GNLP0140

The loss of green space and its impact on the wellbeing of humans and
wildlife. The large number of development sites outside the valley being
proposed should more than meet the expected growth needs for housing and
employment, without risking damage to what local plans identify as a
Strategic Green Infrastructure Corridor. Rather than reduce the size of the
green corridor, every effort should be made to increase its extent to meet
the needs of a growing population from adjacent housing developments

The loss of green space and its impact on the wellbeing of humans/wildlife. The large number of development sites outside of the valley being proposed should more than meet the expected growth needs for housing and employment, without risking damage to what local plans identify as a Strategic Green Infrastructure Corridor. The present green corridor is much used and, in some places, overused, as evidenced by the worn condition of some of its paths. Rather than reduce its size, every effort should be made to increase its extent to meet the needs of a growing population from adjacent housing developments.

I object to the loss of green space and its impact on the wellbeing of people and wildlife. The large number of development sites being proposed outside the valley should easily meet the expected growth needs for housing and employment, without risking damage to what local plans identify as a Strategic Green Infrastructure Corridor. The green corridor is much used, in some places over-used as evidenced by the condition of some of its paths. Rather than reduce its size, every effort should be made to increase its extent to meet the needs of a growing population from adjacent housing developments.

I object to the loss of green space and its impact on the wellbeing of people and wildlife. The large number of development sites being proposed outside the valley should easily meet the expected growth needs for housing and employment, without risking damage to what local plans identify as a Strategic Green Infrastructure Corridor. The green corridor is much used, in some places over-used as evidenced by the condition of some of its paths. Rather than reduce its size, every effort should be made to increase its extent to meet the needs of a growing population from adjacent housing developments.

I object to the loss of green space and its impact on the wellbeing of people and wildlife. The large number of development sites being proposed outside the valley should easily meet the expected growth needs for housing and employment, without risking damage to what local plans identify as a Strategic Green Infrastructure Corridor. The green corridor is much used, in some places over-used as evidenced by the condition of some of its paths. Rather than reduce its size, every effort should be made to increase its extent to meet the needs of a growing population from adjacent housing developments.

The loss of green space denying future generations this beautiful place to walk in. The large number of development sites outside of the valley being proposed should more than meet the expected growth needs for housing and employment, without risking damage to what local plans identify as a Strategic Green Infrastructure Corridor. The present green corridor is much used and, in some places, overused, as evidenced by the worn condition of some of its paths. Rather than reduce its size, every effort should be made to improve and protect it

This should be protected green space. Any further status of this site as a development site beyond what has already been granted would be inappropriate for a site which is characterised by being a large open space near to the river. This land also contributes to flood protection of other Norwich sites by acting as a functional floodplain.

(GNLP 0140-A) Building on this site, and bringing cars into the centre of this space will alter the character and use of the site. Any development in the area should be on existing build areas or on the other side of Colney Lane. There is no other large green space of comparable quality within reach of the city, and to compromise its future in this way would be irreversible and unforgivable.

I am objecting to potential development sites in the area of the Yare Valley and in particular upstream from Cringleford bridge to the Watton Road (B1108). This includes those designated GNLP0461, GNLP0244, GNLP0133 E&F, GNLP0140 A,B&C.
These sites fall within the Yare Valley 'protected' area which is one of the few green lungs left within the city. It is important as a habitat for wildlife and informal recreation. Any reduction in the wildlife habitat will have an impact on adjoining areas which will become overpopulated leading to a reduction in numbers of those birds and animals hoping to find a new place to live. Also any development in the areas designated GNLP0133E&F will destroy the link between Eaton park and the Yare Valley which in the past we had been led to believe would always be maintained.
Furthermore, when the University was built on the site overlooking the Yare Valley they, the University, undertook to maintain the Yare Valley and not to encroach further. Since then they have done nothing but erect more and more buildings blighting the area ever more.

