GNLP0244

This is part of the Yare Valley green space, used by local residents and also people outside the range of walking distance, for leisure walks, and enjoying the countryside within the urban sprawl of Norwich.
With the ongoing expansion of the University and developments like this, there be the removal of areas for the public to exercise in the fresh air, and enjoy this green space.

We totally disagree with building houses in the woods.

It is such a lovely area to build houses would spoil it for the people and for the wildlife in the woods.

It is a beautiful nature area green area which we are losing too fast everywhere. We live on Coney Lane .

Further building between Colney Lane and the river will alter the nature of the river valley considerably, and lead to more encroachment on this valuable space. We have a final opportunity to protect the valley as a recreational and restorative facility for the people of Norwich. Let's not turn the area into a mean, grey, dismal place (like the Wensum between Barn Road and Anderson's Meadow). The valley needs to retain this woodland in order to maintain its sense of space.

My view is a simple one based on the environmental impact of housing / university buildings on the site which would reduce publically available greenspace in an area where it is needed, currently enjoyed and well used. It would also significantly alter the landscape and views being in such a predominant position.

GNLP0244 (woodland) GNLP 0133 (E+F) Strawberry Fields (UEA) GNLP0461 Agent Brown & Co Land off Gurney Lane

Having Lived in the area described above from 1941-1961 and again from 1978 to present day I have felt very blessed. Having moved to Norwich from "the midlands" in 1978, no way would I return there even for a visit. Despite some intrusive building adjacent to the above areas, it still remains a haven for the city of Norwich. Further development will destroy the unique flora and fauna of the yare valley. I am not an expert, but in the areas identified I have seen most "common" bird species plus the tree creepers, King Fishers, Nut hatchers, swathes of snowdrops (bordering the River Yare) bordering the areas I am concerned about.
I may not be alive in the area for much longer, but please, for the sake of all the children yet born and those living around here now - STOP DEVELOPMENT using bricks and mortar.

I am objecting to potential development sites in the area of the Yare Valley and in particular upstream from Cringleford bridge to the Watton Road (B1108). This includes those designated GNLP0461, GNLP0244, GNLP0133 E&F, GNLP0140 A,B&C.
These sites fall within the Yare Valley 'protected' area which is one of the few green lungs left within the city. It is important as a habitat for wildlife and informal recreation. Any reduction in the wildlife habitat will have an impact on adjoining areas which will become overpopulated leading to a reduction in numbers of those birds and animals hoping to find a new place to live. Also any development in the areas designated GNLP0133E&F will destroy the link between Eaton park and the Yare Valley which in the past we had been led to believe would always be maintained.
Furthermore, when the University was built on the site overlooking the Yare Valley they, the University, undertook to maintain the Yare Valley and not to encroach further. Since then they have done nothing but erect more and more buildings blighting the area ever more.

I am writing as a local resident to object to the proposal of the development on Cringleford Wood and Gurney Lane field. I have lived here for many years and have seen the enjoyment of so many people as they walk through this most beautiful part of Cringleford.
The idea of losing this delightful area to mass buildings saddens me very much. There will be so much wildlife destroyed if the development is allowed to go ahead.
A few years ago a previous proposed development on the Gurney Lane field was very fortunately declined. Gurney Lane is not wide enough to safely take any more traffic and the pavement on one side is also not wide enough to let two people walk side by side - far too narrow.
Why does such a lovely and delightful area have to be destroyed? To protect the natural landscape and wildlife habitats of the Y are Valley is so important. I do strongly oppose to any development that would detract from its natural qualities.
Development on these sites would have a devastating effect on the Yare Valley as a green space.

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

We would like to register our objections to many current planning proposals being made for various areas in the Yare Valley
First and foremost any proposal to build on the current Donkey Sanctuary area (ref GNLP 0133E) and the parkland between the Sanctuary and the University (ref GNLP 01333D)
To build here would completely destroy the irreplaceable beauty of the Yare Valley and should not even be contemplated.
In particular these areas are already very heavily used for recreational purposes by the citizens of Norwich and the pathways around these areas are actually becoming quite worn.

