GNLP0506

Showing comments and forms 1 to 15 of 15

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 15104

Received: 21/03/2018

Respondent: George Mahood

Representation Summary:

Ugly, failed schemes litter Norwich, blighting its landscape with corporate monoliths where public space should be: Riverside, Chapelfield, Castle Mall. This Anglia Square plan is no better. Not enough supporting infrastructure exists (doctors, parks, schools etc). Enforced gentrification and wealthy "urban professional" influxes will devastate Magdalen Street's small businesses and nearby music and culture. Anglia Square's unique 20th century brutalist architecture should be protected and renovated. Any redevelopment should revitalise through encouraging small shops and businesses, not by enriching developers at the expense of Norwich's social/cultural/artistic/psychic life, and displacing current Square users (including many poor, vulnerable people with few alternatives).

Full text:

Ugly, failed schemes litter Norwich, blighting its landscape with corporate monoliths where public space should be: Riverside, Chapelfield, Castle Mall. This Anglia Square plan is no better. Not enough supporting infrastructure exists (doctors, parks, schools etc). Enforced gentrification and wealthy "urban professional" influxes will devastate Magdalen Street's small businesses and nearby music and culture. Anglia Square's unique 20th century brutalist architecture should be protected and renovated. Any redevelopment should revitalise through encouraging small shops and businesses, not by enriching developers at the expense of Norwich's social/cultural/artistic/psychic life, and displacing current Square users (including many poor, vulnerable people with few alternatives).

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 15132

Received: 21/03/2018

Respondent: Mr Paul Haggerty

Agent: Mr Paul Haggerty

Representation Summary:

Ugly, failed schemes litter Norwich, blighting its landscape with corporate monoliths where public space should be: Riverside, Chapelfield, Castle Mall. This Anglia Square plan is no better. Not enough supporting infrastructure exists (doctors, parks, schools etc). Enforced gentrification and wealthy "urban professional" influxes will devastate Magdalen Street's small businesses and nearby music and culture. Anglia Square's unique 20th century brutalist architecture should be protected and renovated. Any redevelopment should revitalise through encouraging small shops and businesses, not by enriching developers at the expense of Norwich's social/cultural/artistic/psychic life, and displacing current Square users (including many poor, vulnerable people with few alternatives).

Full text:

Ugly, failed schemes litter Norwich, blighting its landscape with corporate monoliths where public space should be: Riverside, Chapelfield, Castle Mall. This Anglia Square plan is no better. Not enough supporting infrastructure exists (doctors, parks, schools etc). Enforced gentrification and wealthy "urban professional" influxes will devastate Magdalen Street's small businesses and nearby music and culture. Anglia Square's unique 20th century brutalist architecture should be protected and renovated. Any redevelopment should revitalise through encouraging small shops and businesses, not by enriching developers at the expense of Norwich's social/cultural/artistic/psychic life, and displacing current Square users (including many poor, vulnerable people with few alternatives).

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 15140

Received: 21/03/2018

Respondent: Miss Jemma Watts

Representation Summary:

I feel the proposed development has failed to take into account the local community's needs, fails to consider the infrascruture avalible and has little aesthetic merit

Full text:

This large site needs careful planning, which actually caters for the needs and wants of the existing thriving community that use the square and magdalen street, not gentrification. The idea of a 25 storey tower block is completely out of keeping with then area, and would be a huge mistake. The plan also fails to consider the cutural impact of evicting over 100 artists from studio spaces (Outpost, Print to the People) and charities such as Men's Shed. Also the traffic impact of 1000+ homes would be extremely worrying, with Pitt Street, St Augustines St and Magdalen St being already heavily congested at peak times.

Support

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 15146

Received: 21/03/2018

Respondent: PAUL STEPHENS

Representation Summary:

The area would be so much better/improved with this development. Nothing can be worse than what currently is there!

Full text:

The area would be so much better/improved with this development. Nothing can be worse than what currently is there!

