GNLP0253

Showing comments and forms 1 to 24 of 24

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 13804

Received: 12/03/2018

Respondent: Colin Baker

Representation Summary:

Existing protected green space must be kept

Full text:

Existing protected green space must be kept

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 13938

Received: 13/03/2018

Respondent: Ms Rachel Taylor

Representation Summary:

These proposed extensions would take up a substantial area of existing protected green space - the precious Yare Valley, which is a green corridor much enjoyed by humans and wildlife. Building close to the river like this will add stress to the natural environment which could lead to its deterioration.

Full text:

These proposed extensions would take up a substantial area of existing protected green space - the precious Yare Valley, which is a green corridor much enjoyed by humans and wildlife. Building close to the river like this will add stress to the natural environment which could lead to its deterioration.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 14311

Received: 18/03/2018

Respondent: Dr Jennifer Oey

Representation Summary:

I strongly object to this proposal that will destroy vital habitat for wildlife and a popular green space that is well used throughout the year. In summary, I object to: Colney 0158, 0253, 0514, 0140 A and B (this should not be granted status as a 'Development Site'); Cringleford 0244, 0461; Norwich 0133 E and F (Little Tinkers *not only a rescue home for the animals, but a place for humans to visit and interact with them daily), 0184. I oppose any development that will diminish the innate beauty or wildlife of the Yare Valley.

Full text:

This proposal will affect me personally as I enjoy this land for its calm, beauty, and wildlife. I run through the Yare Valley 3-4 times a week and regularly spot cormorants, herons, cattle egrets, kingfishers, ducks, swans, and squirrels that all make this area their home. The loss of this space would impact this wildlife whether it is through a direct loss of habitat or a severe disruption to the area surrounding their habitat. Many other people walk alone or with dogs on these same paths: the entire Yare Valley is well used by the public. Please preserve this green space for us all to continue to enjoy. I strongly object to: Colney 0158, 0253, 0514, 0140 A and B (this should not be granted status as a 'Development Site'); Cringleford 0244, 0461; Norwich 0133 E and F (Little Tinkers *not only a rescue home for the animals, but a place for people to visit and interact with them daily), 0184.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 14435

Received: 19/03/2018

Respondent: Mr Paul Harley

Representation Summary:

This takes away green space close to the river. Do not further spoil the Yare valley by allowing further development in this area.

Full text:

This takes away green space close to the river. Do not further spoil the Yare valley by allowing further development in this area.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 14518

Received: 19/03/2018

Respondent: Mrs Andrea Rippon

Representation Summary:

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.

Full text:

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.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 14891

Received: 20/03/2018

Respondent: Dr Adriana Sinclair

Representation Summary:

This development goes against the Council's Area planning policies, specifically:

Policy 1 Addressing climate change/protecting environmental assets:"The quiet enjoyment and use of the natural environment will be encouraged and all proposals should seek to increase public access to the countryside"

Policy 2 Promoting good design:"Respect landscape character and the historic environment"

Policy 7 Supporting communities'
health:"greater access to green space and the countryside"

Policy 8 Culture, leisure and entertainment:"access to green space including...the wider countryside".

It also contradicts the specific policy for Cringleford for "modest development" and "green infrastructure to enhance public access to the countryside and the Yare valley"

Full text:

This development goes against the Council's Area planning policies, specifically:

Policy 1 Addressing climate change/protecting environmental assets:"The quiet enjoyment and use of the natural environment will be encouraged and all proposals should seek to increase public access to the countryside"

Policy 2 Promoting good design:"Respect landscape character and the historic environment"

Policy 7 Supporting communities'
health:"greater access to green space and the countryside"

Policy 8 Culture, leisure and entertainment:"access to green space including...the wider countryside".

