GNLP2173

I have the following comments to make

1) Hellesdon is gradually losing its open communal spaces. Until very recently this site had been used for recreational purposes and I believe any future development should proceed only with that in mind.

2) Some years ago a barrier was erected across Heath Crescent as it had become a rat run for unsuitable traffic between Cromer Road and Fifers Lane. The proposal to demolish 3 Prince Andrew's Road, a perfectly good property, to create access to the site would defeat the object of having the barrier. It could open up the possibility of a rat run being created again. Should the proposal be given further consideration, surely safer access could be devised using Lansdowne Road.

3) The house to be demolished is at the start of a narrow section of Prince Andrew's Road which contains two bends. Drivers need to be alert when approaching this area. To invite additional traffic into this area without further consideration of the road configuration would invite an accident.

4) Can as many as 50 houses be properly serviced on such a small site, especially car parking?

I have obtained a signed petition from just some of the people I have had time to visit in the area near the housing development.There is an overwhelming objection to the proposed housing estate, I still have many more houses to visit in the area. Lots of elderly people would like to officially register there objection but are not computer literate or have got lost within the lengthy process to do this.
I think it is only fair the council gives everyone an easy way to object or vote for the proposed housing development,maybe by placing a cross on a ballot paper.

Objections include:

Lack of green space in the area (for children etc).
Increased traffic and congestion on small roads, there would be more than one car to every house and visitors cars too.
Peoples privacy and views ruined from their back gardens
Increased demand on local services (doctors etc)
Demolition of a perfectly good house for an access road

Heath Crescent Is not build to have heavy traffic the infrastructure can not cope every year the road floods and gardens and garages get flooded . The paths and road have not been not been maintained , the road is not that wide as it was originally a private road that my parents had to contribute to pay for when they moved in in 1960. It is very difficult to get out of our drives especially if vehicles are packed fully on the road. I live opposite the current access road what willl bthis be crowd was cut off I have lived opposite the current access road will this be blocked off or what are the plans for this narrow road.

I oppose this development as adding approx. say 75 plus cars on the new development. Prince Andrews Road would be used as a rat run through to Brabazon Rd by both the residents and service vehicles due to the difficulty accessing Cromer Road via Heath Crescent. This road cannot take that amount of additional traffic and would make it dangerous for both children and the elderly population in that area.

This is the LAST piece of open space left in Hellesdon and it is in an area of high density building where there is no other place possible for public to exercise.
Access to the transport infrastructure either via Heath Crescent / Fifers Lane or Prince Andrews Road / Brabazon Road will be increased by erection of new propoerties and will mean longer queues of traffic / greater pollution.
PLEASE LEAVE THIS OPEN AREA UNCHANGED SO THAT IT MAY BE BETTER UTIISED BY THE LOCAL RESIDENTS