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 15188

Received: 21/03/2018

Respondent: Miss Sandy Lovelock

Representation Summary:

Ugly,schemes litter Norwich, blighting its landscape with corporate monoliths where public space should be: Riverside, Chapelfield, Castle Mall. This Anglia Square plan is no better. Not enough supporting infrastructure exists (doctors, parks, schools etc). Enforced gentrification and wealthy "urban professional" influxes will devastate Magdalen Street's small businesses and nearby music and culture. Anglia Square's unique 20th century brutalist architecture should be protected and renovated. Any redevelopment should revitalise through encouraging small shops and businesses, not by enriching developers at the expense of Norwich's social/cultural/artistic life, and displacing current Square users (including many poor, vulnerable people)

Full text:

Ugly,schemes litter Norwich, blighting its landscape with corporate monoliths where public space should be: Riverside, Chapelfield, Castle Mall. This Anglia Square plan is no better. Not enough supporting infrastructure exists (doctors, parks, schools etc). Enforced gentrification and wealthy "urban professional" influxes will devastate Magdalen Street's small businesses and nearby music and culture. Anglia Square's unique 20th century brutalist architecture should be protected and renovated. Any redevelopment should revitalise through encouraging small shops and businesses, not by enriching developers at the expense of Norwich's social/cultural/artistic life, and displacing current Square users (including many poor, vulnerable people)

Support

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 15190

Received: 21/03/2018

Respondent: Mr Robert Greenwood

Representation Summary:

Having worked close by at Fishergate, for the past 3 years, Anglia Square has been vastly overdue re-development for many years. I whole-heatedly support the project , as the local area will benefit greatly and will finally remove an eye sore!. This part of the city is in danger of being left decades behind.

Full text:

Having worked close by at Fishergate, for the past 3 years, Anglia Square has been vastly overdue re-development for many years. I whole-heatedly support the project , as the local area will benefit greatly and will finally remove an eye sore!. This part of the city is in danger of being left decades behind.

Support

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 15192

Received: 21/03/2018

Respondent: Debs Hale

Representation Summary:

Fully support the regeneration- much needed for the local area

Full text:

Fully support the regeneration- much needed for the local area

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 15212

Received: 21/03/2018

Respondent: St Augustines Community Together (ACT)

Representation Summary:

The Magdalen Street/Botolph Street area has been blighted by inappropriate development since the 1960s. St Crispins Flyover, Inner Ring Road and Anglia Square cut off St Augustine's from the northern city centre and has led to a long-term withering of a once vibrant retail quarter. The current insensitive plans to redevelop Anglia Square, with its massive 25-storey tower block surrounded by looming blocks of flats up to 10-storeys high, cramming 1200+ dwellings, plus shops and parking spaces into so tight a compass will effectively complete the destruction of what remains of the area's human-scale "village in the city".

Full text:

The Magdalen Street/Botolph Street area has been blighted by inappropriate development since the 1960s. St Crispins Flyover, Inner Ring Road and Anglia Square cut off St Augustine's from the northern city centre and has led to a long-term withering of a once vibrant retail quarter. The current insensitive plans to redevelop Anglia Square, with its massive 25-storey tower block surrounded by looming blocks of flats up to 10-storeys high, cramming 1200+ dwellings, plus shops and parking spaces into so tight a compass will effectively complete the destruction of what remains of the area's human-scale "village in the city".

Comment

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 15631

Received: 22/03/2018

Respondent: Mr Simeon Jackson

Representation Summary:

1500 dwellings is too intensive a form of development for this site. However, I do think an allocation at this site for mixed-use development along similar lines to that within the NCCAAP is appropriate. I broadly agree with the approach outlined within the Anglia Square Policy Guidance Note.

Full text:

1500 dwellings is too intensive a form of development for this site. However, I do think an allocation at this site for mixed-use development along similar lines to that within the NCCAAP is appropriate. I broadly agree with the approach outlined within the Anglia Square Policy Guidance Note.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 15664

Received: 22/03/2018

Respondent: Mr Simeon Jackson

Representation Summary:

I consider 1500 dwellings to be too intensive a form of development for this site. However, I do consider that an allocation at this site for mixed-use development along similar lines to that within the NCCAAP is appropriate. I broadly agree with the approach outlined within the Anglia Square Policy Guidance Note.

