GNLP2123

Showing comments and forms 1 to 12 of 12

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 17685

Received: 03/12/2018

Respondent: Dr Jennifer Oey

Representation:

I strenuously object to this proposal which would adversely impact on the distinctive landscape characteristics of the area.

Full text:

As per Policy DM 4.5, this proposal leads me to believe that if approved it would cause significant adverse impact on the distinctive landscape characteristics and should therefore be refused.

The River Yare and the Yare Valley must be protected for the sake of the wildlife that make it home and for the recreation and well-being the area provides for the people who visit it. There is no tonic like walking or running in a natural setting and we are so fortunate to have this so easily accessible in Norwich. This is in large part why I consider Norwich to be a Fine City. Please do not jeopardize this by allowing this beautiful area to be further developed.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 18038

Received: 05/12/2018

Respondent: Alastair Grieve

Representation:

I write in objection to plans for new developments in the Yare and Tas river Valleys. The planning number are: GNLP2158/ GNLP2123/ GNLP0331R.
These are all greenfield sites and should be left for the enjoyment of recreation, such as walks for the people of Norwich. That it is possible to combine such activities with farming and a vanity of leisure activities is shown by the developments at High Ash Farm at Caister St. Edmund where farming, horse-riding and field walks are all carried out successfully. The Yare and Tas Valley are precious greenfield areas, close to Norwich and therefore vulnerable - as shown by the poorly designed retirement housing at Blue Bell Road on the Yare Valley which has used up acts of green field sites. Alas-British architecture is, on the whole, of poor quality andm on my view, should not use up greenfield sites.

Full text:

I write in objection to plans for new developments in the Yare and Tas river Valleys. The planning number are: GNLP2158/ GNLP2123/ GNLP0331R.
These are all greenfield sites and should be left for the enjoyment of recreation, such as walks for the people of Norwich. That it is possible to combine such activities with farming and a vanity of leisure activities is shown by the developments at High Ash Farm at Caister St. Edmund where farming, horse-riding and field walks are all carried out successfully. The Yare and Tas Valley are precious greenfield areas, close to Norwich and therefore vulnerable - as shown by the poorly designed retirement housing at Blue Bell Road on the Yare Valley which has used up acts of green field sites. Alas-British architecture is, on the whole, of poor quality andm on my view, should not use up greenfield sites.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 18094

Received: 08/12/2018

Respondent: Norwich Liberal Democrats

Representation:

On behalf of Norwich Liberal Democrats I object to the proposal that this land be used for 'University related development'.
The land lies within the Norwich Yare Valley character area where development would damage the environmental quality, biodiversity and character of the area.
The Sainsbury Centre for Visual Arts is a Grade II* listed Building and needs the space to 'set off' this building. Any development would adversely affect the look of this important building. This iconic building should be considered the edge of hard development of the UEA and this land be left as green public open space.

Full text:

On behalf of Norwich Liberal Democrats I object to the proposal that this land be used for 'University related development'.
The land lies within the Norwich Yare Valley character area where development would damage the environmental quality, biodiversity and character of the area.
The Sainsbury Centre for Visual Arts is a Grade II* listed Building and needs the space to 'set off' this building. Any development would adversely affect the look of this important building. This iconic building should be considered the edge of hard development of the UEA and this land be left as green public open space.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 18417

Received: 07/12/2018

Respondent: Ms Elizabeth Armstrong

Representation:

Please do not allow further development in the Yare Valley Green Space. Please put first the needs of the present and future generations who need the space for walking, the protection of the much at risk wildlife and the well being of our community.

Full text:

Please do not allow further development in the Yare Valley Green Space. Please put first the needs of the present and future generations who need the space for walking, the protection of the much at risk wildlife and the well being of our community.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 18470

Received: 11/12/2018

Respondent: June Gentle

Representation:

I also strongly object to any more development by UEA . GNLP 2123 is yet another attempt by the University to encroach further into the valley and the application is very vague and would give yet another opportunity for building on the green corridor.
The Yare Valley is an important recreational area for the general public to enjoy. The pressures to develop this space are limitless.

