GNLP0133

(GNLP 0133-F) Building on the side of this part of the Yare Valley will alter the nature of the valley, and reduce the area's ability to support wildlife, as well as recreational use by the people of Norwich. Considering the landscape alone, these open fields are a vital element of the valley. For a preview of how the character of the area might be destroyed, have a look at the "Daisy View" development further down Bluebell Road. Anyone who values the area will be alarmed at how much negative impact well-designed properties can have in the wrong place!

UEA has large areas of open space given over to single level car parking which could instead be developed with underground parking included. Student accommodation can develop and grow other areas within the city, bringing better facilities and transport links for other residents to also enjoy.

This unspoilt undulating land around the UEA is much enjoyed by many and is important for its nature and wildlife. It is an inspirational and refreshing place. Preserved as it is this jewel of accessible and varied local amenity enhances the well-being of all whether they visit it or not.

GNLP0244 (woodland) GNLP 0133 (E+F) Strawberry Fields (UEA) GNLP0461 Agent Brown & Co Land off Gurney Lane

Having Lived in the area described above from 1941-1961 and again from 1978 to present day I have felt very blessed. Having moved to Norwich from "the midlands" in 1978, no way would I return there even for a visit. Despite some intrusive building adjacent to the above areas, it still remains a haven for the city of Norwich. Further development will destroy the unique flora and fauna of the yare valley. I am not an expert, but in the areas identified I have seen most "common" bird species plus the tree creepers, King Fishers, Nut hatchers, swathes of snowdrops (bordering the River Yare) bordering the areas I am concerned about.
I may not be alive in the area for much longer, but please, for the sake of all the children yet born and those living around here now - STOP DEVELOPMENT using bricks and mortar.

I am objecting to potential development sites in the area of the Yare Valley and in particular upstream from Cringleford bridge to the Watton Road (B1108). This includes those designated GNLP0461, GNLP0244, GNLP0133 E&F, GNLP0140 A,B&C.
These sites fall within the Yare Valley 'protected' area which is one of the few green lungs left within the city. It is important as a habitat for wildlife and informal recreation. Any reduction in the wildlife habitat will have an impact on adjoining areas which will become overpopulated leading to a reduction in numbers of those birds and animals hoping to find a new place to live. Also any development in the areas designated GNLP0133E&F will destroy the link between Eaton park and the Yare Valley which in the past we had been led to believe would always be maintained.
Furthermore, when the University was built on the site overlooking the Yare Valley they, the University, undertook to maintain the Yare Valley and not to encroach further. Since then they have done nothing but erect more and more buildings blighting the area ever more.

I should like to object to the following proposed development sites in the Yare Valley by letter. My overall concern is that vast amounts of extra housing are already planned for the surrounding area, that in consequence these new proposals are largely unnecessary and that they will have a destructive effect on the local environment and the quality of life of the people who inhabit it.
Colney
0158 This involves a substantial removal of protected green space.
0253 The extensions to existing site approval will remove more protected green
space.
0154 Not only intrusive, but liable to set a dangerous precedent for further encroachment onto green space.
0140 A and B Permission has already been granted for a clubhouse, road and car parking. I suspect that this is the thin end of a very large wedge and that the
University is itching to move in and grub up more land to the detriment of members of the public who use and enjoy it.
Cringleford
0244 This woodland is protected and should remain so.
0461 A significant removal of protected green space ..
Norwich
0133 E and F. Currently a donkey sanctuary. Why can't it remain so, given that it provides a link between the green space of Eaton Park and the river?
I should also like to comment more generally on question 13. While a Green Belt around the city may well be a good idea, the important thing to is instil in planners and developers a sense of environmental responsibility - a quality that seems to be lacking in some of their current proposals

We would like to register our objections to many current planning proposals being made for various areas in the Yare Valley
First and foremost any proposal to build on the current Donkey Sanctuary area (ref GNLP 0133E) and the parkland between the Sanctuary and the University (ref GNLP 01333D)
To build here would completely destroy the irreplaceable beauty of the Yare Valley and should not even be contemplated.
In particular these areas are already very heavily used for recreational purposes by the citizens of Norwich and the pathways around these areas are actually becoming quite worn.

