GNLP0313

Showing comments and forms 1 to 8 of 8

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 14616

Received: 19/03/2018

Respondent: Dr Peter Floyd

Representation Summary:

As for GNLP0312, given that Loddon has already had two major residential developments (Beccles Road and George Lane), it is difficult to imagine that further large scale developments can be justified. As noted in the text, access to GNLP0313 would indeed be constrained and this together with the planned development could have a significant adverse impact on Loddon High Street which, as noted, is a conservation area.

Full text:

As for GNLP0312, given that Loddon has already had two major residential developments (Beccles Road and George Lane), it is difficult to imagine that further large scale developments can be justified. As noted in the text, access to GNLP0313 would indeed be constrained and this together with the planned development could have a significant adverse impact on Loddon High Street which, as noted, is a conservation area.

Comment

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 14795

Received: 20/03/2018

Respondent: Mrs Valerie Hardy

Representation Summary:

Norfolk County Council have in the past made outline plans for relocating the Fire Station to an NCC-owned site on the A146 junction with George Lane, adjoining the school. The scheme would facilitate a sympathetic residential development which would improve the Conservation Area. The Fire Service supported the relocation operationally but the scheme did not progress; land values of the small site in isolation did not justify the outlay. It may be worth reconsidering this as part of a larger scheme, since it would enable resolution of the current access constraint on site 0313.

Full text:

Norfolk County Council have in the past made outline plans for relocating the Fire Station to an NCC-owned site on the A146 junction with George Lane, adjoining the school. The scheme would facilitate a sympathetic residential development which would improve the Conservation Area. The Fire Service supported the relocation operationally but the scheme did not progress; land values of the small site in isolation did not justify the outlay. It may be worth reconsidering this as part of a larger scheme, since it would enable resolution of the current access constraint on site 0313.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 14826

Received: 20/03/2018

Respondent: MRS Jennifer Fletcher

Representation Summary:

This site for 68 dwellings, leading off High Street, would be totally detrimental to the historical centre of Loddon and would pose access problems leading to road safety issues.
Jennifer Fletcher

Full text:

This site for 68 dwellings, leading off High Street, would be totally detrimental to the historical centre of Loddon and would pose access problems leading to road safety issues.
Jennifer Fletcher

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 15138

Received: 21/03/2018

Respondent: Mr Michael Allsop

Representation Summary:

Unsuitable because of its impact on the conservation area, of which it forms a part, and on the views across the valley. Access is also unsuitable as it is onto the narrow main road through the centre of Loddon and it is not close to the A146 which should be an essential requirement for any new development site in the Loddon and Chedgrave Service Centre.

Full text:

Unsuitable because of its impact on the conservation area, of which it forms a part, and on the views across the valley. Access is also unsuitable as it is onto the narrow main road through the centre of Loddon and it is not close to the A146 which should be an essential requirement for any new development site in the Loddon and Chedgrave Service Centre.

Comment

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 15615

Received: 22/03/2018

Respondent: Loddon & District Business Association

Representation Summary:

This is a town centre site and we feel that greater and more flexible consideration should be given to the development of this site and uses in connection with town centres should be incorporated. The Association in general welcomes further residential development in Loddon but is also mindful of the needs in relation to additional commercial/social uses.

Full text:

This is a town centre site and we feel that greater and more flexible consideration should be given to the development of this site and uses in connection with town centres should be incorporated. The Association in general welcomes further residential development in Loddon but is also mindful of the needs in relation to additional commercial/social uses.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 15881

Received: 22/03/2018

Respondent: Mr Jeremy Moores

Representation Summary:

No more development of Loddon/ Chedgrave. They have already been subjected to an obscene amount of development.

Full text:

No more development of Loddon/ Chedgrave. They have already been subjected to an obscene amount of development.

Comment

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 16398

Received: 07/03/2018

Respondent: Broads Authority

Representation Summary:

GNLP0313 - 68 dwellings
This is near the Broads border. Would welcome early discussions on this. Would be
extending the built up area in a way that could affect the Broads. More limited
potential for visual impact.

Full text:

GNLP0041 - Wroxham Football Club 20 dwellings
Where would the current football club go? This might also visually impact on the Broads landscape and the existing Wroxham Conservation Area - early discussion about this would be welcomed. This site is also within the Wroxham Conservation Area.

