GNLP0307

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.

This development goes against the Council's Area wide planning policies, specifically:

Policy 1 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"

Policy 2 Promoting good design
"Respect landscape character and the historic environment"

Policy 7 Supporting communities'
Health
"greater access to green space and the countryside"

Policy 8 Culture leisure and entertainment
"access to green space including formal recreation, county parks and the wider countryside".

It also contradicts the specific policy for Cringleford for "modest development" and "green infrastructure to enhance public access to the countryside and the Yare valley"

There is already enough new housing in this area. The original school built on Round house way took away the possibility of people from the original Cringleford being able to go to school in Cringleford. The developers promised a school for both sides of the A11. This did not happen and Old Cringleford has suffered. I think that further develpments in this area will make what little commumity spirit left go for good. Build in the city not on the only patch of green we have left. Soon it will be solid housing from here to outside Wymondham. If people do not draw the line there will be nothing green left. Lives will be ruined

This land included woodland used for recreation and walking and providing access to the university lake to Cringleford residents

SITE PROPOSALS DOCUMENT
2.2 BDW has previously put forward site GNLP0307 and continues to support this
site for development. The site area includes an existing commitment that has
outline planning permission (2013/1793/O) for a residential-led development
that includes 650 new homes. This site is currently the subject of detailed preapplication
discussions and the Reserved Matters submission is expected in April
2018. That element of the site is therefore self-evidently deliverable and it is
appropriate to include that as part of the housing supply as has been shown in
the draft GNLP.
2.3 For the avoidance of any doubt, the area that relates to this part of the site is
identified at Appendix 1.
2.4 BDW also has an interest in the land to the south of this site that makes up the
remainder of site GNLP0307. The Site Proposals document acknowledges the
consented scheme to the north of this area but appears to overlook the
development potential of the remainder of this area. BDW therefore wish to
make it clear that it is willing and able to deliver further housing on the
remainder of this site.
2.5 It is noted that the HELAA includes a RAG assessment of likely constraints and
impacts, which contribute to the overall assessment of the developable area of
the site.
2.6 This submission includes further work to demonstrate the extent of the
remainder of this site (i.e. that land outside of the area subject to the outline
planning permission). To assist the Council in its further assessment of this site
for allocation in the GNLP, the following is provided:A Development Framework Plan prepared by Savills Urban Design Studio
(Appendix 2). This indicates that the maintenance of a substantial green
buffer along (in accordance with the adopted Neighbourhood Plan) the A47
boundary that is proposed to be landscaped. It allows for a large area of
open space between the consented scheme and the proposed new
development site. This area of open space will allow for the recreation land
required by the consented scheme to be provided in this area, as intended.
It includes a detailed network of foot and cycle clinks within the developed
area and the greenspaces, which connect to the consented scheme and
provide the potential to link to adjoining parcels should they come forward
for development.
The Framework Plan also for road access to tie in with the 'spine road' that is
to be delivered through the consented scheme, which has been designed to
allow for bus access. An indicative network of streets through the site is
identified that provides for a logical rod network and would complement the
proposals on the consented scheme and ensure appropriate connectivity.This demonstrates that the amber ratings for access, accessibility to services
and transport & roads in the HELAA is not justified.
The site has an area of 24ha. The exact development yield will be subject to
detailed design work and further discussions with the relevant Councils to
identify any other supporting uses that are felt necessary at this site.
* A Landscape Overview prepared by CSA Environmental (Appendix 3).
This identifies that the site to be of medium/low landscape value and
medium sensitivity. It concludes that the site is well contained and that the
Development Framework Plan successfully demonstrates how site could be
developed without materially impacting on the landscape character of the
immediate area. This suggests that the amber landscape impact of this site
identified in the HELAA is not justified.
* A Drainage Review (appendix 4) prepared by the Engineering Manager at
BDW. This builds on work undertake for the detailed drainage of the
consented scheme on the neighbouring site. It identifies that the site is in
Flood Zone 1 and that the land is suitable for a SuDS scheme and that this
will be incorporated into the layout of the site. It reviews to the new
obligations that come into force in April 2018 that will require Anglian Water
to ensure that a suitable connection to the foul water system is provided and
provide any network reinforcement that is required. As such, it is
demonstrated that there are no insurmountable drainage issues that would
prevent the site from coming forward for development. This suggests that
the comments in the HELAA regarding drainage capacity and flood risk are
capable of being addressed.
* A Transport Report (Appendix 5) prepared by AECOM. This summarises
the transport background of the site and the surrounding area, including the
committed improvements that exist in the local area. It demonstrates that
the site is located in a sustainable location and is well-placed to benefit from
these transport improvements in the local area. It identifies further
mitigation measures that may be required and confirms that these are
deliverable. It concludes that the allocation of this site for housing
development does not indicate any transport issues that cannot be
mitigated. The report demonstrates that the amber rating for access,
accessibility to services and transport and roads identified in the HELAA will
need to be reviewed to reflect the delivery of future developments and local
improvements in the vicinity of the site.
2.7 This additional information provides further evidence to support the allocation of
this site for housing. The site is under the control of a housebuilder that is
already active in the area and is able to bring the site forward for development
as part of the adjoining consented scheme. It could be delivered concurrently
with this scheme or as a later phase - the timing of delivery would be a matter
for discussion with the Council. Delivery of the entire site identified under
GNLP0307 will start in the first five years of the plan period.

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.

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).

I enclose further information to support proposed site allocation GNLP0307

See attachments