I should like to object to the following proposed development sites in the Yare Valley by letter. My overall concern is that vast amounts of extra housing are already planned for the surrounding area, that in consequence these new proposals are largely unnecessary and that they will have a destructive effect on the local environment and the quality of life of the people who inhabit it.
Colney
0158 This involves a substantial removal of protected green space.
0253 The extensions to existing site approval will remove more protected green
space.
0154 Not only intrusive, but liable to set a dangerous precedent for further encroachment onto green space.
0140 A and B Permission has already been granted for a clubhouse, road and car parking. I suspect that this is the thin end of a very large wedge and that the
University is itching to move in and grub up more land to the detriment of members of the public who use and enjoy it.
Cringleford
0244 This woodland is protected and should remain so.
0461 A significant removal of protected green space ..
Norwich
0133 E and F. Currently a donkey sanctuary. Why can't it remain so, given that it provides a link between the green space of Eaton Park and the river?
I should also like to comment more generally on question 13. While a Green Belt around the city may well be a good idea, the important thing to is instil in planners and developers a sense of environmental responsibility - a quality that seems to be lacking in some of their current proposals

We would like to register our objections to many current planning proposals being made for various areas in the Yare Valley
First and foremost any proposal to build on the current Donkey Sanctuary area (ref GNLP 0133E) and the parkland between the Sanctuary and the University (ref GNLP 01333D)
To build here would completely destroy the irreplaceable beauty of the Yare Valley and should not even be contemplated.
In particular these areas are already very heavily used for recreational purposes by the citizens of Norwich and the pathways around these areas are actually becoming quite worn.

This area as a whole is almost overused and could benefit from the opening of additional paths and recreational areas.
Also GNLP 0140 A and B (is this the land listed as GNLP 0145?) and GNLP 0244 and 0461 are in highly sensitive spots which should be protected open space where any development would severely damage the character of the valley and affect its recreational value.
Another area of concern is the walled gardens around Earlham Hall whose loss would severely detract from the beauty and historical value of this Grade 1 listed building.
We have lived in this area for nearly 50 years and this outstanding open space is the equivalent on the west side of the city to Mousehold on the east side where no one would even dream of suggesting development. Both are of enormous importance to humans and to wildlife. We feel that long term protection such as designation as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty would protect this area for present and for future generations,
The river valleys of Norfolk are among its most beautiful assets and once gone they will be lost for ever to the detriment of our descendants

I object to the promotion of the sites mentioned below which, if developed, would result in a loss of green space and consequent impact on the wellbeing of humans and wildlife.

GNLP0140A - additional car parking and other: (the permission granted to Norwich Rugby Club is bad enough and this would just make the situation worse.

GNLP00133E and F - UEA should not be allowed to build on these open spaces

GNLP0244 - UEA should not be allowed to destroy this woodland which is used by local people.

With reference to the above, it is important for the Yare Valley Infrastructure Corridor to be protected. It is a valuable amenity popular with local residents as can be seen by the condition of the paths. Rather than reduce its size, every effort should be made to increase it so as to meet the needs of a growing population from nearby housing developments. The large number of development sites which were proposed and situate outside the Corridor should be more than enough to meet the growth needs for housing and employment without impinging on the integrity of the Corridor.

I object to the promotion of the sites mentioned below which, if developed, would result in a loss of green space and consequent impact on the wellbeing of humans and wildlife.

GNLP0140A - additional car parking and other: (the permission granted to Norwich Rugby Club is bad enough and this would just make the situation worse.

GNLP00133E and F - UEA should not be allowed to build on these open spaces

GNLP0244 - UEA should not be allowed to destroy this woodland much used by local people

With reference to the above, it is important for the Yare Valley Infrastructure Corridor to be protected. It is a valuable amenity popular with local residents as can be seen by the condition of the paths. Rather than reduce its size, every effort should be made to increase it so as to meet the needs of a growing population from nearby housing developments. The large number of development sites which were proposed and situate outside the Corridor should be more than enough to meet the growth needs for housing and employment without impinging on the integrity of the Corridor.

