GNLP0354

This is a potentially massive development into an area of natural beauty and would have a significant impact on several heritage sites and listed bulidings. It would also impact Morley and Wicklewood.

This would represent an appalling destruction of what is a very sensitive and rural area, also having views of the Wymondham Abbey. This would have a detrimental impact on the sensitive wildlife areas of Becketswell Road and proximity of Becketswell Meadow and the Abbey. Cavick Road is a very narrow road with cottages fronting right onto the road - this proposal is a step too far.

A housing estate which is far too large for the small historic town of Wymondham adding to traffic growth and pollution.

Representations submitted by Atkins Ltd on behalf of RJ Baker and Son:

Given this site's sustainable location in close proximity to Wymondham town centre and public transport, its proximity to existing infrastructure and the proposed creation of a substantial and easily accessible public open space as part of the development, it enjoys significant advantages over other proposed housing sites around Wymondham. Furthermore, the site is sufficiently large to facilitate the provision of appropriate social infrastructure, including a primary school and other community facilities.

Reference is made in the Wymondham Settlement Summary at Section 5.90 of the Site Proposals Document to the possible impact on the setting of Wymondham Abbey and other heritage assets of development at the 'town-side' of the site. To address this concern we have carried out a detailed assessment of views to and from the Abbey and of the setting of the Abbey, having regard to relevant Government guidance and current good practice. The findings of our study are set out in the Heritage Setting Appraisal report which was submitted under the Call for Sites on 14 August 2017. This evidence should be taken into consideration when the suitability of the site for inclusion in the published list of preferred sites is assessed as the Draft Local Plan is prepared.

Our analysis of the evidence collected and set out in the Heritage Setting Appraisal report, clearly demonstrates that:

* A housing development on the land at Johnson's Farm would not be visible from Wymondham Abbey because of the presence of screening trees, which would remain as part of the development.
* The development can be planned to safeguard existing views of the Abbey from locations in Bradman's Lane, which crosses the site, by incorporating view corridors towards the Abbey, free from obstruction.
* Housing development at Johnson's Farm would not impinge upon nor significantly harm the setting of the Abbey.

This site enjoys a number of clear advantages for housing development both in its own right and in comparison with other proposed sites, not least its proximity a few minutes' walk from the town centre and its potential to provide a new 35 acre park for the people of Wymondham. Importantly the proposed housing development on land at Johnson's Farm would exclude Becketswell Meadow which would be safeguarded from development and included in the proposed new park. Further open space would be provided at the south western (Wicklewood) end of the site. These community benefits and its sustainable location put this site at an advantage over other sites. This advantage plus the fact that the site can be developed for housing without significant harm to the setting and views of Wymondham Abbey, indicates that it should be identified as a preferred site for housing in the draft Local Plan.

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.

COMMENT RECIEVED DURING STAGE B

I've become aware of the revisions to the GNLP stage B but do not think I was made aware of stage A and in particular the proposals concerning GNLP0354 which I have strong reservations about. I am concerned due process may not have been followed but that if it has, developing the land would result in my isolated house being surrounded by new housing - so I would have expected to have been notified.
I have seen the supporting professional correspondence for this scheme - its flawed and inaccurate to say the views of the Abbey are not impacted. To say trees mask the plans is fine for half the year but in periods when there are no leaves new housing will be in sight of a 1000 year old Abbey. It is also not possible to say there will be no traffic impact on the small local largely single track roads dividing the site.
The main concern is the destruction of the historic rural setting and the impact on the Grade 1 buildings nearby and the National Trust land with its covenants and the Abbey Halt railway. An inappropriate place to develop housing and the pressures this would create on the rural setting, the roads, existing residents who do not generally have close neighbours. Schools, doctors, dentists and public transport would all be significantly impacted also. This is the wrong place for new development - leave the historic western approaches to the Abbey as they are

Part of this site is covered by a National Trust restrictive covenant. This was imposed by a former owner of the Cavick Estate for the purpose of preserving the character and appearance of the land and buildings that made up the estate. In spite of its proximity to the centre of Wymondham, the restrictive covenant has served well in ensuring that the estate has retained its rural character. The site comprises an attractive agricultural landscape that is part of the setting of the Cavick Estate and the valley to the west. The National Trust is concerned that the use of this for residential development would detrimentally affect the rural character of the landscape in general, and the setting of the Cavick Estate and the attractive access into Wymondham from the west in particular. The covenant may therefore have implications for the delivery of part of this site.