* Salhouse
GNLP0157 - Tourism Use
This appears to be partly in the Broads area. Would welcome early discussions on this.
Likely to be too late to allocate anything in the Broads Local Plan. Other than Tourism
Use, no other details provided. What is this for? This is also partly within the Salhouse
Conservation Area.
* Acle
GNLP1049 - residential development
This is right up to the border with the Broads. Would welcome early discussions on
this. Would be extending the built up area in a way that could affect the Broads. Dark
skies. Could have significant visual impact.
GNLP0007 - 12 dwellings
This is near the border with the Broads. Would welcome early discussions on this.
Would be extending the built up area in a way that could affect the Broads. Dark skies.
Early discussions welcomed also on GNLP 0384.
* Postwick
GNLP0370 - 75 and 115 dwellings and primary school
This is right up to the border with the Broads. Would welcome early discussions on
this. Would be extending the built up area in a way that could affect the Broads. Dark
skies. Could have significant visual impact. Could have significant visual impact.
* Whittingham area
GNLP0360 - Deal Ground site - Residential led mixed use redevelopment to include
employment, retail community uses, potential primary education provision and local
greenspace and biodiversity areas.
This is right up to the border with the Broads and of a large scale. Would welcome
early discussions on this. Would be extending the built up area in a way that could
affect the Broads.
Redevelopment of site could give rise to new opportunities for pedestrian/cycleway
bridge over River Yare. The creation of this new connected access to Whitlingham and
the Broads National Park from the centre of Norwich would highlight the River
Wensum Strategy aspirations along with those of the Broads Local Access Forum.
Could have significant visual impact.
* Norwich
GNLP1011 - protect as sports centre in community use.
Support
GNLP0409 - Deallocation of Policy CC17b and the area of CC17a.
Please can you expand on what this means please? Why is this being de-allocated?
GNLP0068 - Residential-led mixed use development for an undetermined number of
dwellings (Despite its small size the site could support a high density development and
is thus considered suitable for the land availability assessment.)
This is right up to the border with the Broads and of a large scale. Would welcome
early discussions on this. Would be extending the built up area in a way that could
NB/SM/rpt/020318/Page 5 of 7/200218
affect the Broads.
There may be access issues if development was agreed at this location. The River
Wensum Strategy has identified this site as a potential continuation "link" of the
Riverside Walk and any development here would need to consider this in their
proposals. Could have significant visual impact. Issues around continued canalisation of
the river.
GNLP0401 - Residential-led mixed use development for approx. 400 dwellings with
retail and/or other appropriate city centre uses at ground floor level.
This is right up to the border with the Broads and of a large scale. Would welcome
early discussions on this. Would be extending the built up area in a way that could
affect the Broads.
Redevelopment of site could give rise to new opportunities for access to River
Wensum for small craft and canoes along with pedestrian access to the waterside.
Could have significant visual impact. Issues around continued canalisation of the river.
* Surlingham
GNLP0374 - Residential development
This is near the Broads border. Would welcome early discussions on this. Would be
extending the built up area in a way that could affect the Broads. Dark skies. Potential
for visual impact on the Broads landscape
* Rockland St Mary
GNLP0531 - 200 dwellings
This is right up to the border with the Broads and of a large scale. Would welcome
early discussions on this. Would be extending the built up area in a way that could
affect the Broads. Potential for significant visual impact on the Broads landscape.
* Cantley
GNLP0281 - Demolition of existing dwellings and residential redevelopment for approx.
20 homes with new entry road from Peregrine close
This is right up to the border with the Broads and of a large scale. Would welcome
early discussions on this. Would be extending the built up area in a way that could
affect the Broads. Potential amenity issues associated with Cantley Sugar Beet Factory
(business already in existence). Potential for high visual impact over open marsh
landscape.
* Haddiscoe
GNLP0455 - Employment, storage and distribution uses.
This is near our border. Would welcome early discussions on this. Would be extending
the built up area in a way that could affect the Broads. Dark skies. Potential for visual
impact on the Broads landscape. Also GNLP 0414 More limited potential for visual
impact but early discussions on this would also be welcomed.
* Gillingham
GNLP0274 - Residential development of an unspecified number.
This is near the Broads border. Would welcome early discussions on this. Would be
extending the built up area in a way that could affect the Broads. Dark skies. Potential
for visual impact on the Broads land scape.
* Geldeston
GNLP1004 - resi 4-5 dwellings
NB/SM/rpt/020318/Page 6 of 7/200218
This is near the Broads border. Would welcome early discussions on this. Would be
extending the built up area in a way that could affect the Broads. Dark skies. Darkest
area of the Broads. More limited potential for visual impact. Located within the
Geldeston Conservation area.
* Kirby Cane
GNLP0303 - 11 dwellings
GNLP0304 - 15 dwellings
GNLP0305 - 32 dwellings
This is near the Broads border. Would welcome early discussions on this. Would be
extending the built up area in a way that could affect the Broads. Dark skies.
* Chedgrave
GNLP0541 - 5-8 dwellings
This is right up to the border with the Broads and of a large scale. Would welcome
early discussions on this. Would be extending the built up area in a way that could
affect the Broads. Potential for visual impact on the Broads landscape.
* Loddon
GNLP0313 - 68 dwellings
This is near the Broads border. Would welcome early discussions on this. Would be
extending the built up area in a way that could affect the Broads. More limited
potential for visual impact.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 16643

Received: 22/03/2018

Respondent: Mrs Rosemary Armatage

Representation Summary:

The high street is already congested. And additional 6+ houses would clearly impact the listed buildings and conservation area. At present it is a beneficial green space in Loddon town centre.

Full text:

The comments below refer to site reference GNLP0312 - this is prime agricultural land, outside the development boundary and a conservation area.
GNLP 0313 - the high street is already congested. And additional 6+ houses would clearly impact the listed buildings and conservation area. At present it is a beneficial green space in Loddon town centre.
GNLP0314 - a Flood area/zone! We need to NOT build on land and further reduce flood plain land which acts as a sponge and prevents flooding elsewhere.
GNLP0372 - would exacerbate flood risk.
General points for all the above:
The applications would result in an additional 460 houses for Loddon (588 if you include Chedgrave) and I would question local need. Schools, medical facilities and local infrastructure area already at capacity. The roads and lanes within and around the settlement of Loddon are narrow and not designed for modern traffic requirements.
The A146 is a constant stream of traffic it can take a good 5 minutes to get out to the bypass from any of the Loddon approach roads. Conservation areas, listed buildings and prime agricultural land should all be protected from developers. Brown field sites should always be used.