GNLP0360

Showing comments and forms 1 to 9 of 9

Comment

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 13339

Received: 27/02/2018

Respondent: Richard Pearson

Representation:

Additional polluting factors to the flood risk militate against the development of the Deal Ground site which should be deleted from the GNLP

Full text:

Deal Ground GNLP0360
This site should be deleted. In addition to the stated flood risk issue there are further constraints as follows:-
1. Immediately adjacent and running the whole length of the site is the Tarmac production site. This emits noxious fumes (with planning permission for No2 emissions) on most working days and with a small chimney the Deal Ground suffers badly on many days. In addition there are constant noisy vehicle operations and dust. Combined,these factors will adversely affect the occupation of any buildings on the Deal Ground site.
2. At the western end of the site are open sewage/surface water holding tanks which take excess flow in heavy rain, with run off of raw sewage to the Yare in certain conditions. Unpleasant smells emanate from these open storage tanks and with prevailing winds from the west, the Deal Ground is affected.
3. The Deal ground is highly contaminated with, inter alia, buried (and visible) asbestos and with areas of Japanese Knotweed, all of which will substantially impact on the development cost of the site.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 14438

Received: 19/03/2018

Respondent: mr David Thomas

Representation:

it has already been high lighted that there is a danger particularly in terms of flood risk where the extent of the area vulnerable to flooding has recently been recalculated through the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment and extends further into the site than previously. There would also be identified impacts on landscape, townscape, biodiversity, the historic environment, green infrastructure, transport and neighbouring uses. We do not need anymore problems with flooding nor impact on the infrastructure!

Full text:

it has already been high lighted that there is a danger particularly in terms of flood risk where the extent of the area vulnerable to flooding has recently been recalculated through the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment and extends further into the site than previously. There would also be identified impacts on landscape, townscape, biodiversity, the historic environment, green infrastructure, transport and neighbouring uses. We do not need anymore problems with flooding nor impact on the infrastructure!

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 14441

Received: 19/03/2018

Respondent: mr David Thomas

Representation:

Its a FLOOD PLAIN and also Wildlife area and protected site! All of these reasons should have been enough to have stopped even the application from going in!
The area is such a beautiful place, loved by humans and animals alike! Not only does it support a huge range of wildlife and nature it also protects the very humans that are trying to destroy it by stopping mass floods! Short sighted views will produce long term problems!

Full text:

Its a FLOOD PLAIN and also Wildlife area and protected site! All of these reasons should have been enough to have stopped even the application from going in!
The area is such a beautiful place, loved by humans and animals alike! Not only does it support a huge range of wildlife and nature it also protects the very humans that are trying to destroy it by stopping mass floods! Short sighted views will produce long term problems!

Support

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 14768

Received: 20/03/2018

Respondent: Mr Nakul Borade

Representation:

Requirement of more residential development and will help in creation of employment, expansion of city and new education facility.

Full text:

Requirement of more residential development and will help in creation of employment, expansion of city and new education facility.

Comment

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 15783

Received: 22/03/2018

Respondent: Mr Trevor Lewis

Representation:

I am the District Councillor for what lies in South Norfolk. I retain my scepticism that Deal Ground development can be compatible with flood risks, particularly a combined pluvial/fluvial event, or with the continued essential operation of the aggregate sidings.

The May Gurney / Kier site is acceptable in isolation.

The site proposal now includes the old Waterworks. I believe that this urgently needs action to stop it deteriorating further. It is suitable for sympathetic redevelopment, which needs to be before or together with other development on the site, and not left till last.

Full text:

I am the District Councillor for what lies in South Norfolk. I retain my scepticism that Deal Ground development can be compatible with flood risks, particularly a combined pluvial/fluvial event, or with the continued essential operation of the aggregate sidings.

The May Gurney / Kier site is acceptable in isolation.

The site proposal now includes the old Waterworks. I believe that this urgently needs action to stop it deteriorating further. It is suitable for sympathetic redevelopment, which needs to be before or together with other development on the site, and not left till last.

Comment

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 15817

Received: 22/03/2018

Respondent: Norwich Green Party

Representation:

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.

Full text:

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.

Comment

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 16383

Received: 07/03/2018

Respondent: Broads Authority

Representation:

GNLP0360 -
This is right up to the border with the Broads and of a large scale. Would welcome
early discussions on this. Would be extending the built up area in a way that could
affect the Broads.
Redevelopment of site could give rise to new opportunities for pedestrian/cycleway
bridge over River Yare. The creation of this new connected access to Whitlingham and
the Broads National Park from the centre of Norwich would highlight the River
Wensum Strategy aspirations along with those of the Broads Local Access Forum.
Could have significant visual impact.