I object to GNLP0354, in the context that in choosing sites for allocation there are further sites for consideration that are of a scale and location that would cause less damage to the character and assets of land to the west of Wymondham.

The value of the area to the west of Wymondham is well recognised by the National Trust Covenant over Cavick House (and its Grade 1 listing) and the surrounding area, the extension to the Wymondham Conservation Area, the County Wildlife Site at Becketswell, the important heritage of Wymondham Abbey, and the Tiffey river valley.

Further this area is increasing well used for quiet recreation by many walkers, cyclists and runners and those seeking to enjoy the experience of the rural character of this area so close to Wymondham town centre. Such recreation is enjoyed without the need for new public open space or park as proposed by the development which would introduce unnecessary formalisation and urbanisation of facilities.

The development proposed would have a significant impact on the character and assets described above, and considerable and unsustainable impact on the quiet roads and lanes in this area.

I note that HELAA assessment for this site, despite the many red and amber assessments concludes 'suitable' but requires the removal of the County Wildlife Site, describes the eastern part as unacceptable precluding development and the western part requiring extensive mitigation which may make the western part unviable and not viable in its own right. Overcoming the constraints would seem to suggest such a wholesale change to the character of this area that Wymondham would loose its character and an important asset.

I note also that in the summary from the Regulation 18 Proposals Document GNLP0354 is not recorded within the list of sites offering potential for significant growth and I welcome the non inclusion of GNLP0354, and add my objection to those that I note have already been made.

Proximity to Cavick House Grade I listed building

Cavick House is a Grade 1 listed building (listing 29/12/1950) and therefore of exceptional interest and national importance. The value of its setting is reflected in the Grade 2 listing of all the nearby buildings and walls, including Cavick House Farm, that make up this early Georgian Farming Estate unique for Wymondham as it has all its original buildings intact.

The historic importance of Cavick House and its site is not in doubt. William D'Aubigny, the founder of Wymondham Abbey (1107) had a house on the site, which has been occupied since Saxon times. The HELAA December 2017 assessment guidance section 5.6 page 6 states that a 400m buffer was used to "alert those assessing sites to the presence of historic environment assets". Cavick House and its setting seem to have been ignored in both the submission and the desktop review.

Historic England's guidance on the "Setting of Heritage Assets" sets out clearly the full considerations to be taken into account by planners. The wider setting of Cavick House and its historic estate are essential to understanding its important role in the heritage, history and development of Wymondham. There is no reflection of this, thus far, in the site review comments.

National Trust Covenant

The previous owner of Cavick House, Sybilla Jane Bailey, granted a covenant to the National Trust over Cavick House in July 1955, set out as follows:

"All that capital messuage or mansion house known as Cavick House with the gardens, farm buildings , lands and heriditaments occupied or held therewith containing 118.362 acres or thereabouts situate in the Parish of Wymondham in the County of Norfolk".

This covenant is still in force. Beyond the inclusion of much of Cavick Farm to the north and west, it also extends south across Cavick Road, east to the River Tiffey, west to Bradmans Lane and south to Preston Avenue. (image attached).

Wymondham Town Conservation Area

In 2012 the Conservation Area was extended beyond the boundaries set in 1974 to include Cavick House. The Appraisal and Management Plan said of Cavick:

The ancillary buildings, structures and landscaping to the house, with the barns and farmhouse to the north, combine to create one of the most significant groups of historic buildings in the district.

The inclusion of the core of the Cavick Estate confirms its importance as an essential component of Wymondham's heritage and the intention of the Town and South Norfolk to ensure its future protection.

Historic Environment and Local Heritage

The area to the west of Wymondham has retained its historic character. Development to the west was effectively halted by the building of Wymondham Abbey leaving farming as the major activity. Cavick House, Dykebeck Farm, Wicklewood Old Hall, Gonville Hall and Burfield Hall are all evidence of the pattern of use and husbandry. The western access to Wymondham and its Abbey has remained largely unchanged since before the dissolution of the Abbey in the 1530's.