Full text:

I am writing to express my opposition to recent applications to further development in the Yare Valley Corridor.
The following sites, 5.17 Caistor St Edmunds
5.21 Colney
Both sites fall within the Yare Valley corridor and are also covered by the NSBLPZ to give protection for a wildlife corridor.
Both sites should be rejected.
I also strongly object to any more development by UEA . GNLP 2123 is yet another attempt by the University to encroach further into the valley and the application is very vague and would give yet another opportunity for building on the green corridor.
The Yare Valley is an important recreational area for the general public to enjoy. The pressures to develop this space are limitless.
A strong message should go out from the Planning Authority that this special landscape is not "up for grabs"and actively seek to conserve it for future generations.

Comment

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 18887

Received: 07/12/2018

Respondent: Bidwells

Representation:

This site would form a sustainable extension to the Sainsbury Centre. As demonstrated by this representation, those issues raised by the HELAA assessment can be addressed through detailed design of a scheme on this site, as part of any planning application process.

See full text of representation

Full text:

GREATER NORWICH LOCAL PLAN REGULATION 18 CONSULTATION RESPONSE:
UNIVERSITY OF EAST ANGLIA
LAND ADJOINING THE SAINSBURY CENTRE (GNLP2123)
CONGREGATION HALL (GNLP2120)
These representations have been prepared by Bidwells on behalf of the University of East Anglia (UEA) in response to the Greater Norwich Local Plan Focussed Sites Stage B (Regulation 18) consultation.
On behalf of our client, we strongly recommend that both land adjoining the Sainsbury Centre and Congregation Hall are allocated for university-related uses, alongside the suite of sites already submitted as part of the Call for Sites Process in 2016. Both of the above sites were submitted within the January-March 2018 Stage A Regulation 18 consultation window, alongside additional representations to support the suite of UEA sites submitted as part of the initial Call for Sites process in 2016.
Subsequently, both sites have received preliminary suitability assessments within the October 2018 Addendum Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA), released as part of the current Regulation 18 consultation. The representations endeavour to address any potential constraints/uncertainties identified in the HELAA assessment for both of these sites. The representations also consider the implications of the revised NPPF in relation to the sites.
While the NPPF's definition of deliverable relates to housing sites, the criterion within that definition are applicable when demonstrating the deliverability of both sites within the Plan Period to 2036. These criteria have been divided into relevant headings as follows, to inform the structure of these representations:
● Suitable;
● Achievable;
● Available; and
● Viable.

Land Adjoining the Sainsbury Centre (GNLP2123)
The site was promoted in the Stage A Regulation 18 Consultation for University-related uses. Since then, further engagement with Historic England has identified that development on site GNLP2123 should comprise ancillary uses relating to the Sainsbury Centre.
Assessment of Deliverability
Suitable
The site comprises land to the south and west of the Sainsbury Centre, and is 1.675 hectares. The site constitutes previously undeveloped land and lies adjacent to the defined UEA Campus boundary, as set out by Policy DM26 of the current Development Plan, which broadly follows the built form of the Campus. The site has been assessed in the HELAA, with most suitability criteria achieving Green ratings. These are summarised below:
● Access, Accessibility to Services, Transport and Roads: all Green rated. The site benefits from an access route to Norfolk Drive, and the Highways Authority have expressed their support for the site in terms of its proximity to the existing Campus, and access opportunities.
● Utilities Capacity and Utilities Infrastructure: both Green rated.
● Contamination and Ground Stability: Green rated.
● Flood Risk: Green rated. The site lies entirely within Flood Zone 1, with no risk of surface water flooding.
● Significant Landscapes: Green rated. While the site lies within the Yare Valley Character Area (Policy DM6), the site is well screened from the surrounding context by tree cover. Development in this location is therefore not anticipated to have any adverse impact upon any landscape designations.
● Compatibility with Neighbouring Uses: Green rated. The site is well related to the existing academic uses on Campus, and the development of the site would be associated with the Sainsbury Centre.