Norwich area sites
GNLP1061 - This site's proximity to Norwich airport and poor transport links to the wider city make it inappropriate for anything other than employment land. Our concern with allocating this land is that it would not be accessible by sustainable transport. We would therefore suggest that any site-specific policy requires a demonstration of how units within this development would be accessible by sustainable transport.
GNLP1011/GNLP0377 - We support Lesley Grahame's proposal to retain this site as a community sports facility, and that it should be protected by a designation that specifies this site as a strategic site for leisure use. Reason: to prevent the over-intensification of residential use in this part of Norwich, and to ensure that the existing sports facility has the land available to it to expand and improve.
GNLP0133 - UEA campus sites:
We have no comment on sites A, B and C.
We feel that some development of site D would be appropriate, but the site-specific policy should be written to restrict development only to that which will not unduly impact upon the character of the river valley, and the setting of the listed UEA campus. Building scales, particularly towards the lake, should be smaller in scale, and should be landscaped appropriately to reduce the impact on the lake's ecosystem and provide biodiversity.
We object to site E being allocated for accommodation or any other intensive development. We feel that the character of the river valley should be maintained, and therefore this site should not be intensified beyond its current level, which includes significant amounts of greenery and the river valley beyond. We believe that the university could make good use of this land without intensifying the use by only building small individual units, of one, perhaps two stories, with plenty of open space between.
We object to the allocation of site F. This should be retained as a strategic gap between Norwich's built up area and the Yare Valley.
GNLP0184 - We object to the allocation of this site for residential development. We feel that any further encroaching on the river valley at this point would threaten the biodiversity and character of the river. We would like this site to be part of the protected river valley and Norwich "Green Belt".
GNLP0360 - We consider the principle of redeveloping this brownfield site to be appropriate, but, due to site constraints, development should not be overly intense. A biodiversity buffer should be provided along the river banks and any development should not hinder this site's ability to serve as a functional flood plain, as well as to replenish water supplies. This site's function from this point of view should be explicitly required within the policy text.
R10 - Utilities Site - We would like to recommend that the conditions within the current site allocation R10 are amended to remove the phrase "including the provision of district wide heating and CHP". We feel that this clause is unnecessarily prescriptive, and practically rules out the possibility of this site being used for larger scale solar power generation, for example.
GNLP0409 - We do not support deallocation of this site, which has clearly been suggested only so that the developers will not have to consider site-specific policy when they want to develop this site. This site should be allocated for residential-led mixed use development. The development should also include office uses, as well as a small amount of retail to support the office and residential uses. The development should also include public spaces, particularly near the river, to enhance the visitor experience. The development should also make provision for sustainable transport measures, including the provision of a bus stop, so that employment uses at this site become more accessible.
GNLP0506 - We consider 1500 dwellings to be too intensive a form of development for this site. However, we do consider that an allocation at this site for mixed-use development along similar lines to that within the NCCAAP is appropriate.
GNLP1010 - We support Lesley Grahame's suggestion of maintaining existing use as community garden.
We feel that many of the existing allocations for employment use in Norwich should be retained for employment use. However, we do feel that a thorough review should be done of these allocations to ensure that these are still the most appropriate uses for these sites, and it may be that several of these sites should be re-allocated for residential or mixed use. The GVA report on Employment Land Assessment identifies a number of sites which may also provide potential for further residential and/or community use through mixed-use development.
Broadland/South Norfolk area sites
Colney:
GNLP0253 and GNLP0158 (land within Yare Valley N of Watton Road) - We consider this land should be part of a Norwich Greenbelt and therefore protected from significant development so that it is retained as protected green space.
GNLP0140 (Rugby club site) - This should be protected green space. Any further status of this site as a development site beyond what has already been granted would be inappropriate for a site which is characterised by being a large open space near to the river. This land also contributes to flood protection of other Norwich sites by acting as a functional floodplain.
Cringleford:
GNLP 0244 and 0461 - We consider that the allocation of these sites for dvelopment would be inappropriate. The existing woodland should be protected, and green space protected by a Greenbelt policy. This also forms part of the strategic gap between Norwich and Cringleford that we feel is necessary for them to be seen as separate settlements.