This area as a whole is almost overused and could benefit from the opening of additional paths and recreational areas.
Also GNLP 0140 A and B (is this the land listed as GNLP 0145?) and GNLP 0244 and 0461 are in highly sensitive spots which should be protected open space where any development would severely damage the character of the valley and affect its recreational value.
Another area of concern is the walled gardens around Earlham Hall whose loss would severely detract from the beauty and historical value of this Grade 1 listed building.
We have lived in this area for nearly 50 years and this outstanding open space is the equivalent on the west side of the city to Mousehold on the east side where no one would even dream of suggesting development. Both are of enormous importance to humans and to wildlife. We feel that long term protection such as designation as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty would protect this area for present and for future generations,
The river valleys of Norfolk are among its most beautiful assets and once gone they will be lost for ever to the detriment of our descendants.

I object to the promotion of the sites mentioned below which, if developed, would result in a loss of green space and consequent impact on the wellbeing of humans and wildlife.

GNLP0140A - additional car parking and other: (the permission granted to Norwich Rugby Club is bad enough and this would just make the situation worse.

GNLP00133E and F - UEA should not be allowed to build on these open spaces

GNLP0244 - UEA should not be allowed to destroy this woodland which is used by local people

With reference to the above, it is important for the Yare Valley Infrastructure Corridor to be protected. It is a valuable amenity popular with local residents as can be seen by the condition of the paths. Rather than reduce its size, every effort should be made to increase it so as to meet the needs of a growing population from nearby housing developments. The large number of development sites which were proposed and situate outside the Corridor should be more than enough to meet the growth needs for housing and employment without impinging on the integrity of the Corridor.

I object to the promotion of the sites mentioned below which, if developed, would result in a loss of green space and consequent impact on the wellbeing of humans and wildlife.

GNLP0140A - additional car parking and other: (the permission granted to Norwich Rugby Club is bad enough and this would just make the situation worse.

GNLP00133E and F - UEA should not be allowed to build on these open spaces

GNLP0244 - UEA should not be allowed to destroy this woodland much used by local people

With reference to the above, it is important for the Yare Valley Infrastructure Corridor to be protected. It is a valuable amenity popular with local residents as can be seen by the condition of the paths. Rather than reduce its size, every effort should be made to increase it so as to meet the needs of a growing population from nearby housing developments. The large number of development sites which were proposed and situate outside the Corridor should be more than enough to meet the growth needs for housing and employment without impinging on the integrity of the Corridor.

As a resident of Eaton Village for over 31 years, I strongly oppose ANY proposed development along the protected Yare Valley.
This is an area that is a vital green space and corridor for nature, habitat and wildlife, as well as providing much needed open space for Norwich residents and those from further afield.
To develop this area with housing [sic] would be nothing less than wanton destruction of habitat and loss for future generations to enjoy. This area is greatly used for recreation in all its manifest forms by countless people who greatly appreciate the open space and access that the Yare Valley affords.
To develop this area, to lose it forever, goes completely against public interest and will affect those who use it now and those who wish to do so in the future. Rather than reducing/destroying this much needed green space within Norwich, it should be increased and enhanced to meet the needs of the growing population from adjacent housing developments. The benefits to both mental and physical health from green spaces, nature, woods is well documented. To reduce this is both short sighted and selfish as it renders future generations of Norfolk residents the ability to enjoy what we treasure and value ourselves.
Aside from this I wish to mention the DISGRACEFUL loss of housing on the river side of Barrack Street - now over 10 years. And what is in place instead - a huge car park for Jarrolds Training. I fail to see how this can be justified.

With regard to the proposed site allocations in Norwich, we do have concerns about the GNLP0133E site between Bluebell Lane and the river and believe that the wide corridor between any development and the river itself should be maintained with public access and that any development should be carefully designed to protect the valuable biodiversity in the area.