Some suitability criteria within the HELAA assessment of the site received Amber ratings. These issues are explored in more detail below:
● Market Attractiveness. The site would be used principally for uses ancillary to the Sainsbury Centre. It is therefore contended that development in this location would only benefit the primary function of the Sainsbury Centre as an exhibition space. From this, Market Attractiveness should receive a Green rating.
● Townscapes. The site is screened from key views across the Campus. For example, the site is screened from the UEA Broad through dense tree cover, and from the wider context by the sloping topography of the site, and the Sainsbury Centre itself. Considering the green rating awarded to the 'Significant Landscapes' element of this site, Townscapes should also receive a Green rating due its low landscape impact.
● Biodiversity and Geodiversity. The Heronry County Wildlife Site (CWS) adjoins the site to the east, while Butterfly Meadow CWS lies to the south. The HELAA assessment notes that a small portion of the red line boundary overlaps The Heronry (0.17ha). The red line boundary of the site will be revised accordingly to exclude the CWS. The development of the site will not encroach upon either CWS, and will not engender any negative ecological impacts, while the marginal revision to the red line boundary will not influence the deliverability of the site. From this, it is apparent that Biodiversity and Geodiversity should receive a Green rating.

● Historic Environment. The site lies adjacent to the Sainsbury Centre, a Grade II* Listed Building. As discussed, engagement with Historic England has identified that the development of the site should comprise uses ancillary to the function of the Sainsbury Centre. Historic England, and other statutory bodies, will continue to inform any proposals for the site as they evolve, so the historic environment aspects of the site can be accommodated and, therefore, the site should receive a Green rating.
● Open Space and GI. The site currently forms amenity land, relating to The Hay Meadows grassland, as identified by the UEA Landscape Strategy (2010). The Landscape Strategy sets out that the key landscape objective for this area is the conservation of the open appearance of University Broad. The site is located to the extreme east of The Hay Meadows, and is enclosed by dense woodland cover to the south and west. The sloping topography of the site reduces the visual significance of the site, which is likely to be further screened by temporary art installations to the east of the Sainsbury Centre, and the Sainsbury Centre itself. The Primary Landscape Conservation objective of this area of the Campus will be not be prejudiced by development at this site. Open Space and GI should, therefore, receive a Green rating.

Similarly, from this analysis, it can be ascertained that the constraints on site can be mitigated through development with supporting technical evidence and good design.

Available
The site, in its entirety, is owned by the UEA, and there are no leases or restrictive covenant on the site consequently, the site is readily available for development.
Achievable
If all planning constraints raised within the HELAA are addressed and suitably mitigated, then the
site can be considered achievable for development.

Viable
The development of the site is considered viable, taking into consideration the various policy requirements in relation to matters such as CIL contributions. Further evidence on viability can
be provided on a strictly private and confidential basis, should this be deemed necessary.

Summary
This site would form a sustainable extension to the Sainsbury Centre. As demonstrated by this representation, those issues raised by the HELAA assessment can be addressed through detailed design of a scheme on this site, as part of any planning application process.

Congregation Hall (GNLP2120)
The site was promoted in the Stage A Regulation 18 Consultation for University-related uses, to comprise the redevelopment of Congregation Hall. The site has been considered for redevelopment by the UEA for many years, with the repurposing of the Hall to become the Congregation Conference Centre proposed in the UEA's Development Framework Strategy (2010).
Assessment of Deliverability
Suitable
The site comprises the existing Congregation Hall, alongside the pocket garden to the north of the site, and comprises 0.337 hectares in total. The site constitutes previously developed land and lies within the defined UEA Campus boundary, as set out by Policy DM26 of the current Development Plan. The site has been assessed in the HELAA, with most suitability criteria achieving Green ratings. These are summarised below:

● Access, Accessibility to Services, Transport and Roads: all Green rated. The site benefits from existing access onto University Drive, with parking provided within Campus, and the Highways Authority have expressed their support for the site in terms of its proximity to the existing Campus, and access opportunities.
● Utilities Capacity and Utilities Infrastructure: both Green rated.
● Contamination and Ground Stability: Green rated.
● Flood Risk: Green rated. The site lies entirely within Flood Zone 1, with no risk of surface water flooding.
● Significant Landscapes and Open Space and GI: Green rated. The site is not located within any landscape designations.
● Compatibility with Neighbouring Uses: Green rated. The site is well related to the existing academic uses on Campus.