Full text:

GNLP0041 - Wroxham Football Club, 20 dwellings
Where would the current football club go? This might also visually impact on the Broads landscape and the existing Wroxham Conservation Area - early discussion about this would be welcomed. This site is also within the Wroxham Conservation Area

Salhouse
GNLP0157 - Tourism Use
This appears to be partly in the Broads area. Would welcome early discussions on this.
Likely to be too late to allocate anything in the Broads Local Plan. Other than Tourism
Use, no other details provided. What is this for? This is also partly within the Salhouse
Conservation Area.
* Acle
GNLP1049 - residential development
This is right up to the border with the Broads. Would welcome early discussions on
this. Would be extending the built up area in a way that could affect the Broads. Dark
skies. Could have significant visual impact.
GNLP0007 - 12 dwellings
This is near the border with the Broads. Would welcome early discussions on this.
Would be extending the built up area in a way that could affect the Broads. Dark skies.
Early discussions welcomed also on GNLP 0384.
* Postwick
GNLP0370 - 75 and 115 dwellings and primary school
This is right up to the border with the Broads. Would welcome early discussions on
this. Would be extending the built up area in a way that could affect the Broads. Dark
skies. Could have significant visual impact. Could have significant visual impact.
* Whittingham area
GNLP0360 - Deal Ground site - Residential led mixed use redevelopment to include
employment, retail community uses, potential primary education provision and local
greenspace and biodiversity areas.
This is right up to the border with the Broads and of a large scale. Would welcome
early discussions on this. Would be extending the built up area in a way that could
affect the Broads.
Redevelopment of site could give rise to new opportunities for pedestrian/cycleway
bridge over River Yare. The creation of this new connected access to Whitlingham and
the Broads National Park from the centre of Norwich would highlight the River
Wensum Strategy aspirations along with those of the Broads Local Access Forum.
Could have significant visual impact.
* Norwich
GNLP1011 - protect as sports centre in community use.
Support
GNLP0409 - Deallocation of Policy CC17b and the area of CC17a.
Please can you expand on what this means please? Why is this being de-allocated?
GNLP0068 - Residential-led mixed use development for an undetermined number of
dwellings (Despite its small size the site could support a high density development and
is thus considered suitable for the land availability assessment.)
This is right up to the border with the Broads and of a large scale. Would welcome
early discussions on this. Would be extending the built up area in a way that could
NB/SM/rpt/020318/Page 5 of 7/200218
affect the Broads.
There may be access issues if development was agreed at this location. The River
Wensum Strategy has identified this site as a potential continuation "link" of the
Riverside Walk and any development here would need to consider this in their
proposals. Could have significant visual impact. Issues around continued canalisation of
the river.
GNLP0401 - Residential-led mixed use development for approx. 400 dwellings with
retail and/or other appropriate city centre uses at ground floor level.
This is right up to the border with the Broads and of a large scale. Would welcome
early discussions on this. Would be extending the built up area in a way that could
affect the Broads.
Redevelopment of site could give rise to new opportunities for access to River
Wensum for small craft and canoes along with pedestrian access to the waterside.
Could have significant visual impact. Issues around continued canalisation of the river.
* Surlingham
GNLP0374 - Residential development
This is near the Broads border. Would welcome early discussions on this. Would be
extending the built up area in a way that could affect the Broads. Dark skies. Potential
for visual impact on the Broads landscape
* Rockland St Mary
GNLP0531 - 200 dwellings
This is right up to the border with the Broads and of a large scale. Would welcome
early discussions on this. Would be extending the built up area in a way that could
affect the Broads. Potential for significant visual impact on the Broads landscape.
* Cantley
GNLP0281 - Demolition of existing dwellings and residential redevelopment for approx.
20 homes with new entry road from Peregrine close
This is right up to the border with the Broads and of a large scale. Would welcome
early discussions on this. Would be extending the built up area in a way that could
affect the Broads. Potential amenity issues associated with Cantley Sugar Beet Factory
(business already in existence). Potential for high visual impact over open marsh
landscape.
* Haddiscoe
GNLP0455 - Employment, storage and distribution uses.
This is near our border. Would welcome early discussions on this. Would be extending
the built up area in a way that could affect the Broads. Dark skies. Potential for visual
impact on the Broads landscape. Also GNLP 0414 More limited potential for visual
impact but early discussions on this would also be welcomed.
* Gillingham
GNLP0274 - Residential development of an unspecified number.
This is near the Broads border. Would welcome early discussions on this. Would be
extending the built up area in a way that could affect the Broads. Dark skies. Potential
for visual impact on the Broads land scape.
* Geldeston
GNLP1004 - resi 4-5 dwellings
NB/SM/rpt/020318/Page 6 of 7/200218
This is near the Broads border. Would welcome early discussions on this. Would be
extending the built up area in a way that could affect the Broads. Dark skies. Darkest
area of the Broads. More limited potential for visual impact. Located within the
Geldeston Conservation area.
* Kirby Cane
GNLP0303 - 11 dwellings
GNLP0304 - 15 dwellings
GNLP0305 - 32 dwellings
This is near the Broads border. Would welcome early discussions on this. Would be
extending the built up area in a way that could affect the Broads. Dark skies.
* Chedgrave
GNLP0541 - 5-8 dwellings
This is right up to the border with the Broads and of a large scale. Would welcome
early discussions on this. Would be extending the built up area in a way that could
affect the Broads. Potential for visual impact on the Broads landscape.
* Loddon
GNLP0313 - 68 dwellings
This is near the Broads border. Would welcome early discussions on this. Would be
extending the built up area in a way that could affect the Broads. More limited
potential for visual impact.

Comment

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 16434

Received: 22/03/2018

Respondent: Norwich Green Party

Representation:

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.

Full text:

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.

Comment

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 16502

Received: 20/03/2018

Respondent: Norfolk Wildlife Trust

Representation:

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

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.