We write to comment on several proposals for development infringing current "green" land on both sides of the Yare Valley between the A11 and the University of East Anglia. The sites which our comments address are:
GNLP 0145 A and B, GNLP 00133 E and F, GNLP 0244 and GNLP 0461.
Since similar considerations apply to all these sites, we shall consider them together.
Our interest comes from almost daily use of this area for nearly fifty years for walking or cycling to work at the Colney Lane research institutes and UEA, and for daily walks in the river valley and adjacent woodlands for recreation and for studying wildlife.
The Yare Valley Green Infrastructure Corridor identified in local plans has been a vital factor in enriching the lives of large numbers of citizens of Norwich, Cringleford and adjacent villages for many years, and we have a duty to safeguard this asset for future generations. The green corridor is much used by walkers, and indeed some paths are overused. Rather than reduce the area available, efforts should instead be concentrated on enlarging it. The overall corridor is more than the sum of the individual parts and reduction of the area in one part could adversely affect the integrity and function of the whole. The area boasts many species of plants and animals which are at risk. It is well known that habitat fragmentation is a major cause of loss of biodiversity, and can only be ameliorated by having wildlife corridors of adequate width. We believe that these proposals which would involve substantial losses of several classes of habitat, will reduce the biological corridor below the critical level.
We are also concerned at the additional traffic generated by the proposals. With expected development to the west of Colney Lane, the proposals GNLP 0145 and GNLP 0244 will place additional pressure on the main traffic artery to the hospital. Moreover the road access to site GNLP 0461 is totally inadequate to support traffic generated by additional housing. Also it should be noted that this site is low-lying within the flood plain and becomes very wet each winter.
In view of these factors, we urge that the new GNLP will strike out these specific proposals.

I have seen the planning maps posted up in the woodland Cringleford area and am concerned about the planned development of existing protected green space of the Yare Valley Green Corridor.
I am particularly concerned that the area from Colney road down to the river Yare should not be developed. This is an area used a lot by the local community, for running, walking and watching wildlife. Contact with nature/woodland is vital for health and I think replacement of green areas with buildings/roads will be detrimental to the overall health of the community. You can see from the well-used paths in the area, that many people currently use and enjoy this green space.
Wildlife in the area is also likely to be adversely affected, and this should be taken into consideration when thinking of making disconnects between different areas of green space.
As well as the impact on the health and relaxation of local residents (and less local residents who come to visit Colney and use the space - e.g dog walkers, park runners), the character of the area will also be eroded and the relative tranquillity we now enjoy will be lost.

I want to explain my significant concern with respect to the GNLP on the Yare River Valley, particularly in the Cringleford and Colney areas (i.e. areas GNLP0244, 0461, 140a).