This area as a whole is almost overused and could benefit from the opening of additional paths and recreational areas.
Also GNLP 0140 A and B (is this the land listed as GNLP 0145?) and GNLP 0244 and 0461 are in highly sensitive spots which should be protected open space where any development would severely damage the character of the valley and affect its recreational value.
Another area of concern is the walled gardens around Earlham Hall whose loss would severely detract from the beauty and historical value of this Grade 1 listed building.
We have lived in this area for nearly 50 years and this outstanding open space is the equivalent on the west side of the city to Mousehold on the east side where no one would even dream of suggesting development. Both are of enormous importance to humans and to wildlife. We feel that long term protection such as designation as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty would protect this area for present and for future generations,
The river valleys of Norfolk are among its most beautiful assets and once gone they will be lost for ever to the detriment of our descendants

I object to the promotion of the sites mentioned below which, if developed, would result in a loss of green space and consequent impact on the wellbeing of humans and wildlife.

GNLP0140A - additional car parking and other: (the permission granted to Norwich Rugby Club is bad enough and this would just make the situation worse.

GNLP00133E and F - UEA should not be allowed to build on these open spaces

GNLP0244 - UEA should not be allowed to destroy this woodland which is used by local people

With reference to the above, it is important for the Yare Valley Infrastructure Corridor to be protected. It is a valuable amenity popular with local residents as can be seen by the condition of the paths. Rather than reduce its size, every effort should be made to increase it so as to meet the needs of a growing population from nearby housing developments. The large number of development sites which were proposed and situate outside the Corridor should be more than enough to meet the growth needs for housing and employment without impinging on the integrity of the Corridor.

I object to the promotion of the sites mentioned below which, if developed, would result in a loss of green space and consequent impact on the wellbeing of humans and wildlife.

GNLP0140A - additional car parking and other: (the permission granted to Norwich Rugby Club is bad enough and this would just make the situation worse.

GNLP00133E and F - UEA should not be allowed to build on these open spaces

GNLP0244 - UEA should not be allowed to destroy this woodland much used by local people

With reference to the above, it is important for the Yare Valley Infrastructure Corridor to be protected. It is a valuable amenity popular with local residents as can be seen by the condition of the paths. Rather than reduce its size, every effort should be made to increase it so as to meet the needs of a growing population from nearby housing developments. The large number of development sites which were proposed and situate outside the Corridor should be more than enough to meet the growth needs for housing and employment without impinging on the integrity of the Corridor.

The proposed building of houses along the north side of Colney Lane would result in the destruction of woodland currently providing a valuable amenity to local residents. The woodland is enjoyed by walkers, runners, dog walkers, children at play and cyclists. It proves to be popular every day and at the weekend it can be almost as busy as any high street. Building on this site would mean yet another reduction in green escapes within the built up environments of Norwich.

Public demand for leisure access to the woodland will increase as a result of the new building planned for the Cringleford area, particularly the Barrett 640 houses planned for Newfound Farm to the south side of Colney Lane. To destroy existing woodland walks in a rapidly expanding urban environment would be sacrilege at a time when the stress of urban living is on the increase.

We need to remember that as well as trying to increase the building of new homes, the Government is also pursuing the objective of getting residents to exercise more to improve their health. Consequently it would be an adverse move to destroy woodland, an exercise environment and a source of fresh clean air for the sake of squeezing in a few more homes. The traffic volumes in Colney Lane are rising at an increasing rate and the UEA woodland plays an important part in reducing carbon emissions and so assists in alleviating the damaging effects on the population of Cringleford.

Let us also be aware that the removal of the trees will be a threat to wildlife. In planning new housing developments we need to protect nature in a responsible manner for the sake of us all, particularly for the benefit of our children.

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.

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.

