GNLP0581

Mixed residential and industrial. Access via Bowthorpe roundabout NOT Dereham Road & Lodge Farm.power cables now underground, pylons removed. Although in river valley, it's considerably higher (contours at 40m rather than 20m along R Tud Valley). development here avoids flood plain and most of river valley. Amenity land adjacent to south. S106 and CIL to provide infrastructure at Longwater Interchange and surrounding roads, schools, surgeries.bus link extension via Bowthorpe roundabout to Showground and Easton opportunities for bus lanes and cycleways to discourage cars. development needs MINIMUM TWO exits.

I am a resident of Bowthorpe whose house overlooks the area. I am not in principle opposed to the development of the land, as I recognise that the area has some potential and the need for housing, but I would like to provide feedback on some aspects of how it might potentially be developed.

1. Access - If this site is to be used then there should only be access for cars created from the North - it would be inappropriate to feed any more traffic through the Bowthorpe estate as this is already congested. In particular connecting development to the Chapel Break area would risk creating rat runs. However it would be a good idea to connect the land to the end of the cycle route on Bewfeld close/Cutler way. New Road to the South is essentially a country lane and would also not be suitable to have additional access created.

2. Maintaining wild areas - the land on the Eastern side of the area is currently not cultivated and provides a valuable open space. Many of the houses built in this area are lacking substantial gardens space, and this area is an important area for wildlife as well as dog walking and exercise. Deer are often seen here for example. If at all possible this area should be preserved as a communal space.

3. Overshadowing existing houses - some of the land in the South East corner of the proposed development rises sharply from the existing housing. Therefore there is a risk that townhouse style development here would create substantial shading and privacy invasion of the existing chapel break housing - this is the same area identified above as a wild space, and overall any development would be substantially more pleasant for this area if this was kept as a green break in the development.

4.Cycle/foot access over the A47 - currently bowthorpe is cut off from Bawburgh by the A47 for anyone not driving, any development of this site should include the creation of a useable foot/cycle route to Bawburgh.

I am very disappointed to see housing development plans at this site. I live on Draper way and as I and many of my neighbours do, we enjoy access to such an undulating and open field where we can quickly escape urbanisation to exercise our dogs and walk in nature. I regularly see kestrels, muntjac deer, rabbits, pheasants and red kites in the fields which is are a pleasure to see so close to built up areas. Having lived on Draper Way for 14 years I have seen the increase in traffic and desperate need for car parking just in our small estate. Mine and my neighbours cars have been damaged in hit and run incidents because we have to park on the road. Opening up our field to be built on will only massively increase traffic, parking issues, noise, pollution and a stretch on our already overworked Doctors at the two local surgeries. Longwater area is severely busy with cars and walking around Roundhouse traffic lights and city bound Dereham Road, the pollution is strongly smelt as I experienced recently. This area is rapidly losing its green spaces and thus wildlife. Surely we shouldn't let nature be lost to urbanisation?

Will contribute to urban sprawl expansion. Loss of vital natural green space.Not sustainable in terms of increased motor traffic on New Road and Dereham Road

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.

The Friends of the Tud Valley is a community based group in Costessey set up to protect and enhance the River Tud valley. We have the following comments on the proposals in the local plan:

GNLP0039
We object to this as a development site. The site is inn the Tud River valley and hosing development would adversely affect the visual and landscape character of the valley. It is also outside the settlement boundary of Old Costessey.
GNLP0489
We object to this as a development site. The site is inn the Tud River valley and hosing development would adversely affect the visual and landscape character of the valley.
GNLP0284
We object to this as a development site. The site is inn the Tud River valley and hosing development would adversely affect the visual and landscape character of the valley. It is also outside the settlement boundary of Old Costessey.
GNLP0206
We object to this as a development site. The site is inn the Tud River valley and hosing development would adversely affect the visual and landscape character of the valley. It is also outside the settlement boundary of Old Costessey.
GNLP0510
We object to this as a development site. The site is inn the Tud River valley and hosing development would adversely affect the visual and landscape character of the valley. It is also outside the settlement boundary of Old Costessey.
GNLP0238
We object to this as a development site. The site is inn the Tud River valley and hosing development would adversely affect the visual and landscape character of the valley. It is also outside the settlement boundary of Old Costessey. There have been two recent planning applications which have both been refused because of the adverse impact on the Tud river valley.
GNLP0243
We object to this as a development site. The site is inn the Tud River valley and hosing development would adversely affect the visual and landscape character of the valley. It is also outside the settlement boundary of Old Costessey.
GNLP0266
We support this site for housing development as it is outside the Tud valley
GNLP0581
We support this site for development as it is outside the Tud valley

TUD VALLEY BOUNDARY

The boundary of the Tud river valley should be adjusted in Old Costessey to include the Farmland Road site (GLDP 0238) and to go up to the boundary of East Hills woods. There should also be an explicit policy statement in the plan with the objective of enhancing the character of the river valley and stating that there will be a presumption against new development in the Tud valley.

