GNLP0244

The removal of so many mature trees will increase the risk of flooding and also increase pollution in the air. This is besides the local amenity value enjoyed by hundreds of people every day, and the natural beauty of this native woodland. When Norfolk is so proud of its trees, I cannot believe so many will be destroyed. All other trees in the vicinity are protected by TPAs - why aren't these? No mention seems to be made about the retention of rights of way.

I object to this development because it takes away a prime green area which is used by many walkers. It is also unsuitable for development onto an already very busy main access road to the hospital.

This development is worryingly close to the UEA Wildlife Trail and will have a significant and detrimental effect on the wildlife by increasing pollution and forcing more people (and dogs) into a smaller area. The area around the broad is already heavily used and placing further pressure on it will drive wildlife away. By allowing development on the same side of the road as the broad, the noise and air pollution will further encroach on the Wildlife Trail: of which there are few in the area. The recent and extensive development over recent years in Cringleford has meant that green spaces are at a premium and so this space is even more valuable than before. As more development continues, it will only become more so. This development will also raise the possibility of cutting off access to the UEA broad from Colney Lane and hence all of the residents in Cringleford (the new development). Moreover, this development will substantially alter the nature of the neighbourhood. After a decade of rapid and significant change, Cringleford has doubled in size. It should also be noted that Colney Lane is already heavily congested and the GNLP proposes several developments along the lane. The road is not able to cope at present, and there are no plans to widen it. This means that congestion, pollution and dangerous driving will all increase. There is therefore a significant traffic safety issue which, at present, is not surmountable.

This area is used extensively by the local community and it is a very pretty natural wooded region. As a local area, we have 1000s of new house already built and being built over the next 7 years and this area within UEA will be one of the only countryside areas and views remaining. This land must be protected from development. Dog walkers, cyclists, runners and parents and children regularly use this area.

I object to this application on the basis that Colney lane is not big enough for yet more traffic to the very important university hospital. Living opposite the 'Land on Colney Lane'this project will spoil the peaceful area for me, my neighbours and all those who enjoy walking in this area. Hopefully this plan will be rejected as it's an unsuitable application for the neighbourhood.

Nature and woodland is more important than your desire to make money.

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.

This site is in the designated river valley and should not be eroded by such piecemeal developments as are proposed here.

The proposed development would destroy an established woodland habitat. The site has an amenity value with high local significance due to its location and the opportunities for public access. The proposed development will have a significant effect on the protected species of wildlife and their habitats.
If there's a need to expand the University then please build it on existing developed parts of the University campus where there's plenty of unused space.
The area includes a chalk pit of great geological interest, listed in the Norfolk Geodiversity Audit as site SNF28.

A protected green space, used by many people for recreational purposes, including a local Parkrun, where people get much needed exercise. I thought the council was promoting healthy lifestyles so building houses here is a contradiction to that policy.
Although the submission summary talks of Cringleford having good transport links and shops etc, it is a long way from this planned development.

We strongly object to this proposal. The woods form a visual barrier at the end of Roundhouse Way,help to mop up some of the pollution caused by the heavy traffic, provide pleasant access down into the valley and help to protect the integrity of the valley itself. Any development is likely to high rise and completely inconsistent with the style of existing and planned private housing nearby.

The loss of green space, including woodland, 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. UEA must not be able to continue its destruction of the Yare valley - enough is enough!

This involves loss of a substantial amount of protected woodland. The UK's biodiversity action plan states that we should be focused on the creation of woodland, not the destruction of it. This is publicly accessible, and many people use this area to unwind and destress - I am one of those people. This will severely impact the mental and physical well being of said people. Not only that, the homes of a vast diversity of creatures will be lost, where are they expected to go? Furthermore, this development increases the likelihood of increased flooding downstream, hence does not just affect the area you are looking to tear down, it also affects land away from this area. With the effects of climate change becoming more and more apparent, we need land dedicated to helping mitigate these effects. Destroying this woodland will only worsen the effects.

STRONGLY OBJECT!
Please, please do not destroy our woods!
We use these as a family all year round for walking our dog, sledging in the winter, to family walks, bike rides and summer picnics.
It would be an absolute travesty if these woodlands are developed, please don't give this permission.

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.

This area is a natural habitat, an area of natural beauty and an area where families can connect with nature. I cannot believe the loss of this land is even being considered.

Please do not build on this area. It is a well used wooded area accessed by local residents who enjoy the green space and the access to the university. It is the closest bit of woodland to the Round House Park development and the proposed New Found Farm development and will be greatly missed. This green area acts as a natural buffer between residential Cringleford and the Norfolk and Norwich Hospital, building here will just increase the build up of traffic on a stretch of road that already gets congested at peak times. The organisation I work with (www.cringlefordhub.co.uk), and its partners, sometimes use this wooded area for community walks, so we will lose that resource for future community cohesion events.

The small amount of woodland that now remains should be preserved not only for its environmental attributes to nature but also for its aesthetic beauty. With increased density of population there is a need to preserve such places for the existing inhabitants of Norwich both young and old and others who come to visit this Fine city. I am sure there are plenty of other sites that would be far more suitable for building homes. We need to retain the 'protected corridor status of this valley and not cover it in any more concrete.