It also contradicts the specific policy for Cringleford for "modest development" and "green infrastructure to enhance public access to the countryside and the Yare valley"

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 14919

Received: 20/03/2018

Respondent: Mrs Hatty Aldridge

Representation Summary:

Building on any of these proposed sites would mean considerable loss of green space, and would inevitably increase pollution in the Yare Valley, which is supposed to be a protected area, due to its value to the wildlife and the human population of the valley . Rather than reducing the green space available, efforts should be directed to preserving and enhancing the green corridor to meet the increased demands of the growing population. There seem to be sufficient development sites outside the valley to meet expected growth needs.

Full text:

Building on any of these proposed sites would mean considerable loss of green space, and would inevitably increase pollution in the Yare Valley, which is supposed to be a protected area, due to its value to the wildlife and the human population of the valley . Rather than reducing the green space available, efforts should be directed to preserving and enhancing the green corridor to meet the increased demands of the growing population. There seem to be sufficient development sites outside the valley to meet expected growth needs.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 15015

Received: 21/03/2018

Respondent: Mr Gavin Douglas

Representation Summary:

A retirement home situated well away from any shops, facilities etc. Madness! Also takes up a substantial area of protected green space.

Full text:

A retirement home situated well away from any shops, facilities etc. Madness! Also takes up a substantial area of protected green space.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 15041

Received: 21/03/2018

Respondent: Dr Jeremy Bartlett

Representation Summary:

Loss of green space and its impact on the wellbeing of humans and wildlife.

Full text:

The loss of green space and its impact on the wellbeing of humans and wildlife. The large number of development sites being proposed outside the River Yare valley 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 is under increasing pressure as the surrounding area becomes more built up, the number of students at UEA and visitors to Earlham Park increases. In the thirty years I have known this area, paths in the vicinity of UEA have become wider and more areas have become trampled. With such a pressure from visitors, we risk destroying an important asset to Norwich. Rather than reduce the amount of green space, every effort should be made to increase its extent, to meet the needs of a growing population.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 15111

Received: 21/03/2018

Respondent: Dr Gordon Collins

Representation Summary:

The proposed loss of green area is unacceptable. This is protected area for a reason. We all breathe the air near here, we learn about nature, we walk and clear our thoughts around here every day. There are so many unquantifiable benefits and I am afraid that it will only be looked at in terms of profit and the quanitifiable. We NEED these areas to be kept intact.

Are we SURE that these developments are what the community wants? There will be no going back. The habitats and the atmosphere of the are will be lost forever.

Full text:

The proposed loss of green area is unacceptable. This is protected area for a reason. We all breathe the air near here, we learn about nature, we walk and clear our thoughts around here every day. There are so many unquantifiable benefits and I am afraid that it will only be looked at in terms of profit and the quanitifiable. We NEED these areas to be kept intact.

Are we SURE that these developments are what the community wants? There will be no going back. The habitats and the atmosphere of the are will be lost forever.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 15173

Received: 21/03/2018

Respondent: Yare Valley Society

Representation Summary:

Site lies in Yare Valley Green Infrastructure Corridor protected by River Valley Policies. More than some of parts. Any reduction in area could impact along the corridor and impair ability to function effectively.
Corridor vital to wellbeing of humans and wildlife.
Corridor much used (worn paths). Corridor should be increased to meet demands of growing population from adjacent house building.
Large number of sites outside of valley being proposed, these should meet expected growth need.
Extensions to existing site approval take up a substantial area of "protected" green space.

Full text:

Site lies in Yare Valley Green Infrastructure Corridor protected by River Valley Policies. More than some of parts. Any reduction in area could impact along the corridor and impair ability to function effectively.
Corridor vital to wellbeing of humans and wildlife.
Corridor much used (worn paths). Corridor should be increased to meet demands of growing population from adjacent house building.
Large number of sites outside of valley being proposed, these should meet expected growth need.
Extensions to existing site approval take up a substantial area of "protected" green space.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 15201

Received: 21/03/2018

Respondent: Mrs Maureen Hollis

Representation Summary:

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.

Full text:

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.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 15253

Received: 21/03/2018

Respondent: Mrs Ann Livingstone

Representation Summary:

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.

