GNLP0526

Fully object .This area proposed would feed out onto a main road - Transport links are unsuitable here now and already clog as feed into Diss making the road through the village dangerous for our children especially at peak times. It is 200 meters from Roydon Fen in an area of natural beuaty/wildlife area and am sure should not be allowed on that one fact alone as a green site of special importance not only to our community but as a conservation area. The River Waveney I would have thought significance on flood plain issues also.

I feel that the infrastructure of Roydon is insufficient to support more housing,at present the school and health centre are over capacity, congestion on the main roads would need consideration.

Lying in the Waveney valley, and an essential natural buffer between the mature village of Roydon and the SSSI wildlife site of Roydon Fen this area is most unsuitable for modern affordable housing development on any scale. A density of 24 properties per/ha for this site is a thoughtless proposal guaranteed to despoil environmental amenity for nature, local residents and visitors. The Waveney valley is a countryside asset for Norfolk and Suffolk.

Encroaching on the Waveney valley and accessed via narrow entrance roads from an already congested A1066 , this is a ridiculous proposal. This is a village location and anything added must be in keeping with what exists already. We are responsible for ensuring that Roydon will still be a special place in which to live in the years to come. The temptation to make profits out of its assets must be resisted.

I object to this. It is very close to a main road and would cause congestion. It would cause great disruption in our Village and the entrance is very close to our Primary School and Pre School. It is being built near Roydon Fen, where there is a lot of wildlife, which at the very least would really suffer. The local infrastructure is struggling to cope as it is, with a lack of spaces at Doctors, Dentists and Schools, any further developments would make it much worse. IT IS NOT A SUITABLE LOCATION IN A VILLAGE

I object to this. It is very close to a main road and would cause
congestion. It would cause great disruption in our Village and the entrance
is very close to our Primary School and Pre School. It is being built near
Roydon Fen, where there is a lot of wildlife, which at the very least would
really suffer. The local infrastructure is struggling to cope as it is,
with a lack of spaces at Doctors, Dentists and Schools, any further
developments would make it much worse. IT IS NOT A SUITABLE LOCATION IN A
VILLAGE

The Waveney Valley is a valuable asset for the whole community and it could be seriously affected by housing on this site. The proposed site has poor access. The loss of the current vistas all along the southern side of the A1066 as far as the parish extends, to St Remegius Church and beyond, would be a considerable price to pay.

Two new accesses onto the A1066 with the quantity of cars envisaged is not acceptable on such a busy road especially with a housing estate opposite.
A housing development here would spoil the area of Outstanding natural beauty across the Waveney Valley and would be highly visible by traffic approaching Roydon from Diss

89 houses on this site would cause severe problems,

Excessive amount of vehicles accessing main road from narrow access during peak periods making High Road more dangerous for children walking to school.

Infrastructure cant cope with current population, this is evident as Primary school is already being extended for current requirements, Doctors/Dentists overflowing.

Roydon Fen very close. Water run off could carry pollution to fen and create problems for diverse wildlife in area, Including summer visitor, endangered Cuckoo.

Site is outside Stipulated village boundary, would be building on Green belt/Green field would be lost forever while encroaching the Waveney valley.

I fully object to the development plans for this site. I agree with all objections stated above by fellow residents. To develop land close to a County Wildlife Site supporting one of the few remaining quality examples of a valley fen in the Waveney Valley defies belief to be honest.

This site has poor potential access. Its situation overlooking the Waveney valley will be detrimental to the views from points east, west and south. Local authorities have promoted the Waveney Valley as a tourist attraction and any further development at this site, or other in a similar position on the south facing slope of the valley, will be detrimental. There is also to be considered the site's proximity to Suffolk Wildlife Trust's Roydon Fen nature reserve where further building close to the site can only increase the environmental pressure on it.