We write to comment on several proposals for development infringing current "green" land on both sides of the Yare Valley between the A11 and the University of East Anglia. The sites which our comments address are:
GNLP 0145 A and B, GNLP 00133 E and F, GNLP 0244 and GNLP 0461.
Since similar considerations apply to all these sites, we shall consider them together.
Our interest comes from almost daily use of this area for nearly fifty years for walking or cycling to work at the Colney Lane research institutes and UEA, and for daily walks in the river valley and adjacent woodlands for recreation and for studying wildlife.
The Yare Valley Green Infrastructure Corridor identified in local plans has been a vital factor in enriching the lives of large numbers of citizens of Norwich, Cringleford and adjacent villages for many years, and we have a duty to safeguard this asset for future generations. The green corridor is much used by walkers, and indeed some paths are overused. Rather than reduce the area available, efforts should instead be concentrated on enlarging it. The overall corridor is more than the sum of the individual parts and reduction of the area in one part could adversely affect the integrity and function of the whole. The area boasts many species of plants and animals which are at risk. It is well known that habitat fragmentation is a major cause of loss of biodiversity, and can only be ameliorated by having wildlife corridors of adequate width. We believe that these proposals which would involve substantial losses of several classes of habitat, will reduce the biological corridor below the critical level.
We are also concerned at the additional traffic generated by the proposals. With expected development to the west of Colney Lane, the proposals GNLP 0145 and GNLP 0244 will place additional pressure on the main traffic artery to the hospital. Moreover the road access to site GNLP 0461 is totally inadequate to support traffic generated by additional housing. Also it should be noted that this site is low-lying within the flood plain and becomes very wet each winter.
In view of these factors, we urge that the new GNLP will strike out these specific proposals.

I want to explain my significant concern with respect to the GNLP on the Yare River Valley, particularly in the Cringleford and Colney areas (i.e. areas GNLP0244, 0461, 140a).

1.This is an area of local natural importance. Development here would be devastating to the local wildlife including bird and insect. Where would this wildlife be rehomed too? There is no alternative. How would the environmental impact be managed including greater flooding risk locally or further downstream?
2.This is an area of local natural beauty. It is in daily use by residents for activities such as walking, dog exercise, running, biking, exploring and learning about nature and other such activities not suited to developed and urban areas. There is no alternative areas for these activities, and such land set aside within new development areas is more suited to children's playgrounds and totally not suited to these aforementioned activities which require space in a natural setting rather than a developed area). The plan suggests that more housing is needed because people move to this area for its high environmental qualities and lifestyle choices. Surely the attractiveness of the area would be destroyed by building homes in the areas that create the attractiveness in the first place.
3.The plan states that more people are moving to the area. This should not be a reason to build new homes, this is a reason for an increase in house prices in one area and a reduction in another. If we increase the supply of homes in the area in demand, we will simply create barren and dysfunctional communities in other parts of the country, where houses are almost worthless and unemployment high.
4.The plan takes no account of the impact on Brexit on local industries, for example professional services and IT quoted as being a future driver of greater employment in the area could be significantly reduced due to lower demand for provision of services from the UK to Europe (due to the trade friction, it will be more efficient for the EU to obtain these services from member states). Additionally, for the first time net immigration is an outflow from the UK, rather than an inflow. If this is sustained a historical driver of housing demand will disappear, and if the trend grows we will see housing demand fall as people leave the UK. This means the quantum or shape of housing demand could be lower or different to assumed in the plan.
5.The plan does not fully consider the implications to the city centre of digital trends by 2030s. Digital, analytics and robotics and likely to reduce almost all demand for office space and office workers in this timeframe which could significantly reduce the amount of housing demand.
6.The almost total of loss of office requirements and the trend away from high street shopping killing demand for city centre retail over the next 10-20 years will create huge vacant offices and retail spaces (a trend that has already begun) which is a huge opportunity to create new housing in the already developed area. This can be done by converting the offices into homes (and office space is more easily converted into affordable housing solutions) or replacing the commercial buildings with much taller residential structures. Building upwards (eg 10-20 floors) is a more acceptable impact on the skyline in city centres (as done in other major cities) than decimating the local countryside. If all city office space was converted to minimum 10 story residential buildings, the housing demand would be fully met as well as the demand for affordable housing.
7.The trend emerging from Millennials is significantly different to previous generations. For example, attitudes to owning assets such as property and land are very different, with a much lower appetite to work and save to purchase such expensive assets, and instead embracing digital connectivity, small gadgets and virtual reality (we are already seeing a growing trend to rent property and alternatives from car ownership). This means that we should be looking to convert existing accommodation to better suit future generations who will demand significantly less square footage, rather than building more of what we already have - todays single family 4 bedroom detached house could be tomorrow's home for two families in semi detached accommodation or three families in apartments. This may not appeal to new home building companies who make their money from converting green sites and building large housing estates, but it's a strategy much more in keeping with trends in society.
8.We will see a reversal of people physically moving to communities, as in the future many workers will work from home wherever that may be using digital tools, connectivity to provide services, rather than travel to the office of an insurance company or a manufacturing site (Aviva is already doing this with a significant proportion of staff now permanently working from home providing customer services that used to be provided in call centres).
9.Points 3-8 also apply to the wider plan as well as the areas stated in the first paragraph.

