GREATER NORWICH DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIP TECHNICAL CONSULTATION FULL REPORT (Final Draft)
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
GREATER NORWICH DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIP TECHNICAL CONSULTATION FULL REPORT (Final draft) Prepared for Greater Norwich Development Partnership Thorpe Lodge, Yarmouth Road Thorpe St Andrew Norwich NR7 0DU Prepared by: Michael Mackman BA (Hons), MMRS, FCIM, Chartered Marketer 14 November 2008 Greater Norwich Development Partnership – Joint Core Strategy Consultation P08872 14 November 2008 Page 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Obviously, the evaluation of the comments on the GNDP Regulation 25 consultation is a matter for the Partnership. However, it may be helpful to draw out some common and recurring themes. There are many expressions of concern about the effects of further development on key local infrastructure. These include (but are not exclusively) water and sewerage, health services, transportation/ roads, community facilities and infrastructure, education, policing and the environment (including impacts on SSSIs, nature reserves and green spaces). Many respondents express views to the effect that local resources are at capacity or above, and that further development must bring with it benefits to support new populations, wherever housed. There are particular concerns in some rural communities, although some also welcome controlled development as a means of assuring or enhancing local services, and request a higher development “status” or the development of specific sites. Others are concerned about “knock on” effects on local infrastructure, including roads, local schools and so on. This is coupled with concerns about sustainability, the desirability of “green infrastructure” and about ensuring that new development has the minimum carbon footprint. There are also suggestions about measures to improve the carbon footprint of existing developments, for example, through renewables technology. Unsurprisingly, these concerns are balanced by suggestions from agents, landowners, developers and businesses suggesting the desirability of additional development, or the development of specific sites. There are also concerns about limitations on developments in some communities, the phasing/ timing of development, the effects of the economic climate, capacity for funding of some strategic improvements and the possible effects of CIL. However, there are numerous suggestions regarding the sustainability of particular developments and how they could contribute to a more sustainable future. Several responses point to the potential for controlled development to benefit the economy of (particularly smaller) communities. Major road improvements, such as the Long Stratton bypass and dualling of the A11, are mentioned several times as being highly desirable. There are a number of highly specific suggestions about development sites which will have to be carefully evaluated, and which are outside the scope of this summary. Listed below are the summaries for each of the 33 questions. The details of all representation relieved are included in the full report. Greater Norwich Development Partnership – Joint Core Strategy Consultation P08872 14 November 2008 Page 2 COMMENTARY ON INDIVIDUAL QUESTIONS Q1. Have we identified the right critical infrastructure requirements? There were 55 responses to this question. Nineteen agree the right requirements are identified, and a further eight agree with reservations or comments. Two are against. Issues raised include health, climate change/ sustainability/ environment, water supply and waste management, the Long Stratton by-pass, transportation, the A11, A47 and A140, needs of smaller villages, junction improvements and Broadlands business park. Communities mentioned include Diss, Long Stratton, Wymondham, Hingham, Poringland, Framingham Earl, Norwich, Attleborough, Thetford, Bramerton, Costessey, Spixworth, Wroxham, Rackheath, Acle, Reepham, Loddon/Chedgrave and Wroxham, Mangreen, Swardeston, Mulbarton, Swainsthorpe, Kirby Cane. Bawburgh, Thorpe St Andrew, Little Plumstead, Hethersett and Little Melton. Q2. CITY CENTRE - Are you aware of any major issues that would prevent delivery of this proposed policy? There were 32 responses to this question. Five say there are no issues. Issues raised include water supply and drainage, city centre development and traffic, SSSIs and nature reserves, policing, preserving the historic environment, transport infrastructure, scale of development and retail, leisure, office and culture uses in other growth locations, growth in Cringleford, traffic growth, regeneration, hospital capacity, objections from residents, the water cycle study, strategic flood risk, crime in Norwich City Centre, open space improvement, and Broadlands Business Park. Communities