GNLP0331R-A

The area in question provides an important wildlife link between the Yare Valley and the Bypass Landscape Protection Zone. The scale of the development on either side of the river corridor strongly indicates that there is a real danger of the corridor becoming isolated from the surrounding countryside. This area of this site provides a strategic landscape break between Colney and Cringleford which also safeguards
the network of wildlife movement.

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.

Regulation 18 consultation process Greater Norwich Local Plan (GNLP)
Additional proposals for Colney Parish, the Yare Valley and Norwich Research Park
Submission by Colney Parish Committee

We are writing to oppose any further proposals for site allocation in Colney Parish, the Yare Valley and NRP as being suggested in the consultations for the GNLP. These refer in particular to the designations in and around the Yare Valley and in Colney Parish

We note that three earlier proposed sites in this locale are not being pursued in the GNLP process on the following grounds

Six sites were consulted on in early 2018, three for residential use, one submission was made for university uses, one site was proposed for commercial uses, and one site for retirement-led housing. The Regulation 18 Site Proposals document concluded: "the sites proposed for housing and retirement properties do not relate well to the existing built form of the settlement; the sites proposed for employment over and above those already allocated may be suitable for expansion of existing institutions if this is necessary, and if landscape policies to protect the setting of the A47 are reviewed. Site GNLP0140 A-C have existing planning permissions."


The new consultation document offers three new sites for the Yare Valley area
* GNLP0331R-A Is to south-east of the hospital, measures 15ha, and is promoted for employment led mixed use development
* GNLP0331R-B measures 1.2 ha and is adjacent to the hospital car park and accessed from Hethersett Lane
* GNLP0331R-C measures 5.6 ha, which would be accessed from Hethersett Lane, is promoted for employment use.


In each case the associated commentary noted:

In conclusion, the three newly submitted sites offer alternatives for the further development of the Norwich Research Park (NRP) if landscape policies to protect the setting of the A47 are reviewed.

There are also sites in Colney Parish, namely 0158, 0592 and 0253.

All of these are in green-field land and in land designated as open space separating the built area of the Norwich Research Park from the western margins of the greater Norwich area. None has any significant supporting infrastructure for future development, and all carry landscape protection designations.

We particularly note the inclusion of Colney Park (0592) which we believe has a special designation at historic parkland 'of landscape value'. This area is greatly valued by parishioners as it home to one of the largest heronries in the country and retains some fine native trees.

In all of these cases we strongly oppose any changes to the special landscape qualities for this area. We recognise that, despite our spirited opposition, the sites in the Yare Valley already given planning permission may be developed.

The Planning Setting
The proposed sites lie in the Norwich Southern Bypass Landscape Protection Zone (NSBLPZ), and is identified on what the South Norfolk Local Plan (2015, 117) identifies as a "strategic gap". The reasons for both the landscape protection zone and the strategic gap are agreed by the Council in paragraph 4.65 of its Local Plan.
In order to ensure the protection and conservation of local landscape character and the setting of urban areas, towns and villages, the Council has defined open land or 'Strategic Gaps' that maintain the segregation and individual identities of certain settlements in the Norwich Policy Area and so avoid areas of development 'sprawl' which would be detrimental to the rural character of the area.
Regarding the NSBLPZ, in Policy DM 4.6, South Norfolk Council affirms:
All development proposals within the Norwich Southern Bypass Landscape Protection Zone (NSBLPZ) should have regard to protecting the openness of the Zone and, where possible, enhancing the landscape setting of the southern bypass, including the practice of wild flower planting and management regimes
Furthermore, in order to safeguard the landscape character areas of their District, in Policy DM 4.5, South Norfolk Council states unequivocally:
All development should respect, conserve and where possible, enhance the landscape character of its immediate and wider environment. Development proposals that would cause significant adverse impact on the distinctive landscape characteristics of an area will be refused.
Both Parishes have stressed the importance of these safeguards of planning policy in previous submissions. We refer in particular to the siting of the Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital, and the recent proposal under Planning Application 2016/0233 for playing fields and a major rugby club facility together with associated car parking in the heart of the scenic Yare Valley.
We Parishes take our consultative responsibilities very seriously as should be expected of us. In this matter we are supported by the Yare Valley Society which also seeks to protect the special characteristics of the protected "green corridor" of the Yare Valley with its renowned biodiversity and species mixes.
Collectively we feel that our strong landscape care case, as supported by the South Norfolk Local Plan, which has statutory backing to its planning policies, is generally not being given sufficient weight in the deliberations of the South Norfolk Development Management Committee.
We also note with much sadness that the Greater Norwich Local Plan offers the same myopia over the gratuitous allocation of possible development sites in these precious areas.
We are mindful of the broad and ambiguous umbrella phrase of "contributing to sustainable development" which pervades the National Planning Policy Framework and which guides DM Policy 1.3 in the South Norfolk Local Plan 2015, 25). In the last part of that policy are the relevant phrases:
Permission for development in the Countryside outside of the defined development boundaries of Settlements will only be granted if:
c) Where specific Development Management Policies allow for development outside of development boundaries or
d) Otherwise demonstrates overriding benefits in terms of economic, social and environment dimensions as addressed in Policy 1.1.

At the core of sustainable development lies the overall public wellbeing and protection of nature in a planet ravaged by human-forced destruction under the guise of "sustainable development".
What particularly grieves us is that each decision creates the case for sequential resonant planning applications and accepted decisions. Over time these perverse decisions "nibble away" at the landscape character and its protection under established planning law. We are simply not convinced by the argument, sometimes advanced, that any given decision in such a sensitive case carries no precedent for future planning proposals. All the evidence of the past two decades point to the opposite conclusion, namely that each decision begets the case for future applications and favourable planning assessments.
Our case in this instance is first that this process of "nibbling" just has to stop. It has been proved to stimulate more "nibbling" over the years. And every time we press this point we are rebuffed by the seeming "balance of the planning values" of sequential applications. We are losing confidence in our chances of success in continuing to make our case for landscape and biodiversity safeguard in Colney Parish and in the Yare Valley. Yet if the two most affected Parishes and the champion of the Yare Valley special amenity cannot be assured of fair hearing then the purpose of the noble parish consultation processes is jeopardised.
We submit that all of these additional sites be removed from the putative allocation procedures under Regulation 18 and that what remains of this beautiful and biodiverse Valley as well as Colney Parish be left alone as is the intention under existing planning procedures. The only purpose of reviewing these landscape policies is to strengthen them.

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.

This site although not in the River Yare Valley is considered by the Yare Valley society as providing an important wildlife link between the Yare Valley and the Bypass Landscape Protection Zone. There is also a risk of flooding from surface water.

It will add to the already increasing numbers of traffic already using the Watton Road (B1108), to and from Norwich. There is often great congestion between the Earlham Fiveways roundabout to the NNUH turning. This will just add to the tailbacks. There is not sufficient infrastructure to cope with the excess traffic.

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.

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.

As a Carer it has become increasingly dangerous to walk with another person the triangle of Mill Road, Church Road and Barford Road in Marlingford. There are no footpaths, (just banks and hedges full of holly, brambles and nettles). These country roads were not designed to take artic lorries and 3.5t vans. I suffer from bronchiectesis and the exhaust fumes polluting the air exacerbate it. The volume of traffic cutting through our village, the noise and greenhouse gases will again increase, whereas I thought we were meant to be reducing the latter.

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.

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.

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.

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.