GNLP0461

Showing comments and forms 91 to 97 of 97

Comment

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 16566

Received: 22/03/2018

Respondent: Dr daniels

Representation Summary:

GNLP0461 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. Development infringing current "green" land on both sides of the Yare Valley between the A11 and the University of East Anglia. 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.

Full text:

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.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 16600

Received: 22/03/2018

Respondent: Mr Justin Wood

Representation Summary:

Concerned 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 2.This is an area of local natural beauty. It is in daily use 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. The increase the supply of homes will simply create barren and dysfunctional communities where houses are almost worthless and unemployment high

Full text:

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.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 16619

Received: 01/03/2018

Respondent: Cringleford Parish Council

Representation Summary:

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).

Full text:

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.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 16634

Received: 14/03/2018

Respondent: Dr Charlotte Turner

Representation Summary:

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 the replacement of green areas with buildings/roads will be detrimental to the overall health of the community. 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 ).

Full text:

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.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 16637

Received: 22/03/2018

Respondent: Mrs Carole Williams

Representation Summary:

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.

Full text:

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.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 16641

Received: 21/03/2018

Respondent: Mrs Dorothy Wood

Representation Summary:

This should be a protected area;
There is an abundance of wildlife which would be destroyed and disturbed if building occurs. 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.

Full text:

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.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 16776

Received: 22/03/2018

Respondent: Mr David Turner

Representation Summary:

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 short sighted 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.

Full text:

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.