Norwich area sites
GNLP1061 - This site's proximity to Norwich airport and poor transport links to the wider city make it inappropriate for anything other than employment land. Our concern with allocating this land is that it would not be accessible by sustainable transport. We would therefore suggest that any site-specific policy requires a demonstration of how units within this development would be accessible by sustainable transport.
GNLP1011/GNLP0377 - We support Lesley Grahame's proposal to retain this site as a community sports facility, and that it should be protected by a designation that specifies this site as a strategic site for leisure use. Reason: to prevent the over-intensification of residential use in this part of Norwich, and to ensure that the existing sports facility has the land available to it to expand and improve.
GNLP0133 - UEA campus sites:
We have no comment on sites A, B and C.
We feel that some development of site D would be appropriate, but the site-specific policy should be written to restrict development only to that which will not unduly impact upon the character of the river valley, and the setting of the listed UEA campus. Building scales, particularly towards the lake, should be smaller in scale, and should be landscaped appropriately to reduce the impact on the lake's ecosystem and provide biodiversity.
We object to site E being allocated for accommodation or any other intensive development. We feel that the character of the river valley should be maintained, and therefore this site should not be intensified beyond its current level, which includes significant amounts of greenery and the river valley beyond. We believe that the university could make good use of this land without intensifying the use by only building small individual units, of one, perhaps two stories, with plenty of open space between.
We object to the allocation of site F. This should be retained as a strategic gap between Norwich's built up area and the Yare Valley.
GNLP0184 - We object to the allocation of this site for residential development. We feel that any further encroaching on the river valley at this point would threaten the biodiversity and character of the river. We would like this site to be part of the protected river valley and Norwich "Green Belt".
GNLP0360 - We consider the principle of redeveloping this brownfield site to be appropriate, but, due to site constraints, development should not be overly intense. A biodiversity buffer should be provided along the river banks and any development should not hinder this site's ability to serve as a functional flood plain, as well as to replenish water supplies. This site's function from this point of view should be explicitly required within the policy text.
R10 - Utilities Site - We would like to recommend that the conditions within the current site allocation R10 are amended to remove the phrase "including the provision of district wide heating and CHP". We feel that this clause is unnecessarily prescriptive, and practically rules out the possibility of this site being used for larger scale solar power generation, for example.
GNLP0409 - We do not support deallocation of this site, which has clearly been suggested only so that the developers will not have to consider site-specific policy when they want to develop this site. This site should be allocated for residential-led mixed use development. The development should also include office uses, as well as a small amount of retail to support the office and residential uses. The development should also include public spaces, particularly near the river, to enhance the visitor experience. The development should also make provision for sustainable transport measures, including the provision of a bus stop, so that employment uses at this site become more accessible.
GNLP0506 - We consider 1500 dwellings to be too intensive a form of development for this site. However, we do consider that an allocation at this site for mixed-use development along similar lines to that within the NCCAAP is appropriate.
GNLP1010 - We support Lesley Grahame's suggestion of maintaining existing use as community garden.
We feel that many of the existing allocations for employment use in Norwich should be retained for employment use. However, we do feel that a thorough review should be done of these allocations to ensure that these are still the most appropriate uses for these sites, and it may be that several of these sites should be re-allocated for residential or mixed use. The GVA report on Employment Land Assessment identifies a number of sites which may also provide potential for further residential and/or community use through mixed-use development.
Broadland/South Norfolk area sites
Colney:
GNLP0253 and GNLP0158 (land within Yare Valley N of Watton Road) - We consider this land should be part of a Norwich Greenbelt and therefore protected from significant development so that it is retained as protected green space.
GNLP0140 (Rugby club site) - This should be protected green space. Any further status of this site as a development site beyond what has already been granted would be inappropriate for a site which is characterised by being a large open space near to the river. This land also contributes to flood protection of other Norwich sites by acting as a functional floodplain.
Cringleford:
GNLP 0244 and 0461 - We consider that the allocation of these sites for dvelopment would be inappropriate. The existing woodland should be protected, and green space protected by a Greenbelt policy. This also forms part of the strategic gap between Norwich and Cringleford that we feel is necessary for them to be seen as separate settlements.

