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.

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.

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.

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.

1) [Re adopted local plan allocation CC17a, Barrack Street - this is not a GNLP site submission] In Barrack Street the site now being used as a car park surrounded by green fence once had 50 good homes on it. Since the eviction of residents and the subsequent demolition of homes and the promise of new homes, offices etc nothing has been done. Please let me know what is happening, including the replacement of the mature trees that also went. I am angry that this situation has been allowed to continue and would like answers.
2) I have just been to the Forum to see the plans for future Norwich. Two items that concern me are, St James Meadow where the agents for the owners want to change the plans [GNLP0409] and the site on Heartsease Lane of the old Gothic Club [GNLP0570], later to be church, sadly burnt down and now in multiple usage . Please remember that 50 good homes were demolished on the Barrack St site with agreement of Norwich City council and that homes were promised. The Gothic site is part of the heath and I notice that the adjacent football pitch is now overgrown and being neglected, the owner Mr D'acre [sic] has already asked for the site to be available for development. I hope that we can rely on you and your team to be vigilant on both issues.
[Representations forwarded via Norwich City Council]

Introduction/ Background
Jarrold & Sons owns land south of Barrack Street and north of the River Wensum stretching from Whitefriars on its western boundary to and including the health and fitness club (currently occupied by Nuffield Health) at its eastern boundary.
For over a decade Jarrold & Sons has worked closely with Norwich City Council and other stakeholders in respect of land within its ownership to carefully manage the transition from the former use of the site for printing and publishing to the creation of a mixed-use area providing high quality offices, residential, accommodation and leisure facilities, to contribute to the economic growth of Norwich and the vibrancy of this area of the city.
The remaining undeveloped land within Jarrold & Sons ownership is considered to be a key opportunity to redevelop a brownfield site within Norwich.
Jarrold & Sons has worked tirelessly over many years to attract inward investment into this part of city. Completion of buildings between St James Mill and Whitefriars (1 St James Court and Carmelite House) fulfilled Jarrold's first office led investment objective. The next phase of Jarrold's redevelopment strategy required a package of elements to create a unique selling point in order to attract office occupiers to this area of the city. The concept of offices on the river frontage, views to Norwich Cathedral, links via a new bridge (the purpose built and forward funded Jarrold Bridge) and car parking all contribute to the unique selling point.
Jarrold's vision for offices on the river frontage and fronting Whitefriars with residential between these offices and Barrack Street has almost been achieved. In recent years the following office developments have been delivered: 1-3 St James' Court; Kingfisher House and Dragonfly, House Gilders Way. The next element of office development to be completed is at land known as Zone F.
Planning permission for 200 new homes, open space and car parking adjacent to the frontage of Barrack Street (LPA reference 15/01927/O) is the start of the residential element with more homes being planned to complement and complete the redevelopment of the area.
Current Site Allocation
The site is covered by two existing allocations within the Norwich City 'Site Allocations and Site Specific Policies Plan' (December 2014) under Policy CC17a: Barrack Street and Policy CC17b: Whitefriars both for mixed used development albeit of different compositions and use class emphasis. The areas covered by the existing allocations are identified on the extract plan below. [see form as attached]

These allocations do not reflect the extant planning permissions or the evidence on delivery within the Plan period.
Paragraph 183 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that, "A local planning authority should submit a plan for examination which it considers is "sound" - namely that it is:
 Positively prepared - the plan should be prepared based on a strategy which seeks to meet objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements, including unmet requirements from neighbouring authorities where it is reasonable to do so and consistent with achieving sustainable development;
 Justified - the plan should be the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives, based on proportionate evidence;
 Effective - the plan should be deliverable over its period and based on effective joint working on cross-boundary strategic priorities; and
 Consistent with national policy - the plan should enable the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in the Framework."
These allocations do not reflect the extant planning permissions or the evidence on delivery within the Plan period.
Paragraph 183 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that, "A local planning authority should submit a plan for examination which it considers is "sound" - namely that it is:
 Positively prepared - the plan should be prepared based on a strategy which seeks to meet objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements, including unmet requirements from neighbouring authorities where it is reasonable to do so and consistent with achieving sustainable development;
 Justified - the plan should be the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives, based on proportionate evidence;
 Effective - the plan should be deliverable over its period and based on effective joint working on cross-boundary strategic priorities; and
 Consistent with national policy - the plan should enable the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in the Framework."
Jarrold & Sons contend that Policy CC17a and Policy CC17b, if simply 'rolled forward' into the Greater Norwich Local Plan would render the Local Plan unsound for failure to satisfy at least three of the above four tests and potentially the fourth.
To resolve these issues of soundness, Jarrold & Sons contend that the allocations should be amended to redefine the boundaries for each allocation and amend the wording to ensure that each meet the tests of soundness.
This representation concerns the following area as identified on the enclosed site location plan referenced: 8436-FM-DR-2001 comprising of:
 The area known as 'Zone F' (subject of planning permission 06/00724/F and reserved matters 08/00538/RM)
 The areas and known as 'Zones A and E' (subject of planning permission 15/01927/O).
Proposed Site Allocation Amendments
It is requested that the emerging Greater Norwich Local Plan continues to recognise this site as a key redevelopment opportunity.
It is requested that this site should continue to benefit from a site allocation which accurately reflects the development proposals in this location.
Specific reference should be made to the following development at 'Land south of Barrack Street and east of Gilders Way' as defined on Policy Area Plan (Zones A, E and F) (drawing reference: 8436-FM-DR-2001).
Land south of Barrack Street and east of Gilders Way' is allocated for:
 c. 8,100 sqm of B1 employment floorspace with 53 associated car parking spaces;
 200 new homes with 150 car parking spaces;
 127 car parking spaces for sole use of tenants of the following office accommodation: St James' Mill; 1 St James' Court (Mills & Reeve); 2 St James Court (Carmelite House); 3 St James' Court; Zone F, Dragonfly House and Kingfisher House; and
 Ancillary retail use (approximately 200 sqm).
In addition to the above, Hill Residential Ltd is promoting land to the south of Barrack Street and west of Gilders Way for residential development of 200 new homes with ancillary retail use (A1-A5 use, approximately 350sqm). Please refer to separate representations in respect of this matter.