GNLP0416

Showing comments and forms 1 to 7 of 7

Comment

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 13567

Received: 05/03/2018

Respondent: Mrs Mary Dorrell

Representation:

No safe pedestrian access down Church Lane to the core of the village and the main bus stop/shelter (hourly to Norwich) .... from this route only twice a day to Norwich.

Full text:

No safe pedestrian access down Church Lane to the core of the village and the main bus stop/shelter (hourly to Norwich) .... from this route only twice a day to Norwich.

Comment

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 13608

Received: 06/03/2018

Respondent: Mr James Thomson

Representation:

No footpath between the site and the main village. Cars tend to travel very quickly between Barnham Broom and Barford which may create a safety issue if no pedestrian access is provided between this site and the main village. Forcing any new residents to use cars to drop children off at the school in the village would increase the congestion issue at drop-off and pick-up times.

View of church may be obscured, and privacy of church events may be jeopardised.

Buses are only twice a day from this location.

Full text:

No footpath between the site and the main village. Cars tend to travel very quickly between Barnham Broom and Barford which may create a safety issue if no pedestrian access is provided between this site and the main village. Forcing any new residents to use cars to drop children off at the school in the village would increase the congestion issue at drop-off and pick-up times.

View of church may be obscured, and privacy of church events may be jeopardised.

Buses are only twice a day from this location.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 15406

Received: 21/03/2018

Respondent: Su Waldron

Representation:

I object on the grounds that the development would be detrimental to the open church setting and landscape.

Full text:

I object on the grounds that the development would be detrimental to the open church setting and landscape.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 15570

Received: 22/03/2018

Respondent: Professor Keith Waldron

Representation:

I believe that building on this site is likely to have a detrimental impact on the (hill-top) open landscape view to and from the Church.

Full text:

I believe that building on this site is likely to have a detrimental impact on the (hill-top) open landscape view to and from the Church.

Comment

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 15763

Received: 22/03/2018

Respondent: Wramplingham Parish Council

Representation:

Increased traffic with any development will be detrimental to the Parish which is predominantly served by rural narrow roads. There is no safe cycling route or footpath between the site and the main village centre. There are poor public transport links which will increase the use of cars and commuting. Barford flood amelioration scheme and sewage system is already at capacity as has been regularly demonstrated by floods and sewage egress into residents' gardens. Church landscape will be severely affected.

Full text:

Barford & Wramplingham Parish Council held two public meetings which were both very well attended with over 40 residents attending each meeting. The Parish Council created a Parish Plan in 2010 and the views of the residents within this are still valid and should be considered. Further concerns raised are as follows:
* Traffic - increased traffic with any development will be detrimental to the Parish which is predominantly served by narrow rural roads. There is no safe cycling route between the site and the main village centre.
* Pedestrian access - there are very limited footpaths in the Parish and no footpath from the site to the main village centre.
* There is a lack of facilities within the village and poor public transport links. This will increase the use of cars and commuting which will affect many other areas as well as our parish.
* Flooding - the run off surface water from this site would enter the Barford flood amelioration scheme which is already working at near capacity. Any increase in water would be seriously detrimental to residential properties within Barford village.
* Flooding - Barford sewage system is already at capacity as has been regularly demonstrated by sewage egress into residents' gardens.
* Any development in this area would ruin the open landscape nature of the Church environment.

Comment

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 16504

Received: 20/03/2018

Respondent: Norfolk Wildlife Trust

Representation:

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.

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.

Comment

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 16558

Received: 22/03/2018

Respondent: Mrs Valerie Broomhead

Representation:

GNLP0416 by the Church Grade II listed building significant impact. Barford is a small village between two rivers - the Yare and Tiffey. Much of the surface drainage runs from the top of the village down Park Avenue heading for the Tiffey. Flooding and running surface water does still occur in the lower end of the village. the land between Barford and Wymondham acts as a flood plain and Wymondham is already under pressure. The roads running through Barford are already unfit for purpose being narrow and bounded by hedges or fields. e.g. B1108

Full text:

Our main comments focus on sites GNLP 0552, GNLP1013, GNLP 0014 and GNLP0416.
* GNLP0416 is by the Church and would have significant impact on the immediate area around this Grade II listed building.
* GNLP 0014 is an area which is always damp and would require significant drainage work.
* GNLP1013 would extend an area already due for development of 10 dwellings.
* GNLP 0552 is a huge proposal which would destroy the character of the two villages and put a huge burden on the infrastructure in the villages.

Relevant to all these proposed sites is the fact that Barford is a small village between two rivers - the Yare and Tiffey.
Already when it rains much of the surface drainage runs from the top of the village down Park Avenue heading for the Tiffey.
Flooding and running surface water does still occur in the lower end of the village.
Should any of these developments proceed we suggest it would pose insurance difficulty and issues for people living in the properties being so close to water courses.
Much of the land between Barford and Wymondham acts as a flood plain and Wymondham is already under pressure in many respects as it takes up 2650 developments.
The roads running through Barford are already unfit for purpose being narrow and bounded by hedges or fields. The B1108 is particularly difficult dealing with increased traffic to the
UEA, hospital, Science Park and commuters heading for Norwich from an ever expanding Hingham and Watton.
According to the proposed sites shown in the villages surrounding Barford there would be significant infilling between the villages and this may cause them to merge resulting in the potential for
flooding as green land would be covered by buildings.
Infill that includes Colton Woods would be a disaster for local wildlife and impact drainage yet again.

The issue of roads, schools, Doctors, shops, public transport in such a rural area are well known and need to be given serious consideration in conjunction with our personal comments.


We understand that many designated areas already approved are still awaiting development. Surely these need to be completed and their impact assessed before further radical developments take place.

Richard Mann/Valerie Broomhead