GNLP0210

Bergh Apton was a small rural farming village, recent developments and the solar farm construction has already seen an increase in traffic, including heavy construction traffic. The mainly single carriage way roads around the village,and the only two roads into the village are already showing signs of erosion from increased traffic and the bank on the side of Slade Lane is looking in danger of collapse. At school drop off and collections times the single roads are unsafe to walk on or for children to cycle to school on. The road safety issue is no greater than for this site, being on a very narrow road and a tight corner, the area is a raised, undulating woodland area which is also neighbouring two conservation areas and a church.

This site is next to a listed building (the church), on a slope with terrible access. The site access would be on a bend with traffic going to the Recycling Centre. It is adjacent to the Bergh Apton Conservation Trust land and would disturb an important wildlife habitat.

* The site is adjacent to a listed church and any development would detract from this historical property.
* The site adjoins a County Wildlife site and protected species are identified in the vicinity.
* Development would detrimentally affect established woodland.
* The local road network is considered unsuitable. The site is situated on a hazardous stretch of road, compounded by being on the route for the Household Waste Recycling Centre and a building yard which when in operation produce significant levels of vehicular movement and large lorries, particularly during long weekend opening hours of the HWRC.
* It is a greenfield site

Further development in any of the villages along the A146 will cause the road to become even more congested. It is hard enough to cross the A146 traffic at many times of the day as it is.
One of the attractions of Bergh Apton is its dispersed nature, interspersing houses with agricultural land & woods.
Infill is not necessarily a good thing - except where there are buildings similar in character already.
This site is absolutely not one of them.
The proposed location is a wild wooded corner abutting the ancient and much used Church. For the proposer to say it is NOT USED implies that only developed land is "used". To develop this location is an affront to the whole village - its present "use" adds to the attractive character of the village probably more than any other.
The road junction is already difficult without a further flow of traffic that might even create the need for a roundabout. It is also on a blind slope, often impassable in icy conditions, at a point where pedestrian church users would become more vulnerable.
Furthermore there is NO other development in the vicinity with which new 'contemporary' housing might be complementary.
This proposal should be rejected immediately and permanently.

The road is totally unsuitable being on a difficult junction.
It is a sloping wooded area next to the church & adjacent to a wildlife site.

This site is totally unsuitable.

Site joins County Wildlife site and dvelopment could harm flora. fauna and protected species there.
Unspecified number of houses too vague in area with historic church and County Wildlife area
Several "contemporary" houses massed together not suitable in area with ancient church and scattered houses built in varying styles and from different dates
Traffic already unsuitable due to Recycling Centre and visibility.

Site joins County Wildlife site and dvelopment could harm flora. fauna and protected species there.
Unspecified number of houses too vague in area with historic church and County Wildlife area
Several "contemporary" houses massed together not suitable in area with ancient church and scattered houses built in varying styles and from different dates
Traffic already unsuitable due to Recycling Centre and visibility.

There can be no reasons why a development in this area should be allowed. The proposed, heavily wooded site is adjacent to Bergh Apton church, grade II* listed and also shares a boundary with Bergh Apton Conservation Trust land. The removal of a considerable number of trees to allow for building would drastically change the character of this area.

Highly unsuitable site for development. Adjacent to Church and County Wildlife Site. Removal of the wooded area will completely change the landscape.

On a bad junction which already serves the recycling centre and its huge volume of traffic.

Traffic likely to be from A146 which have dangerous junctions at Thurton and Mill Road. Visibility from Mill Road at the Mill Road Crossroads is very restricted and becoming more dangerous with ever increasing traffic.

A most unsuitable site situated on dangerous bend on a through road from the recycling centre which takes a lot of traffic. Also adjacent to the Church and a County Wildlife Site. The removal of the woodland would have a huge impact on the rural landscape.

The Bergh Apton Conservation Trust is a registered charity (no. 1048271) which promotes the conservation of wildlife and biodiversity locally and provides relevant educational opportunities; it owns and manages a 10-acre Nature Reserve (County Wildlife Site CWS 2222). The Reserve harbours, among other things, endangered water voles, bats, reptiles, amphibians, a great diversity of birdlife, rare fungi and uncommon plants. I write as Chairman of the Trustees to object to this proposal.

This proposed development would impinge directly on our Nature Reserve (CWS 2222). It is adjacent to and contiguous with Church Plantation, the woodland half of our Reserve, and immediately upslope of Valley Marsh, the marshland half of the Reserve.