Full text:

I consider 1500 dwellings to be too intensive a form of development for this site. However, I do consider that an allocation at this site for mixed-use development along similar lines to that within the NCCAAP is appropriate. I broadly agree with the approach outlined within the Anglia Square Policy Guidance Note.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 15819

Received: 22/03/2018

Respondent: Norwich Green Party

Representation Summary:

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.

Full text:

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.

Comment

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 16048

Received: 22/03/2018

Respondent: Helen Leith

Representation Summary:

Poor proposal. Too dense. No to skyscraper. NOTHING in Norwich should be taller than Cathedral spire. Dreary, unimaginative design. Needs more personality & imagination-softer, more local vernacular, passivhaus standards,energy use and recycling. No support mentioned for local transport-only for cars. No mention of doctors surgery/health centre, school, community centre..... Too many retail spaces-Norwich already has far too much empty retail. Pathetic amount of 'affordable' homes. All designed to appeal to people MOVING TO Norwich, not those already here. Light pollution from night lighting. MUST get rid of flyover which depresses whole area. Weston Homes-you need to do MUCH MUCH better.

Full text:

Very poor proposal at present. Too dense. No to hideous skyscraper. NOTHING in Norwich should be taller than the Cathedral spire. Dreary, unimaginative design - could be anywhere. Will be out of date almost before its finished - precisely the problem with the existing dreary, unimaginative design. Needs big injection of local personality in the design - softer, more local vernacular flavour, passivhaus standards, far more imagination in energy use and recycling - no mention of these. No mention of support for local transport - just more stupid carparking spaces. No mention of local services - doctors surgery or health centre, school, community centre..... Far too many retail spaces - Norwich already has far too many empty retail spaces. Where is the support for the local independents? Pathetic amount of 'affordable' homes - needs to be far higher. This proposal has been designed to appeal to people MOVING TO Norwich, not the people who already live here. See this statement from their proposal "Surrey Chapel would also be provided with a brand new £2.5 million home within the development". And this "at night, street lighting will illuminate the public realm". Great - yet more light pollution. Absolutely no encouragement for alternatives to car use. No mention of getting rid of the awful flyover which depresses the whole area - that should be an absolute first priority. Weston Homes - you need to do MUCH MUCH better than this.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 16302

Received: 21/03/2018

Respondent: Mrs. Karen Vincent

Representation Summary:

Rep made against: GNLP0506
As Member Champion for Heritage at Broadland DC, I am extremely concerned by the visual impact of the proposed tower block on the historic parkland of Catton Park. Catton Park is registered Grade II* in the English Heritage Register of Park and Gardens of Special Historic Interest [Norfolk] and the first commission of celebrated landscape gardener Humphry Repton. One of the key principles of Repton's design was the framing of the view towards Norwich Cathedral and if the proposed tower block is built it would irrevocably damage this historic view.

Full text:

Rep made against: GNLP0506
As Member Champion for Heritage at Broadland DC, I am extremely concerned by the visual impact of the proposed tower block on the historic parkland of Catton Park.

Catton Park is registered Grade II* in the English Heritage Register of Park and Gardens of Special Historic Interest [Norfolk] and the first commission of celebrated landscape gardener Humphry Repton. One of the key principles of Repton's design was the framing of the view towards Norwich Cathedral and if the proposed tower block is built it would irrevocably damage this historic view.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 16436

Received: 22/03/2018

Respondent: Norwich Green Party

Representation Summary:

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.