GNLP 0526 - Land off High Road, Roydon, IP22 5RB

On behalf of G.N. Rackham and Sons Ltd (hereafter referred to as 'the Landowner'), we strongly recommend that site GNLP 0526 be allocated for residential development, associated open space and infrastructure. The site is considered to be entirely developable, and capable of making a significant contribution towards satisfying the Councils' housing needs during the period to 2036.
In accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework's (NPPF) definition of 'developable', set out in footnote 12 to paragraph 47, the site represents a suitable location for housing development, and there is a reasonable prospect that the site is available and could be viably developed within 1-5 years. These points are addressed in further detail below, and within the supporting technical documentation that accompanies this Representation.
Assessment of Developability
Suitable
The site is located within the parish of Roydon, one of the neighbouring parishes of Diss. The Adopted Joint Core Strategy identifies Roydon as a Service Village, suitable for accommodating smaller scale developments up to 20 dwellings. However, there are no existing allocations with the main constraints being the potential impact on the Waveney Valley landscape and avoiding coalescence with neighbouring Diss. Since the publication of the JCS, no other sites within Roydon have been identified for development. Consequently, there is an unmet demand for residential development irrespective of any future growth identified for the village.
The Greater Norwich Local Plan Regulation 18 Consultation document states that in identifying sites to accommodate the additional 7,200 homes required during the period up to 2036, consideration will be given a range of settlements, including Service Villages (of which Roydon is one), will need to accommodate a minimum level of growth of 1,000 units, irrespective of which of the six growth options is identified. On this basis, Roydon is considered to be a location that is, in principle, a suitable location for additional development.
The site is immediately adjoining the current settlement boundary of Roydon. As such, it will be immediately adjacent to residential development and consequently represents a logical extension to the settlement boundary to the south. The eastern boundary is in line with the current edge of the settlement boundary The site is well related to a number of services currently offered in Roydon which include a village hall, primary school, petrol station with shop and a pub. Roydon is also located within 1km of Diss, which as a Main Town provides a good range of shops and services, including two supermarkets and schooling up to and including a High School. It is also well connected via existing pathways.
In terms of more detailed site-specific considerations, the Housing and Employment Land Availability Assessment (HELAA) identifies the site as a suitable location for residential development. It confirms through a 'Green' rating, that there are no constraints or impacts anticipated in relation to accessibility to services, utilities infrastructure, historic environment, open space and GI, transport and roads or compatibility with neighbouring uses. Issues which are identified as potential constraints to development are landscape setting, coalescence to Diss and access. These are addressed below.
Landscape
The HELAA identifies that the landscape in the vicinity of the site needs careful consideration in terms of the existing linear development along High Road, the proximity to Roydon fen and that the site is situated within the Waveney Rural River Valley landscape character area. Key characteristics of the area include a relatively large-scale open valley landscape, arable and pastoral farming and diversity of land cover, together with discrete woodland blocks.
This representation is supported by a Landscape Statement and a Townscape Statement, prepared by Hudson Architects. They have used their findings to underpin the indicative proposed layout and design strategies which are also submitted in support of this representation.
The main conclusions of the Landscape Statement are as follows:
● The field to the east of the site should remain un-developed to maintain the gap between Roydon and Diss.
● Existing water tower is a visible landmark so nearby buildings will be restricted in height to maintain views.
● Development near the eastern boundary should be low and set back. The boundary should remain "open" but enhanced with individual trees to enclose the site and contain the development.
● Buildings close to the western boundary should be kept below the height of the trees so they do not break the skyline.
● The southern boundary should be enhanced with trees and low level planting to screen development.
The Townscape Statement identifies the design strategies which could be brought forward on the site and how these will be incorporated into the final scheme. The main conclusions are as follows:
● Vehicular access to the site from High Road should be via the existing gap between bungalows, with a secondary pedestrian/cycle access past the Water Tower.
● The public footpath should be strengthened with new connections to and from the site.
● Existing rear gardens to be protected with regards amenity, privacy and security and the layout should prevent overlooking.
● The final development should respond to both the existing settlement form of Roydon, and to the wider Waveney Valley.
Ecology
The HELAA identifies that the site is within 200m of Roydon Fen Local Nature Reserve and there is the possibility of adverse impact on ecological networks in the area. The Ecological Appraisal undertaken by Hopkins Ecology in support of this Representation, concludes that the likely impacts on the majority of species can be mitigated via appropriate landscaping and scheme design, with the potential to deliver net ecological enhancement.
Most species of conservation concern are scoped-out but widespread declining species including Species of Principal Importance maybe present as components of larger local populations. There will be loss of semi-habitat but it will be low and mitigation via soft landscaping is appropriate. From a strategic viewpoint, such landscape would offer new habitat area potentially relevant to local landscape-scale conservation projects.