Norwich area sites
GNLP1061 - This site's proximity to Norwich airport and poor transport links to the wider city make it inappropriate for anything other than employment land. Our concern with allocating this land is that it would not be accessible by sustainable transport. We would therefore suggest that any site-specific policy requires a demonstration of how units within this development would be accessible by sustainable transport.
GNLP1011/GNLP0377 - We support Lesley Grahame's proposal to retain this site as a community sports facility, and that it should be protected by a designation that specifies this site as a strategic site for leisure use. Reason: to prevent the over-intensification of residential use in this part of Norwich, and to ensure that the existing sports facility has the land available to it to expand and improve.
GNLP0133 - UEA campus sites:
We have no comment on sites A, B and C.
We feel that some development of site D would be appropriate, but the site-specific policy should be written to restrict development only to that which will not unduly impact upon the character of the river valley, and the setting of the listed UEA campus. Building scales, particularly towards the lake, should be smaller in scale, and should be landscaped appropriately to reduce the impact on the lake's ecosystem and provide biodiversity.
We object to site E being allocated for accommodation or any other intensive development. We feel that the character of the river valley should be maintained, and therefore this site should not be intensified beyond its current level, which includes significant amounts of greenery and the river valley beyond. We believe that the university could make good use of this land without intensifying the use by only building small individual units, of one, perhaps two stories, with plenty of open space between.
We object to the allocation of site F. This should be retained as a strategic gap between Norwich's built up area and the Yare Valley.
GNLP0184 - We object to the allocation of this site for residential development. We feel that any further encroaching on the river valley at this point would threaten the biodiversity and character of the river. We would like this site to be part of the protected river valley and Norwich "Green Belt".
GNLP0360 - We consider the principle of redeveloping this brownfield site to be appropriate, but, due to site constraints, development should not be overly intense. A biodiversity buffer should be provided along the river banks and any development should not hinder this site's ability to serve as a functional flood plain, as well as to replenish water supplies. This site's function from this point of view should be explicitly required within the policy text.
R10 - Utilities Site - We would like to recommend that the conditions within the current site allocation R10 are amended to remove the phrase "including the provision of district wide heating and CHP". We feel that this clause is unnecessarily prescriptive, and practically rules out the possibility of this site being used for larger scale solar power generation, for example.
GNLP0409 - We do not support deallocation of this site, which has clearly been suggested only so that the developers will not have to consider site-specific policy when they want to develop this site. This site should be allocated for residential-led mixed use development. The development should also include office uses, as well as a small amount of retail to support the office and residential uses. The development should also include public spaces, particularly near the river, to enhance the visitor experience. The development should also make provision for sustainable transport measures, including the provision of a bus stop, so that employment uses at this site become more accessible.
GNLP0506 - We consider 1500 dwellings to be too intensive a form of development for this site. However, we do consider that an allocation at this site for mixed-use development along similar lines to that within the NCCAAP is appropriate.
GNLP1010 - We support Lesley Grahame's suggestion of maintaining existing use as community garden.
We feel that many of the existing allocations for employment use in Norwich should be retained for employment use. However, we do feel that a thorough review should be done of these allocations to ensure that these are still the most appropriate uses for these sites, and it may be that several of these sites should be re-allocated for residential or mixed use. The GVA report on Employment Land Assessment identifies a number of sites which may also provide potential for further residential and/or community use through mixed-use development.
Broadland/South Norfolk area sites
Colney:
GNLP0253 and GNLP0158 (land within Yare Valley N of Watton Road) - We consider this land should be part of a Norwich Greenbelt and therefore protected from significant development so that it is retained as protected green space.
GNLP0140 (Rugby club site) - This should be protected green space. Any further status of this site as a development site beyond what has already been granted would be inappropriate for a site which is characterised by being a large open space near to the river. This land also contributes to flood protection of other Norwich sites by acting as a functional floodplain.
Cringleford:
GNLP 0244 and 0461 - We consider that the allocation of these sites for dvelopment would be inappropriate. The existing woodland should be protected, and green space protected by a Greenbelt policy. This also forms part of the strategic gap between Norwich and Cringleford that we feel is necessary for them to be seen as separate settlements.