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.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 16690

Received: 22/03/2018

Respondent: InfraRed UK Nominee 3 Ltd and InfraRed UK Nominee 4 Ltd (InfraRed)

Agent: GL Hearn

Representation Summary:

InfraRed believes that the 20,000 sqm of retail floorspace promoted at the Centre is unjustified. Anglia Square is considered a "Large District Centre" outside the City Centre in retail terms. Norwich City Council issued non-statutory guidance,(March 2017), which states that Anglia Square will continue have a greater focus on serving the convenience needs of the surrounding area. Anglia Square should perform a localised, complementary shopping role, which must be reflected in any resulting allocation.
Given the quantum of residential development that is being proposed at GNLP0506, the very significant increase in retail floorspace being proposed might not be subjected to proper scrutiny and assessments as to retail impact on the City Centre.
SEE ATTACHED LETTER

Full text:

InfraRed notes the submission, made by Iceni Projects Ltd, for the mixed-use redevelopment at Anglia Square (site GNLP0506). While InfraRed appreciates the redevelopment of Anglia Square has long been an aspiration of Norwich City Council, InfraRed believes that the 20,000 sqm of retail floorspace promoted at the Centre is unjustified.
Anglia Square is considered a "Large District Centre" outside the City Centre in retail terms. It sits below the City Centre in terms of the retail hierarchy, and the adopted Joint Core Strategy (JCS) Policy 19 supports retail floorspace that this location, but at a scale that is appropriate to its form and function.
Anglia Square was formerly allocated pursuant to the Northern City Centre Area Action Plan (NCAAP); however this AAP reached its 10 year limit in 2016 and is no longer adopted policy. Notwithstanding this, it is noted that the AAP supported (in former policy AS2) some 3,600 sqm of retail development, principally in the form of a foodstore with more limited, complementary retail provision of units below 200sqm.
Following expiration of the NCAAP, the Council issued non-statutory guidance, in the form of the Anglia Square and Surrounding Area Policy Guidance Note (March 2017) (hereafter, PGN). Though not policy, this document is used as a "material consideration" in the determination of planning applications in this area. While this no longer identified appropriate retail floorspaces within any development at Anglia Square, the PGN states (para 7.27) that,
"The Council will encourage the provision of a higher quality retail environment with additional retail floorspace, whilst acknowledging that Anglia Square will continue to perform a different role to the primary retail area of the City Centre, with a greater focus on serving the convenience needs of the largely residential areas to the north, east and west." (Our emphasis).
The stance of both the NCAAP and the PGN, in identifying Anglia Square as a "complementary" offer to the City Centre is supported in the evidence base, notably the Council's 2007 Retail Study.
In terms of the 2017 Retail Study in support of the GNLP, this concurs with the approach that supports the redevelopment of Anglia Square, but considers that (para 5.1) Anglia Square's role remains one of "meeting more localised shopping needs". As noted above, InfraRed also notes the Retail Study's identification of an over-supply of retail floorspace, at least in the short-term.
Accordingly, InfraRed considers that the quantum of additional retail floorspace outlined by the site promoters is not properly justified. Anglia Square performs a role and function consummate with its allocation as a District Centre, within the hierarchy of centres. InfraRed contends that additional retail capacity, should it be needed, should be accommodated within Town Centre Sites (i.e. within Norwich City Centre) first.
Anglia Square performs, and should perform, a localised, complementary shopping role, which must be reflected in any resulting allocation.
InfraRed is concerned that, given the additional quantum of residential development that is being proposed in Iceni's submission at GNLP0506, that the very significant increase in retail floorspace being proposed might not be subjected to proper scrutiny and assessments as to retail impact on the City Centre. InfraRed therefore opposes the quantum of retail floorspace proposed in that submission on this basis.
Conclusion
InfraRed is broadly supportive of the Growth Options as a document which seeks to support the role and function of Norwich City Centre. As explained InfraRed seeks to ensure that there is the necessary flexibility within the forthcoming GNLP allowing for a mix of town centre uses within Primary Shopping Area.
Within the Site Proposals document, InfraRed considers that the site promoter's identification for 20,000 sqm of retail floorspace at Anglia Square is unjustified. This in in light of both the changing town centre and retail environment and capacity identified in the representations on the Growth Options identified above, and also
the appropriate role of Anglia Square as a District Centre, intended to complement, not compete with, the Retail and Town Centre offer of the City Centre and provide for local shopping needs.