Situated on the northern slope of the valley of the River Chet, drainage from any development would inevitably be downslope, towards the river, through the sands and gravels, leading to eutrophication and other pollution of the groundwater of our marsh. We have an important groundwater-fed pond in the valley bottom whose ecological integrity (including clear water and macrophyte vegetation) is entirely dependent on maintaining the existing low-nutrient conditions. To see the inevitable consequences of nutrient enrichment one only has to look at the higher pond, which was designed to take the surface run-off from the nearby landfill site, en route to the River Chet: complete cover with duckweed, anaerobic smells and no submerged vegetation at all. Degradation of groundwater quality would also adversely affect the marsh vegetation and biodiversity that we, as a voluntary local community, have striven to restore to its excellent current state with many years of management activity.

In addition, the immediate proximity of dwellings, the fragmentation of the overall woodland area and inevitable associated disturbance would degrade the value of Church Plantation, both as a haven for wildlife and as a valued amenity for local people to walk and enjoy the countryside.

There are much more appropriate sites for development in the village of Bergh Apton.

This site is bordered on the east by the ancient parish church and it's churchyard whose quietness would be destroyed by this development. Inhabitants of houses on the proposed site would suffer from an uncomfortable domination by the promontory on which the church stands. To the south, lands of the Conservation Trust are home to flora and fauna whose habitat would be altered to their significant disadvantage. A poorly-sighted junction of three roads here, already hazarded by high usage by householder and contractor traffic using the adjacent HWRC, poses a significant hazard to both existing and potential householder safety.

this site adjoins the church and is located on a very busy road with poor visibility. The road has a 60mph speed limit, no footpaths and is very busy for a small village. Vehicles use this road to access the adjacent recycling site and the narrow roads are already frequently blocked at weekends by traffic waiting to enter the site.
A wholly unsuitable development site.

* This is a prominent site adjacent to the church and as such any development would detract from this historical property
* Development of this steeply sloping woodland area would detrimentally affect the wildlife in this location.
* Highway issues are of particular concern in this location given the proximity of the Household Waste Recycling Centre and construction yard and the levels of vehicles these generate. One might also suggest that potential purchasers may not regard this proximity as an advantage when considering the location for a home.

This site is adjoining a nature reserve containing rare and uncommon flora and fauna which is enjoyed by villagers and visitors for its tranquility and beauty.The site is also next to the parish church and graveyard, visited by many, as a site for peaceful contemplation. The road past the church and proposed site already poses a traffic hazard due to visitor parking on a narrow hill with a blind summit.The road on the other side of the site leads to the recycling centre and is heavily used.Cars driving uncertainly as they are looking for the recycling site adds to the dangerous road conditions.This is an extremely unsuitable site for development from environmental, cultural and safety grounds. I strongly oppose the development

Woodland adjacent to Church and County Wildlife Site.
Removing woodland would have a large impact on the rural landscape.
Busy road, near recycling centre. Dangerous bend.

I would like to support the use of GNLP0412 as the land best suited to development in Bergh Apton. Use of brownfield site with main drainage, and good access. The road is no worse than others in our village and will 'improve' the village compared to other sites which will not. Much less environmental impact.

I would like to object strongly to the use of GNLP0210.
This is easily the worst option of the five for Bergh Apton. Dangerous position, poor visibility for traffic and very bad environmental impacts. It would have a very negative impact on the village and to the surrounding green area and old church. Area already heavily used by refuge site and lots of traffic.

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.

GNLP0210 is a hillside location, part grazing paddocks and part woodland set between Bergh Apton Church, the nature reserve owned by Bergh Apton Conservation Trust and to the west meadowland and marshes of Valley Farm.
Development on GNLP0210 would destroy a unique area of attractive countryside which is enjoyed by people on the footpath running through the middle of this site. Development would damage the quality and sustaina­ bility of the nature reserve and ruin the efforts of local people who set up and funded the Conservation Trust in 1994 to protect this landscape and its wildlife.
Welbeck Road is narrow with many blind spots, already overloaded and sometimes blocked by traffic waiting to get into the N.C.C. Waste Recyding Centre - marked on Site Plan GNLP0210 attached.
There is not one valid reason to allow building on GNLP0210. This area of attractive countryside deserves protection against any threat of development in future.