GNLP0323

Showing comments and forms 1 to 5 of 5

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 13676

Received: 08/03/2018

Respondent: Bixley Parish Council

Representation Summary:

The location is remote from the highway and access to the site is poor.

Full text:

We note that the site would be used for mixed commercial uses, on a previously agricultural site and appreciate this would reuse redundant, non-residential elements of the site.

The location is, however, remote from the highway and access to the site from the B1332 is at a point where visibility for vehicles approaching from Norwich is particularly poor. This could cause a hazard for Poringland bound traffic, traffic turning into the site from Poringland or that leaving the site. We are of the view that this would represent a serious hazard and for this reason we consider that it would be an unsuitable access point for a venture of this nature if regular usage of the access point was required.

From an archaeological perspective, the site encroaches onto the site of Bixley medieval village, which is listed as a scheduled monument.

Comment

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 14877

Received: 20/03/2018

Respondent: Ms Ann Symonds

Representation Summary:

This development would produce a lot of additional traffic on what is already a very busy B road.

Environmentally it would spread the urbanisation further into the country side.

The housing requirement for the area has already been achieved without the need for further development.

The local infrastructure is not in place to support a development of this size.

Full text:

This development would produce a lot of additional traffic on what is already a very busy B road.

Environmentally it would spread the urbanisation further into the country side.

The housing requirement for the area has already been achieved without the need for further development.

The local infrastructure is not in place to support a development of this size.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 15712

Received: 22/03/2018

Respondent: Mr Trevor Lewis

Representation Summary:

I agree with the official assessment

Full text:

I agree with the official assessment

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 16420

Received: 19/03/2018

Respondent: Poringland Parish Council

Representation Summary:

GNLP0323 - would be a welcome development if access along the lane can be seen as adequate. OPPOSE

Full text:

Site Specifics

GNLP1032 - Favour: Site is to north of the village so would not create traffic through the village. Matches up the other side of the road. Against: Is Grade 2 ag land, and contributes to the linear vision of the village. SUPPORT

GNLP0485 - This huge site would at a stroke integrate Arminghall/Bixley with the Poringland conurbation. It has significant landscape, archaeological and environmental issues. It is far too far from any facilities and would be unsustainably reliant upon cars. OPPOSE

GNLP0131 - This is a smaller site but again unsustainably far from public transport, excessively reliant upon cars with no pavement in the vicinity and little prospect of being able to construct one. OPPOSE

GNLP0491 - This would significantly alter the form and size of Caistor St Edmund on archaeologically important site in open countryside. It is a form of 'backland' development. Access is severely limited. No access to public transport, no pavements to village and schools. OPPOSE

GNLP0494 - The access to this site is significantly constrained. Flood risk, no drainage, comes out very near a junction. OPPOSE

GNLP1047 - Access to this site is severely constrained. It is former RAF site so may well be subject to contamination. Site dominated by the mast towers. Form would consolidate development each side of the Stoke Road leading to further infill development. OPPOSE

GNLP0321 - Site is to north of the village so would not create traffic through the village. Matches up the other side of the road. However is Grade 2 agricultural land, and contributes to the linear vision of the village. SUPPORT

GNLP0589A - This would exacerbate the 'octopus' nature of the conurbation and would detract from an area of scenic value otherwise sadly lacking in this area. OPPOSE

GNLP0589B - Leading on from the development of the Long Road, Hibbett and Key site and the EACH site this would be a logical development. It would mean the loss of significant landscape value in Spur Lane. If it could be developed at a distance from the tree lined Spur Lane it might well be viable. Will have a significant impact upon the subterranean drainage flow towards Long Road and Poringland surface water drainage systems. SUPPORT

GNLP0391A - Flooding issues. Road network not suitable. Semi-detached from the village - contributing to the 'octopus' of development with drainage issues. Intrudes upon an area of landscape value between Framingham Earl and St Andrew's Church. OPPOSE

GNLP0391B - Similar arguments to those against the site south of Burgate Lane. OPPOSE