Full text:

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.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 15281

Received: 21/03/2018

Respondent: Miss Mary Watson

Representation Summary:

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

Full text:

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

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 15324

Received: 21/03/2018

Respondent: Miss Amelia Macfarlane

Representation Summary:

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.

Full text:

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.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 15442

Received: 21/03/2018

Respondent: Ms Elizabeth Aitchison

Representation Summary:

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.

Full text:

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.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 15642

Received: 22/03/2018

Respondent: Mrs T Radford Gore

Representation Summary:

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

Full text:

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

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 15776

Received: 22/03/2018

Respondent: Mr Andrew Wilkinson

Representation Summary:

Loss of natural green space and impact on the well being of people and wildlife biodiversity. Plan will contribute to unsightly urban sprawl and will damage a Strategic Green Infrastructure corridor. Housing and employment needs can be met by the number of proposed sites outside of the Yare Valley.

Full text:

Loss of natural green space and impact on the well being of people and wildlife biodiversity. Plan will contribute to unsightly urban sprawl and will damage a Strategic Green Infrastructure corridor. Housing and employment needs can be met by the number of proposed sites outside of the Yare Valley.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 15824

Received: 22/03/2018

Respondent: Norwich Green Party

Representation Summary:

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.

Full text:

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.

Support

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 15831

Received: 22/03/2018

Respondent: Mr Feng Li

Agent: Mr Feng Li

Representation Summary:

Colney Hall Estate is to be developed to an older living community combining world leading research&technology to extend and improve independent living for all. It will be an exemplar project involving world leading concepts and be led by partners of UEA, such as IBM and other major international players, integrating the best technology and research facility to a high environmental standard. The site is available with single ownership and is viable and deliverable. In consultation with UEA, the community would be funded through the residential units in a first phase to fund remaining community and research facilities.

Full text:

The Policy Context

1. Across the globe the trend towards living longer is creating multiple challenges, especially in developed countries. In the UK, the number of people aged 85 and over increased by 30 per cent between 2005 and 2014, alongside general increases in each age group over 60.

2. The challenges we all face are brought out in stark terms by the key NHS Providers document entitled 'Mission Impossible?'. This states that increased demand on the NHS is forecast to outstrip increases in funding by at least 100% even in this Financial Year. In response to these pressures, NHS England, in its five-year forward view, identifies a number of key strategic drivers, including:

a. Radical upgrade in prevention and public health is needed
b. Patients will gain a far greater control of their own care
c. Take decisive steps to break down the barriers to how care is provided
d. Developing new test-bed sites for worldwide innovators and new 'green field' sites where completely new NHS services will be designed from scratch

3. New policies and practice to embed these drivers has been slow in coming forward. The knock on effects of incremental progress for both the NHS and for Adult Social Care are already far reaching, with the Government struggling to find a sustainable funding model that delivers high quality care combined with clinical excellence. The Adult Care sector is now closer to market failure than ever before; preventable admissions, bed-blocking by older patients, and the difficulties associated with discharge of older patients are overburdening the NHS; while Primary Care is swamped by unconstrained demand. The continuing lack of integration of Health and Social Care in the UK is drawing both into a downward spiral of diminishing returns at an increasing cost. At a time when demand for health and social care is already outstripping supply, and with that gap expected to grow exponentially, policymakers, locally and nationally, are crying out for innovative approaches to the linked challenges of a broken social care market and the failures to make preventive healthcare a reality. A revolution in the care of the elderly is urgently needed to improve quality of life for all (including families and carers); and to reduce costs, not least by the judicial application of Assistive Technologies and Artificial Intelligence. But for this to happen, new transformative partnerships need to be forged by all stakeholders.

Colney Hall Estate

4. The Colney Hall estate (Colney Park) occupies approximately 29 hectares (83 acres including the Woodland Burial Ground) adjacent to the north western part of the Norwich Research Park. It is accessed by its own driveway from the Watton Road. It is bounded to the West partly by the River Yare and partly by adjoining parkland, to the North by the River Yare, to the East by the River Yare and adjoining farmland and to the South by the Watton Road. The site presents an attractive diversity of topography, landscape and habitat.