The impact of additional numbers of residents and the potential for recreational disturbance to nearby protected areas will be managed through the provision of on-site mitigation as an integral part of the development. Impacts on the nearby Roydon Fen are thought likely to be negligible by virtue of the likely low and absolute and relative numbers of new users. In addition, provision of on-site greenspace with walking routes that are attractive to local residents, particularly dog walkers, will assist in preventing any increased pressure in the vicinity.
The Appraisal concludes that the likely impact on the majority of species can be mitigated through appropriate landscaping and scheme design, which has the potential to deliver a net ecological enhancement.
Access
A review of the access points has been prepared by Richard Jackson Engineering Consultants. This demonstrates that Vehicular access to the site can be achieved from High Road (A1066) with two alternative access options. The favoured option is a current access point off High Road which is between the properties known as Flettons and Linden. This provides a Type 3 access road, taken from the Norfolk Residential Design Guide and can easily accommodate the required visibility splays of 2.4m x 70m without the need for third party land. The alternative option is an access to the east of the site which will propose a 6.0 m wide carriageway with 1.8m wide footways either side of the road. This will involve minor tree, hedge and fence removal but will accommodate the required visibility splays at both 2.4m and 4.5m setback. Both proposed access points would provide safe, effective, vehicular access and egress in accordance with current highway design standards.
The other current access point to the site is situated between the properties known as Owl House and Lynn Haven. This has been identified as a potential pedestrian/cycle link with the site, and provides good sustainable interconnectivity between the existing settlement and the site.
Richard Jackson have also taken the opportunity to review the Utilities on site. There are no known existing utilities apparatus within the site with the exception of a high voltage overhead electricity pole which is unlikely to be affected by the proposed development. With regards proposed utilities required, the assessment concludes that all of the main statutory utility companies can supply the site and that sufficient capacities exist.
With regards flood risk and surface water drainage, the accompanying assessment (prepared by Richard Jackson) concludes that the site is suitable for development. Surface water drainage from the development can be adequately managed in accordance with National and Local Planning Policy and provided the necessary measures are put in place, no detrimental effects from the development would occur downstream.
In conclusion, therefore, it is clear from the above that the site is entirely suitable for residential development. The technical evidence submitted alongside this Representation, demonstrates that there are no constraints to the delivery of the site in a sympathetic manner.
Available
The site is currently in agricultural use, and is under the sole ownership of the landowner. There is a short term agricultural tenancy which has break clauses inserted. There are no known third party ownerships, access rights or restrictive covenants. It is anticipated that it would become available for development in 1-5 years.
Achievable
Based on the suitability assessment above, there are no site-specific constraints which could threaten the delivery of residential development on the site. Therefore, residential development on the site is deemed to be entirely achievable. It is a relatively small site which can be delivered quickly and due to size are attractive to a range of developers. As a result, there is an opportunity for quick delivery of housing, making a positive contribution to housing delivery.
Viable
Development of the site for residential purposes is considered viable, taking into consideration the various policy requirements in relation to matters such as affordable housing provision and CIL contributions, as well as potential abnormal costs, which include the provision of landscaping, and infrastructure upgrades/reinforcement.
Summary
As outlined above, the site is suitable, available and viable, and is therefore developable. Development in this location would represent sustainable development, as defined within the National Planning Policy Framework. Roydon and nearby Diss, are already acknowledged as highly sustainable locations, and a preferred location for growth, and the foregoing text demonstrates that this specific site is a suitable location for further development in all respects.
Economically, the site represents the right land in the right place at the right time. Residential development here would help support the planned long-term economic growth of the Greater Norwich Area, providing high-quality and desirable homes within easy reach of key employment areas in the town and further afield.
Socially, the scale of development envisaged is such that it will enable the creation of a strong, vibrant and healthy community, with easy access to existing and planned local services and facilities, as well as enhanced Green Infrastructure. A wide mix of dwelling types, sizes and tenures will be provided to meet local needs, and CIL payments will ensure the provision of the necessary health and cultural facilities. The site is located immediately adjacent to the built-up area of Roydon, which should assist in achieving social integration between the existing and new residents.
The site is located close to the employment opportunities within Diss, and enjoys excellent access to a range of sustainable transport options providing easy access via the mainline railway, to the extensive array of facilities and services available within Norwich.
On this basis, the site should be taken forward as an allocation, and is capable of making a significant contribution to the planned growth of the Greater Norwich Area in the period to 2036.