1.This is an area of local natural importance. Development here would be devastating to the local wildlife including bird and insect. Where would this wildlife be rehomed too? There is no alternative. How would the environmental impact be managed including greater flooding risk locally or further downstream?
2.This is an area of local natural beauty. It is in daily use by residents for activities such as walking, dog exercise, running, biking, exploring and learning about nature and other such activities not suited to developed and urban areas. There is no alternative areas for these activities, and such land set aside within new development areas is more suited to children's playgrounds and totally not suited to these aforementioned activities which require space in a natural setting rather than a developed area). The plan suggests that more housing is needed because people move to this area for its high environmental qualities and lifestyle choices. Surely the attractiveness of the area would be destroyed by building homes in the areas that create the attractiveness in the first place.
3.The plan states that more people are moving to the area. This should not be a reason to build new homes, this is a reason for an increase in house prices in one area and a reduction in another. If we increase the supply of homes in the area in demand, we will simply create barren and dysfunctional communities in other parts of the country, where houses are almost worthless and unemployment high.
4.The plan takes no account of the impact on Brexit on local industries, for example professional services and IT quoted as being a future driver of greater employment in the area could be significantly reduced due to lower demand for provision of services from the UK to Europe (due to the trade friction, it will be more efficient for the EU to obtain these services from member states). Additionally, for the first time net immigration is an outflow from the UK, rather than an inflow. If this is sustained a historical driver of housing demand will disappear, and if the trend grows we will see housing demand fall as people leave the UK. This means the quantum or shape of housing demand could be lower or different to assumed in the plan.
5.The plan does not fully consider the implications to the city centre of digital trends by 2030s. Digital, analytics and robotics and likely to reduce almost all demand for office space and office workers in this timeframe which could significantly reduce the amount of housing demand.
6.The almost total of loss of office requirements and the trend away from high street shopping killing demand for city centre retail over the next 10-20 years will create huge vacant offices and retail spaces (a trend that has already begun) which is a huge opportunity to create new housing in the already developed area. This can be done by converting the offices into homes (and office space is more easily converted into affordable housing solutions) or replacing the commercial buildings with much taller residential structures. Building upwards (eg 10-20 floors) is a more acceptable impact on the skyline in city centres (as done in other major cities) than decimating the local countryside. If all city office space was converted to minimum 10 story residential buildings, the housing demand would be fully met as well as the demand for affordable housing.
7.The trend emerging from Millennials is significantly different to previous generations. For example, attitudes to owning assets such as property and land are very different, with a much lower appetite to work and save to purchase such expensive assets, and instead embracing digital connectivity, small gadgets and virtual reality (we are already seeing a growing trend to rent property and alternatives from car ownership). This means that we should be looking to convert existing accommodation to better suit future generations who will demand significantly less square footage, rather than building more of what we already have - todays single family 4 bedroom detached house could be tomorrow's home for two families in semi detached accommodation or three families in apartments. This may not appeal to new home building companies who make their money from converting green sites and building large housing estates, but it's a strategy much more in keeping with trends in society.
8.We will see a reversal of people physically moving to communities, as in the future many workers will work from home wherever that may be using digital tools, connectivity to provide services, rather than travel to the office of an insurance company or a manufacturing site (Aviva is already doing this with a significant proportion of staff now permanently working from home providing customer services that used to be provided in call centres).
9.Points 3-8 also apply to the wider plan as well as the areas stated in the first paragraph.

Supporting representations submitted on behalf of the UEA in respect of sites GNLP0133-A to F (Norwich), GNLP0140-A, GNLP0140-C (Colney) and GNLP0244 (Cringleford), in addition there are two newly submitted sites through the Reg18 consultation adjoining the Sainsbury Centre and at the Congregational Hall within the main campus. Refer to attached report for full details.