I have previously submitted this site on behalf of Hellesdon Parish Council as I was the Chairman at that time. This proposal is to retain the site as formal and I formal recreation land for the parish of Hellesdon.
I object Strongly to the proposal from Ms Alcock for a site of part recreation and up to 50 houses.
Hellesdon as a parish has a gross shortfall of recreational land. The planning application on the Hellesdon Golf Club site, and consequent negotiations with Persimmons agent, who happened to be Ms Alcock too, has left us with an underprovision of formal recreational land, a definite of approx 2 hectares.
The Jarrolds site is just over 2 hectares, and to acquire this would only install that required by formula and balance the loss created on the Persimmon site.
Hellesdon will experience in the next ten years a housing growth in excess of 25%. 1000 homes, 300 more on the Hellesdon Hospital site. Hellesdon will be Completely covered by houses, and an under provision of green open space and recreational land. This is note acceptable and Councillors and the parish community are clearly concerned and disturbed by th fact that this piece of open space, although privately owned, is the LAST piece of open land available to acquire, purchase on behalf of the residents of Hellesdon. Developers can give the parish as much money as they need under planning law, but it is of very little I use if there is no land to purchase!
To acquire the site the parish council see as ideal to raise the land quote per head of Hellesdon population. The retention of the tennis courts, the full size completion bowling green and associated facilities will off the chance of a purpose developed sport amenity for the parish and free up some land on the Community Centre site, which will allow future enlargement and refurbishment of a well used and supported community centre. The parish council have contacted the owner of this site to ascertain whether a purchase could be discussed. However the owner, has not communicated any further to the pc, following corespondence earlier this year. Contact has been made with Sport England and they have visited the site from residents rear gardens that abut the site. Hellesdon has many enquiries for football pitches, and although The Nest now provides some of this requirement, I am being told that many small organisations are finding the fees for hire much higher than the pc already charge, The current bowling green at the community centre is smaller and not of Co oetetion length.
Turning to housing again, Hellesdon quite clearly has taken it fare shore of housing growth that is planned, and amenities do not compliment this growth. There are serious concerns animus additional traffic congestion on the Cromer Road and Fifers Lane, which at most times of the day remain at a maximum capacity. Services and amenities are becoming more and more stretche in Hellesdon, and if any proposed developments are allowed at the top of the Reepham Road, although in the parish of Horsford, I envisage that those residents will use the services in Hellesdon rather than drive to Horsford village some two miles away, I am concerned that Hellesdon at present cannot support and further housing, but is in desperate need of more amenity land. There is a demonstrable need for more children's play areas on this side of the parish. The Lovell Development in Eversley Road did not provide a children's play area, so the installation of one would be well supported.

I have a number of questions and comments (objections)in respect of Development GNLP2173.

The questions are as follows:

1) please confirm that the development is in line with Local planning regulations and council objectives

2) please confirm that the development is in line with national planning regulations and objectives


The key objection I have (subject to receiving your answers to the above) is in respect of highway safety and congestion on Heath Crescent, Prince Andrew's Road and Brabazon Road.

I can understand the direct access from the site to Fifer's lane. That makes sense to me - Fifers Lane is a major, existing artery.

However, having a second entrance to the site from Prince Andrew's Road will create significant additional traffic on the 3 afore mentioned roads, Heath Crescent in particular. As traffic gets backed up on Heath Crescent, Prince Andrew's Road and Brabazon Road will be used as 'rat runs' as drivers seek to avoid queues on Heath Crescent.

You are essentially re-creating the same problem you sought to solve some years ago, when access between Fifers Lane and Cromer Road via Heath Crescent was blocked. Having made that decision, you cannot now backtrack and open up the historically very quiet residential roads (Heath Crescent, Prince Andrew's and Brabazon) to more significant traffic.

My next objection relates to the fact that the land is being turned from a green space into a housing development, so continuing the excessive urbanisation of Hellesdon. Any extension of the Hellesdon urbanisation should be from the edge of the current community outwards. This development in the heart of an existing residential area brings with it all the following negatives

- additional pollution (we already have vehicular traffic all around as well as pollution from aircraft and light industry/business
- removal of open green space
- noise, disturbance and potential nuisance to the detriment of the existing community

I feel very strongly that the development application should be declined. The key reasons are summarised below.

Regards

Mike Andrews

GNLP2173 - Rear of Heath Crescent, Hellesdon

This site is the former Jarrold Sports Ground, which was last used for sport two years ago, therefore any consultation on a planning application to develop this site would be a statutory consultation with Sport England.

In order to satisfy Sport England policy and meet Para 97 of the NPPF, any development of the site would need to meet the following criteria:

Exception 4
The area of playing field to be lost as a result of the proposed development will be replaced, prior to the commencement of development, by a new area of playing field:
* of equivalent or better quality, and
* of equivalent or greater quantity, and
* in a suitable location, and
* subject to equivalent or better accessibility and management arrangements.