This site is within approximately 200m of Roydon Fen, which is a Suffolk Wildlife Trust reserve and is designated as a Local Nature Reserve and a County Wildlife Site. Development of site GNLP0526 has the potential to result in a range of adverse impacts on the fen, including through increased recreational pressure and pollution resulting from increased or contaminated surface water reaching the site. Such impacts must be assessed before any decision can be made on the allocation of any development sites. Development which would result in harm to sites designated for their nature conservation importance should not be allocated.

I object to the large housing development being considered in this location - it is very close to Roydon Fen - this is a rare wetland habitat; wet fen and carr woodlands cover only 0.7% of England. Building so close could cause damage to this precious site. Water run off from the built on area could cause problems. The increased volume of people using such a sensitive site would also cause damage to the delicate and rare eco system.

89-dwellings is ludicrous.Service-Village needs10-20.Previously-refused and again by Parish-Council,it isn't wanted,and increases burden(to Roydon&Diss)to overloaded schools/Doctors/etc.Impact to protected Waveney-Valley.Fen is home to rare/protected wildlife(e.g.Cuckoo).Vista of development-boundary south-border would be ruined.Further southern-development would only become harder to stop.Access to the very-busy A1066(and already impossible to cross at times for local preschool/school children)would be huge trouble to those exiting/turn right into site:0526.Potential demolishment of the Water-Tower is upsetting as elderly tenants(of 60+years)are dear neighbours.It also has historical importance to local area as point-of-interest on Parish-Walk and birthplace of H.Rackham,Master Builder and former Councillor&Mayor of Diss as well as Director/Founder of many local businesses.

We object due to
*spoiling the Vista of our village
*added traffic to already overloaded A1066
*Vehicles from New dwellings going alongside the length of our garden.
*Invasion of our privacy by new properties overlooking our garden and property.
*Light pollution on a currently unspoilt area of natural beauty.
*Surface water pollution to Roydon Fen.
*Negative effect to the abundant local wildlife.
*Loss of much loved Green space.
*Dangerous narrow joining to extremely busy A1066.
*Outside the current development boundary.
*Spoils the view to Waveney Valley that we are trying to protect.
*Unwanted Development at totally unsuitable site.

I feel it is important that those working on the GNLP work closely with those working on the Neighbourhood plan to ensure that local wishes form the basis of decisions made,

Whilst I am not directly involved the Neighbourhood plan I am a key member of the local resident's association and feel the views I express below are the views of a lot of people living in Diss.

The plans you produced show mainly the ''call for sites'' and little else. Certainly not the infrastructure to support the sites. Clearly there are more sites than are needed for the projected number of new homes. It is therefore important that any agreed sites are clearly identified as I think it would be completely wrong to allocate more land than is required leaving it for the developer to cherry pick which site to apply to build on. The general feeling amongst residents is that future developments should generally be to the north of Diss. I have commented below on your plans:

Sites for new homes.
* Of the sites offered GNLP0606, GNLP0119, GNLP0291, GNLP0362, GNLP0342 and GNLP0250 are the most suitable as they border a road which could be upgraded to become a Northern Relief Road. However, a portion of this land would be needed to expand the Cemetery which has not been taken into account.
* Plot GNLP1044 is in fact two plots with a road through the middle - Walcot Green. They should be designated as two separate plots. The eastern part could be considered for housing together with plot GNLP1003 providing Walcot Green was upgraded from a single-track road to a more suitable twin track road. Currently because of congestion on Victoria Road, Walcot Green is used as a preferred route into town by many residents
* The western half of plot GNLP1044 and GNLP0599 should be retained as green space. Both these sites would be vigorously opposed by residents. In fact, this is one of the few areas of open 'green field' land left in DIss
* Plot GNLP0102 is in the middle of the Diss Strategic Employment site and should be designated for business development only.
* Plot GNLP1045 is the last green space in an area surrounded by housing and should be retained as a green area.
* Plot GNLP0112 is a very small green area containing a few trees and shrubs and should not be built on. In addition, because of its close proximity to the railway bridge access would be poor and undoubtedly dangerous.
* Plot GNLP0341 is where a town centre car park and the health centre are located. Whilst I agree the health centre needs relocating this area should be retained as a green space and car park close to the town centre
* Plot GNLP0526 is in my opinion suitable for development.
* Plots GNLP0104 and GNLP1038 are very small plots and would not contribute many homes. However, both sites could be suitable for self-build homes.