The present, largely unchanged configuration and landscape are valuable in understanding the development of Wymondham's heritage and the key role of the Abbey and post dissolution landowners in shaping the enviroment.

The Kett brothers owned land to the west, Cavick and Gonville in particular. The visibility and awareness of the historical importance of Ketts rebellion is increasing. The recent novel by the best selling author C.J Sansom, Tombland, contains a detailed description of the events around the rebellion and their settings, including Wymondham . There is no doubt that it will attract further visitors to Wymondham.

The Mid Norfolk Railway's Abbey Halt on Cavick Road draws considerable numbers of visitors and is a valuable and important heritage asset, known nationally. The Egg Shed and Café at Cavick House Farm are now an established feature, used by increasing numbers of residents and visitors.


Environmental Considerations

The proposed submission for this site offers up the water meadows opposite Cavick House towards the river Tiffey and other land totalling 15ha as a public open space is not within the gift of the landowner, given the restrictive covenants that apply. Further, the water meadows are of high environmental interest, as has been confirmed by the interest and engagement of the Norfolk Wildlife Trust. They need environmentally sensitive management. The opening up of these meadows as open areas for public use would inevitably lead to the destruction of important natural habitats for plants and wildlife.

The Atkins letter of submission for site 0354 dated 14 August 2017 talks to the views of Wymondham Abbey as a consequence of the proposed development. It only considers views from one direction - from Bradmans Lane to the west. It does not take into consideration the views from Cavick House, nor those of other residents, including Crossing Cottage and Cavick Cottages, The Beeches. There is a dip from the ridge line of the western Tiffey valley on Bradmans Lane as it descends Cavick Road. Any housing development to the east of Bradmans Lane would create a sequence of roofs and, possibly, upper windows that would overlook all the above properties, diminishing and damaging current views towards the proposed development.

The proposal to turn some of the fields into an open space would change the views from Cavick House and impact negatively on the overall settings of both Cavick and the Abbey. The arguments put forward that existing trees provide a screen outside the development are wholly specious and at odds with the irrevocable nature of the proposed development.

Increased vehicle movements from the proposed settlement and the proposed disappearance of Bradmans Lane, subsumed into the development, would create intolerable pressure on Cavick Road as an access point to the Abbey and historic centre of Wymondham from the west. Cavick Road is narrow without room for two vehicle passing as it approaches Bradmans Lane, with a blind bend at Cavick Cottages. It is not suitable for widening. This would destroy its historic pattern, present look and feel, adversely impact on the natural environment, be in contravention of the various covenants that affect it, adversely affect air quality and increase traffic noise .

The night sky to the west of Wymondham is clear and visible, largely unaffected by the light pollution of the settlements to the east. The proposed development would destroy this.

Community Leisure Resource

Recent years have seen a marked rise in the number of residents and visitors using this side of Wymondham for leisure purposes.

Cavick Road, Dykebeck and Bradmans Lane represent a significant leisure asset for Wymondham, which, with over 2000 new homes already planned under the Local Development framework, is facing a rapidly growing demand for leisure provision.

Taken with the Tiffey riverside walks, the use of the riverside for outdoor events in the summer, the draw of the Mid Norfolk railway and the Egg Shed and café at Cavick House Farm this is an important area for Wymondham drawing visitors beyond the historic town centre to enjoy and explore with access to open country side and historic buildings which enhance and enjoyment and understanding of Wymondham's rich heritage. The proposal for the provision of "open spaces" on the eastern side of the site for the use of residents and visitors is inconsistent with the existing use and enjoyment of this approach to Wymondham. Far from enhancing the provision of leisure assets the proposals would diminish them and create permanent damage.

Site 0354 would encircle the western approach to Wymondham, remove Bradmans Lane and, effectively, convert the extension to the town conservation area into an oasis. The limitations this would place on leisure use would be profound at a time when the significant existing planned growth will increase demand for local leisure resources.




In summary, development on this site would adversely impact the setting of Wymondham's heritage, breach existing protective listings and covenants, diminish leisure provision for residents and visitors and create permanent environmental damage.