Some suitability criteria within the HELAA assessment of the site received Amber ratings. These issues are explored in more detail below:
● Market Attractiveness. The site would be redeveloped to form a key site within the Campus, for academic uses and events spaces. The redevelopment is therefore anticipated to form a substantial benefit in terms of attracting students to the UEA and in its function as an events space. From this, Market Attractiveness should receive a Green rating.
● Townscapes. It is anticipated that the redevelopment of the Hall would have a positive impact upon the townscape of the Campus. For this reason, Townscapes should receive a Green rating.
● Biodiversity and Geodiversity. Violet Grove County Wildlife Site is situated within 200m of the site. However, it is not anticipated that the redevelopment of the site will have any implications for the CWS. Furthermore, the closest SSSI to the site is the Eaton Chalk Pit, located approximately 2km south of the site, so the development of the site will have no impact upon this SSSI. Accordingly, the site should receive a Green rating for Biodiversity and Geodiversity.
● Historic Environment. The closest listed buildings to the site are the Library and the Teaching Wall (both Grade II). Both listed buildings are separated from Congregation Hall by existing buildings, such as Union House, which provide effective screening. Similarly, the site is not located within Earlham Conservation Area, and any development on site would not impact upon its setting. From this, it is apparent that the site should receive a Green rating in terms of Historic Environment.
From this analysis, it can be ascertained that the constraints on site can be mitigated through development with technical evidence and good design.
Available
The site, in its entirety, is owned by the UEA, and there are no leases or restrictive covenant on the site Consequently, the site is readily available for development.
Achievable
If all planning constraints raised within the HELAA are addressed and suitably mitigated, then the
site can be considered achievable for development.
Viable
The development of the site is considered viable, taking into consideration the various policy requirements in relation to matters such as CIL contributions. Further evidence on viability can
be provided on a strictly private and confidential basis, should this be deemed necessary.

Summary
This site offers an exciting opportunity to redevelop Congregation Hall into a key re-development site for the University, given its central campus location. As demonstrated by this representation, those issues raised by the HELAA assessment can be addressed through the considered design of the site at a detailed planning application stage.

We trust that these representations will assist the Greater Norwich Local Plan team in progressing its Local Plan review towards the Preferred Options stage, the consultation for which we currently understand is programmed to commence in Autumn 2019.

As indicated within these representations, the UEA and Bidwells are both keen to
engage with the Greater Norwich Local Plan team to meet the challenges of growth, and look forward to discussing matters further in due course, as the development of the University's refreshed Development Framework Strategy continues throughout early 2019.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 18914

Received: 10/12/2018

Respondent: Yare Valley Society

Representation:

In addition to the constraints stated with the proposed allocation, the development on this site would encroach on the Yare Valley Green Infrastructure Corridor, and so be detrimental because of the reasons stated in 1. above. The site lies within the Norwich Yare Valley character area, where "development will only be permitted where it would not damage the environmental quality, biodiversity or character of the area and where it is for: a) agriculture or forestry purposes; or b) facilities ancillary to outdoor sport and recreation or other uses appropriate to the purpose of this policy; or c) the limited extension of or alteration to existing buildings."
The proposed use for this site for "University related development..." is far too vague, and opens the door for future planning applications that do not conform to the criteria for the Norwich Yare Valley Character Area. The application should be rejected.

