GNLP0244

This land is a established wooded area which is used by local communities from Round house park, students from UEA, Cringleford residents and wider communities for dog walking, park running, sledging for the children. We need to keep established green areas for residents to exercise and enjoy rural life. The surrounding housing estates need green areas to encourage healthier living and combat obesity. The Rugby development nearby will take away more land so we need this woodland. Save our Countryside.

Unnecessary development of land currently used by the local community for recreation and pleasure.
Initial damage to the Yare Valley Infrastructure Corridor will have a knock on effect that will never be recoverable.
We should be looking at extending the so called green corridor to accommodate the housing developments already proposed.
Housing and Employment growth is already accommodated by current development sites outside the valley.
Increase in traffic on already congested roads.

It would be a disaster to develop land where these precious woods are. This space is much loved by not only local residents, but I also know that people travel to this area specifically to walk in and enjoy these woods. Families and particularly children, dog walkers, nature lovers, etc - all make use of these increasingly rare spaces. I am equally concerned about the loss of trees and habitat to nature, animals, birds, etc.

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.

This site is an extensively used local community amenity where families and people of all ages enjoy the woodland for walking, exercising and relaxing. It is home to a range of wildlife and its destruction would have a significantly deleterious effect on local biodiversity. Importantly, this woodland lies within the designated river valley and forms part of the unbroken 'green corridor' which stretches from the formal gardens of Eaton Park, through the UEA's open fields and across the Yare valley, a much valued amenity midst the surrounding housing developments.

This is not a suitable site for development

I strongly object to the development of the UEA land/ woods.
All of the residents and thousands of other people use this land for recreation. It is an extremely popular green space that that we all need access to and enjoy so much.
The wildlife would be terribly disturbed.
The area is already being heavily developed, and the new residents from these areas will need access to this beautiful green space too.

This site forms part of a valuable local amenity and should not be built on or developed. It is very well used and should be protected as it will become increasingly important, both environmentally and as an accessible green space, as the development of the surrounding area continues.

I strongly object to even more destruction to the habitat of wildlife in the Yare Valley. Only a few years ago this was a breeding site for the Lesser Spotted Woodpecker and was regularity seen. Nowadays it is a rarity passing through and this spring was the first year I have never seen one. My other major concern is building so close to the flood plain at the bottom of Gurney Lane. I walk along here every single day and this winter the woods have been horrendously flooded. The worst I have seen since moving here in 1982. The water must go somewhere. I urge you not to let this planning go ahead. The consequences will be disastrous.

The wooded recreation area here is widely used by local and visiting residents for dog walking/walking for fitness and habited by wildlife. To destroy this to develop for further housing would be to the detriment of the well being of the residents and ruin the environment for all.

The site is unsuitable for development and would be contrary to the character of the area and impact negatively on the backdrop to the river, as well as remove an area designated as important local open space which could not be mitigated against. In addition, the site is not considered a sustainable location. The National Planning Policy Framework, sees the provision of sites for development and the role of planning as a role to 'fulfil its purpose of helping to achieve sustainable development', clearly this site does not contribute to this principle planning aim and objective.

The development will break up a contiguous area of woodland from Colney Lane to Sainsbury Centre on opposite side of the river. The lane provides a natural boundary of woodland and open space. Use opposite side of colney lane instead GNLP0331/0307

We wish to object to this site proposal on the grounds of its negative impact on the landscape character and countryside setting of the Wensum Valley.

We note that this site includes a chalk pit of great geological interest, listed in the Norfolk Geodiversity Audit as site SNF28. It has been subject of geological research as a significant local exposure of the Campanian Chalk of the Pre-Weybourne Chalk sub-division, Belemnitella mucronata Zone, with 4.35 m of chalk recorded including three flint bands which allow correlation with other chalk sites. The site has a rich fossil fauna including the bryozoan Volviflustrellaria taverensis, four species of echinoid and the belemnite fossil Belemnitella senior (Wood 1988; Gale, 2014).

If development were granted we urgently request that plans be made conditional upon providing open geological exposures of the chalk within the pit as part of a nature conservation area. These could meaningfully be included as a valuable part of Green Infrastructure provision, and would conserve the site's geological as well as its wildlife interest.

Losing the woods would be heartbreaking. They are beautiful all year round and a wonderful place for dog walkers and nature lovers alike. Many families use the woods as well. Replacing them with buildings will be an eyesore in what is already going to be a well-developed area, with all the new housing that is planned. I strongly object to the plans!

Dear Sirs

I have examined these plans and as such I strongly object to this proposal to build on land that is very special to my family and I. The land is used by me and my family on a daily basis.

I think that developing on this land will destroy the character of the local area and I cannot believe that there is not land elsewhere that would better suited to this development. The land opposite is already being developed which I have not objected to.