Surrounding Uses

5. Colney Hall could become a natural extension of the Norwich Research Park to the northern side of Watton Road. Adjacent to the core area of Colney Hall, the old stable site (approx. one acre) is currently being used and occupied by the Global Clinic, with the immediate availability of clinical care. An outdoor focused Montessori school operates within the Victorian walled garden, part of the old hall.

The Proposal - an older living community combining world leading research & technology to extend and improve independent living for all

6. We are working towards development of the Colney Estate to provide older people with a new and wonderful community to live in, to visit, and above all to participate in, thereby benefitting from the leading edge technological support, world class research, preventive approaches to healthy living, and a holistic approach to promoting well-being. Our aim is to provide a transformative design for living that will meet many of the challenges presented by ageing populations, as well as being replicable across the country, and beyond. The emphasis will be on supporting people in many ways to live better, for longer, and with greater Quality of Life, in their own homes. But the site will also provide facilities for institutional care (including for people not residing on the estate), as well as guest accommodation for those visiting friends and relatives living on site, or seeking respite from home care.

7. The community will include apartment accommodation, some specialist accommodation for visitors, training and community facilities and amenities to support a lively community. In addition, there might well be some limited research and data facilities to provide on-site support and advice and data handling. All of this will be based within a picturesque and carefully-managed ecological setting which will provide a backdrop to this fantastic community experience.

8. The key elements of the concept are:

- A better place to live in later life; a minimum of two hundred and fifty units of leasehold residential apartment accommodation for retirees. Each unit would incorporate bespoke Assistive Technology (AT) and Artificial Intelligence (AI). Each unit would be built in such a way as to be adaptable to (almost) all future changes in circumstances, both physical and cognitive.

- A unique opportunity to live independently while benefitting from the latest health-related research: Residents will be given the opportunity to participate in health research utilising extensive data collection technologies. These would include monitoring of facility and project involvement and usage, combined with health records and individual monitoring. The latter would be achieved through a combination of wearable technologies, ambient AT and AI, and conventional health checks. Combined with a range of wellbeing and personal enhancement facilities, research enrolees will enjoy a highly-personalised level of medical assessment.

- The Promise of A Healthier Life(style): Within the community, the availability of specialist services and the unique support of a truly personalised medical opinion will be standard. Optimal lifestyle choices could be advised. Conditions and disease are much more likely to be diagnosed at an early stage, providing the opportunity for more successful, and cheaper, treatment. Understanding of risk factors will mean a reduction in complications and secondary incidents. Put simply, retirees will come to Colney to live their later life to the full.

- A New Paradigm for Community Living for Residents and Their Friends and Family: The estate is intended to pioneer a new approach to community living in later life. The entire ethos will be one of happy, healthy, active and fulfilling independent living within a responsive, caring community. The layout of the parkland, with plenty of accessible pathways in a sylvan setting will set the tone. There will be guest accommodation (in lodges at the edge of the woods). There will be a community hub, a shop, a café/restaurant/meals provider, and a range of recreational spaces designed with well-being in mind (allotments, sheds, yurts for yoga and the arts, exercise facilities etc). Cars will be restricted to the outer perimeter, with a limited number of slow electric vehicles for deliveries, shuttles, waste etc using internal roadways.

- The best of care: the community would include a state of the art care facility, with sufficient capacity for those residents who (eventually) can no longer live independently. Demand for places will be low at first (and hopefully for the foreseeable future), and excess capacity at the facility will provide much needed high quality (temporary) places for non-residents.

- Dignity and Comfort at the End of Life: The community will also have an end of life facility on site, built and run to the same high standards that will be set across the estate.

- Pioneering in a Sector in Desperate Need of Transformation: UEA's role in this exemplar project will play to its strengths in research, teaching, training and employability. Opportunities for placements in health and other services will multiply, as will employment opportunities. But the real benefit, beyond those to the residents and their loved ones, will come from the beacon effect in the sector locally, regionally and nationally.