We write to comment on several proposals for development infringing current "green" land on both sides of the Yare Valley between the A11 and the University of East Anglia. The sites which our comments address are:
GNLP 0145 A and B, GNLP 00133 E and F, GNLP 0244 and GNLP 0461.
Since similar considerations apply to all these sites, we shall consider them together.
Our interest comes from almost daily use of this area for nearly fifty years for walking or cycling to work at the Colney Lane research institutes and UEA, and for daily walks in the river valley and adjacent woodlands for recreation and for studying wildlife.
The Yare Valley Green Infrastructure Corridor identified in local plans has been a vital factor in enriching the lives of large numbers of citizens of Norwich, Cringleford and adjacent villages for many years, and we have a duty to safeguard this asset for future generations. The green corridor is much used by walkers, and indeed some paths are overused. Rather than reduce the area available, efforts should instead be concentrated on enlarging it. The overall corridor is more than the sum of the individual parts and reduction of the area in one part could adversely affect the integrity and function of the whole. The area boasts many species of plants and animals which are at risk. It is well known that habitat fragmentation is a major cause of loss of biodiversity, and can only be ameliorated by having wildlife corridors of adequate width. We believe that these proposals which would involve substantial losses of several classes of habitat, will reduce the biological corridor below the critical level.
We are also concerned at the additional traffic generated by the proposals. With expected development to the west of Colney Lane, the proposals GNLP 0145 and GNLP 0244 will place additional pressure on the main traffic artery to the hospital. Moreover the road access to site GNLP 0461 is totally inadequate to support traffic generated by additional housing. Also it should be noted that this site is low-lying within the flood plain and becomes very wet each winter.
In view of these factors, we urge that the new GNLP will strike out these specific proposals.

Cringleford Parish Council would like to comment on the following sites proposed for development in the Parish.

0244. A large part of the site lies in Cringleford. The Parish Council endorses the observation made on the site for the GNLP, but notes that it is 'proposed for university related uses and potentially housing'. 'University related' is unspecified but the granting by South Norfolk District Council of planning permission on it for a rugby club and extensive playing fields means that some of the woodland is scheduled for removal and the slopes sculpted to provide pitches for rugby football. The Parish Council opposed this development and regrets the incursion of the valley. The Parish Council is opposed to the development of the rest of the site for housing or any other purpose. Housing would not only add to the emerging urban character of the parish, which most parishioners see as undesirable, but would also further compromise access to the Yare Valley, further detract from the landscape of the valley and remove ever diminishing and much needed green space from the south west fringes of Norwich.

0461. This site has been offered for development on several occasions since 1973. Each time it has been rejected as unsuitable. See comments from Cringleford Parish Council on site Specific Allocations (2 January 2013) when the plot had the reference number 505b. The site clearly lies within the flood plain of the River Yare. The Environmental Agency included it in Flood Zone 2, as was recognized by South Norfolk District Council in its Strategic Risk Assessment 2007. Residents of neighbouring properties report flooding of their gardens by the river in recent years, while changes in rainfall patterns and intensity of rainfall strongly suggest that the risk of flooding of the site has increased.
References: Appeal by Bovis Homes Ltd., Against Refusal of South Norfolk District Council to grant Planning Consent on Land North of Gurney Lane, Cringleford. Proof of Evidence of Mrs. Elaine M.H. Tucker, 27 February 1989 (Ref.CHW/L05/JCH/101).

0307. Planning consent has already been agreed for the site. Barratt Homes/David Wilson Homes have produced a design code, which has been accepted by South Norfolk District Council. Consultation on the application took place in The Willow Centre, Cringleford 27 February 2018. The development, however, affects the northern part of the site and agreement has been reached on the number of dwellings (650) and the mean density
(25 dwellings/ha). The original application was for 800 dwellings so the remaining 150 dwellings may be intended for the southern part of the site. However, development here is constrained by:

1. The Southern Bypass Protection Zone and the much eroded Strategic gap between Hethersett and Cringleford, and
2. The high-tension electricity cables crossing the site on pylons.

Cringleford Parish Council would argue that the southern section of the site is not suitable for development.

0327. The site has been left unallocated because of its proximity to the Southern Bypass (A47) and its Protection Zone, as well as a location within the Strategic Gap between Hethersett and Cringleford. Mixed development is now proposed which, it is claimed, will form a 'gateway' to the settlement. More detailed proposals would be required before the Parish Council would agree to the plot being developed. The Parish Council would certainly oppose commercial development. It dislikes the 'gateway' concept, much beloved by developers and planners as total inappropriate to the character of Cringleford. Cognizance should be taken of atmospheric pollution and noise from the neighbouring A roads.