Cringleford Parish Council would like to comment on the following sites proposed for development in the Parish.

0244. A large part of the site lies in Cringleford. The Parish Council endorses the observation made on the site for the GNLP, but notes that it is 'proposed for university related uses and potentially housing'. 'University related' is unspecified but the granting by South Norfolk District Council of planning permission on it for a rugby club and extensive playing fields means that some of the woodland is scheduled for removal and the slopes sculpted to provide pitches for rugby football. The Parish Council opposed this development and regrets the incursion of the valley. The Parish Council is opposed to the development of the rest of the site for housing or any other purpose. Housing would not only add to the emerging urban character of the parish, which most parishioners see as undesirable, but would also further compromise access to the Yare Valley, further detract from the landscape of the valley and remove ever diminishing and much needed green space from the south west fringes of Norwich.

0461. This site has been offered for development on several occasions since 1973. Each time it has been rejected as unsuitable. See comments from Cringleford Parish Council on site Specific Allocations (2 January 2013) when the plot had the reference number 505b. The site clearly lies within the flood plain of the River Yare. The Environmental Agency included it in Flood Zone 2, as was recognized by South Norfolk District Council in its Strategic Risk Assessment 2007. Residents of neighbouring properties report flooding of their gardens by the river in recent years, while changes in rainfall patterns and intensity of rainfall strongly suggest that the risk of flooding of the site has increased.
References: Appeal by Bovis Homes Ltd., Against Refusal of South Norfolk District Council to grant Planning Consent on Land North of Gurney Lane, Cringleford. Proof of Evidence of Mrs. Elaine M.H. Tucker, 27 February 1989 (Ref.CHW/L05/JCH/101).

0307. Planning consent has already been agreed for the site. Barratt Homes/David Wilson Homes have produced a design code, which has been accepted by South Norfolk District Council. Consultation on the application took place in The Willow Centre, Cringleford 27 February 2018. The development, however, affects the northern part of the site and agreement has been reached on the number of dwellings (650) and the mean density
(25 dwellings/ha). The original application was for 800 dwellings so the remaining 150 dwellings may be intended for the southern part of the site. However, development here is constrained by:

1. The Southern Bypass Protection Zone and the much eroded Strategic gap between Hethersett and Cringleford, and
2. The high-tension electricity cables crossing the site on pylons.

Cringleford Parish Council would argue that the southern section of the site is not suitable for development.

0327. The site has been left unallocated because of its proximity to the Southern Bypass (A47) and its Protection Zone, as well as a location within the Strategic Gap between Hethersett and Cringleford. Mixed development is now proposed which, it is claimed, will form a 'gateway' to the settlement. More detailed proposals would be required before the Parish Council would agree to the plot being developed. The Parish Council would certainly oppose commercial development. It dislikes the 'gateway' concept, much beloved by developers and planners as total inappropriate to the character of Cringleford. Cognizance should be taken of atmospheric pollution and noise from the neighbouring A roads.

0486. Roughly half of the site lies in Hethersett and both parish councils must be consulted about development proposals. This has not always been the case. Development for employment is envisaged which, presumably, would relate to developments at Thickthorn Farm. Development for employment would further increase the urbanisation of the area adjacent to the Thickthorn interchange where a service station, motel, Burger King, park-and-ride and McDonalds already form what many would consider an inappropriate cluster of activities on the approach to the historic city of Norwich. Further strengthening of the cluster is undesirable. It would also further erode the Southern Bypass Protection Zone and the Strategic Gap, which are important to the landscape setting of Cringleford.

2. Sites Neighbouring Cringleford

0133-D, E and F. This large site lies in Norwich but it abuts the Yare Valley and its development is, therefore, of concern to neighbouring parishes. Development would further hem in the valley with buildings and completely change its semi-wild character. Plot 0133 encroaches on the valley itself, while its south-western corner touches on a drainage channel, suggesting that the area is liable to flood.

0358 is located in Hethersett, but the development of the site for employment purposes would simply strengthen the cluster of employment-related activities around the Thickthorn interchange. See comments on 0486.