specifically mentioned include Norwich, Catton Grove Chalk Pit; Sweetbriar Road Marshes, St James Pit, Wensum Valley (Mile Cross & Sycamore Crescent); Mousehold Heath, Lion Wood, Wymondham, Cringleford, Colney. Cosstessey, Trowse, Porringland, Thurton, Loddon and Chedgrove, Sprowston, Rackheath, Norwich, Wroxham, Hethersett, Long Stratton, Stoke Holy Cross, Colney, and Costessey, . Greater Norwich Development Partnership – Joint Core Strategy Consultation P08872 14 November 2008 Page 3 Q3. FOR OPTION 1 - What additional significant infrastructure requirements would there be? There were 60 responses to this question. Issues raised include sewerage, traffic, concentrating development in a new town, water and wastewater infrastructure, a new Parkway railway station, Strategic Waste Management Facilities, managing development of and links to existing infrastructure, A11 dualling and other road improvements, telephone/ broadband connections, environmental/ conservation issues, policing, railway links, new housing locations, strategic employment locations, the settlement hierarchy, development in Drayton, electrical supplies/ network, need for more detailed maps, classification of Tasburgh, maintaining Norwich’s rural hinterland, satellite development at Long Stratton, development limits at Aylsham, scale of development at Colney Lane, street lighting, public transport, healthcare and leisure provision. Communities mentioned specifically include Hethersett, Little Melton and Wymondham, Norwich, Mangreen, Thetford, Newmarket, Cambridge, Fiveways, Costessey, Easton, Sprowston, Rackheath, Swardesdon, Mulbarton, Swainsthorpe Bowthorpe, Postwick, Cringleford, Colney, Taverham, Trowse, Hainford, Newton St Faith, Frettenham, Arminghall, Bixley CP, Framingham Pigot, Framingham Earl, Poringland, Drayton, Taverham, Horsford Manor, Longwater, Thickthorn, Tasburgh, Long Stratton, Thorpe End, Aylsham, Colney, Wroxham and Bawburgh. Q4. FOR OPTION 1 - What are the constraints to delivery? There were 37 responses to this question. One response says there are no significant constraints. Issues include traffic and road infrastructure, site assembly and coordination, infrastructure costs, clarity of the settlement hierarchy,water availability and quality, environmental and conservation issues, police infrastructure, archaeological sites, coordination of services/infrastructure, the planning system, employment uses, site availability, identity of Hethersett, infrastructure timing, investment in public transport, water/drainage and healthcare. Communities mentioned include Elvedon, Wymondham, Longwater, Cringleford and Attleborough, various SSSIs / nature reserves, Easton, Colney, Harford Bridge, Hethersett, Rackheath, and Thorpe End. Greater Norwich Development Partnership – Joint Core Strategy Consultation P08872 14 November 2008 Page 4 Q5. FOR OPTION 1 - What opportunities does this option present? There were 32 replies to this question. Issues mentioned include a new sustainable community at Mangreen, sustainable transport infrastructure, environmental improvements, delivery of affordable homes and community facilities, a new business park, integration of sustainable homes and jobs, transport links, enhancing the strategic road network, use of park and ride, new green spaces / habitat, improved facilities and a cross-city development corridor. Communities mentioned include Mangreen, Rackheath, Easton, Norwich, Hethersett, Little Melton, Wymondham, Costessey, Thickthorn, and Attleborough. Q6. FOR OPTION 1 - How will this link with your longer term investment strategies? There were 21 responses to this question. One is completely opposed. Issues raised include meeting sustainable growth objectives, development in Little Melton, expansion in the Rackheath area, investment in community facilities, policing. a strategic employment site at Norwich airport and habitat creation. Communities mentioned include Mangreen, Swardeston, Mulbarton, Swainsthorpe, Norwich, Little Melton, Rackheath, Easton, Hethersett and Wymondham. Q7. FOR OPTION 1 - Could your organisation commit to support it if it were selected? There were 35 responses to this question. Fifteen say they could commit to support and five are opposed. Issues mentioned include the Water Cycle Study, self-sufficient/ sustainable settlements, and conservation/ green infrastructure. Communities mentioned include Little Melton, Wymondham, Norwich, Mangreen, Swardeston, Mulbarton, Swainthorpe, Sprowston, Rackheath, Attleborough, Thetford, Dereham, Colney Lane and Cringleford. Greater Norwich Development Partnership – Joint Core Strategy Consultation P08872 14 November 2008 Page 5 Q8. FOR OPTION 2 - What additional significant infrastructure requirements would there be? There were 37 responses to this question. One says there would be additional significant infrastructure. Issues mentioned include water and wastewater