0486. Roughly half of the site lies in Hethersett and both parish councils must be consulted about development proposals. This has not always been the case. Development for employment is envisaged which, presumably, would relate to developments at Thickthorn Farm. Development for employment would further increase the urbanisation of the area adjacent to the Thickthorn interchange where a service station, motel, Burger King, park-and-ride and McDonalds already form what many would consider an inappropriate cluster of activities on the approach to the historic city of Norwich. Further strengthening of the cluster is undesirable. It would also further erode the Southern Bypass Protection Zone and the Strategic Gap, which are important to the landscape setting of Cringleford.

2. Sites Neighbouring Cringleford

0133-D, E and F. This large site lies in Norwich but it abuts the Yare Valley and its development is, therefore, of concern to neighbouring parishes. Development would further hem in the valley with buildings and completely change its semi-wild character. Plot 0133 encroaches on the valley itself, while its south-western corner touches on a drainage channel, suggesting that the area is liable to flood.

0358 is located in Hethersett, but the development of the site for employment purposes would simply strengthen the cluster of employment-related activities around the Thickthorn interchange. See comments on 0486.

0331 is located in Colney, but directly abuts the historic boundary between Colney and Cringleford parishes. Although, with a ditch, bank and hedge it is distinct and important feature in the landscape, Cringleford Parish Council are sympathetic to the development of this area to extend the existing Norwich Research Park and hospital lands for education and life sciences research purposes, including any future expansion of the hospital and of associated hospital and university residences. This would help to sustain the Norwich­ Cambridge tech corridor. Completing the development of land to the south west of Colney Lane is considered a more benign option than developing the green areas to the north east of Colney Lane and would protect the recreational lands around the university and Yare Valley. Development of 0331, however, should be dependent and conditional on the provision of a new access road to the hospital and research park from the Watton Road (as proposed many years ago) to relieve the traffic from the already congested Colney Lane. Colney Lane is scheduled to take traffic from at least another 750 homes on and around Roundhouse and Newfound Farm, plus the new University/Rugby Club car park.

The part of the Yare Valley affected by all these proposals has a high amenity value, is clearly visible from both Bluebell Road, and from the well­ used riverside path. The huge, unsightly McCarthy and Stone development already degrades part of the valley and ANY further developments, either adjacent to the valley or in the area adjacent and south of the UEA land would be a highly misjudged decision on the part of the City council.

Existing Local Plans identify the Yare Valley as a "Strategic Green Infrastructure Corridor'' protected by River Valley Policies. The City Council planners should honour and stand by their own policies and possible developers should also honour local plans which were drawn up to protect this important natural, wildlife corridor which so many local people value and use.

The original decision, in which NONE of the City councillors had visited the McCarthy and Stone site under discussion, was not taken unanimously. Such a situation must not reoccur. All councillors should be instructed to visit all the proposed sites, to walk the Yare valley footpath, and Bluebell Road and to view the valley as local residents do, often daily. Further visual intrusion of development in the Yare valley would totally degrade the valley, and make it less attractive to both wildlife and to human visitors: the latter walk it to enjoy a moment of peace, tranquillity, to see flowers, birds, hear birdsong and to be able to enjoy a different natural habitat, when so much of it has been taken away. To have such an oasis of nature close to the city, is an invaluable asset: please do not destroy it: once gone, it can never be replaced.

Sites 0133 E and F 9 the strawberry field and donkey field, running parallel to Bluebell Road and an existing footpath parallel to the hedge and leading down to the river, are an important natural haven for much wildlife, plants, insects, birds and small mammals. Already under threat in many areas, such natural habitats as do remain should be valued, not sacrificed to development. These areas must be available for public access, but also allowed to flourish with a varied flora and fauna.

01461 is close to Cringleford Wood, another site of local biodiversity and a haven for wildlife. By threatening to develop this site, you threaten the whole integrity of the valley, making it less likely to function as an ecosystem. I speak as a geographer as well as a local resident: I understand the inter­ relationship between weather, landscape, plants, birds, soils etc.: perhaps councillors and developers could consider other aspects outside those of mere land value or more houses.

0514 running along the river edge at Colney is very close to existing development, close to the hospital and any further development here would be a further degradation of the valley at one it its narrowest points.