GNLP0003 - Isolated site in open countryside, contrary to policy, detached from the conurbation should not even be considered as a valid site. OPPOSE

GNLP0223 - Significant access problems with no comfortable access through the Norfolk Homes development. Would alter significantly the 'shape' of the conurbation into the form of an 'octopus'. Would reduce the distinctions between Poringland and Stoke. Would have significant Governance issues between Stoke and Poringland. Would significantly negatively alter the drainage problems of Boundary Way - known surface water, flooding issues.. Isolated. OPPOSE

GNLP0169 - Would contribute to the disjointed form of development of the conurbation. Extends beyond the comfortable walking/ cycling distance to schools, doctors and shopping. Makes the village an 'octopus' with its tentacles extending into open countryside. Dominant over the village approaches from Shotesham. OPPOSE

GNLP0316 - Land North of Bungay Road, east of Rectory Lane and south of White House. This land has significant environmental assets, hedges ponds - it would require a significant environmental audit. Would contribute to the perceived linear vision of the conurbation. Site has significant landscape value as the headwaters of the Well Beck and is one of the few views of landscape available to the road traveller between Poringland and Brooke. OPPOSE

GNLP0280 - Some problems over access, perhaps requiring the demolition of one house. Drainage problems. Disconnected from the built form of the conurbation. Would contribute to the linear form of the conurbation. OPPOSE

GNLP0323 - would be a welcome development if access along the lane can be seen as adequate. OPPOSE

Support

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 16798

Received: 22/03/2018

Respondent: Trustees of Arminghall Settlement

Agent: Pegasus Planning Group

Representation Summary:

My client has previously put forward three sites for development, although two are adjacent to each other and effectively count as one site: Land at Park Farm, Bungay Road (GNLP 0323) and Land at Octagon Farm (GNLP 0321 and 1032). Further submissions regarding these sites are attached.

Full text:

My client has previously put forward three sites for development, although two are adjacent to each other and effectively count as one site: Land at Park Farm, Bungay Road (GNLP 0323) and Land at Octagon Farm (GNLP 0321 and 1032). Further submissions regarding these sites are made below.
Site GNLP 0323 - Land at Park Farm, Bungay Road, Bixley
Site GNLP 0323 was put forward for employment uses and has been assessed as unsuitable for development in the HELAA because of its distance from other facilities and possible access issues. The site is already in use for agricultural purposes and is already served by an existing highway access. My client has sufficient landholdings in the area to ensure that an adequate highway access can be created.
The site provides an opportunity to serve an alternative employment market to that catered for by sites on the edge of Norwich, which typically command higher rents. Furthermore, it enables employment uses to be provided closer to existing settlements to the south of Norwich and will assist in reducing journey times and trip lengths to access such facilities. This benefit is not acknowledged in the HELAA.
It is noted that the site has an amber rating for landscape impact in the HELAA meaning that detrimental impacts are likely but that these could be mitigated. The site is well-screened and surrounded by land within the same ownership. There is significant potential to mitigate any potential landscape impact such that this need not be a barrier to allocation. The proposed site lies in an area of localised lower lying topography, which combines with nearby vegetation helps to limit views of the existing farm buildings from publicly accessible areas. A carefully designed layout would work with this localised topography to limit both short range and long-range views towards the development. The design would also work with the locally characteristic vegetation noted in the published Landscape Character Assessment, such as small areas of woodland and hedgerows with trees, to further limit or mitigate views.
It is noted that the site has an amber rating for townscape impact in the HELAA although it is not clear from the text what aspect of the townscape is likely to be impacted on. As with landscape impact, the HELLA indicates that such impacts could be mitigated and for the reasons identified above in terms of landscape impact, this is certainly the case at this site.
Of further significance is the fact that the site is capable of conversion to alternative uses under the GPDO. This is a valid consideration to take into account when considering the suitability of the site for allocation.
All other matters are considered to be capable of mitigation through the detailed design consideration of the development proposals.
As such, my client objects to the site being deemed unsuitable in the HELAA and requests that it is considered as a possible site allocation for employment uses in the site proposals element of the plan. The precise mix of uses will be the subject of further detailed design work and discussion with the Councils.
Site GNLP 0321 Land adjacent to Octagon Farm, Bungay Road, Framlingham Earl
Site GNLP1032 Land north of Octagon Farm, Bungay Road, Bixley
These sites are immediately adjacent to each other and are separated by an existing gallery and studio. This facility includes a craft shop and a café and has a small visitor car park. It is well-used by the local community and is opposite a site that is currently being developed for housing (LPA ref 2012/0405 and 2017/2485).
It is noted that site GNLP0321 falls within Framlingham Earl and GNLP1032 falls within Bixley. The site as a whole reads as part of Framlingham Earl and therefore should be considered as part of this Key Service Centre and the access to the supporting facilities therein.
My client has put both sites forward for consideration and both are assessed in the HELAA as suitable for development. Site 0321 is proposed for mixed use development involving 60 dwellings, commercial, business and light industrial floorspace. Site 1032 is proposed for mixed use purposes involving commercial business use and 100 dwellings. The sites have a combined area of 8.48ha and provide the potential to deliver c.160 new homes with employment uses. The exact development yield and nature of the commercial uses will be subject to detailed design work and further discussions with the relevant Councils.
Given the proximity of the sites, these further submissions consider the two sites together. To assist the Council in its further assessment of these sites for allocation in the GNLP, the following is provided:
A Transport Technical Note prepared by Royal HaskoningDHV (Appendix 1). This provides a summary of the existing accessibility of the sites for all modes of transport and its connectivity to supporting services. It explains the measures necessary to create a safe and appropriate means of access to the sites. It concludes that it there are no highways access or infrastructure provision issues that should prevent either site for coming forward for allocation of the proposed uses.
The note includes indicative access arrangements for each site, which take into account the location of the access for the consented scheme opposite and indicate sufficient visibility splays. This would be the subject of further discussions with the highway authority following refinement of the proposed development.
The note also includes potential infrastructure improvements within the local highway. These involve potential bus stop enhancements and pedestrian/cycle links. The potential will also exist for providing pedestrian and cycle links through the development sites - either in addition to those along the highway or instead of. This would be a matter for further consideration as the design progresses. For now, it is clear that the potential exists to deliver such improvements.
* A Drainage Note prepared by Royal HaskoningDHV (Appendix 2). This provides a summary of the existing drainage infrastructure and the opportunities arising at this site. It explains the measures necessary to deliver a suitable drainage strategy and concludes that there are not any drainage issues that should prevent either site for coming forward for allocation of the proposed uses.
* A Landscape Technical Note prepared by Pegasus Group (Appendix 3). This identifies that the site is visually contained on three sides by development currently under construction and woodland, such that its visual envelope is largely limited to the immediate vicinity. It concludes that the site is well contained and that it is possible for a development scheme to be prepared that will not materially impact on the landscape character of the immediate area. It also demonstrates that the amber rating in the HELAA of the site GNLP1032 is not justified by the evidence on site. As a consequence, there are no landscape issues that cannot be mitigated and as such landscape impact is not a barrier to the allocation of either site. The Site Proposals document acknowledges that the proposed uses mirror the approved scheme on the opposite side of the road. It goes on to note that the presence of the woodland adjacent to the site means that the development is not contiguous with existing development on that same side of the road. We consider that this does not render the site inappropriate for allocation in light of the extension of built form on the opposite side of the road. The redevelopment of the proposals sites provides the opportunity to provide a new landscape buffer that will form the new edge to the settlement and prevent further linear development.
This additional information provides further evidence to support the allocation of these sites for housing and employment uses. The site is under the control of a landowner that has significant experience in development (as is evidenced by their involvement in the site on the opposite side of the road) and is able to bring the site forward for development in the early years of the plan.