Town Infrastructure

* Land to the west of Morrisons and to the south of Victoria Road should be designated for Health and Leisure. The land behind the Thatcher's Needle should be allocated for a new modern health Centre and possibly a centralised Dental centre. It is in an ideal location as it is very central, close to the bus station and has more than adequate parking.
* Land adjacent to the Thatcher's Needle where the Feather Factory is presently located should be considered as a location for a new leisure centre
* Traffic congestion is a major problem in Diss adversely affecting residents and business alike. Whilst we have a few minor improvements (tweaks) at the planning stage which will help a little we desperately need a Northern Relief Road (or bypass) and an upgrade to Walcot Green to allow Diss to continue to grow and prosper.

I appreciate this is probably a bit more detailed than you need at this stage but the GNLP and the Diss and District Neighbourhood plan are going to dictate how we grow and prosper over the next 15 years.

I am writing to register my concerns, objections and comments about the proposed planning developments within the parish of Roydon and also Diss.

* GNLP0362 - Sturgens Farm, Louis Lane, Roydon.
* I object to this development and I have concerns about the size of the proposed development, 413 dwellings (between 600-100 more people) is far too many for the village of Roydon or
Diss infrastructure to be able to cope with.
* From a health and safety point of view - over 800 additional cars trying to get out onto Shelfanger Road in the morning would cause an issues.
Louis Lane is already a cut though and cars often speed down this lane - a further 800 cars will then make this road a serious health and safety issue.
There has already been a number of accidents at the junction of Louis Lane and Shelfanger Road.
If this development was cut down to 100 houses then I would not object to this development.

* GNLP0526 - High Road, Roydon - I have serious concerns about this development for the following reasons:-
* The close proximity to Roydon Fen - environmental concerns on the effect of wildlife and the Waveney Valley.
* I also have concerns about the number of cars trying to get out onto the A1066 with the junction being so close to the pre-school and other junctions.
* I also completely disagree that the Roydon water tower that is very old and has been part of the Roydon landscape and history for many years will be torn down.

* GNLP0606 - Boundary Farm - I have no concerns about this small development.

* GNLP1038 - Brewers Green Lane, Roydon - I have no concerns about this small development.


I appreciate the need for good quality affordable housing and also realise that these additional developments will bring much need money into the villages and nearby towns. However, the planning committees
must give serious considerations to the following :-

* Local schools both in Diss and Roydon will need expanding - can developer be made to contribute to the extensions that will be needed to cope with the increase number of pupils?
* Doctors surgeries - Lawns Medical Practice & Parish Fields Medical Practice - both these practices lack money and it is already difficult to get a doctor's appointment and increase of additional people in the
area will only impact this further.
* Roads - The A1066 through Diss is a complete nightmare and often takes over half an hour to get from the police station to Tesco's. The A1066 has roundabouts after roundabouts, pelican crossing after pelican crossing and then
a zebra crossing all within 500 metres, this is nothing less than poor planning on behalf of the highways commission and Diss Town Council. A proper link road around and through the Walcot Green area needs to be put in place, freeing up the
town. I live in Roydon but I tend to do the majority of my shopping now in Harleston, Bungay or Beccles and avoid Diss completely because the road layout is so bad. The poor road layout and designing is putting off a large number of people now and
that is why Diss is dying as a town.

Developers should not be allowed to cram in houses - space needs to be given otherwise it just causes anti-social behaviour. Let's be realistic the majority of households have at least two cars - supply driveways that can cater for this.
In Roydon developments like Appletree, Millway, Hose Avenue, have roads that are wider - visiting guests can park their cars on the roads without having to park on pavements. People need space and if they have space then there is less
Anti-social behaviour.

Kind Regards
Dawn Messenger & Martin Hammond

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.