Planning history

9. The Colney Estate was once designated as employment allocation in the previous South Norfolk Local Plan as part of the Norwich Research Park. It was then de-allocated in the most recent Joint Core Strategy.

10. A planning application was submitted for part of the estate under Ref: 2011/0581 for a health care campus with associated research and development activities. The application was refused on the grounds it did not "comply with the intent of the Joint Core Strategy for Broadland, Norwich and South Norfolk Policy 9 which directs that land allocated for the expansion of the Norwich Research Park should be developed to secure knowledge driven, creative or high technology industries."

Partnership with University of East Anglia

11. Since an earlier planning application was refused, the estate has been actively seeking a fresh way forward. Since 2016, we have been in discussions with the University of East Anglia with a view to creating a concept that goes a long way to meeting many of the demographic and resource challenges we now face locally, nationally, and indeed internationally. Those conversations, still ongoing, have come a long way in that time, to the point where the Estate, in partnership with UEA, is now consulting with key stakeholders locally and nationally, to elaborate the optimum operating concept, and to scope out potential partners to deliver the project. The outcome of those consultations over the coming weeks and months will be a key factor in final decision-making at UEA. If UEA were to decide to commit to the project as the academic partner, we envisage that a collaborative bid for outline planning permission would shortly follow.

Suitability

12. The extension to the Norwich Research Park incorporating historic Colney Hall, together with the existing clinic uses within the estate, would present an opportunity to build upon the internationally renowned research centres at the NRP and underpin the international presence of Norwich as a centre of excellence in providing research and training particularly in plant, food, health, environmental and climate sciences.

13. The design would involve world leading concepts and be led by partners of UEA, such as IBM and other major international players, integrating the best technology and research facility to a high environmental standard, blending into the existing natural environment.

14. The designs will fully respect the historic environment and natural environment to create a facility that the elderly community and visitors can benefit from.

15. Access to the Estate is via a feeder road from the Watton Road. The County Council is currently upgrading the Watton Road. The development of Colney Hall would create additional mostly off-peak traffic.

Viability

16. As outlined above, the Estate, in consultation with UEA, is in discussions about how the community should be funded if a decision to proceed to planning permission is forthcoming. There are a number of options for doing this; the most obvious would be to use the sale of the residential units in a first phase to fund subsequent phases of development and research (the latter perhaps by way of an endowment created by the first phase of development).

Availability

17. The estate includes two freeholders within the site, both of which offer possibilities to enhance the offer of the community. The first of the freeholders is the Global Clinic, which owns just over an acre. Quite aside from the benefits in terms of immediate access to clinical care, also has a MRI scanner in situ (and about to be upgraded). The second freeholder is the Montessori School, which opened August 2017. They are fully supportive of the concept, and the potential for cross-generational events and activities could be a strong positive, given recent research as to the mutual benefits of this.

18. The proposed site is available now for immediate development with no ownership issues.

The Timeline/phasing

19. Upon gaining support from the Council, we will be submitting planning as soon as possible. The construction will be split into two phases:

First Phase Build - Accommodation at the front end of the site, the hub and some facilities will be part of this first phase build;

Second Phase Build - Care and End of Life Facilities, remainder of guest lodges.

Attachments:

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 16239

Received: 10/04/2018

Respondent: Mr David Taylor

Representation Summary:

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 0253 The extensions to existing site approval will remove more protected green space.

Full text:

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

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 16438

Received: 22/03/2018

Respondent: Norwich Green Party

Representation Summary:

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.

Full text:

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.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 16439

Received: 22/03/2018

Respondent: Norwich Green Party

Representation Summary:

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.

Full text:

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.