Full text:

The Yare Valley Society submits the comments below for consideration in the current consultation. YVS continues to maintain its objections put forward in the earlier consultation.
1. General Comment for Sites GNLP 2123 and GNLP 2158
The Sites lie in Yare Valley Green Infrastructure Corridor protected by Norwich Yare Valley Character Area, or SNDC River Valley Policies. The Corridor is more than the sum of its parts. Any reduction in area could impact along the corridor and impair its ability to function effectively.
The Corridor is vital to the wellbeing of humans and wildlife. The link between health and outdoor physical activity is established, as is the need for a robust green infrastructure network if our wildlife is to survive.
The Corridor is much used for informal recreation (as evidenced by worn paths), and changes to the Corridor should only be to increase its extent to meet the demands of a growing population from adjacent house building.
A sufficiently large number of sites, outside of valley, are being proposed to meet the expected growth need.
2. Comment for Specific Sites
Norwich GNLP2123
In addition to the constraints stated with the proposed allocation, the development on this site would encroach on the Yare Valley Green Infrastructure Corridor, and so be detrimental because of the reasons stated in 1. above. The site lies within the Norwich Yare Valley character area, where "development will only be permitted where it would not damage the environmental quality, biodiversity or character of the area and where it is for: a) agriculture or forestry purposes; or b) facilities ancillary to outdoor sport and recreation or other uses appropriate to the purpose of this policy; or c) the limited extension of or alteration to existing buildings."
The proposed use for this site for "University related development..." is far too vague, and opens the door for future planning applications that do not conform to the criteria for the Norwich Yare Valley Character Area. The application should be rejected.
Caister St Edmund Site GNLP2158
In addition to the constraints stated with the proposed allocation, the development on this site would encroach on the Yare Valley Green Infrastructure Corridor, and so be detrimental because of the reasons stated in 1. above. As well as the constraints referred to with the proposal, this site falls almost in its entirety within the SNDC River Valleys of the Yare and the Tas covered by Policy DM 4.5 and within the Bypass Landscape Protection Zone (NSBLPZ). It is also constrained by Landscape Setting of Norwich Policy DM 4.6. The application should be rejected.

Colney GNLP0331R A
This proposed site allocation does not lie within the SNDC River Valleys Policy, but is considered by YVS as providing an important wildlife link between the Yare Valley and the Bypass Landscape Protection Zone, and the countryside beyond. (The NSBLPZ while originally put in place for landscape protection, also, incidentally, serves as a valuable part of any future protection of wildlife migration routes.) With the current scale of development on both sides of the river corridor, there is a real danger of the valley corridor becoming isolated from the surrounding countryside. This site is an important landscape and green break between Colney and Cringleford and forms part of the present network of wildlife movement. At the very minimum, any proposal for this site should provide for the maintenance of a substantial green corridor. The application should be rejected.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 18990

Received: 13/12/2018

Respondent: Norfolk Wildlife Trust

Representation:

We object to the inclusion of this site in the plan, due to the loss to Heronry & Violet Grove County Wildlife Site which would occur. We strongly recommend that this site is removed from any further consideration in the plan.

Full text:

We object to the inclusion of this site in the plan, due to the loss to Heronry & Violet Grove County Wildlife Site which would occur. We strongly recommend that this site is removed from any further consideration in the plan.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 19389

Received: 14/12/2018

Respondent: Mr Christopher Groves

Representation:

Any development within this area is likely to have an adverse impact on the Yare Valley Green Space.
The proposed future uses are too vague and would allow the University to make an unacceptable intrusion into the YV Green Space.
It is important that there is support for policies which seek to protect the YV Green Space- this Green Space is vital for informal recreation, for the protection of wildlife and for the wellbeing of our community.

Full text:

Any development within this area is likely to have an adverse impact on the Yare Valley Green Space.
The proposed future uses are too vague and would allow the University to make an unacceptable intrusion into the YV Green Space.
It is important that there is support for policies which seek to protect the YV Green Space- this Green Space is vital for informal recreation, for the protection of wildlife and for the wellbeing of our community.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 19396

Received: 14/12/2018

Respondent: Norwich Green Party

Representation:

GNLP2123 Adjoining Sainsburys Centre - submitted by Cllr Denise Carlo, on behalf of Norwich Green Party

The proposed site would present a further intrusion into the Norwich Yare Valley. It would also represent a further loss of green open space at the University site and adjoining grounds of the former Blackdale School which has been gradually whittled away by development. Maintaining green space is essential for mitigating against climate change (cooling the urban area, prevention of riverine and surface water flooding),for biodiversity, amenity, recreation and for protecting the setting of the University buildings and listed buildings.

