GNLP0321

Showing comments and forms 1 to 8 of 8

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 13890

Received: 13/03/2018

Respondent: Bixley Parish Council

Representation:

This site is not appropriate development on the basis that it would extend the linear form of Poringland village and promote further linear growth to the north of the existing urbanized area.

Full text:

We are concerned that development of this site would have a negative environmental impact, both in terms of the loss of habitat on the site itself but also on the surrounding area.The site is adjacent to Poringland Wood and there is a pond within the site, providing a habitat for wildlife.

There is also a watercourse running along part of the eastern side of the site. The fall of the land is in the region of 5 metres across the site, south to north and some water draining from the site would therefore tend to flow through this onward to the woodland at Osier Carr and beyond. Surface water run-off from any development would extenuate draining into this watercourse, carrying with it pollutants from the site. Overall, we consider this site to be in reasonable quality natural environment where it may not be possible to mitigate the impact of development with the resultant negative impact of the site on the character of the area.

The Framingham Earl/Poringland area is known for surface water flooding problems and this site would fall within this water catchment area and likely to be at some risk of surface water flooding. There are several ponds on the site, evidence of the high water table and the nature of the sub-soil type, which contributes to poor drainage. The Land slopes down to the North and surface water would therefore drain across the site in this direction with a greater risk of flooding in the Northern part.

The site is also some distance from the local services, recreation and community facilities. There is access to public transport via the bus route on the B1332 which runs adjacent to the site, and to Framingham Earl High School, but it is more remote from the hub of services at the southern end of Poringland.

In terms of traffic management, we consider that access to and from the site could be an issue with regards to traffic turning into or out of the site, across the lane of approaching traffic, particularly at peak times and given the proximity to the school. Traffic-related issues are significant local concern and the development would contribute to this, placing additional pressure on the existing roads. This would not only affect the B1332 but also Arminghall Lane which is increasingly used by commuter traffic to circumvent congestion on the Trowse bypass/A146.

The immediate area has also experienced problems in the capacity of the waste water treatment network to cope with effluent during periods of heavy rainfall and we would have concerns whether the waste water disposal from this site could be effectively managed.

The site is not contiguous to the existing built-up area but would compound the ribbon development of the settlement, rather than compact development. This tendency will also contribute to the existing traffic issues referred to above. To allow this site to proceed would not assist in establishing a development boundary for the Poringland urban area and encourage a blurring of the demarcation between the urban and rural landscape.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 14852

Received: 20/03/2018

Respondent: Mr Robert Mills

Representation:

Agree with views of Bixley Parish Council. The new development opposite Octagon Barn (west of Norwich Road) has already unacceptably extended the linear development of the village and irrevocably altered its character. Development of this site would equally be unacceptable and would compromise the visual/recreational amenity of Poringland Woods.

Full text:

Agree with views of Bixley Parish Council. The new development opposite Octagon Barn (west of Norwich Road) has already unacceptably extended the linear development of the village and irrevocably altered its character. Development of this site would equally be unacceptable and would compromise the visual/recreational amenity of Poringland Woods.

Support

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 15205

Received: 21/03/2018

Respondent: Mrs Linda Brook

Representation:

I would support the development of this site, it is opposite a site already being developed, and would give some balance to the street scene. It is also adjacent to GNLP site1032. It would require some form of traffic management for safe turning right on to the B1332 for vehicles heading in the direction of Norwich. It is however on the very outer limit of Framingham Earl and would be extending the built boundary of the village. There would still be a woodland buffer between the site and the residential parts of the village along the main road (the B1332).

Full text:

I would support the development of this site, it is opposite a site already being developed, and would give some balance to the street scene. It is also adjacent to GNLP site1032. It would require some form of traffic management for safe turning right on to the B1332 for vehicles heading in the direction of Norwich. It is however on the very outer limit of Framingham Earl and would be extending the built boundary of the village. There would still be a woodland buffer between the site and the residential parts of the village along the main road (the B1332).