Comment

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 16511

Received: 20/03/2018

Respondent: Norfolk Wildlife Trust

Representation Summary:

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

Full text:

General comments:
All allocations need to be considered in relation to the Greater Norwich GI Strategy and the emerging Norfolk GI maps, in relation to both opportunities and constraints.
As for previous consultations, our comments on site allocations relate to information that we hold. This relates mainly to impacts on CWS. These comments are in addition to previous pre-consultation comments on potential allocations. However, we are not aware of all impacts on priority habitats and species, or on protected species and further constraints may be present on some proposed allocations. Similarly, we have flagged up impacts on GI corridors where this is related to CWS but there should be an assessment of all proposed allocations against the emerging GI maps for Norfolk, which should consider both locations where allocations may fragment GI and areas within allocations that could enhance GI network. As a result, lack of comment on sites does not necessarily mean that these are supported by NWT and we may object to applications on allocated sites, if biodiversity impacts are shown to be present?

We are aware that the GNLP process will be taking place at the same time as Natural England work on licensing with regard to impacts of development on great-crested newt. This work will include establishment of zones where development is more or less likely to impact on great-crested newt. We advise that this ongoing work is considered as part of the evidence base of the GNLP, if practicable to do so in the time scale.

Broadland
Coltishall:
0265 There is a substantial block of mature trees within this proposed allocation which we understand provides nesting site for common buzzard and is part of wooded ridge. Although not protected under schedule 1 of the Wildlife & Countryside Act, in our view this should be seen as a constraint on development and wooded ridge should be protected.

Drayton
0290: In our view development within the Drayton Woods CWS is not acceptable and this site should not be allocated.
We agree with constraints due to proximity to CWS that are assessed for other proposed allocations in Drayton

Frettenham:
0492 we are pleased to see that impact on CWS is recognised as a major constraint and the need for area within CWS to be recognised as GI, if there is any smaller development outside of CWS

Hevingham:
Adjacent CWS represents a potential constraint as has been recognised.

Honingham:
We note that the presence of CWS and river valley are recognised as constraints, although assessment is that impacts on these areas can be avoided by becoming green space in a larger development. If taken forward, plans would need to include a buffer to all CWS and assessment of biodiversity value of each CWS to establish whether they have particular sensitivity. At this stage, NWT take view that 0415 should not be allocated, even if part of a large development.

Horsford:
0469 and 0251 should be recognised as having CWS or priority habitat constraint. There should be no development on CWS and should be a buffer to CWS.

Postwick:
0571 This would be a new settlement and we are pleased to see that a biodiversity constraint is recognised. However, Witton Run is a key GI corridor linking to Broads National Park. It is essential that impacts on GI corridors, such as Witton Run, are recognised even when not made up of designated sites, if the Greater Norwich GI strategy is to have any value.

Reepham:
1007: This is STW expansion. If expansion is necessary at this STW, there will need to be mitigation and/or compensation with regard to impacts on CWS
1006: There are potential impacts on CWS 1365, which need to be considered

Sprowston:
0132 We are pleased to see that GI constraints and opportunities are recognised. However, need to ensure that allocation allows for protection and enhancement of GI corridor.

Taverham:
0563: Recognition of impact on CWS is recognised but need to ensure no development within CWS, plus buffer to the CWS, if this is taken forward.
0337: Buffer to Marriott's Way CWS needs to be recognised

Thorpe St Andrew:
0228 and 0442: Pleased to see that the impact on CWS 2041 and GI corridor seen as a major constraint and that all sites proposed will have an adverse impact. These sites should not be allocated.

Norwich:
Deal ground 0360: Previous permissions allow for protection and enhancement of Carrow Abbey Marsh CWS. There is great potential for restoration of this CWS as a new nature reserve, associated with the development and a key area of GI linking the city with Whitlingham Park. This aim should be retained in any renewal of the allocation and new permissions

0068: Development should not reach up to riverside but allow for creation of narrow area of natural bankside semi-natural vegetation to link with similar between adjacent river and Playhouse. This will help to deliver the (Norwich) River Wensum Environment Strategy

South Norfolk

Barford:
0416: We are pleased to see that biodiversity constraints are recognised but there is a need to mitigate for impacts on adjacent CWS 2216 though provision of buffer.
1013: There are potential biodiversity constraints, with regard to semi-natural habitats

Berghapton:
0210: We are pleased to see that impacts on CWS, existing woodland and protected species seen as major constraint.