Full text:

GNLP2123 Adjoining Sainsburys Centre - submitted by Cllr Denise Carlo, on behalf of Norwich Green Party

The proposed site would present a further intrusion into the Norwich Yare Valley. It would also represent a further loss of green open space at the University site and adjoining grounds of the former Blackdale School which has been gradually whittled away by development. Maintaining green space is essential for mitigating against climate change (cooling the urban area, prevention of riverine and surface water flooding),for biodiversity, amenity, recreation and for protecting the setting of the University buildings and listed buildings.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 19532

Received: 14/12/2018

Respondent: Dr Jeremy Bartlett

Representation:

GNLP2123 - Norwich


Oppose.

This site lies within the Norwich Yare Valley character area, where "development will only be permitted where it would not damage the environmental quality, biodiversity or character of the area and where it is for: a) agriculture or forestry purposes; or b) facilities ancillary to outdoor sport and recreation or other uses appropriate to the purpose of this policy; or c) the limited extension of or alteration to existing buildings."

Approval for this site for "University related development..." is far too vague, and opens the door for yet another bite to be taken from the Yare Valley Green Space.

Relevant Planning Policies are Policy DM 4.5 Landscape Character and River Valleys, Policy DM 4.6 Landscape Setting of Norwich, Norwich Southern Bypass Landscape Protection Zone (NSBLPZ) and Norwich Yare Valley Character Area.

Full text:

General Comments on the Plan


Overall, the Greater Norwich Local Plan is an utter disaster for Norwich.


I have lived in this city for over thirty years and I have enjoyed living here because of the reasonable size of the city and the proximity of countryside. In particular, as someone who does not own a car, I have enjoyed cycle rides out of the city into rural Norfolk. Recent developments have made this less possible, in particular the construction of the NDR, which has severed the last quiet lanes out of the city to the north and east (Smee Lane, Quaker Lane, Breck Farm Lane).


The Greater Norwich Local Plan takes the destruction of what makes Norwich a great place to live a step further, by encouraging car use to inaccessible out of town developments and destroying open countryside around the city.


The Plan claims to plan claims to "enhance and protect the natural environment" but it does nothing of the sort. The scale of new housing proposed takes no account of water shortages in the East of England and will vastly add to climate change by encouraging further car usage as people travel to and from settlements with no facilities or employment to their places of work.


Comments on Specific Sites



5.17 - Caister St.Edmund

Oppose.

This site is mostly in the valleys of the River Yare and River Tas, which are covered by Policy DM 4.5. It is also within the Bypass Landscape Protection Zone (NSBLPZ) and is constrained by Landscape Setting of Norwich Policy DM 4.6.
Policy DM 4.5 includes the statement "Development proposals that would cause significant adverse impact on the distinctive landscape characteristics of an area will be refused."
Policy DM 4.6 includes the statement "Development which would significantly harm the NSBLPZ or the landscape setting of the Norwich urban area will not be permitted."
Furthermore, any development in this area will add to the already severe traffic congestion at Harford Bridge.


5.21 - Colney
Oppose.
This site provides an important wildlife link between the Yare Valley and the Bypass Landscape Protection Zone. Such is the scale of the development on either side of the river corridor that there is a real danger of the corridor becoming isolated from the surrounding countryside. This site provides a strategic landscape break between Colney and Cringleford which also safeguards the network of wildlife movement. The Bypass protection Zone itself provides another valuable wildlife corridor.


GNLP2123 - Norwich


Oppose.

This site lies within the Norwich Yare Valley character area, where "development will only be permitted where it would not damage the environmental quality, biodiversity or character of the area and where it is for: a) agriculture or forestry purposes; or b) facilities ancillary to outdoor sport and recreation or other uses appropriate to the purpose of this policy; or c) the limited extension of or alteration to existing buildings."

