GNLP0206

Showing comments and forms 1 to 7 of 7

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 13051

Received: 14/02/2018

Respondent: Costessey Town Council

Representation:

Not suitable.High pressure gas main runs through.In designated River Valley.Would impact on valuable landscape characteristics of river valley AND on the surrounding characteristics of area and listed church adjacent.Access from dangerous brow of hill or Longwater Lane by bridge - rat run. River does flood in valley plain - wide variations in height after rain.History of refusals along river valley;Doctor's surgery only approved on condition that it was not a residential dwelling.Costessey Centre built on the site of previous building not by the river due to river valley and flood plain.No overriding community benefit would justify development on this site.

Full text:

Not suitable.High pressure gas main runs through.In designated River Valley.Would impact on valuable landscape characteristics of river valley AND on the surrounding characteristics of area and listed church adjacent.Access from dangerous brow of hill or Longwater Lane by bridge - rat run. River does flood in valley plain - wide variations in height after rain.History of refusals along river valley;Doctor's surgery only approved on condition that it was not a residential dwelling.Costessey Centre built on the site of previous building not by the river due to river valley and flood plain.No overriding community benefit would justify development on this site.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 13875

Received: 12/03/2018

Respondent: Mrs Diana Bates

Representation:

This is in the River Tud Valley and outside the development boundary and should not be built on under any circumstances. This has very bad access onto an already very busy road.

Full text:

This is in the River Tud Valley and outside the development boundary and should not be built on under any circumstances. This has very bad access onto an already very busy road.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 14396

Received: 18/03/2018

Respondent: Mr Scot Grimmer

Representation:

A beautiful site which forms a natural break in already dense housing. River valley. Surely some areas must be protected.

Full text:

A beautiful site which forms a natural break in already dense housing. River valley. Surely some areas must be protected.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 16593

Received: 22/03/2018

Respondent: Friends of Tud Valley

Representation:

GNLP0206
We object to this as a development site. The site is inn the Tud River valley and hosing development would adversely affect the visual and landscape character of the valley. It is also outside the settlement boundary of Old Costessey.

Full text:

The Friends of the Tud Valley is a community based group in Costessey set up to protect and enhance the River Tud valley. We have the following comments on the proposals in the local plan:

GNLP0039
We object to this as a development site. The site is inn the Tud River valley and hosing development would adversely affect the visual and landscape character of the valley. It is also outside the settlement boundary of Old Costessey.
GNLP0489
We object to this as a development site. The site is inn the Tud River valley and hosing development would adversely affect the visual and landscape character of the valley.
GNLP0284
We object to this as a development site. The site is inn the Tud River valley and hosing development would adversely affect the visual and landscape character of the valley. It is also outside the settlement boundary of Old Costessey.
GNLP0206
We object to this as a development site. The site is inn the Tud River valley and hosing development would adversely affect the visual and landscape character of the valley. It is also outside the settlement boundary of Old Costessey.
GNLP0510
We object to this as a development site. The site is inn the Tud River valley and hosing development would adversely affect the visual and landscape character of the valley. It is also outside the settlement boundary of Old Costessey.
GNLP0238
We object to this as a development site. The site is inn the Tud River valley and hosing development would adversely affect the visual and landscape character of the valley. It is also outside the settlement boundary of Old Costessey. There have been two recent planning applications which have both been refused because of the adverse impact on the Tud river valley.
GNLP0243
We object to this as a development site. The site is inn the Tud River valley and hosing development would adversely affect the visual and landscape character of the valley. It is also outside the settlement boundary of Old Costessey.
GNLP0266
We support this site for housing development as it is outside the Tud valley
GNLP0581
We support this site for development as it is outside the Tud valley

TUD VALLEY BOUNDARY

The boundary of the Tud river valley should be adjusted in Old Costessey to include the Farmland Road site (GLDP 0238) and to go up to the boundary of East Hills woods. There should also be an explicit policy statement in the plan with the objective of enhancing the character of the river valley and stating that there will be a presumption against new development in the Tud valley.

I will be grateful if these comments can be considered as part of the GNLP review

John Newby
Chair Friends of the Tud Valley

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 16613

Received: 27/02/2018

Respondent: Bryan and Sally Ulph

Number of people: 2

Representation:

As residents of Costessey we must make the strongest possible objections to GNLP 0039/0206/0238/0243/0284 and 0510. All of these sites are within the Tud Valley which should be protected as an area of landscape importance and, in any case, being a chalk river valley it is NOT suitable for SUDs as was discovered (too late, unfortunately) at the Woodlands site on Townhouse Road, currently being developed by Bennett Homes.
[...]
On the question of development in Costessey, over the past ten years or so several thousand homes have been, and are being, constructed at Queens Hills and Lodge Farm. This has had huge consequences for the local highway network, particularly the A1074, with concomitant problems of increased pollution. Doctors surgeries, dentists and schools are all operating at maximum capacity. Ergo no more development in Costessey.

Full text:

We would like to make the following comments on the GNLP consultation document.