Bixley:
1032: There may be biodiversity constraint in relation to habitats on site

Bracon Ash:
New settlement 1055: We are pleased to see that affects CWS and priority habitats are recognised. There is potential for significant additional impact on Ashwellthorpe Wood SSSI. This site is open to the public but is sensitive and not suitable for increased recreational impacts, owing to the wet nature of the soils and the presence of rare plants, which are sensitive to trampling. We are also concerned about increased recreational impacts on of a new settlement on Lizard and Silfield CWS and on Oxford Common. These sites are already under heavy pressure owing to new housing in South Wymondham. Unless impacts can be fully mitigated we are likely to object to this allocation if carried forward to the next stage of consultation.

Broome:
0346: We are pleased to see recognition of constraints relating to adjacent Broome Heath CWS

Caistor
0485: see Poringland

Chedgrave:
1014: There may be biodiversity constraints with regard to adjacent stream habitats

Colney
0253: Constraints relating impacts on existing CWS 235 and impacts on floodplain may be significant and should also be recognised as factors potentially making this allocation unsuitable for the proposed development

Costessey
0238: We are pleased to see constraints in relation to CWS and flood risk are recognised.
0266: We are pleased to see constraints recognised. The value of parts of this porposed allocation as a GI corridor need to be considered.
0489: We are pleased to see that constraints relating to river valley CWS recognised. This site should not be allocated

Cringleford
0461: The whole of 0461 consists of semi-natural habitat, woodland and grazed meadow and should not be allocated for development. In addition adjacent land in the valley bottom is highly likely to be of CWS value and should be considered as such when considering constraints
0244: This site is currently plantation woodland and part of the Yare Valley GI corridor. It should not be allocated, for this reason

Diss:
We support the recognition that constraints regarding to biodiversity need to be addressed. Contributions to GI enhancement should be considered. 1004, 1044 & 1045 may cause recreational impact on CWS 2286 (Frenze Brook) and mitigation will be required.

Hethersett
0177: We are concerned that constraints with regard to impacts on CWS 2132 and 233 are not recognised. These two CWS require continued grazing management in order to retain their value and incorporation as green space within amenity green space is not likely to provide this. Development of the large area of 0177 to the south of the Norwich Road would provide an opportunity for habitat creation and restoration

Marlingford:
0415: We are concerned with the biodiversity impacts of development along Yare Valley and on CWS and habitats on the valley slopes (including CWS in Barford parish). If this area is allocated it should only be as a semi-natural green space that is managed as semi-natural habitat

Poringland:
0485: We are pleased to see recognition of constraints relating to CWS. Any country park development should ensure continued management and protection of

Roydon
0526: There is potential for recreational impacts on Roydon Fen CWS. This impact needs to be considered for all proposed allocations in Roydon and if taken forward mitigation measures may be required. We are also concerned about water quality issues arising from surface water run-off to the Fen from adjacent housing allocations and these allocations should only be taken forward if it is certain that mitigation measures can be put in place. Roydon Fen is a Suffolk Wildlife Trust nature reserve and SWT may make more detailed comments, with regard to impacts.
Although appearing to consist mainly of arable fields this 3-part allocation contains areas of woodland and scrub, which may be home to protected species. These areas should be retained if this area is allocated and so will represent a constraint on housing numbers.

Toft Monks:
0103: We are pleased to see that a TPO constraint recognised and value as grassland habitat associated with trees should be considered.

Woodton
0150: Buffer to CWS could be provided by GI within development if this allocation is taken forward.
1009: Impacts on CWS 94 may require mitigation.

Wymondham:
Current allocations in Wymondham have already led to adverse impacts on CWS around the town, through increased recreational pressure. Although proposals for mitigation are being considered via Wymondham GI group, further development south of town is not possible without significant GI provision. This applies particularly to 0402. Similarly, there is very limited accessible green space to the north of the town and any development will require significant new GI. 0354 to north of town includes CWS 215, which needs to be protected and buffered from development impacts and CWS 205 needs to be protected if 0525 is allocated.