I am writing to express my concern about the proposed development under the above named reference. My family and I have lived at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx(previously xxxxxxxxx Farmhouse) for the last 16 years and have become increasingly aware of this area's importance to the recreational well being of Wymondham. Cavick Road and it's surrounding countryside and dwellings provide Wymondham with a breathings space and gateway out into the countryside. In these 16 years there has been a significant increase in leisure use of the area by runners, walkers and cyclists. I would not want any such development to stifle the intangible but considerable benefits this brings.

The proposed development abutts the National Trust covenanted land of the historic Cavick Farm estate, include my house. Those properties covered by the covenant are subject to strict controls which protect the aesthetics and environment from discordant development. This proposed development could be so discordant.

Access to Wymondham from the development could create serious disruption for existing Cavick Road residents due to a number of bottlenecks at the Tiffey bridge and between our house and New Covert.

I also have concerns about how any consultation might have been conducted. We do not receive any local newspapers, ironically because we are too remote to be reached for normal deliveries. Anecdotally I also understand that Preston avenue residents are not aware of this proposal which would directly affect them.

I realise that councils have to identify sites to meet government targets and am commenting not on the devastating effect any development of this land would have on my own property, but the area as a whole.

1. The size of the plot is very large, extending from the Mid-Norfolk Railway almost to Wicklewood. There is already a major development proposed south of the B1172 London Road (application 2018/2758). If this site is also used, it would represent massive overdevelopment of a rural area and increasing encroachment on greenfield sites.
2. The eastern side of the site would adversely affect the nature of the historical area around Wymondham Abbey and its grounds, and also the river valley landscape.
3. The existing roads bordering the site are narrow and inadequate to cope with the resulting increase in traffic volumes. The western side of the site is not within reach of public transport and this would have a huge effect on traffic volumes in a rural setting. This would also impact on parking in the centre of Wymondham , which is already problematical at busy times.
4. As the proposed development is for 400 homes, this would have a detrimental effect on the already stretched healthcare services. There are only 2 doctor's surgeries and 3 NHS dental surgeries. When we moved to Wymondham 3 1/2 years ago, we had to wait over 2 years to enrol as patients at a dental practice.
5. There would be loss of habitat for wildlife in the area. Barn owls are regularly seen flying over land alongside Bradmans Lane, and we often see bats on summer evenings behind our house in London Road.
6. The new housing would not sit well with the existing older properties in the west of the town, particularly in the Cavick Road area.
7. Due to the size of the site, there would be traffic and noise disruption for quite a few years, as sites are usually built in phases, the early ones funding the later ones, as seen with the ongoing building work at the Oakwood Park development. As a lot of the new properties being built (eg in Norwich Common and West Gate Gardens) do not sell for a year or more, this could stretch the construction period of a large site to possibly 5 years.

Please find attached a submission on behalf of our client RJ Baker and Son, the owners and promoters of Land at Johnson's Farm (site reference GNLP0354) to the Regulation 18 new, Revised and Small sites Consultation.

Our submission comprises the following documentation:
* A covering letter
* Written Representation report
* A map of proposed Wymondham sites
* A revised Heritage Report
* Previously submitted Masterplan for Land at Johnson's Farm (2011)

See attachments

We are emailing to inform of our objection with regards to the greater Norwich local plan GNLP0354 land at Johnsons farm. We have recently move to Wymondham and we are aware of many large developments within the town and rural land which has been lost/sold for development. Not only this but also the increased stress/demand on local services such as dentist, schools and doctors surgeries has also meant that we have had to travel many times out of area to be able to access such services.

The reasons for our objection would be the overlooking/loss of privacy to our property. At present our house overlooks beautiful landscapes including with view of the abbey in the far distance which is why we chose this part of Wymondham to move to earlier this year. The Abbey is a beautiful landmark within Wymondham and to build on land surrounding this would bring extra noise and disturbance to the natural beauty and character of the Abbey and surrounding landscape.

We are concerned that development on the scale proposed will have a detrimental effect on an important amenity for Wymondham. As local residents we have been aware of the increasing use of the local road for leisure. The premier route for cycling, walking and running in Wymondham leaves past the Abbey, crosses the mid Norfolk railway, passes Cavick Hall and then enjoys the lovely views and quiet country roads of Bradmans Lane and High Oak Road. It has been adopted by the biannual Wymondham 10 k run as well as local cycle events because of this charm.

We hope that this asset to Wymondham will not be spoilt.