I'm am very angry to find out about this proposal to build on this lovely old woodland. I have lived in Cringleford for many years and often walk my dog here especially in the spring and summer when I visit nearly every day. This is a lovely old woodland with many very old large trees, woodland flowers and much wildlife which should be preserved, not destroyed. It is one of the best things about living in this are and I am horrified that it will be destroyed

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 its 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.
Involves loss of water holding woodland and so increases potential for flooding downstream, with adverse impact on wildlife, recreation, and communities.

I strongly object to the development of this area.

It would be extremely detrimental to wildlife and negatively affect local residents.

There are a limited number of green open areas to enjoy in Norwich and to lose this area would cause great disappointment. It is an aesthetically beautiful area enjoyed by many.

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 strongly object to the loss of green space and the harm that this will inflict upon wildlife. What is more, there are thousands of people who regularly enjoy this area and who use it for recreational purposes. Their needs must be fully taken into consideration. These green spaces will only become more important to the local people as the city expands. There are plenty of sterile fields outside of the city that should be used for developments rather than precious and biodiverse green space enjoyed by so many local people

GNLP0244 - Land at Colney Lane, Plantation and Observatory Site

This representation aims to gain an allocation for UEA related uses, NRP related uses and potentially residential development.

Assessment of Deliverability

Suitable

The suitability of the site has been assessed within the HELAA:

● Access, Accessibility to Services, Transport and Roads: rated Amber. The site benefits from direct access onto Colney Lane. The suitability of the site in terms of access would be addressed at the planning application stage, with full highways assessments.

● Contamination and Ground Stability: rated Amber. The site is partially brownfield, as Site C is the former observatory, which is currently used for grounds maintenance. Contamination on site will be investigated as part of any planning application for the site, informed by guidance from South Norfolk Council.

● Utilities: While Utilities Infrastructure is rated as Green, Utilities Capacity has received an Amber rating. A detailed assessment of the Utilities Capacity to serve the site will be undertaken to inform any planning application.

● Flood Risk: rated Green. The site is in Flood Zone 1; therefore, the site is not at risk from flood events.

● Biodiversity/Geodiversity: The site has received an Amber rating. The site is situated within the Yare River Valley and the associated ecological corridor. The design of development here would aim to maintain linkages to the ecological corridor, with potential routes for wildlife through the development. These can be determined at the application stage. Additionally, the site is separated by hedgerows at Colney Lane, interspersed in places by access gates to the site. It is anticipated that many of these hedgerows could remain as part of any development. None of the trees on site have TPO status, though the aim is to retain these trees as part of any development.

● Historic Environment: Green rating, sites are situated far from Listed Campus Buildings.

● Open Space: Red rating. The site encroaches within the Yare Valley Character Area and will impact upon the openness of the Area. The planning permission granted for the sports pitches and associated structures (2016/0233) demonstrates that appropriate and proportionate development within the Yare Valley Character Area can be achieved, subject to design proposals.

● Compatibility with Neighbouring Uses: Green. The site is situated adjacent to Cringleford's development boundary. The build-out of development north of Cringleford will bring the site within close proximity of the wider settlement. The development of the site will be undertaken in a manner that does not encourage coalescence with Earlham and Colney.

From this, it can be ascertained that the constraints on site can be mitigated through development with technical evidence and good design.

Available

The site, in its entirety, is owned by the UEA, and there are no leases or restrictive covenants on the site. Consequently, the site is readily available for development.

Achievable

If all planning constraints raised within the HELAA are addressed and suitably mitigated, then the site can be considered achievable for development.

Viable

The development of the site is considered viable, taking into consideration the various policy requirements in relation to matters such as CIL contributions. Further evidence on viability can be provided on a strictly private and confidential basis, should this be deemed necessary.

Summary

This site could form an important mixed-use development, comprising UEA related uses, NRP-related uses and potentially residential development. The planning constraints identified by the HELAA will inform any planning application for the site following allocation.

This land is part of sensitive woodland and a Green space. No need to develop that side of the road. The road cannot cope with the amount of traffic that uses it at a peak times at the moment. How will emergency vehicles get thru to the hospital once even more vehicles are encouraged into the area.
Plenty of houses are to be built on the 'Newfound'site.

I object to this plan as it is destroying an important natural amentiy for this area and will permanently change the natural atmosphere of the locality. The Yare Valley is already being eroded and this loss will greatly effect the quality of life for residents in this area. It will also result in loss of natural habit for wildlife. Norwich is sprawling too much and roads in this area are becoming increasingly congested.
I would like to see the natural barrier between city and countryside maintained and housing not encroaching further.

The loss of green space and its ipact 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.

This proposal would destroy a valuable part of the open area of the Yare Valley, currently part of the valley setting and used for recreation and quiet enjoyment by large numbers of people. It would turn a peaceful and much-appreciated stretch of green space between Colney Lane and the University into an urbanised and devalued space.

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 destruction of the Yare Valley intended by the developers goes whole heartily against the Cringleford Development Plan. The infrastructure in and around the locality can not sustain further housing development and
prominent areas of the Yare Valley are up for grabs !!!!!
This will inhibit leisure facilities for families, wildlife is an important issue and land that has been always accessible to everyone will be lost forever.
The community spirit will decline, which is very much in evidence, with for example dog walkers and family outings.
As a Yare Valley Society member I fully support their objections.