GNLP0514

Existing green space must be kept

This is a narrow stretch of land that reaches the River Yare's edge and would therefore be liable to flooding, which could cause run-off of noxious substances from the building and poison the natural environment. In intrusion into protected green space of the precious Yare Valley, it is damaging in itself. Also, if approved, it could create a dangerous precedent for future adjacent green space development.

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.

This appears to intrude onto a protected green space - damaging in itself but could create further precedents for future adjacent green space development.

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 am sincerely disappointed to learn of the proposed development sites in
The Yare Valley, UEA lake and Bluebell Road areas which I enjoy with my dog
on a daily basis. The beautiful areas of Newfound Farm and the surrounding
woods are a fantastic wild home to rabbits, squirrels, jays and woodpeckers
as well as bats. I have regularly seen kingfishers and muntjac deer in
these areas too. It's rare to be able to explore wooded areas so close to
the city without having to follow allocated paths, letting our children
build dens, spot wildlife and appreciate the peace of nature. Shouldn't
woodland such as this be protected? It's ridiculous to strip an area with
such established diversity of species in fauna, especially one so cherished
and enjoyed by a huge range of local people. Wouldn't it be more sensible
to seek out areas with minimum impact on existing beautiful surroundings or
redevelop brownfield sites? I see this as a knock on effect from the Rugby
Club's successful expansion approval in the area, which I consider to be a
shameful decision. I truly hope that the planners and local council see
sense instead of profit and prevent our fine city losing it's identity to a
hive of urbanisation.

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.

Another intrusion into protected green space. A slow chipping away of small areas which once granted seem to expand and expand outwards.
No nearby facilities for school, doctor, dentist, shop etc
As near river edge prone to flooding and groundwater issues.

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.

We need to be finding ways of reducing the use of cars and parking. This is again an important site reaching down to the river, again blatantly ignoring the 'protected' corridor of the River Yare.

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.

If granted, a dangerous precedent for future adjacent green space development

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.

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 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.

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 is a small site that is well served by local infrastructure (roads and services). It benefits from good access routes, a location close to local amenities, local employment (at the research park and main hospital) and access to the City centre.

As a sustainable site it offers the opportunity for small development that will enhance the area and deliver much needed homes.

Loss of natural green space and impact on the well being of people and wildlife biodiversity. Plan will damage a Strategic Green Infrastructure corridor as is currently happening with the removal of trees and scrub Housing and employment needs can be met by the number of proposed sites outside of the Yare Valley.

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

The part of the Yare Valley affected by all these proposals has a high amenity value, is clearly visible from both Bluebell Road, and from the well­ used riverside path. The huge, unsightly McCarthy and Stone development already degrades part of the valley and ANY further developments, either adjacent to the valley or in the area adjacent and south of the UEA land would be a highly misjudged decision on the part of the City council.

Existing Local Plans identify the Yare Valley as a "Strategic Green Infrastructure Corridor'' protected by River Valley Policies. The City Council planners should honour and stand by their own policies and possible developers should also honour local plans which were drawn up to protect this important natural, wildlife corridor which so many local people value and use.

The original decision, in which NONE of the City councillors had visited the McCarthy and Stone site under discussion, was not taken unanimously. Such a situation must not reoccur. All councillors should be instructed to visit all the proposed sites, to walk the Yare valley footpath, and Bluebell Road and to view the valley as local residents do, often daily. Further visual intrusion of development in the Yare valley would totally degrade the valley, and make it less attractive to both wildlife and to human visitors: the latter walk it to enjoy a moment of peace, tranquillity, to see flowers, birds, hear birdsong and to be able to enjoy a different natural habitat, when so much of it has been taken away. To have such an oasis of nature close to the city, is an invaluable asset: please do not destroy it: once gone, it can never be replaced.

Sites 0133 E and F 9 the strawberry field and donkey field, running parallel to Bluebell Road and an existing footpath parallel to the hedge and leading down to the river, are an important natural haven for much wildlife, plants, insects, birds and small mammals. Already under threat in many areas, such natural habitats as do remain should be valued, not sacrificed to development. These areas must be available for public access, but also allowed to flourish with a varied flora and fauna.

01461 is close to Cringleford Wood, another site of local biodiversity and a haven for wildlife. By threatening to develop this site, you threaten the whole integrity of the valley, making it less likely to function as an ecosystem. I speak as a geographer as well as a local resident: I understand the inter­ relationship between weather, landscape, plants, birds, soils etc.: perhaps councillors and developers could consider other aspects outside those of mere land value or more houses.

0514 running along the river edge at Colney is very close to existing development, close to the hospital and any further development here would be a further degradation of the valley at one it its narrowest points.

The present Yare Valley, 'green corridor' is much used, and indeed, over­ used, judging by the degraded paths in places. Therefore, every effort should be make to INCREASE the size of the corridor to meet the likely increased demand on it, from a growing local population. With so much extra housing at Round House, New Found Farm etc., surely we have enough local development in Cringleford and around Eaton?

Continued expansion of the UEA, more housing as listed, make the preservation of the existing undeveloped areas around the Yare Valley a vital necessity: please do not consider such a damaging and unnecessary intrusion into this already fragile ecosystem. The City Council policy brief R42 required development of the original McCarthy site, to protect and enhance environmental assets within and adjacent to the site, including retaining tree belts yet removal of mature beech trees was allowed. Why was the council allowed to so blatantly ignore its own guidance?

Never again: this list of proposed threats to the Yare Valley must be stopped.

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.