GNLP0284R

Showing comments and forms 1 to 4 of 4

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 17109

Received: 16/11/2018

Respondent: Mr John Allaway

Representation:

Site no.0284 should not be built on for landscape reasons & because of its local importance as a green space. It also has ecological value simply by being permanent grassland and being more or less connected to the Tud flood plain. Also, your consultation is rubbish!

Full text:

Object. This is a greenfield site that contributes greatly to the rural 'feel' of Townhouse Rd. It provides long views to the Tud valley. Its ecological value has almost certainly been underestimated due to a lack of rarities, whereas in fact all permanent grassland is of ecological importance, especially rough grassland. This is especially so when there are links directly to river valley floodplains / grazing marshes, as is the case here. It should not be built on.

The GNLP Costessey summary states that "parts of 0206 and 0284 together..." are regarded as among the sites with lesser constraints. BUT your summary does not give any information about 0206. This is consistent with your online consultation generally - it is extremely time consuming and difficult to trawl through the site codes, work out what parcels of land they belong to (or vice versa), and then find a way of commenting.

If the GNLP was seriosu about discovering the public's views it would have made the online response process far more user-friendly and the section of the website that shows the maps with site numbers should have been made interactive, so that by clicking on any site number, details about it appear, eg: greenfield, brownfield, woodland, TPOd trees, CWS or adjacent to a CWS, landscape category, etc etc. I shouldn't need to tell you this - it's your job!

I sent you a message on this two weeks ago but have had no response, hence resorting to putting it here.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 17303

Received: 29/10/2018

Respondent: Costessey Town Council

Representation:

GNLP 0284R
It was noted that this site overlapped with GNLP 0206
Recommend REFUSAL as follows: Not a suitable site. It is in the designated river valley of R. Tud and would impact on the valuable landscape characteristics of the river valley. This is the river valley flood plain and floods, with wide variations in the river height after rain. There is a history of refusals along the river valley - see old Doctor's surgery which was only approved on the condition that it was not a residential dwelling, also the Costessey Centre had to be built on the site of a previous building not in the preferred location by the river because of the river valley and flood plain. Would impact on the surrounding characteristics of the area and the listed church adjacent. Access from the brow of the hill or from Longwater Lane by the bridge - Longwater Lane is a rat run. Should the appeal at Farmland Road be successful it would open up the whole of the river valley between Old and New Costessey for development as it would set a precedent. There is a fear that the whole river valley would be lost - a huge loss of natural amenity. Previous applications in the river valley have been refused. There is no overriding community benefit which would justify development on this site.

Full text:

COSTESSEY TC - ECM 12/09/2018
RESPONSE TO ADDITIONAL REG 18 SITES SUBMITTED FOR THE LOCAL PLAN

Cllr T East declared a non-pecuniary interest in the Reg 18 Sites as he is on the GNDP Panel
Cllr P O'Connor declared a pecuniary interest in Item 4 Site GNLP 2138 as he lives in Gunton Lane
Cllr S Hannant declared a pecuniary interest in the Longwater Lane sites as she lives on this road

It was noted that at the previous Reg 18 sites consultation on the sites for planning put forward for the local plan to 2036 CTC had recommended approval of two large tranches of land for mixed development, including about 500 houses on each. Beyond that it would be unsustainable to accept any more homes in Costessey. Costessey had made considerable contributions to housing over the past local plan period and was "swamped" due to a need for wider infrastructure in all its forms: surgeries, dentists, schools and roads. The Longwater junction / interchange cannot cope with the current expansion, so additional development would not be sustainable without further investment in major infrastructure, given that Queen's Hills will eventually have about 2,000 homes, Lodge Farm 1,000 homes with a further 900 homes at Easton. GNLP0266 & GNLP 0581 access was recommended to be through Bowthorpe industrial estate rather from the A1074 Dereham Road.

See below for recommendations on individual sites.

GNLP 0284R
It was noted that this site overlapped with GNLP 0206
Recommend REFUSAL as follows: Not a suitable site. It is in the designated river valley of R. Tud and would impact on the valuable landscape characteristics of the river valley. This is the river valley flood plain and floods, with wide variations in the river height after rain. There is a history of refusals along the river valley - see old Doctor's surgery which was only approved on the condition that it was not a residential dwelling, also the Costessey Centre had to be built on the site of a previous building not in the preferred location by the river because of the river valley and flood plain. Would impact on the surrounding characteristics of the area and the listed church adjacent. Access from the brow of the hill or from Longwater Lane by the bridge - Longwater Lane is a rat run. Should the appeal at Farmland Road be successful it would open up the whole of the river valley between Old and New Costessey for development as it would set a precedent. There is a fear that the whole river valley would be lost - a huge loss of natural amenity. Previous applications in the river valley have been refused. There is no overriding community benefit which would justify development on this site.

GNLP 2004
Recommend REFUSAL on the following grounds: In the designated river valley. Access onto Longwater Lane is problematic as it is by the pinch point, footbridge and road bridge. Only one access point. Other applications in this area have been refused.

GNLP SL 2008
APPROVE extension of Settlement Boundary NOT for residential use, but for access and amenity land to GNLP 0266. NB: High Pressure Gas main.

See response to GNLP 0266: APPROVE FOR MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT WITH CERTAIN CAVEATS. However, concerns were expressed about breaching the capped landfill site, which is contaminated land. It was noted that a recent application C/7/2017/7018 was to extend the use of the landfill gas compound until December 2030, which suggests that the use of this site would not be possible before then. The site suffered badly from the gases before it was capped with neighbouring farmers' livestock killed and crops affected. There is a high-pressure gas main running through the site. Note: Costessey TC does NOT support NCC's proposed relief road running through this site, particularly as it is suggested it would exit into the already congested A1074 Dereham Road opposite the entrance to Lodge Farm 2

Phase 2. Any relief road should be re-routed or exit onto the A47 / Longwater Interchange, not onto the stretch of A1074 which is already congested. The north-west spur towards the golf course should not be built on as it is too close to the river valley, but could be used as amenity land in conjunction with residential land if necessary.