As the proposal would result in the permanent loss of this sports ground without meeting the requirements of Exception E4 or NPPF Para 97, Sport England would wish to object to this allocation, as there is a shortage of outdoor spece for sport in the Hellesdon area. I understand the Parish Council would be interested in acquiring the site to help meet local demand for sports pitches..



GNLP 2170 - Former Langley Prep School Playing Fields

This allocation consists of 1.3 hectares of former playing fields at this school. Evidence from Google Earth indicates that the site has been recently marked out for junior and mini soccer pitches, with athletics track and rounders during the summer months. The site also contains three tennis courts.

Sport England would be a statutory consultee on any planning application relating to this site.

In order to satisfy Sport England policy and meet Para 97 of the NPPF, any development of the site would need to meet the following criteria:

Exception 4
The area of playing field to be lost as a result of the proposed development will be replaced, prior to the commencement of development, by a new area of playing field:
* of equivalent or better quality, and
* of equivalent or greater quantity, and
* in a suitable location, and
* subject to equivalent or better accessibility and management arrangements.

As the proposal would result in the permanent loss of this sports ground without meeting the requirements of Exception E4 or NPPF Para 97, Sport England would wish to object to this allocation.

GNLP2173
1. Hellesdon need open green space for residents to enjoy
2. Concerned about density of housing proposed
3. site of new road - I cannot believe you are even considering allowing a road into Prince Andrews Road
a) the road is narrow
b) too near Heath Crescent entrance to P.A Road - Cromer already busy two cars parked on road.
c) Drivers may use the road as a rat run between Fifers land and Cromer Road.
d) Concerned about the number of vehicles which will block access for exiting residents where new properties being built on a confirmed space.
4. Concerned that the local roads won't cope with the extra traffic, already long queues on Fifers Lane and Cromer Road. At present it to difficult to turn right into Cromer Road due to the amount of traffic.

Objection is made to the development of the Jarrolds Sports Ground Site at Prince Andrews Road, Hellesdon (GNLP2173) for 50 homes on the grounds of:
1) Loss of community open space
2) Increase in traffic using surrounding residential roads

In addition there is no indication of how the road access point shown through the site of 3 Prince Andrews Road could be achieved, nor whether the householder concerned has been informed of the proposal.

Everyone I spoke to regarding the proposed housing development at Jarrolds sports field in Hellesdon objected to it.

Lots of people in the area are elderly, and without the knowledge to register there objections on a computer.

I had a little time to go round some of the houses in the area and gained signatures of protest from every residence I visited.

The attached signatures on the petition are just a few of the people who objected to the housing development, there are many more! (Not attached for data protection reasons)

I just didn't have enough time to visit all the houses in the area when the residents where at home.

Concerns raised are from the lack of green space in the area for children, dog walkers, joggers etc, to increased traffic congestion on small roads, and demolishing a perfectly

good house for an access road. The new estate would also be out of character with the existing houses in the area, there would be disruption caused by building works, and the

view from many existing residents back gardens would be ruined with their privacy taken away.

I hope you will be fair and make everyone in the area aware of the proposed development, and give them all the chance and time to vote on this matter, not just the computer

After the unfortunate decision to allow Persimmon Homes to build 1,000 of the lowest quality and grade of houses on the Hellesdon Royal Norwich Golf Club without any substantial improvements to the local infrastructure, it is inconceivable that anyone would want to continue to build or develop even more sites around Hellesdon before assessing the impact to the local community and the facilities and the utilities that will come just from the completed White Rose Park site once it becomes populated over the new few years. There are already drainage and flooding issues around Hellesdon even before the current developing 1,000 homes are populated for example.
To go ahead with any more of these newly proposed developments will forever change Hellesdon for the worse and it is obviously far from the best interests of the local residents. As a local resident who is already alarmed and dismayed at the current White Rose Park development and the impact it is already having on our daily lives, let alone how much more severe it will become once the homes are populated, I strongly oppose these newly proposed sites for the decimation and ruining of Hellesdon.