GNLP2158

Showing comments and forms 1 to 13 of 13

Comment

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 17054

Received: 14/11/2018

Respondent: South Norfolk Council

Representation:

The north-western part of the site is in Flood zones 2 & 3

Full text:

The north-western part of the site is in Flood zones 2 & 3

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 17684

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:

This area largely falls within Policy DM 4.5 and within the Bypass Landscape Protection Zone (NSBLPZ). It is also constrained by the Landscape Setting of Norwich Policy DM 4.6. As such, proposals that would cause significant adverse impact on the distinctive landscape characteristics of the area must be refused as should development which would significantly harm the NSBLPZ or the landscape setting of the Norwich urban area. 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: 18037

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: 18095

Received: 08/12/2018

Respondent: Norwich Liberal Democrats

Representation:

On behalf of Norwich Liberal Democrats I would like to object to this proposal.
A County Wildlife site is within the site. A scheduled ancient monument is within 400 m. and a SSSI is within 3 km.
The site lies within the river valley of both the Yare and the Tas covered by policy DM4.5 and within the bypass landscape protection zone NSBLPZ.
Also protected by landscape setting of Norwich Policy DM4.6
Policy DM4.5 includes the statement "Development proposals that would cause significant adverse impact on the distinctive landscape characteristics of an area will be refused."

Full text:

On behalf of Norwich Liberal Democrats I would like to object to this proposal.
A County Wildlife site is within the site. A scheduled ancient monument is within 400 m. and a SSSI is within 3 km.
The site lies within the river valley of both the Yare and the Tas covered by policy DM4.5 and within the bypass landscape protection zone NSBLPZ.
Also protected by landscape setting of Norwich Policy DM4.6
Policy DM4.5 includes the statement "Development proposals that would cause significant adverse impact on the distinctive landscape characteristics of an area will be refused."

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 18416

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: 18466

Received: 11/12/2018

Respondent: June Gentle

Representation:

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.

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.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 18915

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 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.

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: 18991

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 Depot Meadow 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 Depot Meadow County Wildlife Site which would occur. We strongly recommend that this site is removed from any further consideration in the plan.

Support

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 19226

Received: 14/12/2018

Respondent: Mr David Smith, Mr Dennis Smith and Mrs Annabel Taylor

Agent: Ingleton Wood LLP

Representation:

On behalf of the landowners, we strongly support the site GNLP2158 on land east of Ipswich Road for allocation for significant quantum of mixed-use commercial development.

There are no constraints that would prevent appropriate development. Accordingly, our client considers the site to be suitable, available and achievable, and therefore deliverable within the Plan period. With the potential to provide 3,800 new jobs, the site would make a significant valuable contribution to the employment land requirements within the Plan period.

Full text:

On behalf of the landowners, we strongly support the site GNLP2158 on land east of Ipswich Road for allocation for significant quantum of mixed-use commercial development.

The site is considered suitable by virtue of the HELAA Addendum 2018. The potential site constraints identified in the Addendum are addressed in further detail (Site Assessment via email) and it is concluded that there are no constraints that would prevent appropriate development. An Indicative Masterplan is also submitted to demonstrate how development could be delivered.

Our client considers the site to be suitable, available and achievable, and therefore deliverable within the Plan period. With the potential to provide 3,800 new jobs, the site would make a significant valuable contribution to the employment land requirements within the Plan period.

Attachments:

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 19420

Received: 14/12/2018

Respondent: Norwich Green Party

Representation:

Object to large development on a greenfield site in an environmentally sensitive location which has poor public transport links and would be dependent on access by car, van and lorry.

Full text:

Cllr Denise Carlo on behalf of Norwich Green Party City Group

We object because the site lies in a prominent location on a greenfield site, adjacent to the River Yare. A County Wildlife Site lies at the northern boundary. The site falls with the Norwich Southern Bypass Landscape Protection Zone (NSBLPZ), which is designated because of its visibility from the road towards an area of open rural character which is important to the landscape setting of Norwich. The site is protected by Policy DM 4.6 (Landscape Setting of Norwich) of the adopted South Norfolk Development Management Policies Document 2015 seeks to protect the openness of the NSBLPZ, and where possible, to enhance the landscape setting of the southern bypass.

The public transport links are poor and development in this location would be reliant on access by car, van and lorry.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 19435

Received: 14/12/2018

Respondent: Mrs Hilary Hann

Representation:

GNLP2158 - I am most concerned about any more intrusion into the 'green corridor' of the Yare Valley. With increase in housing and population in the area we need to have community space; recreational space - many folk walk and cycle in the River Valley; and for wild life to encourage biodiversity. Only a continuous green corridor along the River Valley will suffice. For these reasons I suggest that both of these applications are rejected.

Full text:

GNLP2158 - I am most concerned about any more intrusion into the 'green corridor' of the Yare Valley. With increase in housing and population in the area we need to have community space; recreational space - many folk walk and cycle in the River Valley; and for wild life to encourage biodiversity. Only a continuous green corridor along the River Valley will suffice. For these reasons I suggest that both of these applications are rejected.

GNLP0331R -A - Although this site is not in the Yare Valley directly it is, never the less, an important link for wildlife between Colney and Cringleford and the surrounding countryside. As building on both sides of the River increase this 'green corridor' is essential if the Yare Valley is not to be isolated as far as wildlife movement is concerned.
I feel this application should be rejected as well.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 19534

Received: 14/12/2018

Respondent: Dr Jeremy Bartlett

Representation:

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.

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: 19609

Received: 14/12/2018

Respondent: Dr Jeremy Bartlett

Representation:

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.

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.