Support

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 16371

Received: 01/03/2018

Respondent: Mr John Joyce

Representation:

The villages of Poringland, Framingham Earl, Stoke Holy Cross and Caistor use the facilities of Poringland. The volume, and to a lesser extent the speed, of traffic on the B1332 main road through Poringland is a significant community concern. It passes most of the services and facilities (shops, schools, village hall, dentist, pharmacy etc) and discourages walking and reduces the desirability of such trips. Most traffic is heading to Norwich for work, shopping and leisure. Whilst through traffic cannot be easily mitigated, new development should ideally be placed at the Norwich end of the current facilities.

Full text:

Site Specific Comments (in support of sites to the north of Poringland notably 0321 or 1032)
The villages of Poringland, Framingham Earl, Stoke Holy Cross and Caistor use the facilities of Poringland. The volume, and to a lesser extent the speed, of traffic on the B1332 main road through Poringland is a significant community concern. It passes most of the services and facilities (shops, schools, village hall, dentist, pharmacy etc) and discourages walking and reduces the desirability of such trips. Most traffic is heading to Norwich for work, shopping and leisure. Whilst through traffic cannot be easily mitigated, new development should ideally be placed at the Norwich end of the current facilities.

Support

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 16407

Received: 19/03/2018

Respondent: Poringland Parish Council

Representation:

GNLP0321 - Site is to north of the village so would not create traffic through the village. Matches up the other side of the road. However is Grade 2 agricultural land, and contributes to the linear vision of the village. SUPPORT

Full text:

Site Specifics

GNLP1032 - Favour: Site is to north of the village so would not create traffic through the village. Matches up the other side of the road. Against: Is Grade 2 ag land, and contributes to the linear vision of the village. SUPPORT

GNLP0485 - This huge site would at a stroke integrate Arminghall/Bixley with the Poringland conurbation. It has significant landscape, archaeological and environmental issues. It is far too far from any facilities and would be unsustainably reliant upon cars. OPPOSE

GNLP0131 - This is a smaller site but again unsustainably far from public transport, excessively reliant upon cars with no pavement in the vicinity and little prospect of being able to construct one. OPPOSE

GNLP0491 - This would significantly alter the form and size of Caistor St Edmund on archaeologically important site in open countryside. It is a form of 'backland' development. Access is severely limited. No access to public transport, no pavements to village and schools. OPPOSE

GNLP0494 - The access to this site is significantly constrained. Flood risk, no drainage, comes out very near a junction. OPPOSE

GNLP1047 - Access to this site is severely constrained. It is former RAF site so may well be subject to contamination. Site dominated by the mast towers. Form would consolidate development each side of the Stoke Road leading to further infill development. OPPOSE

GNLP0321 - Site is to north of the village so would not create traffic through the village. Matches up the other side of the road. However is Grade 2 agricultural land, and contributes to the linear vision of the village. SUPPORT

GNLP0589A - This would exacerbate the 'octopus' nature of the conurbation and would detract from an area of scenic value otherwise sadly lacking in this area. OPPOSE

GNLP0589B - Leading on from the development of the Long Road, Hibbett and Key site and the EACH site this would be a logical development. It would mean the loss of significant landscape value in Spur Lane. If it could be developed at a distance from the tree lined Spur Lane it might well be viable. Will have a significant impact upon the subterranean drainage flow towards Long Road and Poringland surface water drainage systems. SUPPORT

GNLP0391A - Flooding issues. Road network not suitable. Semi-detached from the village - contributing to the 'octopus' of development with drainage issues. Intrudes upon an area of landscape value between Framingham Earl and St Andrew's Church. OPPOSE

GNLP0391B - Similar arguments to those against the site south of Burgate Lane. OPPOSE

GNLP0003 - Isolated site in open countryside, contrary to policy, detached from the conurbation should not even be considered as a valid site. OPPOSE

GNLP0223 - Significant access problems with no comfortable access through the Norfolk Homes development. Would alter significantly the 'shape' of the conurbation into the form of an 'octopus'. Would reduce the distinctions between Poringland and Stoke. Would have significant Governance issues between Stoke and Poringland. Would significantly negatively alter the drainage problems of Boundary Way - known surface water, flooding issues.. Isolated. OPPOSE

