GNLP0461

See comments on GNLP 0244

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.

The Gurney Lane development would have a detremental effect on the natural Yare Valley site and the massive housing impacing on what is in fact a Flood Plain.

As a local resident, I moved to cringleford because of the community feel, but also due to the quiet space. with more developments bring more noise, traffic. The new estates we have had in the last 10 years have changed the feel. Constant parking issues with the school, colney lane to become a rat run. Pressure on local facilties including healthcare. Not to mention the woodland and wildlife that would be affected by yet more building in a conservation area. Does that not mean anything anymore?

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.

These green areas close to the city should be strongly protected. They are important habitats and link with the valley corridor. I object to the proposal.

This is an area of wildlife and considering the uea is supposed to be worried about the environment I think it's awful that this has a proposal of 40 houses the impact of that on the local area will be immense. The Cringleford estate is enormous this can only be purely to line the pockets of some official or land owner not for the good of the environment, wildlife and local people.

I object to the loss of green space and its impact on the wellbeing of people and wildlife. The large number of development sites being proposed outside the valley should easily meet the expected growth needs for housing and employment, without risking damage to what local plans identify as a Strategic Green Infrastructure Corridor. The green corridor is much used, in some places over-used as evidenced by the condition of some of its paths. Rather than reduce its size, every effort should be made to increase its extent to meet the needs of a growing population from adjacent housing developments.

This is unnecessary development which will effect important woodlands and will have an adverse effect on the environment.

Object strongly to this proposal. The area is a small patch of green/wildlife in a sea of houses roads. The roads are too small to sustain anymore housing. Traffic will be impossible. Plenty of other sites in town centre/ offices that should be used for housing. If this goes ahead then another area of our beautiful country will be ruined for ever. Bird numbers and wildlife will be decimated a very sad day for mankind.

Objection on behalf of the Taylor family

You cannot seriously put 40 houses on this small patch of green at the bottom of a very narrow road that can barely cope with the traffic it already has. It is important for the well being of thousands of people who walk there. The wild life has already been decimated. Bird numbers have decreased and wildlife will have no where to live. It is a very small area of immense beauty and importance. Build 40 houses somewhere else preferably in the huge number of empty offices/shops to be found in the centre of Norwich.

I strongly object to this development. The Yare Valley is a protected site and should remain as such. This development would impact hugely on the lives of local people who currently use the amenity on a daily basis. The destruction of this green space and its wildlife is inconceivable.

Further issues of concern are access and increased traffic should such a development go ahead.

This land is a next to a wooded area which the local residents walk in the lane access is already congested and narrow

This proposal will add additional traffic along Colney lane, which is already quite busy
There are already flooding issues at the end of Gurney lane

The loss of green space denying future generations this beautiful place to walk in. 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 improve and protect it

Save some green space please!

More than enough residential development sites have been proposed in Cringleford without needing to build 40 houses on a flood plain, further eroding the green corridor of the Yare valley and exacerbating the problems with traffic on Gurney lane.

This development is unsustainable environmentally lying on the flood plane of the Yare
It will destroy an area of woodland that sustains a variety of wildlife including Otters
It is a space enjoyed by the community for recreation eg walkers runners cyclist etc
I oppose this sites development

We consider that the allocation of these sites for development 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.

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.

Access is already difficult and sometimes impossible due to inconsiderate parking by people who park here and then visit the University or Hospital on foot, presumably because they wish to avoid parking fees.

This area by Cringleford Wood is currently home to horses that can graze in the field here or on the adjacent water meadows as they please. I would like it to stay that way so that we can hand the Yare River Valley on to our children undeveloped and knowing that we did a good job as custodians of our beautiful land. Don't build on it.

I strongly object for further development proposals for housing to be built where established woods are down well used country paths off Colney lane towards the lakes at UEA. Surely, we should be preserving this walkway & woods. This is a step too far for development.

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

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.