Covering letter text
Bidwells have been appointed by the University of East Anglia (UEA) to submit Representations in connection with the Greater Norwich Local Plan (GNLP) Regulation 18 Consultation. The Representations contained within this Report promote a suite of sites across the UEA campus and the wider Norwich Research Park (NRP). Most of these sites have been previously submitted as part of
the Call for Sites consultation in 2016. Subsequently, the sites have received preliminary suitability assessments within the Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA), released as part of the Regulation 18 consultation. The Representations endeavour to address any potential constraints
identified in the HELAA assessment for each of these sites, to demonstrate their deliverability. Representations for two new sites, which were not submitted as part of the earlier Call for Sites process, are also included within this Report. The deliverability of these sites is ascertained and demonstrated
within the Report.
The sites promoted within this Report encapsulate a variety of uses, but the majority are focussed around UEA related development (e.g. teaching, research, accommodation, general infrastructure, ancillary uses), along with some being promoted for modest residential development, and the expansion
of the local knowledge-based industry around the NRP. All site Representations include a red line plan within the Report, alongside a plan that displays all sites submitted across the UEA Campus and the wider NRP, which fall within UEA control. The sites submitted are as follows:
Previously Submitted Sites:
● GNLP0133-A - University Drive North;
● GNLP0133-B - University Drive West - Undeveloped part of the Earlham Hall allocation;
● GNLP0133-C - Cow Drive North;
● GNLP0133-D - South of Suffolk Walk;
● GNLP0133-E - Strawberry Fields;
GNLP0133-F - Bluebell Road;
● GNLP0140-A - Colney Lane Clubhouse/Pavilion / GNLP0140-B- Colney Lane Car Park
Extension;
● GNLP0140-C - Triangle Site; and
● GNLP0244 - Land at Colney Lane (plantation and observatory site/grounds maintenance).
New Sites Submitted:
● Congregation Hall; and
● Land adjoining the Sainsbury Centre.
Alongside the Representations in support of each of these sites, the Report contains the UEA's
responses to relevant consultation questions within the GNLP Regulation 18 Consultation Document.
The Report includes a detailed response to Questions 34 and 35. This response endeavours to advocate
the allocation of a sustainable transport link between the UEA main Campus and Colney Lane.
We trust that the Representations will assist the Greater Norwich Local Plan team in progressing its Local Plan review towards the Preferred Options stage, the consultation for which we currently understand is likely to commence in Summer 2019.
As indicated within these Representations, the UEA and Bidwells are both keen to engage with the Greater Norwich Local Plan team to meet the challenges of growth, and look forward to discussing matters, relating to the UEA, further in due course.
I would be grateful if you would acknowledge receipt of these representations.
Should you have any questions at this stage then please contact me.

We write in reference to the above consultation invitation to register our objections to certain proposals within the outline plan. More specifically, we refer to the proposals for sites promoted in the Yare Valley (UEA and environs) as follows:

GNLP 0514 Development of land to the river edge at Colney
GNLP 0145 A & B Proposed additional car parking and other unspecified additional use
GNLP 0133 E&F Building on land to extend the campus footprint of UEA
GNLP 0244 Destruction of existing local woodland to further develop the UEA site and potential private residential development
GNLP 0461 Residential development in Cringleford Wood.

All of these proposed developments are sited within or are immediately adjacent to the Yare Valley itself, an area that is already identified in existing local plans as a "...strategic green infrastructure corridor." This corridor is an important environmental and recreational area for the people within the local community and, indeed, for the wider community of Norwich itself. To allow further development along and within this important green space would be shortsighted and negligent and planners should be standing by the extant local plans that have identified the Yare Valley as an important asset to the people of Norwich. Once these areas are built on they can never be reclaimed. The existing wildlife that inhabits this ecosystem and the mental and physical wellbeing of the people who enjoy the walks offered by the Yare Valley as it currently is would be lost forever.

There has already been encroachment within this corridor as evidenced by the current construction being undertaken on the Bartram Mowers site on Bluebell Road. Surely this should be enough development along this beautiful valley. This development and other existing large scale residential housing development in Cringleford (with more planned by the Thickthorn Roundabout) means that the corridor is well used and appreciated as a local green space amenity and should be protected and extended to meet the needs of a growing local population and not be reduced as these proposals would undoubtedly do.

Damage to the corridor can be easily avoided as developers have already identified more than enough potential residential development sites outside of the corridor which will meet the expected future growth in housing and employment needs in the area covered by the GNLP.

Developers should not be allowed to ride rough shod over the needs and wishes of the existing local population in the never-ending pursuit of profit and increased shareholder dividends. Local planners should protect the long term environmental interests of their local area and its residents as the thoughtless urbanisation of the Yare Valley would be catastrophic to the people and the city of Norwich. The Yare Valley must cherished for the wonderful local asset that it is and not be allowed to be destroyed by default.

We therefore urge you most strongly not to approve any of the sites identified above to be developed that are within or adjacent to the 'protected' land of the Yare Valley Corridor.