The present Yare Valley, 'green corridor' is much used, and indeed, over­ used, judging by the degraded paths in places. Therefore, every effort should be make to INCREASE the size of the corridor to meet the likely increased demand on it, from a growing local population. With so much extra housing at Round House, New Found Farm etc., surely we have enough local development in Cringleford and around Eaton?

Continued expansion of the UEA, more housing as listed, make the preservation of the existing undeveloped areas around the Yare Valley a vital necessity: please do not consider such a damaging and unnecessary intrusion into this already fragile ecosystem. The City Council policy brief R42 required development of the original McCarthy site, to protect and enhance environmental assets within and adjacent to the site, including retaining tree belts yet removal of mature beech trees was allowed. Why was the council allowed to so blatantly ignore its own guidance?

Never again: this list of proposed threats to the Yare Valley must be stopped.

GNLP 0133
GNLP 0461
GNLP 0224

This should be a protected area;
There is an abundance of wildlife which would be destroyed and disturbed if building occurs. People need open spaces to enjoy and wind down from the stresses of today. The area is enjoyed by many people wildlife and plants - once destroyed it will be lost forever.
The area is a flood risk.
Planners should lead by the local plans and not approve any sites for development and invade onto the protected land of the corridor.
The traffic would be detrimental to all and road accidents and deaths would occur; the noise level increase. The area has always been protected and should remain so. It has a very diverse habitat. As mentioned home flooding would occur. Since the recent buildings have been erected the flood has got worse any more building would case devastating and harmful effects.
Any further building would be harmful to the area causing pollution and detrimental to the natural habitat. Every effort should be made to formulating local plans to increase the corridors extent to meet the needs of the growing population from adjacent housing development. The paths need improving as they're frequently used.

Supporting representations submitted on behalf of the UEA in respect of sites GNLP0133-A to F (Norwich), GNLP0140-A, GNLP0140-C (Colney) and GNLP0244 (Cringleford), in addition there are two newly submitted sites through the Reg18 consultation adjoining the Sainsbury Centre and at the Congregational Hall within the main campus. Refer to attached report for full details.

Covering letter text
Bidwells have been appointed by the University of East Anglia (UEA) to submit Representations in connection with the Greater Norwich Local Plan (GNLP) Regulation 18 Consultation. The Representations contained within this Report promote a suite of sites across the UEA campus and the wider Norwich Research Park (NRP). Most of these sites have been previously submitted as part of
the Call for Sites consultation in 2016. Subsequently, the sites have received preliminary suitability assessments within the Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA), released as part of the Regulation 18 consultation. The Representations endeavour to address any potential constraints
identified in the HELAA assessment for each of these sites, to demonstrate their deliverability. Representations for two new sites, which were not submitted as part of the earlier Call for Sites process, are also included within this Report. The deliverability of these sites is ascertained and demonstrated
within the Report.
The sites promoted within this Report encapsulate a variety of uses, but the majority are focussed around UEA related development (e.g. teaching, research, accommodation, general infrastructure, ancillary uses), along with some being promoted for modest residential development, and the expansion
of the local knowledge-based industry around the NRP. All site Representations include a red line plan within the Report, alongside a plan that displays all sites submitted across the UEA Campus and the wider NRP, which fall within UEA control. The sites submitted are as follows:
Previously Submitted Sites:
● GNLP0133-A - University Drive North;
● GNLP0133-B - University Drive West - Undeveloped part of the Earlham Hall allocation;
● GNLP0133-C - Cow Drive North;
● GNLP0133-D - South of Suffolk Walk;
● GNLP0133-E - Strawberry Fields;
GNLP0133-F - Bluebell Road;
● GNLP0140-A - Colney Lane Clubhouse/Pavilion / GNLP0140-B- Colney Lane Car Park
Extension;
● GNLP0140-C - Triangle Site; and
● GNLP0244 - Land at Colney Lane (plantation and observatory site/grounds maintenance).
New Sites Submitted:
● Congregation Hall; and
● Land adjoining the Sainsbury Centre.
Alongside the Representations in support of each of these sites, the Report contains the UEA's
responses to relevant consultation questions within the GNLP Regulation 18 Consultation Document.
The Report includes a detailed response to Questions 34 and 35. This response endeavours to advocate
the allocation of a sustainable transport link between the UEA main Campus and Colney Lane.
We trust that the Representations will assist the Greater Norwich Local Plan team in progressing its Local Plan review towards the Preferred Options stage, the consultation for which we currently understand is likely to commence in Summer 2019.
As indicated within these Representations, the UEA and Bidwells are both keen to engage with the Greater Norwich Local Plan team to meet the challenges of growth, and look forward to discussing matters, relating to the UEA, further in due course.
I would be grateful if you would acknowledge receipt of these representations.
Should you have any questions at this stage then please contact me.