Please consider my words as you make your decision.

Kind Regards

David Messiter

This section of land is currently publicly accessible woodland, used by a large number of the local community for dog walking, running, cycling and to enjoy the woods and nature and as art of the enjoyment of walking to work or the facilities at the UEA.

This development would have a detrimental effect on the local amenities, visual impact, changing the look of the current area beyond recognition. Reducing the wildlife and natural habitats and access to green space and the countryside. There would be a further increase in traffic and therefore pollution by allowing this area to be built on.

This area, which already has a large amount of development already in place or planned, needs the balance of greenfield space and seems to go against the core policies of Norfolk council planning strategy in particular Policies 1, 2,7 and 8 which includes references to " the quiet enjoyment and use of the natural environment will be encouraged and all proposals should seek to increase public access to the countryside"
supporting communities.."greater access to green space and the countryside"
It is also in direct opposition to the vision for Cringleford which suggests "modest growth" and " green infrastructure to provide enhanced public access to the countryside and Yare Valley"
I whole heartedly object to development in this area as it goes directly against planning policy and would in no way enhance the local area.

Would Over develop the area. Adding to congestion & poor air quality compounded by loss of trees. The existing green wood area adds to the local enjoyment for dog walkers/families for open space. The loss will destroy the sense of community now enjoyed by those that use the space. Park-runs/walks/nature/bike riding.

I understand the need for residential housing but one of the key objectives from the GNLP is the environment and this proposal does not meet this environmental objective. Why spoil one of Norwich's main woodland public areas for such a small return. The benefits do not outway whatneod be a very sad loss to Cringleford and the wider Norwich community. Please find another source of income to meet the UEAs development needs! I regularly walk through those woods with my family and joe that we can continue to do so as they grow up.

This is an open space enjoyed by the community as a whole and I feel it should remain so for the good of the community and provide a natural habitat for wildlife. Whilst I understand the need for housing and other buildings, to loose this well established space which is widely enjoyed just doesn't seem necessary given all the other land that is earmarked for development in the immediate area.

The Yare Valley is a special area, a vital green lung on the edge of Norwich. It is much used by walkers, dog walkers and families for exercise and recreation. Also a haven for wildlife. The field at the bottom of Gurney Lane is on the flood plain....how can it be built on?!!!

I strongly believe that any building on this valuable site would compromise not only our ability to enjoy what little natural space we have in this highly overbuilt area of Cringleford, but it will only add to the traffic congestion that currently exists. And any plan that includes opening Colney Lane to through traffic to reach this site without going along Roundhouse Way will be met with equally adamant opposition.

My wife and I strongly object to this proposal, this area is used daily by locals and not so local people to walk, cycle, exercise dogs, run and generally get out in the fresh air in a wonderful and unique part of the county. Families turn up every weekend to walk here. There is nowhere else like this in Norfolk, and building here would contribute to the decline of Norfolk as a county, little by little, which at the moment visitors tend to love, this would be eroded and lost forever.

The proposed development would have a negative impact on conservation, habitat and the health and wellbeing of local residents. The site has an amenity value with local significance due to its location and the opportunities for public access and views across it that enables its intrinsic character to be experienced by many people each day. In addition to the social and environmental losses the proposed development is likely to have a significant effect on the protected species of wildlife and their habitats.

Strongly object. This is a area of nature, with wildlife. Our community use this for leisure, dog walking, exercise etc and building on this site would be sacrilege. You are destroying the community, it's open spaces, the harmony and the surroundings. You're destroying what should be kept. Potentially engulfing what was a beautiful village into a cheap concrete eyesore allowing the developers to make a quick profit at the detriment of others.

This is woodland and an amenity and should stay that way.
D.P.Lister

This area is used by the local community for dog walking, running, cyclists and family nature walks.It goes against the councils Area wide planning policies of;

Addressing climate change and 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"

7.Communities Health
" greater access to green space and the countryside"
8. Culture leisure and entertainment
" access to green space including formal recreation, county parks and the wider countryside" "green infrastructure to enhance public access to the countryside and the Yare valley"

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.

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.

The Settlement Summary cogently lists the reasons why this site should not be developed. It is vital to protect this part of the Yare river valley for current and future generations. It would be much better to use unexceptional agricultural land outside the A47 for housing rather than this unique area.
It may be convenient for the UEA to build on this land but there are other sites (? the Research Park) that the University could use and the interests of the University should not override those of the wider community.

As a local resident I am appalled at the prospect of this area of woodland and pasture being built over, whether for housing or commercial use, also at the prospect of turning our quiet cul-de-sacs into access roads. Being an elderly retiree, I enjoy strolling in the woods and watching the wildlife. Where could I stroll if all that were taken away?