlife, there are numerous examples of this in Norfolk such as Foxley Wood which is owned and managed by the Norfolk Wildlife Trust.

Thorpe Woods is a much loved and highly valued greenspace that provides a haven for wildlife in an increasingly urban environment and we hope that the council will therefore continue to identify it as a site that is unsuitable for development.

The Parish Council objects to this site allocation. The destruction of the woodland should not be allowed to happen. It is a highly used woodland walk and as such should stay.

This allocation does not comply with Policy 1 of our Neighbourhood Plan which states "New development will respect and retain the integrity of Great Plumstead, Little Plumstead and Thorpe End Garden Village as distinct settlements, protecting their character as individual villages and, in particular, it is important that coalescence is avoided between Thorpe End Garden Village and development related to the surrounding settlements, ensuring that Thorpe End Garden Village retains the appearance and character of a separate garden village"

The loss of green space and its impact on the wellbeing of humans/wildlife. The large number of development sites outside of the valley being proposed should more than meet the expected growth needs for housing and employment, without risking damage to what local plans identify as a Strategic Green Infrastructure Corridor. The present green corridor is much used and, in some places, overused, as evidenced by the worn condition of some of its paths. Rather than reduce its size, every effort should be made to increase its extent to meet the needs of a growing population from adjacent housing developments.

I strongly object to this proposal.

A campaign by local people and many objections made when allocations were looked into in the past.

Deemed unacceptable then.
Nothing has changed.

The site at Racecourse Plantations - Ref: GNLP0442 has been assessed in the Site Proposals Document and at paragraph 3.38 (Thorpe St. Andrew).

The Site Proposals Document states (page 98):

"The other submitted sites, GNLP0228 and 0442, are heavily constrained, chiefly by their ecological value and the County Wildlife Site status of Thorpe Woodlands."

We strongly disagree that the site is"heavily constrained" as a result of its designation as a County Wildlife Site, as suggested in the assessment in the Greater Norwich Local Plan documents.

During the planning application process in relation to the proposal for the erection of up to 300 new homes and the creation of a new community woodland park (Broadland Council ref 20161896), technical assessments of the site were undertaken by ecology experts to understand and assess the impacts the proposed development would have on the site, in particularly in ecological terms. The Technical Ecology Report (appendix 02 submitted via email) demonstrated that the proposal, far from resulting in ecological harm, would actually create ecological benefits.

Importantly, this includes a fundamental change from the current commercial forestry management and paintball and archery activities, which are not sympathetic to the site's existing biodiversity values, to one with a specific ecological focus where nature conservation is paramount. In doing so, the proposal seeks to enhance the County Wildlife Site to achieve a long-term maintenance or enhancement of the local biodiversity baseline.

In terms of protected animal species interests and sensitivities, the key species across the three plantations are birds, bats and herpetofauna - notably great crested newt and grass snake. Species survey work indicates that the proposed development area within Racecourse Plantation is of relatively limited protected species interest (lower sensitivity) compared to woodland areas beyond the development site.

The proposed development area has, therefore, in terms of its overall scale and location, avoided the most valuable and sensitive habitats, and areas of greatest protected animal species interest.

The proposal for this site also includes a Community Woodland Park which seeks to contribute to a multifunctional green infrastructure network, in line with Policy GT2 of the Growth Triangle Area Action Plan, that recognises the importance of the site as a hub within a network of routes, through including areas of retained woodland and trees, open space, swales, wildlife resources and effective linkages between them including connections to adjoining areas. The management of the Community Woodland Park will provide for the long-term maintenance of the green infrastructure network.

This position is strengthened by the finding of the Secretary of State who confirmed (on 6 September 2016) that the proposal was not EIA development (see appendix 03 submitted via email). In doing so, he noted that the site is not within a sensitive area and does not enjoy any statutory protection in terms of landscape, heritage or importance to protected species. A significant environmental effect in relation to the County Wildlife Site was not considered likely, and that in cumulation with other developments nearby this development would not affect populations of protected species to the extent that a significant environmental effect is likely.

We therefore disagree with this assessment within the Site Proposals Document and consider the site Ref: GNLP0442 to be a suitable and sustainable location for residential development and the provision of a country wildlife park, and would create ecological benefits to the site.

Why destroy an area of historical woodland. I don't see how 300 houses and an area of parkland is an improvement. If woodland is not important or housing improves it why has no site allocation been for Mousehold Heath?

I live in Greenborough Road opposite the wood and consider myself very lucky to live in this neighbourhood and so close to a very important wildlife site.
The woods are the very reason I purchased my property.
The variety of creatures witnessed is amazing and this has definitely improved my quality of life.
I have often seen Newts, Foxes, two species of Deer and regularly have Hedgehogs, Squirrels and an occasional Sparrow Hawk in
the garden. Grass Snakes have been seen and various rare Butterflies and Insects.

This Wood is special and has been inspected by an Aboriculturalist who can verify it's significant ecology; he also considered the wood
to contain areas of Ancient Woodland, probably the 'Great Wood' as depicted on old maps (16/17th c.) of the area.
Local naturalist John Allaway .... spent several months compiling the report that helped to get part of Racecourse Plantation
in Thorpe St Andrew designated as ancient woodland. EEN 25 October 2011
It is far from being a "plantation" as can be seen from the variety of trees and the random way in which they have grown - unlike plantations
where, for harvesting purposes, the trees (all softwood) would be seeded in rows with rides between and lack the variety of wildlife.
Recent "harvesting" has resulted in blocked pathways and little clearance of stumps; one gets the impression that this is to discourage walkers
and make the area look unattractive.

Local people still walk their dogs here and sometimes I see family groups out for
a walk in the fresh air looking for animal and insect life, odd fungi etc. and generally enjoying the wood.

Within 500 yards - to the north side of Salhouse Road - is the White House Farm/Tesco/Blue Boar Lane development with hundreds (700?) of houses
being built. Just the other side of the road from those - Wroxham Road - another development has been passed eventually extending to the NDR.
Planning has been approved for more housing on the south side of Salhouse Road only 400 yards from the White House Farm/Tesco/Blue Boar Lane
development. That will extend to the Northern Distributor Road with some 1400(?) houses. Further housing development is taking place on
the other side of the woods filling in the land from Thorpe End (once known as Thorpe Garden Village - alas, that's a misnomer now!) through to the NDR.

These woods support a huge diversity of wildlife and the increasing development will leave nowhere for it to go. There are no intervening track-ways for the
wildlife to disperse to other areas and consequently this will put even more pressure on the wildlife.

I believe we have sufficient development already passed to meet current and future needs. We now require what's left of the agricultural land to feed an ever increasing population without resorting to yet ever more imports. Woods of this quality are required not only for the maintenance of the wildlife but also to maintain peoples equilibrium, appreciation of quiet spaces and the chance to see and learn from what we have on our doorstep, a wonderful, priceless asset.

Please protect it for our children and children's children. Once gone, impossible to replace or replicate.

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.

With regards to the latest GNLP proposals, when is enough going to be enough. You cannot continue to desecrate farm land, green sites and woodland for housing etc., until we have nothing left. As humans living on this planet and more importantly within your proposed area of destruction, I strongly object to all ''sites of interest'', mainly the woodland covered by GNLP 0228 and 0442 being considered within your proposals.
The woodland is a haven to so much wild life, much of which is slowly disappearing from everywhere because man keeps taking their habitats. You really should re-think and not bow to people with money, who are trying to make even more.