As residents of Costessey we must make the strongest possible objections to GNLP 0039/0206/0238/0243/0284 and 0510. All of these sites are within the Tud Valley which should be protected as an area of landscape importance and, in any case, being a chalk river valley it is NOT suitable for SUDs as was discovered (too late, unfortunately) at the Woodlands site on Townhouse Road, currently being developed by Bennett Homes.

With respect to GNLP 0238, this site has been rejected twice recently (25th May 2016 and 6th December 2018) by South Nofolk DMC as being an unsuitable location for development. The reasons for refusal, ie LVIA and unsuitable highways access won't go away! The Costessey Town Council is, quite rightly, endeavouring to get an amendment to the current River Tud boundary designation with a view to this site being included within the properly recognised valley.

On the question of development in Costessey, over the past ten years or so several thousand homes have been, and are being, constructed at Queens Hills and Lodge Farm. This has had huge consequences for the local highway network, particularly the A1074, with concomitant problems of increased pollution. Doctors surgeries, dentists and schools are all operating at maximum capacity. Ergo no more development in Costessey.

On the Plan generally we would like to know what investigations were carried out which led to proposals to provide 43,000 homes in the Greater Norwich Area by 2036. We would also question where the occupants of these properties would find employment. The once large manufacturing base of Norwich has shrunk to a small number of small businesses operating out of industrial estates. The main white collar employer, Aviva, has greatly reduced its local workforce in recent years. As with Costessey, the current infrastructure in the GNLP Area ie, hospitals, doctors, schools and the highways system are not coping well with the existing population. So heaven knows what will happen if this population increases by another 100,000 people.

The City of Norwich is recognised both nationally and internationally as a beautiful City and there is a serious danger that development on the scale being proposed in the GNLP will result in its character being irretrievably harmed.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 16749

Received: 12/03/2018

Respondent: Ms Hilary Elias

Representation:

GNLP 0206 Land south of Townhouse Road (See also GNLP 0284). REFUSE. High pressure gas main runs through this site, which is in designated River Valley and would impact on the valuable landscape characteristics of the river valley and surrounding area and the listed church adjacent. Longwater Lane is a rat run. This site regularly floods, with wide variations in the river height after rain. There is a history of refusals along the river valley - Doctor's surgery and Costessey Centre location restricted because of the river valley and flood plain. No justification to develop on this site.

Full text:

GNLP 0039: Site off Townhouse Road: REFUSE: Not a suitable site. There is a High-Pressure Gas Main in the vicinity and a Gas Pumping Station adjacent to the site. This is in the designated river valley and the flood plain between the R Tud and the R Wensum and is separate from the rest of Costessey development.
GNLP 0206 Land south of Townhouse Road (along river valley to Longwater Lane) (See also GNLP 0284). REFUSE. Not a suitable site. High pressure gas main runs through this site. It is in the designated River Valley and would impact on the valuable landscape characteristics of the river valley. Would impact on the surrounding characteristics of the area and the listed church adjacent. Access from the brow of the hill or from Longwater Lane by the bridge. Longwater Lane is a rat run. This is the river valley flood plain and floods, with wide variations in the river height after rain. There is a history of refusals along the river valley - see old Doctor's surgery which was only approved on the condition that it was not a residential dwelling, also the Costessey Centre had to be built on the site of a previous building not in the preferred location by the river because of the river valley and flood plain. There is no overriding community benefit which would justify development on this site.
GNLP 0238: Farmland Road: REFUSE. Not a suitable site. In the designated River Valley (which should be extended to the edge of East Hills Woods and to cover the whole of this site for consistency). In a floodplain, which regularly floods. Appears on official flood maps for both surface water and fluvial flooding risks. Contaminated land. Applications on this site have been rejected TWICE by SNC's DMC on the grounds of damage to the valuable landscape characteristics of the river valley (2015/2927, 2016/2430 & 2017/0420). Difficult and unsuitable access from the brow of the hill. Unsustainable location.
GNLP 0243: Land behind Ash Grove, Longwater Lane: REFUSE: Not a suitable site. Would set a precedent for backland development in the river valley and would impact on the valuable landscape characteristics of the river valley.
GNLP 0266: APPROVE FOR MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT WITH CERTAIN CAVEATS. However, concerns were expressed about breaching the capped landfill site, which is contaminated land. It was noted that a recent application C/7/2017/7018 was to extend the use of the landfill gas compound until December 2030, which suggests that the use of this site would not be possible before then. The site suffered badly from the gases before it was capped with neighbouring farmers' livestock killed and crops affected. There is a high-pressure gas main running through the site. Note: Costessey TC does NOT support NCC's proposed relief road running through this site, particularly as it is suggested it would exit into the already congested A1074 Dereham Road opposite the entrance to Lodge Farm Phase 2. Any relief road should be re-routed or exit onto the A47 / Longwater Interchange, not onto the stretch of A1074 which is already congested.
The strip of land fronting Dereham Road is protected Turnpike woodland belt. The north-west spur towards the golf course should not be built on as it is too close to the river valley, but could be used as amenity land in conjunction with residential land if necessary. Benefits of S 106 and CIL might help provide infrastructure improvement at the Longwater Interchange and the surrounding roads / schools /surgeries etc.
GNLP 0284: Land South of Townhouse Road: (See also GNLP 0206). REFUSE. Not a suitable site. In the designated River Valley and would impact on the valuable landscape characteristics of the river valley. Would impact on the surrounding characteristics of the area and the listed church adjacent. Access from the brow of the hill. TWO previous applications on this site have been turned down.
GNLP 0468: Land north of Ringland Lane: REFUSE. Not a suitable site. Opposite the exit to Queen's Hills bus lane. This area floods, as does Taverham Lane. This is in the River valley of the R. Wensum. Nearby tracks are not adopted and there is a possibility that nearby Costessey Pits which provide Norwich's drinking water, could be contaminated. There are no mains sewers in this location and the site is detached from the rest of Costessey's development.
GNLP 0489: Gunton Lane: REFUSE: Not a suitable site. Anglian Water have many large pipes (approx. 32 pipes) running underground through this site including a high-pressure water supply pipe from East Hills Woods into Norwich, a main sewer pipe and an attenuation tank between the two. These pipes are over 2m high and in the bottom south east corner where the site narrows, there is a main drain from Bowthorpe running to the River Wensum and the River Tud floods across part of this site - it is currently covered in mud.
GNLP 0510: Land off Longwater Lane: REFUSE. Not a suitable site. Previous applications turned down as in the designated river valley (latest was 2014/1036). Would set a precedent for backland development in the river valley and would impact on the valuable landscape characteristics of the river valley. Would be a loss of green amenity land. Access onto Longwater Lane would be difficult as this is a busy and congested rat run. Longwater Lane is subject to regular surface water flooding, the slope onto the site make flooding of the properties more likely.
GNLP 0581: Land south of Lodge Farm Phase 2: APPROVE for Mixed Use Development eg. residential and a possible extension of the existing industrial area. Access should be via roads from the Bowthorpe roundabout and NOT from Dereham Road via Lodge Farm. The power cables have now been relocated underground, so pylons have been removed. Note: Costessey Councillors do not recognise the extension of Bawburgh Lane around the corner as "Long Lane". Long Lane to them is what is printed on the map as "New Road", which causes confusion. Although this site is mentioned as being in a river valley, it is considerably higher (contours at 40m rather than the 20m or less on sites along the R Tud Valley and development here could avoid the flood plain and the main part of the river valley. Amenity lands would be adjacent to the south. Benefits of S106 and CIL might help provide infrastructure improvement at the Longwater Interchange and the surrounding roads / schools /surgeries etc. A possible bus link extension could be created via the Bowthorpe roundabout to the Showground and Easton (also to be developed). There are opportunities for bus lanes and cycleways to help discourage car use. Any development here would need a MINIMUM of TWO exits. Hills were the result of spoil heaps from Bawburgh pits being dug.
Square of land adjacent to south-west of GNLP 0581: Abandoned solar farm: CTC suggests this could be offered as suitable building land.
GNLP 0593: Engineering Works: APPROVE for residential development. Cllr T East declared a pecuniary interest as he lives in St Walstan's Close which backs onto the site. Access should be off Millcroft Close, rather than directly from Dereham Road which is too busy and congested. Tree belt along back of St Walstan's Close was established to protect residents from engineering works and should be retained.
GNLP 0270. Land South of Costessey Lane: REFUSE. Not a suitable site. Technically this is in Drayton, but the southern part of this site backs onto the river and Marriott's Way. This part of 0270 is in flood plain and floods regularly. Impact on the river valley.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 19790

Received: 13/12/2018

Respondent: Mr John Allaway

Representation:

I object in principle to any development being permitted on the following sites, for reasons of damage to the local landscape, loss of open green space, damage to wildlife habitat and further intrusion into and despoilation of the countryside in / around the existing settlements:-

Must be retained as open space.

Full text:

I object in principle to any development being permitted on the following sites, for reasons of damage to the local landscape, loss of open green space, damage to wildlife habitat and further intrusion into and despoilation of the countryside in / around the existing settlements:-

0290
2027 (which appears to be the woodland 'garden' at the top of the hill running perpendicular to Fakenham Road? If so, whoever owns this ought to be ashamed of promoting it for development)
0457
0159
0062
2051
2012
0465
2106 (which is a 3.3 hectare site south of Taverham Rd, which was once a nursery but has been derelict for at least 50 years. The site is on chalk just below topsoil level and as such is likely to be of botanical interest. The fact that natural succession has been taking place over this site for so long means that it will almost certainly have acquired a large and diverse flora and fauna. Full ecological surveys must be carried out here. In addition to general ecological surveys, specific surveys for reptiles, amphibians and bats should be undertaken. The site is of great value as undisturbed green open space and should be preserved as such.

0284 (Old Costessey, 'Mann's' field - must be retained as green open space.
0206 (land adjoining) also must be retained as green open space
2004 - this seems to be part of the Tud marshes and shouldn't even be remotely considered for any kind of development, as shouldn't any of the rest of the Tud marshes (either on / adjacent to the golf course or between Longwater Lane and Townhouse Road).