GNLP0169 - Would contribute to the disjointed form of development of the conurbation. Extends beyond the comfortable walking/ cycling distance to schools, doctors and shopping. Makes the village an 'octopus' with its tentacles extending into open countryside. Dominant over the village approaches from Shotesham. OPPOSE

GNLP0316 - Land North of Bungay Road, east of Rectory Lane and south of White House. This land has significant environmental assets, hedges ponds - it would require a significant environmental audit. Would contribute to the perceived linear vision of the conurbation. Site has significant landscape value as the headwaters of the Well Beck and is one of the few views of landscape available to the road traveller between Poringland and Brooke. OPPOSE

GNLP0280 - Some problems over access, perhaps requiring the demolition of one house. Drainage problems. Disconnected from the built form of the conurbation. Would contribute to the linear form of the conurbation. OPPOSE

GNLP0323 - would be a welcome development if access along the lane can be seen as adequate. OPPOSE

Support

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 16549

Received: 16/03/2018

Respondent: Framingham Earl Parish Council

Representation:

Support the possible development of this site. It is opposite the current development. Traffic from this site would have access to the B1332 without adding to the traffic passing through Framingham Earl/Poringland at peak times. As this road is very congested at peak times some form of traffic management would be required in order for traffic to Norwich. There would still be the woodland buffer between the development and the more residential parts along the main road. Extension to the boundary is a concern to residents, which at present gives a very definite boundary between the city and the countryside.

Full text:

Site GNLP 0321 adjacent to B1332
We would support the possible development of this site. It is opposite the current development on the west of the B1332 by Bennett Homes. Traffic from this site GNLP0321 would have access to the B1332 without adding to the traffic passing through Framingham Earl/Poringland at peak times. However, as this road is very congested at peak times some form of traffic management (possibly a roundabout) would be required in order from traffic exiting the site and turning right in the direction of Norwich, to be able to do so quickly and safely. There would still be the woodland buffer between the development and the more residential parts along the main road. It would however be somewhat extending the boundary which is of concern to residents, as that could lead to the area being even more built-up in the future. Thereby destroying the open countryside aspect of the area, which at present gives a very definite boundary between the city and the countryside.

Site GNLP 0589A Pigot Lane

This site which is adjacent to the Earlsmead development on Pigot Lane would be a natural continuation. However, it must be borne in mind that there are grave concerns regarding the amount of extra traffic that further development along Pigot Lane would create. The EACH hospice being built at the west end of Pigot Lane will bring an increase in traffic and not all of it would necessarily be using the main B1332 to get to the hospice. Sat Navs direct traffic up Fox Road, Pigot Lane, from the A146 Lowestoft Road. These are narrow twisty lanes with no pavements or street lighting, they are not capable of sustaining big increases in traffic. The junction between Pigot Lane and Long Road is extremely hazardous as it is on a bend with limited sight lines, increases in traffic using that junction
will only exacerbate the dangers. One of the major concerns to residents is the well-known surface water and drainage problems in the whole of the Framingham Earl/Poringland area. Disturbance of the natural water courses increases the risk of flooding, and not necessarily on the site being developed, it just moves the problem elsewhere. This is also true for the many natural springs in the area.

Site GNLP 0589B Pigot Lane/Spur Lane

This site, known locally as the 40 Acre plantation, whilst it would look on paper an ideal site to be developed, it is a natural sandy heathland of which we are losing a great deal. In the GNLP document it says that one of the environments that should be protected is heathland. Our residents feel that this site would be better retained as an open space for recreation, considering the rapid loss of natural open areas within the parish. This is a haven for the local wildlife including bats, tawny owls, 3 species of woodpecker, muntjac and roe deer and it could become a welcome nature amenity to be enjoyed by all residents of the area, much as the Poringland Woods is enjoyed.

