GNLP0184

Cooper Lane is a cul de sac and narrow. Accessed on corner at bottom of Sandy Lane unsuitable for development as outlined on map
Adjacent to flood plain. Objecting under Tenchical Guidance for National Planning policy Framework Flood Risk.
Cooper Lane is a tranquil area which should not be spoilt. This includes the riverside setting impact on propoerties on Theobald Road and the period property on the south side of Cooper Lane.

Development could get flooded

Building here would remove protected green space and buildings would be vulnerable to flooding at the river's edge.

yet again a developer wants to use Flood Plain land to put buildings on. The reason we have flood plains is to STOP flooding. This is why Norwich has so far not been overly effected by servere flooding unlke other parts of the country. But if you keep on granting permission to use Green land and protected land this will not be the case for much longer!

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 am sincerely disappointed to learn of the proposed development sites in The Yare Valley, UEA lake and Bluebell Road areas which I enjoy with my dog on a daily basis. The beautiful areas of Newfound Farm and the surrounding woods are a fantastic wild home to rabbits, squirrels, jays and woodpeckers as well as bats. I have regularly seen kingfishers and muntjac deer in these areas too. It's rare to be able to explore wooded areas so close to the city without having to follow allocated paths, letting our children build dens, spot wildlife and appreciate the peace of nature. Shouldn't woodland such as this be protected? It's ridiculous to strip an area with such established diversity of species in fauna, especially one so cherished and enjoyed by a huge range of local people. Wouldn't it be more sensible to seek out areas with minimum impact on existing beautiful surroundings or redevelop brownfield sites? I see this as a knock on effect from the Rugby Club's successful expansion approval in the area, which I consider to be a shameful decision. I truly hope that the planners and local council see sense instead of profit and prevent our fine city losing it's identity to a hive of urbanisation.

Building on any of these proposed sites would mean considerable loss of green space, and would inevitably increase pollution in the Yare Valley, which is supposed to be a protected area, due to its value to the wildlife and the human population of the valley . Rather than reducing the green space available, efforts should be directed to preserving and enhancing the green corridor to meet the increased demands of the growing population. There seem to be sufficient development sites outside the valley to meet expected growth needs.

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.

The loss of green space and its impact on the wellbeing of humans and wildlife. The large number of development sites being proposed outside the River Yare valley 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 is under increasing pressure as the surrounding area becomes more built up. We risk losing an important asset to Norwich. Rather than reduce the amount of green space, every effort should be made to increase its extent, to meet the needs of a growing population from adjacent housing developments.

The proposed loss of green area is unacceptable. This is protected area for a reason. We all breathe the air near here, we learn about nature, we walk and clear our thoughts around here every day. There are so many unquantifiable benefits and I am afraid that it will only be looked at in terms of profit and the quanitifiable. We NEED these areas to be kept intact.

Are we SURE that these developments are what the community wants? There will be no going back. The habitats and the atmosphere of the are will be lost forever.

The proposed loss of green area is unacceptable. This is protected area for a reason. We all breathe the air near here, we learn about nature, we walk and clear our thoughts around here every day. There are so many unquantifiable benefits and I am afraid that it will only be looked at in terms of profit and the quanitifiable. We NEED these areas to be kept intact.

Are we SURE that these developments are what the community wants? There will be no going back. The habitats and the atmosphere of the are will be lost forever.

Site lies in Yare Valley Green Infrastructure Corridor protected by River Valley Policies. More than some of parts. Any reduction in area could impact along the corridor and impair its ability to function effectively.
Corridor vital to wellbeing of humans and wildlife.
Corridor much used (worn paths). Corridor should be increased to meet demands of growing population from adjacent house building.
Large number of sites outside of valley being proposed, these should meet expected growth need.
Flood vulnerable development at waters edge.

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.

The loss of green space and its impact on the wellbeing of humans and wildlife. The large number of development sites outside 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. Rather than reduce the size of the green corridor, every effort should be made to increase its extent to meet the needs of a growing population from adjacent housing developments.

The loss of green space and its impact on the wellbeing of humans and
wildlife. The large number of development sites outside 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. Rather than reduce the size of the
green corridor, every effort should be made to increase its extent to meet
the needs of a growing population from adjacent housing developments

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 do not think planning should be allowed on the flood plain, if this is granted permission it will open the flood gates for adjacent plots to be developed, please keep some green, wild spaces near to our city for wildlife and for our long term health.

I object to the loss of green space and its impact on the wellbeing of people and wildlife. The large number of development sites being proposed outside the valley should easily meet the expected growth needs for housing and employment, without risking damage to what local plans identify as a Strategic Green Infrastructure Corridor. The green corridor is much used, in some places over-used as evidenced by the 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.

The loss of green space denying future generations this beautiful place to walk in. 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 improve and protect it

The loss of green space denying future generations this beautiful place to walk in. 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 improve and protect it

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".

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.