Approval for this site for "University related development..." is far too vague, and opens the door for yet another bite to be taken from the Yare Valley Green Space.

Relevant Planning Policies are Policy DM 4.5 Landscape Character and River Valleys, Policy DM 4.6 Landscape Setting of Norwich, Norwich Southern Bypass Landscape Protection Zone (NSBLPZ) and Norwich Yare Valley Character Area.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 19607

Received: 14/12/2018

Respondent: Dr Jeremy Bartlett

Representation:

This site lies within the Norwich Yare Valley character area, where "development will only be permitted where it would not damage the environmental quality, biodiversity or character of the area and where it is for: a) agriculture or forestry purposes; or b) facilities ancillary to outdoor sport and recreation or other uses appropriate to the purpose of this policy; or c) the limited extension of or alteration to existing buildings."

Approval for this site for "University related development..." is far too vague, and opens the door for yet another bite to be taken from the Yare Valley Green Space.

Relevant Planning Policies are Policy DM 4.5 Landscape Character and River Valleys, Policy DM 4.6 Landscape Setting of Norwich, Norwich Southern Bypass Landscape Protection Zone (NSBLPZ) and Norwich Yare Valley Character Area.

Full text:

General Comments on the Plan


Overall, the Greater Norwich Local Plan is an utter disaster for Norwich.


I have lived in this city for over thirty years and I have enjoyed living here because of the reasonable size of the city and the proximity of countryside. In particular, as someone who does not own a car, I have enjoyed cycle rides out of the city into rural Norfolk. Recent developments have made this less possible, in particular the construction of the NDR, which has severed the last quiet lanes out of the city to the north and east (Smee Lane, Quaker Lane, Breck Farm Lane).


The Greater Norwich Local Plan takes the destruction of what makes Norwich a great place to live a step further, by encouraging car use to inaccessible out of town developments and destroying open countryside around the city.


The Plan claims to plan claims to "enhance and protect the natural environment" but it does nothing of the sort. The scale of new housing proposed takes no account of water shortages in the East of England and will vastly add to climate change by encouraging further car usage as people travel to and from settlements with no facilities or employment to their places of work.


Comments on Specific Sites



5.17 - Caister St.Edmund

Oppose.

This site is mostly in the valleys of the River Yare and River Tas, which are covered by Policy DM 4.5. It is also within the Bypass Landscape Protection Zone (NSBLPZ) and is constrained by Landscape Setting of Norwich Policy DM 4.6.
Policy DM 4.5 includes the statement "Development proposals that would cause significant adverse impact on the distinctive landscape characteristics of an area will be refused."
Policy DM 4.6 includes the statement "Development which would significantly harm the NSBLPZ or the landscape setting of the Norwich urban area will not be permitted."
Furthermore, any development in this area will add to the already severe traffic congestion at Harford Bridge.


5.21 - Colney
Oppose.
This site provides an important wildlife link between the Yare Valley and the Bypass Landscape Protection Zone. Such is the scale of the development on either side of the river corridor that there is a real danger of the corridor becoming isolated from the surrounding countryside. This site provides a strategic landscape break between Colney and Cringleford which also safeguards the network of wildlife movement. The Bypass protection Zone itself provides another valuable wildlife corridor.


GNLP2123 - Norwich


Oppose.

This site lies within the Norwich Yare Valley character area, where "development will only be permitted where it would not damage the environmental quality, biodiversity or character of the area and where it is for: a) agriculture or forestry purposes; or b) facilities ancillary to outdoor sport and recreation or other uses appropriate to the purpose of this policy; or c) the limited extension of or alteration to existing buildings."

Approval for this site for "University related development..." is far too vague, and opens the door for yet another bite to be taken from the Yare Valley Green Space.

Relevant Planning Policies are Policy DM 4.5 Landscape Character and River Valleys, Policy DM 4.6 Landscape Setting of Norwich, Norwich Southern Bypass Landscape Protection Zone (NSBLPZ) and Norwich Yare Valley Character Area.