The EACH hospice (to the west of the site) chose this site as it would be in a woodland setting, giving quiet and peaceful surroundings, not sitting next to an big housing estate. A wildlife haven next to the hospice would enhance the outlook for all those using the hospice and bring a welcome area of natural tranquility. The Spur Lane, Pigot Lane and Long Road aspect is totally rural which is appreciated by residents, any housing development would destroy that tranquility.
Therefore as a parish council we could not support development on this site.

Site GNLP 0391A Hall |Road

This site is of very great concern to both the residents and the parish council. The reasons being:-

1) Drainage
The water table at this point is only just below the surface, and this site is regularly underwater remaining so for many weeks, this has been getting worse in the last few years. The water leaves the site via the network of drains and ditches around the site, and they would not be able to sustain an increase in any run of from this site, as they are regularly seen to be almost overflowing. The water eventually finds its way via Yelverton Road into Gull Lane, both of which have springs which come to the surface causing the lanes to be flooded. At times this results in Yelverton Road being impassable due to the flooding. Gull Lane in particular (it was originally a gully hence the name Gull Lane)is seeing an unacceptable increase in traffic using it due to SatNavs directing vehicles from the A146 up the lane to get to Framingham Earl, including wagons over the statutory weight limits. This in turn results in serious erosion of the road surface. These lanes were never intended to carry the volumes of traffic now using them, should development go ahead, the lanes would then have to cope with construction traffic using the lane as a "short cut" further adding the dangers on the lanes.

2) Access
This site is on a very rural tree lined lane, with no pavements or street lights. Development on this site would increase considerably the volumes of traffic accessing the local schools, shops and other facilities in the area by using Hall Road and Long Road. This in turn increases the risks to pedestrians, cyclists (school children cycling to the local High School) and drivers, and as much of any construction traffic would also use these roads it all adds to the dangers.

3) Environment
This site is 65 meters from the boundary of the historic Grade 1 listed round tower church of St Andrews Framingham Earl and only 40 meters from the graveyard. Any development would have a severe impact on the setting of this historic church. The NPPF policy 132 states "Substantial harm to designated heritage assets of the highest significance-notably Grade 1 & Grade 2 listed buildings should be wholly exceptional" This site does fall into that category.
The area is well known for supporting a wide variety of wildlife, bats, buzzards, barn owls, tawny owls, roe deer, muntjac deer as well as frogs and newts. Development would destroy much of these important and valued habitats which give the area its very rural aspect.

For these reasons the parish council could not support the inclusion of this site within the plan.

Site 0391B Burgate Lane

This is another site which causes grave concerns to the residents and the parish council. It has all the same problems as site 0391A.

1) Drainage
The site is known to have standing water which drains into the ditches around the site, and as stated for site 0391A, it follows the same routes into Yelverton Road and onto Gull Lane, with all the attendant problems stated in the above submission regarding 0391A. Both sites have natural springs in and around their boundaries, which when the natural courses are disturbed by construction, resurface elsewhere creating problems for others living in the vicinity.

2) Access
The site is described as accessible to 2 primary schools, one in Framingham Earl and one in Alpington. It is stated in the GNLP that access to schools "should be within 2 miles of SAFE walking facilities". This is clearly not the case for this site. It can be over 2 miles to get to the B1332 using Burgate Lane and Hall Road, certainly not safe walking distance for anyone, let alone people with children walking to school along narrow windy unpaved lanes and having to do it 4 times a day. Therefore those journeys would be made by car adding yet more traffic to these narrow lanes. The junction from Burgate Lane onto Hall Road does not have safe sight lines now, add in all the extra vehicles a) during construction and b) from the development, it would not meet the NPPF policy 32 -of "safe suitable access for all people". These are all narrow single track lanes totally unsuited and unable to cope with any further increases in traffic.

3) Environment
This site is similar to site 0391A in supporting a wide range of wild life- bats, barn owls, tawny owls, buzzards, muntjac deer and roe deer. It also has two wet land areas on the boundaries and these have a variety of frogs and newts in them. Development would destroy much of this important and very much valued habitat which is an integral part of the rural setting of the area.

