GNLP0377

OBJECT
Firstly, the title of the inclusion and the accompanying site plan are incorrect.
The title reads 'Land east of King Street (King Street Stores & Sports Hall Site) : It should be noted that 20 houses on the King Street Stores site are already included in the Norwich Local Plan. See the 'Site Allocations and Site Specific Policies Plan', Adopted December 2014. The figure of 'Residential development for a minimum of 40 to 50 dwellings' is therefore misleading.
Although the title reads as above, the site blocked out in red covers the Sports Hall site only.

The Planning Inspectorate report dated 13/10/14 by Mr. C J Anstey on 'THE EXAMINATION INTO THE NORWICH SITE ALLOCATIONS AND SITE SPECIFIC POLICIES LOCAL PLAN' concluded there were no 'grounds for inclusion of the Wensum Sports Centre' and went on to provide clear justification for that conclusion. Nothing has changed regarding the plan situation. However, what has changed is that the Sports Hall and associated community facilities are now very well used. The Centre has 1400 members and 60 different user groups, schools and charities and remains accessible to the public on a pay and play basis. A grant of £50,000.00 has recently been awarded to the Centre by Sport England for roof improvements and repairs. In May 2014, Norwich City Council recognised the facility as an Asset of Community Value and in July 2017, Wensum Sports Centre Charitable Association were granted a 20 year lease by Norfolk County Council.
At the Planning Inspectorate examination stage of the above SITE ALLOCATIONS AND SITE SPECIFIC POLICIES LOCAL PLAN', Norfolk County Council could not say where they would find the re-provision of the existing sports facility/centre.

The Centre is currently in the process of seeking grant funding through the Norfolk Funders Forum for improvements to the heating system and replacement of the sports hall floor covering.

This site 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.

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.

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.