0331 is located in Colney, but directly abuts the historic boundary between Colney and Cringleford parishes. Although, with a ditch, bank and hedge it is distinct and important feature in the landscape, Cringleford Parish Council are sympathetic to the development of this area to extend the existing Norwich Research Park and hospital lands for education and life sciences research purposes, including any future expansion of the hospital and of associated hospital and university residences. This would help to sustain the Norwich­ Cambridge tech corridor. Completing the development of land to the south west of Colney Lane is considered a more benign option than developing the green areas to the north east of Colney Lane and would protect the recreational lands around the university and Yare Valley. Development of 0331, however, should be dependent and conditional on the provision of a new access road to the hospital and research park from the Watton Road (as proposed many years ago) to relieve the traffic from the already congested Colney Lane. Colney Lane is scheduled to take traffic from at least another 750 homes on and around Roundhouse and Newfound Farm, plus the new University/Rugby Club car park.

I have seen the planning maps posted up in the woodland Cringleford area and am concerned about the planned development of existing protected green space of the Yare Valley Green Corridor.
I am particularly concerned that the area from Colney road down to the river Yare should not be developed. This is an area used a lot by the local community, for running, walking and watching wildlife. Contact with nature/woodland is vital for health and I think replacement of green areas with buildings/roads will be detrimental to the overall health of the community. You can see from the well-used paths in the area, that many people currently use and enjoy this green space.
Wildlife in the area is also likely to be adversely affected, and this should be taken into consideration when thinking of making disconnects between different areas of green space.
As well as the impact on the health and relaxation of local residents (and less local residents who come to visit Colney and use the space - e.g dog walkers, park runners), the character of the area will also be eroded and the relative tranquillity we now enjoy will be lost.

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.

GNLP 0133
GNLP 0461
GNLP 0224

This should be a protected area;
There is an abundance of wildlife which would be destroyed and disturbed if building occurs. People need open spaces to enjoy and wind down from the stresses of today. The area is enjoyed by many people wildlife and plants - once destroyed it will be lost forever.
The area is a flood risk.
Planners should lead by the local plans and not approve any sites for development and invade onto the protected land of the corridor.
The traffic would be detrimental to all and road accidents and deaths would occur; the noise level increase. The area has always been protected and should remain so. It has a very diverse habitat. As mentioned home flooding would occur. Since the recent buildings have been erected the flood has got worse any more building would case devastating and harmful effects.
Any further building would be harmful to the area causing pollution and detrimental to the natural habitat. Every effort should be made to formulating local plans to increase the corridors extent to meet the needs of the growing population from adjacent housing development. The paths need improving as they're frequently used.

Site proposals consultation document, p.172, para 5.23 Cringleford: GNLP 0244
The development of this site would result in the loss of a locally important green space, which would impact adversely on the Yare Valley Green Infrastructure Corridor. Any reduction in area could affect the whole corridor in its ability to function effectively. This particular site in the designated river valley is currently a protected woodland area, a vital habitat for a variety of wildlife and a precious resource for humans. Mature broadleaved trees such as oak and beech, which may be more than a hundred years old, would have to be destroyed, and these cannot be replaced by planting a few saplings as a token gesture to try to appease planners and conservationists. The possible impact on water run-off into the valley and potential flooding, as a result of loss of water-holding woodland, is an additional consideration.
The current Local Plan should therefore be adhered to, so that this ecologically important area continues to be protected.

Supporting representations submitted on behalf of the UEA in respect of sites GNLP0133-A to F (Norwich), GNLP0140-A, GNLP0140-C (Colney) and GNLP0244 (Cringleford), in addition there are two newly submitted sites through the Reg18 consultation adjoining the Sainsbury Centre and at the Congregational Hall within the main campus. Refer to attached report for full details.