Therefore for all the reasons stated above for both sites 0391A and 0391B the parish council cannot support these sites being included in the plan.
Site GNLP 0003 Burgate Lane/Bella Vista

This site is totally outside the building boundary of Framingham Earl. It is situated on a very sharp narrow corner of Burgate Lane, and would have all the same access problems as sites 0391A & B. That is more than the 2 miles safe walking to the primary schools, and other facilities in Framingham Earl and Poringland. The volumes of traffic it would engender using this very narrow lane, which has very limited "passing "places makes access to the site inherently dangerous to all users.

Conclusion

In conclusion, whilst we appreciate that there are many sites which have been put forward and that it may not be easy to visit them all. However, in certain areas, with known drainage problems, and sites being proposed that are in or near "lanes" it should be a necessity for officers to visit these sites rather than just relying on what can be seen from a desk top computer screen. We are sure it is fully appreciated that there is detailed hydrological data which can be assessed to ensure all surface water and drainage problems are effectively reviewed to minimize any potential flooding or associated ineffective drainage by not taking this data fully into account. This is of particular relevance to sites put forward in Framingham Earl, but also in the wider Poringland catchment area.
There has already been a vast amount of development in the area, the whole of Norfolk has seen 5% between 2010 and 2017 whereas Framingham Earl and Poringland has seen 10% twice as much as the rest of Norfolk.

Residents feel that they are being swamped and that the character of the two villages has been and will be irrevocably changed.

Comment

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 16574

Received: 11/03/2018

Respondent: Mr John Henson

Representation:

To North of B1332 next Boundary Farm - detached from the conurbation by Poringland Wood. Contribute to the linear profile of the conurbation. This could offer employemnt and business opportunities that the conurbation is dramatically short of.

Full text:

Bixley
1. GLNP1032 Site to north of B1332 Boundary Farm: This site would contribute dramatically to the linear vision of the conurbation. Grade 2 agricultural land. Drainage problems However it could offer industrial and employment spaces necessary in this conurbations.

Caistor St Edmund
2. GNLP0485 This huge site would at a stroke integrate Arminghall/Bixley with the Poringland conurbation. It has significant landscape, archaeological and environmental issues . It is far too far from any facilities and would be unsustainably reliant upon cars. Oppose

3. GNLP0131 This is a smaller site but again unsustainably far from public transport, excessively reliant upon cars with no sidewalk in the vicinity and little prospect of being able to construct one. Oppose

4. GNLP0491 This would significantly alter the form and size of Caistor St Edmund on archaeologically important site in open countryside. It is a form of 'backland' development. Access is severely limited. No access to public transport, no sidewalks to village and schools. Oppose

Stoke
5. GNLP0494 The access to this site is significantly constrained. Oppose

6. GNLP1047 Access to this site is severely constrained. It is former RAF site so may well be subject to contamination. Site dominated by the microwave towers. Form would consolidate development each side of the Stoke Road leading to further infill development. Oppose

Framingham Earl/Pigot
7. GNLP0321 To North of B1332 next Boundary Farm - detached from the conurbation by Poringland Wood. Contribute to the linear profile of the conurbation. This could offer employemnt and business opportunities that the conurbation is dramatically short of.

8. GNLP0589-A This would exacerbate the 'octopus' nature of the conurbation and would detract from an area of scenic value otherwise sadly lacking in this area. Favoured by GNLP. Opposed

9. GNLP0589-B Leading on from the development of the Long Road, Hibbett and Key site and the EACH site this would be a logical development. It would mean the loss of significant landscape value in Spur Lane. If it could be developed at a distance from the tree lined Spur Lane it might well be viable. Will have a significant impact upon the subterranean drainage flow towards Long Road and Poringland surface water drainage system. Favoured by GNLP. The overall triangle site has already been intruded upon and there is no reason not to develop the whole Pigot Lane Spur Lane and Long Road area.