GNLP 2074 (Showground)
Costessey TC could support a regional facility such as a concert hall, Exhibition Centre (eg like the NEC in Birmingham) on this site, but NOT residential development or light industrial use. CTC would prefer to keep the use as a Showground as it is an important facility in East Anglia. NB: Food hub is proposed further out along the A47 with potentially a new town. CTC could not support new dwellings further dwellings on this site as the road access is difficult as evidenced by the congestion on the existing Longwater interchange.

GNLP 2074 (Triangle adjacent to Park & Ride)
REFUSE development for housing on this triangle site. Only access to this site is onto Long Lane. There are always tailbacks onto the Longwater Interchange southern roundabout at peak times and when there are events at the Showground.

GNLP 2138: (Gunton Lane)
REFUSE: In designated river valley of R Tud. This is unsuitable ground as it is very marshy (so marshy that even horses are not grazed there). Access is via an unmade road.

GNLP 2156:
REFUSE: In designated river valley of R Tud. Very boggy land. Access issues. Previous applications in this area refused
See response to GNLP 0243: REFUSE: Not a suitable site. Would set a precedent for backland development in the river valley and would impact on the valuable landscape characteristics of the river valley.

GNLP 2043: (Former solar farm site)
Adjacent to site GNLP 0581. APPROVE for amenity land to cater for new residents south of Lodge Farm more infrastructure is needed eg school / nurseries / surgery / dentists/ second access to south and A47/ open spaces for leisure and recreation.

See response to GNLP 0581: Land south of Lodge Farm Phase 2: APPROVE for Mixed Use Development eg. residential and a possible extension of the existing industrial area. Access should be via roads from the Bowthorpe roundabout and NOT from Dereham Road via Lodge Farm. The power cables have now been relocated underground, so pylons have been removed. Note: Costessey Councillors do not recognise the extension of Bawburgh Lane around the corner as "Long Lane". Long Lane to them is what is printed on the map as "New Road", which causes confusion. Although this site is mentioned as being in a river valley, it is considerably higher (contours at 40m rather than the 20m or less on sites along the R Tud Valley and development here could avoid the flood plain and the main part of the river valley. Amenity lands would be adjacent to the south. Benefits of S106 and CIL might help provide infrastructure improvement at the Longwater Interchange and the surrounding roads / schools /surgeries etc. A possible bus link extension could be created via the Bowthorpe roundabout to the Showground and Easton (also to be developed). There are opportunities for bus lanes and cycleways to help discourage car use. Any development here would need a MINIMUM of TWO exits. Hills were the result of spoil heaps from Bawburgh pits being dug.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 17417

Received: 26/11/2018

Respondent: Costessey Town Council

Representation:

Not suitable. In designated river valley. Impact on valuable landscape characteristics of R valley flood plain which floods. Wide variations in river height after rain. History of refusals along valley. Would impact on characteristics of surrounding area and listed church adjacent. Access from brow of hill or Longwater Lane by bridge? Longwater Lane is rat run. If appeal at Farmland Road successful it would open up whole of river valley for development and would set precedent. Whole river valley could be lost - natural amenity.Previous applications in river valley were refused. No overriding community benefit which would justify development here

Full text:

Not suitable. In designated river valley. Impact on valuable landscape characteristics of R valley flood plain which floods. Wide variations in river height after rain. History of refusals along valley. Would impact on characteristics of surrounding area and listed church adjacent. Access from brow of hill or Longwater Lane by bridge? Longwater Lane is rat run. If appeal at Farmland Road successful it would open up whole of river valley for development and would set precedent. Whole river valley could be lost - natural amenity.Previous applications in river valley were refused. No overriding community benefit which would justify development here

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 19789

Received: 13/12/2018

Respondent: Mr John Allaway

Representation:

I object in principle to any development being permitted on the following sites, for reasons of damage to the local landscape, loss of open green space, damage to wildlife habitat and further intrusion into and despoilation of the countryside in / around the existing settlements:-

Old Costessey 'Mann's' field must be retained as green open space

Full text:

I object in principle to any development being permitted on the following sites, for reasons of damage to the local landscape, loss of open green space, damage to wildlife habitat and further intrusion into and despoilation of the countryside in / around the existing settlements:-

0290
2027 (which appears to be the woodland 'garden' at the top of the hill running perpendicular to Fakenham Road? If so, whoever owns this ought to be ashamed of promoting it for development)
0457
0159
0062
2051
2012
0465
2106 (which is a 3.3 hectare site south of Taverham Rd, which was once a nursery but has been derelict for at least 50 years. The site is on chalk just below topsoil level and as such is likely to be of botanical interest. The fact that natural succession has been taking place over this site for so long means that it will almost certainly have acquired a large and diverse flora and fauna. Full ecological surveys must be carried out here. In addition to general ecological surveys, specific surveys for reptiles, amphibians and bats should be undertaken. The site is of great value as undisturbed green open space and should be preserved as such.

0284 (Old Costessey, 'Mann's' field - must be retained as green open space.
0206 (land adjoining) also must be retained as green open space
2004 - this seems to be part of the Tud marshes and shouldn't even be remotely considered for any kind of development, as shouldn't any of the rest of the Tud marshes (either on / adjacent to the golf course or between Longwater Lane and Townhouse Road).