I will be grateful if these comments can be considered as part of the GNLP review

John Newby
Chair Friends of the Tud Valley

GNLP 0039: Site off Townhouse Road: REFUSE: Not a suitable site. There is a High-Pressure Gas Main in the vicinity and a Gas Pumping Station adjacent to the site. This is in the designated river valley and the flood plain between the R Tud and the R Wensum and is separate from the rest of Costessey development.
GNLP 0206 Land south of Townhouse Road (along river valley to Longwater Lane) (See also GNLP 0284). REFUSE. Not a suitable site. High pressure gas main runs through this site. It is in the designated River Valley and would impact on the valuable landscape characteristics of the river valley. Would impact on the surrounding characteristics of the area and the listed church adjacent. Access from the brow of the hill or from Longwater Lane by the bridge. Longwater Lane is a rat run. This is the river valley flood plain and floods, with wide variations in the river height after rain. There is a history of refusals along the river valley - see old Doctor's surgery which was only approved on the condition that it was not a residential dwelling, also the Costessey Centre had to be built on the site of a previous building not in the preferred location by the river because of the river valley and flood plain. There is no overriding community benefit which would justify development on this site.
GNLP 0238: Farmland Road: REFUSE. Not a suitable site. In the designated River Valley (which should be extended to the edge of East Hills Woods and to cover the whole of this site for consistency). In a floodplain, which regularly floods. Appears on official flood maps for both surface water and fluvial flooding risks. Contaminated land. Applications on this site have been rejected TWICE by SNC's DMC on the grounds of damage to the valuable landscape characteristics of the river valley (2015/2927, 2016/2430 & 2017/0420). Difficult and unsuitable access from the brow of the hill. Unsustainable location.
GNLP 0243: Land behind Ash Grove, Longwater Lane: REFUSE: Not a suitable site. Would set a precedent for backland development in the river valley and would impact on the valuable landscape characteristics of the river valley.
GNLP 0266: APPROVE FOR MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT WITH CERTAIN CAVEATS. However, concerns were expressed about breaching the capped landfill site, which is contaminated land. It was noted that a recent application C/7/2017/7018 was to extend the use of the landfill gas compound until December 2030, which suggests that the use of this site would not be possible before then. The site suffered badly from the gases before it was capped with neighbouring farmers' livestock killed and crops affected. There is a high-pressure gas main running through the site. Note: Costessey TC does NOT support NCC's proposed relief road running through this site, particularly as it is suggested it would exit into the already congested A1074 Dereham Road opposite the entrance to Lodge Farm Phase 2. Any relief road should be re-routed or exit onto the A47 / Longwater Interchange, not onto the stretch of A1074 which is already congested.
The strip of land fronting Dereham Road is protected Turnpike woodland belt. The north-west spur towards the golf course should not be built on as it is too close to the river valley, but could be used as amenity land in conjunction with residential land if necessary. Benefits of S 106 and CIL might help provide infrastructure improvement at the Longwater Interchange and the surrounding roads / schools /surgeries etc.
GNLP 0284: Land South of Townhouse Road: (See also GNLP 0206). REFUSE. Not a suitable site. In the designated River Valley and would impact on the valuable landscape characteristics of the river valley. Would impact on the surrounding characteristics of the area and the listed church adjacent. Access from the brow of the hill. TWO previous applications on this site have been turned down.
GNLP 0468: Land north of Ringland Lane: REFUSE. Not a suitable site. Opposite the exit to Queen's Hills bus lane. This area floods, as does Taverham Lane. This is in the River valley of the R. Wensum. Nearby tracks are not adopted and there is a possibility that nearby Costessey Pits which provide Norwich's drinking water, could be contaminated. There are no mains sewers in this location and the site is detached from the rest of Costessey's development.
GNLP 0489: Gunton Lane: REFUSE: Not a suitable site. Anglian Water have many large pipes (approx. 32 pipes) running underground through this site including a high-pressure water supply pipe from East Hills Woods into Norwich, a main sewer pipe and an attenuation tank between the two. These pipes are over 2m high and in the bottom south east corner where the site narrows, there is a main drain from Bowthorpe running to the River Wensum and the River Tud floods across part of this site - it is currently covered in mud.
GNLP 0510: Land off Longwater Lane: REFUSE. Not a suitable site. Previous applications turned down as in the designated river valley (latest was 2014/1036). Would set a precedent for backland development in the river valley and would impact on the valuable landscape characteristics of the river valley. Would be a loss of green amenity land. Access onto Longwater Lane would be difficult as this is a busy and congested rat run. Longwater Lane is subject to regular surface water flooding, the slope onto the site make flooding of the properties more likely.
GNLP 0581: Land south of Lodge Farm Phase 2: APPROVE for Mixed Use Development eg. residential and a possible extension of the existing industrial area. Access should be via roads from the Bowthorpe roundabout and NOT from Dereham Road via Lodge Farm. The power cables have now been relocated underground, so pylons have been removed. Note: Costessey Councillors do not recognise the extension of Bawburgh Lane around the corner as "Long Lane". Long Lane to them is what is printed on the map as "New Road", which causes confusion. Although this site is mentioned as being in a river valley, it is considerably higher (contours at 40m rather than the 20m or less on sites along the R Tud Valley and development here could avoid the flood plain and the main part of the river valley. Amenity lands would be adjacent to the south. Benefits of S106 and CIL might help provide infrastructure improvement at the Longwater Interchange and the surrounding roads / schools /surgeries etc. A possible bus link extension could be created via the Bowthorpe roundabout to the Showground and Easton (also to be developed). There are opportunities for bus lanes and cycleways to help discourage car use. Any development here would need a MINIMUM of TWO exits. Hills were the result of spoil heaps from Bawburgh pits being dug.
Square of land adjacent to south-west of GNLP 0581: Abandoned solar farm: CTC suggests this could be offered as suitable building land.
GNLP 0593: Engineering Works: APPROVE for residential development. Cllr T East declared a pecuniary interest as he lives in St Walstan's Close which backs onto the site. Access should be off Millcroft Close, rather than directly from Dereham Road which is too busy and congested. Tree belt along back of St Walstan's Close was established to protect residents from engineering works and should be retained.
GNLP 0270. Land South of Costessey Lane: REFUSE. Not a suitable site. Technically this is in Drayton, but the southern part of this site backs onto the river and Marriott's Way. This part of 0270 is in flood plain and floods regularly. Impact on the river valley.