10. GNLP0391-A East of Hall Road - semi-detached from the village - contributing to the 'octopus' of development with drainage issues. Intrudes upon an an area of landscape value between Fram Earl and St Andrew's Church. Oppose

11. GNLP0391-B North of Burgate Lane Similar arguments to those against the site south of Burgate Lane Oppose

12. GNLP0003 Isolated site in open countryside, contrary to policy, detached from the conurbation should not even be considered as a valid site. Oppose

Poringland
13. GNLP0223 Significant access problems with no comfortable access through the Norfolk Homes development. Would alter significantly the 'shape' of the conurbation into an form of an 'octopus'. Would reduce the distinctions between Poringland and Stoke. Would have significant Governance issues between Stoke and Poringland. Would significantly negatively alter the drainage problems of Boundary Way - known surface water, flooding issues. Favoured by GNLP doc. Oppose

14. GNLP0169 Would contribute to the disjointed form of development of the conurbation. Extends beyond the comfortable walking/ cycling distance to schools, doctors and shopping. Makes the village an 'octopus' with its tentacles extending into open countryside. Dominant over the village approaches from Shotesham. Favoured by GNLP. Oppose

15. GNLP0316 Land North of Bungay Road, east of Rectory Lane and south of White House. This land has significant environmental assets, hedges ponds - it would require a significant environmental audit. Would contribute to the perceived linear vision of the conurbation. Site has significant landscape value as the headwaters of the Well Beck and is one of the few views of landscape available to the road traveller between Poringland and Brooke. Oppose

16. GNLP0280 Some problems over access, perhaps requiring the demolition of one house. Drainage problems. Disconnected from the built form of the conurbation. Would contribute to the linear form of the conurbation. Oppose

Support

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 16716

Received: 22/03/2018

Respondent: Trustees of Arminghall Settlement

Agent: Pegasus Planning Group

Representation:

My client has previously put forward three sites for development, although two are adjacent to each other and effectively count as one site: Land at Park Farm, Bungay Road (GNLP 0323) and Land at Octagon Farm (GNLP 0321 and 1032). Further submissions regarding these sites are attached.

Full text:

My client has previously put forward three sites for development, although two are adjacent to each other and effectively count as one site: Land at Park Farm, Bungay Road (GNLP 0323) and Land at Octagon Farm (GNLP 0321 and 1032). Further submissions regarding these sites are made below.
Site GNLP 0323 - Land at Park Farm, Bungay Road, Bixley
Site GNLP 0323 was put forward for employment uses and has been assessed as unsuitable for development in the HELAA because of its distance from other facilities and possible access issues. The site is already in use for agricultural purposes and is already served by an existing highway access. My client has sufficient landholdings in the area to ensure that an adequate highway access can be created.
The site provides an opportunity to serve an alternative employment market to that catered for by sites on the edge of Norwich, which typically command higher rents. Furthermore, it enables employment uses to be provided closer to existing settlements to the south of Norwich and will assist in reducing journey times and trip lengths to access such facilities. This benefit is not acknowledged in the HELAA.
It is noted that the site has an amber rating for landscape impact in the HELAA meaning that detrimental impacts are likely but that these could be mitigated. The site is well-screened and surrounded by land within the same ownership. There is significant potential to mitigate any potential landscape impact such that this need not be a barrier to allocation. The proposed site lies in an area of localised lower lying topography, which combines with nearby vegetation helps to limit views of the existing farm buildings from publicly accessible areas. A carefully designed layout would work with this localised topography to limit both short range and long-range views towards the development. The design would also work with the locally characteristic vegetation noted in the published Landscape Character Assessment, such as small areas of woodland and hedgerows with trees, to further limit or mitigate views.
It is noted that the site has an amber rating for townscape impact in the HELAA although it is not clear from the text what aspect of the townscape is likely to be impacted on. As with landscape impact, the HELLA indicates that such impacts could be mitigated and for the reasons identified above in terms of landscape impact, this is certainly the case at this site.
Of further significance is the fact that the site is capable of conversion to alternative uses under the GPDO. This is a valid consideration to take into account when considering the suitability of the site for allocation.
All other matters are considered to be capable of mitigation through the detailed design consideration of the development proposals.
As such, my client objects to the site being deemed unsuitable in the HELAA and requests that it is considered as a possible site allocation for employment uses in the site proposals element of the plan. The precise mix of uses will be the subject of further detailed design work and discussion with the Councils.
Site GNLP 0321 Land adjacent to Octagon Farm, Bungay Road, Framlingham Earl
Site GNLP1032 Land north of Octagon Farm, Bungay Road, Bixley
These sites are immediately adjacent to each other and are separated by an existing gallery and studio. This facility includes a craft shop and a café and has a small visitor car park. It is well-used by the local community and is opposite a site that is currently being developed for housing (LPA ref 2012/0405 and 2017/2485).
It is noted that site GNLP0321 falls within Framlingham Earl and GNLP1032 falls within Bixley. The site as a whole reads as part of Framlingham Earl and therefore should be considered as part of this Key Service Centre and the access to the supporting facilities therein.
My client has put both sites forward for consideration and both are assessed in the HELAA as suitable for development. Site 0321 is proposed for mixed use development involving 60 dwellings, commercial, business and light industrial floorspace. Site 1032 is proposed for mixed use purposes involving commercial business use and 100 dwellings. The sites have a combined area of 8.48ha and provide the potential to deliver c.160 new homes with employment uses. The exact development yield and nature of the commercial uses will be subject to detailed design work and further discussions with the relevant Councils.
Given the proximity of the sites, these further submissions consider the two sites together. To assist the Council in its further assessment of these sites for allocation in the GNLP, the following is provided:
A Transport Technical Note prepared by Royal HaskoningDHV (Appendix 1). This provides a summary of the existing accessibility of the sites for all modes of transport and its connectivity to supporting services. It explains the measures necessary to create a safe and appropriate means of access to the sites. It concludes that it there are no highways access or infrastructure provision issues that should prevent either site for coming forward for allocation of the proposed uses.
The note includes indicative access arrangements for each site, which take into account the location of the access for the consented scheme opposite and indicate sufficient visibility splays. This would be the subject of further discussions with the highway authority following refinement of the proposed development.
The note also includes potential infrastructure improvements within the local highway. These involve potential bus stop enhancements and pedestrian/cycle links. The potential will also exist for providing pedestrian and cycle links through the development sites - either in addition to those along the highway or instead of. This would be a matter for further consideration as the design progresses. For now, it is clear that the potential exists to deliver such improvements.
* A Drainage Note prepared by Royal HaskoningDHV (Appendix 2). This provides a summary of the existing drainage infrastructure and the opportunities arising at this site. It explains the measures necessary to deliver a suitable drainage strategy and concludes that there are not any drainage issues that should prevent either site for coming forward for allocation of the proposed uses.
* A Landscape Technical Note prepared by Pegasus Group (Appendix 3). This identifies that the site is visually contained on three sides by development currently under construction and woodland, such that its visual envelope is largely limited to the immediate vicinity. It concludes that the site is well contained and that it is possible for a development scheme to be prepared that will not materially impact on the landscape character of the immediate area. It also demonstrates that the amber rating in the HELAA of the site GNLP1032 is not justified by the evidence on site. As a consequence, there are no landscape issues that cannot be mitigated and as such landscape impact is not a barrier to the allocation of either site. The Site Proposals document acknowledges that the proposed uses mirror the approved scheme on the opposite side of the road. It goes on to note that the presence of the woodland adjacent to the site means that the development is not contiguous with existing development on that same side of the road. We consider that this does not render the site inappropriate for allocation in light of the extension of built form on the opposite side of the road. The redevelopment of the proposals sites provides the opportunity to provide a new landscape buffer that will form the new edge to the settlement and prevent further linear development.
This additional information provides further evidence to support the allocation of these sites for housing and employment uses. The site is under the control of a landowner that has significant experience in development (as is evidenced by their involvement in the site on the opposite side of the road) and is able to bring the site forward for development in the early years of the plan.