GNLP0486

Showing comments and forms 1 to 3 of 3

Comment

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 13092

Received: 19/02/2018

Respondent: Mr James Utting

Representation Summary:

OBJECT

Inappropriate further development of the village on farmland which helps maintain a strategic gap between Hethersett and Cringleford. Additional traffic generated would put further stress onto an already very busy inter change.

Full text:

OBJECT

Inappropriate further development of the village on farmland which helps maintain a strategic gap between Hethersett and Cringleford. Additional traffic generated would put further stress onto an already very busy inter change.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 13177

Received: 20/02/2018

Respondent: Mr T Larkowsky

Representation Summary:

This land was part of the original deal in which the village was to benefit from park and leisure land. To date this has been overlooked. Proposals to use some of this land for an alternative interchange is already eroding the availability.. Poor highway infrastructure cannot be overcome.
There are a number of brownfield and regeneration sites within the Norwich/ A47 boundary that must be developed before any more developments take place outside the boundary .

Full text:

This land was part of the original deal in which the village was to benefit from park and leisure land. To date this has been overlooked. Proposals to use some of this land for an alternative interchange is already eroding the availability.. Poor highway infrastructure cannot be overcome.
There are a number of brownfield and regeneration sites within the Norwich/ A47 boundary that must be developed before any more developments take place outside the boundary .

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 16624

Received: 01/03/2018

Respondent: Cringleford Parish Council

Representation Summary:

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.

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.