Covering letter text
Bidwells have been appointed by the University of East Anglia (UEA) to submit Representations in connection with the Greater Norwich Local Plan (GNLP) Regulation 18 Consultation. The Representations contained within this Report promote a suite of sites across the UEA campus and the wider Norwich Research Park (NRP). Most of these sites have been previously submitted as part of
the Call for Sites consultation in 2016. Subsequently, the sites have received preliminary suitability assessments within the Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA), released as part of the Regulation 18 consultation. The Representations endeavour to address any potential constraints
identified in the HELAA assessment for each of these sites, to demonstrate their deliverability. Representations for two new sites, which were not submitted as part of the earlier Call for Sites process, are also included within this Report. The deliverability of these sites is ascertained and demonstrated
within the Report.
The sites promoted within this Report encapsulate a variety of uses, but the majority are focussed around UEA related development (e.g. teaching, research, accommodation, general infrastructure, ancillary uses), along with some being promoted for modest residential development, and the expansion
of the local knowledge-based industry around the NRP. All site Representations include a red line plan within the Report, alongside a plan that displays all sites submitted across the UEA Campus and the wider NRP, which fall within UEA control. The sites submitted are as follows:
Previously Submitted Sites:
● GNLP0133-A - University Drive North;
● GNLP0133-B - University Drive West - Undeveloped part of the Earlham Hall allocation;
● GNLP0133-C - Cow Drive North;
● GNLP0133-D - South of Suffolk Walk;
● GNLP0133-E - Strawberry Fields;
GNLP0133-F - Bluebell Road;
● GNLP0140-A - Colney Lane Clubhouse/Pavilion / GNLP0140-B- Colney Lane Car Park
Extension;
● GNLP0140-C - Triangle Site; and
● GNLP0244 - Land at Colney Lane (plantation and observatory site/grounds maintenance).
New Sites Submitted:
● Congregation Hall; and
● Land adjoining the Sainsbury Centre.
Alongside the Representations in support of each of these sites, the Report contains the UEA's
responses to relevant consultation questions within the GNLP Regulation 18 Consultation Document.
The Report includes a detailed response to Questions 34 and 35. This response endeavours to advocate
the allocation of a sustainable transport link between the UEA main Campus and Colney Lane.
We trust that the Representations will assist the Greater Norwich Local Plan team in progressing its Local Plan review towards the Preferred Options stage, the consultation for which we currently understand is likely to commence in Summer 2019.
As indicated within these Representations, the UEA and Bidwells are both keen to engage with the Greater Norwich Local Plan team to meet the challenges of growth, and look forward to discussing matters, relating to the UEA, further in due course.
I would be grateful if you would acknowledge receipt of these representations.
Should you have any questions at this stage then please contact me.

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.

The research park footprint has changed little in nearly 20 years and is, effectively the area of the old research park, the hospital and various spin off businesses, now designated as science-park and health related developments. These spin off businesses apparently occupy underused space in the Genome building, part of the refurbished Enterprise Centre and various, aging, single storey, smaller buildings behind the Cotman centre. The new Centrum Building appears to be underused for research:part of it is converted as the new headquarters of the Big C charity and accounts department of UEA - not really the intended use. In 2015 an indicative masterplan was presented by UEA and NRP. The new Bob Champion, LEAF and Quadram buildings are on COL 1 land east of Hethersett Lane. The remainder of COL 1 and COL 2 land appears to be an aspiration for masses of undefined buildings and carparks part of which appear to lie outside the development boundary of the Research Park. Little attempt has been made incorporate in the plan the landscaped public spaces and recreational areas enshrined in the JCS and LP. There is no need for further greenfield sites to be allocated for the NRP in the foreseeable future.

The UEA plantation area adjacent Colney Lane was originally conceived as a woodland of mainly broadleaved trees. Site GNLP0244, adjacent the playing fields, is scheduled for a variety of uses and would involve the further removal of trees on this designated green field location. All of this would be in addition the trees planned to be felled to create rugby pitches in the 2016/0233 application for development of the much prized Yare Valley. These proposals would reduce the effectiveness of the plantation as a water storage area as identified by the Environment Agency potentially increasing future flood risks of the Yare. This area should be left alone.

GNLP0331, 63.55ha, in Colney, and 0307, 44.7 ha in Cringleford, could become major residential and commercial developments. Medical and research uses are also included.We feel that these aspects are already catered for within the NRP allocations.These proposals appear to conflict with both national and local plans aimed at protecting sensitive environmental areas.

The call for sites made in the GNLP embrace over 100ha in the Yare Valley stretching from Colney Lane to the bypass, filling in the last greenfield area separating Colney from Cringleford.

So far the Yare Valley parishes have played the planning game by the book with very little success. We expect this GNLP consultative process to prove us wrong (p. 104).