I would like to make objection to GNLP 0133-D (part shown in picture attached) as it will clearly extends R41 (which has been agreed but I am unhappy with). This goes deeper into the valley moving closer to the UEA lake, creating far too much development into an area for wildlife, human leisure, and a just lovely area. A lung for the people and the students and staff at the University.

My objection GNLP 0133-E is that it goes right down to the lake. It is part of the area known as "the Strawberry fields" because that was what it was for many years. The development that has taken place there with temporary(?) buildings and greenhouses with strong lights blazing 24/7 is an place of much speculation, much of it around the growth of exotic substances. I hope it has much security. Have the buildings there received Planning Permission?

Access to the site for development would either being via R41 from the University, so destroying that area, or directly from Bluebell Road - there is a very large drop down. It is an integral part of the Yare Valley and part of the Yare Valley wildlife corridor and connected across the road to the Eaton Park, with the Eaton Park wood which is alongside Bluebell Road.

My objection GNLP 0133-F is similar to the details above. it is the main part of the area known as 'the Strawberry fields'. it is an integral part of the Yare Valley and part of the Yare valley wildlife corridor and connected across the road to the Eaton Park, with the Eaton park wood which is alongside Bluebell Road, and well used for walking and recreation purposes by locals.

We write in reference to the above consultation invitation to register our objections to certain proposals within the outline plan. More specifically, we refer to the proposals for sites promoted in the Yare Valley (UEA and environs) as follows:

GNLP 0514 Development of land to the river edge at Colney
GNLP 0145 A & B Proposed additional car parking and other unspecified additional use
GNLP 0133 E&F Building on land to extend the campus footprint of UEA
GNLP 0244 Destruction of existing local woodland to further develop the UEA site and potential private residential development
GNLP 0461 Residential development in Cringleford Wood.

All of these proposed developments are sited within or are immediately adjacent to the Yare Valley itself, an area that is already identified in existing local plans as a "...strategic green infrastructure corridor." This corridor is an important environmental and recreational area for the people within the local community and, indeed, for the wider community of Norwich itself. To allow further development along and within this important green space would be shortsighted and negligent and planners should be standing by the extant local plans that have identified the Yare Valley as an important asset to the people of Norwich. Once these areas are built on they can never be reclaimed. The existing wildlife that inhabits this ecosystem and the mental and physical wellbeing of the people who enjoy the walks offered by the Yare Valley as it currently is would be lost forever.

There has already been encroachment within this corridor as evidenced by the current construction being undertaken on the Bartram Mowers site on Bluebell Road. Surely this should be enough development along this beautiful valley. This development and other existing large scale residential housing development in Cringleford (with more planned by the Thickthorn Roundabout) means that the corridor is well used and appreciated as a local green space amenity and should be protected and extended to meet the needs of a growing local population and not be reduced as these proposals would undoubtedly do.

Damage to the corridor can be easily avoided as developers have already identified more than enough potential residential development sites outside of the corridor which will meet the expected future growth in housing and employment needs in the area covered by the GNLP.

Developers should not be allowed to ride rough shod over the needs and wishes of the existing local population in the never-ending pursuit of profit and increased shareholder dividends. Local planners should protect the long term environmental interests of their local area and its residents as the thoughtless urbanisation of the Yare Valley would be catastrophic to the people and the city of Norwich. The Yare Valley must cherished for the wonderful local asset that it is and not be allowed to be destroyed by default.

We therefore urge you most strongly not to approve any of the sites identified above to be developed that are within or adjacent to the 'protected' land of the Yare Valley Corridor.