IN THE MATTER OF: -
The Town & Country Planning Act 1990 – Section 77
Town & Country Planning (General Development
Procedure) Order 1995
Town & Country Planning (Residential Development
on Greenfield Land) (England) Direction 2000
Town & Country Planning (Inquiries Procedure)
(England) Rules 2000
AND IN THE MATTER OF:-
Proposed Development of Hewett School Playing Fields,
Hall Road/ Lakenham Road, Norwich, Norfolk
Planning Application 04/00254/F
by Norfolk County Council
Your Ref: APP/G2625/V/04/1168745
STATEMENT OF CASE
1. SUMMARY
1.1 Planning Application No. 04/00254/F Sale of Hewett School Playing Fields, Norwich, is an application by a consortium of developers, including the David Lloyd Leisure Centre, BUPA and Westminster Healthcare, to build an up-market sports and recreation centre, 80 bedroom Nursing Home and children’s nursery, along with parking for at least 240 cars, on land purchased from Norfolk County Council currently used as school playing fields by the Hewett School, Norwich. In return, the Hewett School will apparently receive money to build a new sports hall on its site and some limited access to the commercial facilities.
1.2 Linked to this application is a separate planning application for proposed development by Norfolk County Council of a school sports hall (Planning Application ref: P/Y/4/2004/4001).
1.3 As will be evidenced, we wish to put clearly on record that we support the Hewett School’s plans for a new sports hall if this can be achieved without loss of urban green space and inappropriate development. We have read the educational case put forward by the governors for a new sports hall and we have examined the plans for this school’s sports hall.
2. DEFINITIONS
2.1 “Developers”. The term is used to refer to Wrenbridge (Norwich) Ltd, David Lloyd Leisure Ltd and any other business or linked undertaking involved in the building of the proposed David Lloyd Leisure Centre, BUPA and Westminster Healthcare development.
2.2 “Gardens for Wildlife Group”. This is a group of local residents in the streets surrounding the Hewett School. It distributes around 1800 newsletters every quarter and has at least half a dozen lively meetings and visits each year. It may be contacted care of Juliet Wimhurst, 148 Trafford Road, Norwich, Norfolk.
2.3 “Hewett School”. The high school situated at Cecil Road/ Hall Road and with its boundary on Lakenham Road, Norwich, Norfolk, NR1 2PL.
2.4 “Local Plan”. City of Norwich Replacement Local Plan (Second Deposit Version September 2002) as modified by the Proposed Modifications to the Second Deposit Version, April 2004.
2.5 “Norfolk and Norwich Transport Action Group”. This is a campaigning group concerned to monitor and intervene in matters affecting transportation in Norfolk. It may be contacted care of Denise Carlo, 213 College Road, Norwich, Norfolk.
2.6 “Norwich Green Party”. The term refers to the five members of Norwich Green Party who sit as elected representatives on Norwich City Council and who have objected en bloc to the Planning Application.
2.7 “Norwich Over the Water Party”. This is a political party formed to fight for the historic northern area of Norwich City Centre and make sure that this part of the City gets fair treatment from Norwich City Council. It may be contacted care of Paul Scruton, 132 Gertrude Road, Norwich, Norfolk.
2.8 “Planning Application”. Planning Application No. 04/00254/F Sale of Hewett School Playing Fields, Norwich dated 3 March 2004.
2.9 “PPG6”. Planning Policy Guidance 6: Town centres and retail development. The version referred to in this Statement of Case is at
http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/groups/odpm_control/documents/contentservertemplate/odpm_index.hcst?n=2263&l=2 and includes reference to the government’s policy on town centres set out in the Parliamentary Statement of 10 April 2003.
2.10 PG9”. Planning Policy Guidance Note 9 on Nature Conservation, at http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/groups/odpm_planning/documents/page/odpm_plan_606919.hcsp
2.11 PG13”. Planning Policy Guidance Note 13 on Transport, found at
http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/groups/odpm_planning/documents/page/odpm_plan_606896.hcsp
2.12 “PPG17”. Planning Policy Guidance Note 17 on Sport & Recreation issued July 2002 and including reference to the document “assessing needs and opportunities: Planning Policy Guidance 17 companion guide”. The version used is at
2.13 “R.A.I.D.” Residents against Inappropriate Development is a campaigning group of local residents set up in response to Planning Application No. 04/00254/F and may be contacted c/o Keith Farwell, 7 Cecil Road, Norwich, NR1 2QL: email keith.farwell@pandl.com
2.14 “South Harford Pensioners’ Association”. The local pensioners’ association, representing the interests of pensioners primarily on the Tuckswood estate. It may be contacted c/o Jean & Peter Kentfield, 102 Cecil Road, Norwich, Norfolk.
2.15 “Transport Assessment”. The Transport Assessment issued February 2004 and provided by the Denis Wilson Partnership.
3. R.A.I.D.
3.1 R.A.I.D. is a group formed from people living in the streets adjoining the Hewett School.
3.2 R.A.I.D. has distributed some 1,400 leaflets alerting residents in the Cecil Road, Brian Avenue, Trafford Road, Grove Walk, Ipswich Road, Town Close Road, Lime Tree Road, Lakenham Road and Hall Road areas to concerns about inappropriate development on the Hewett School playing fields. The geographical area covered by our group will be evidenced.
3.3 As further explained below, R.A.I.D is greatly concerned that local residents affected by this proposed development have been denied sufficient opportunity to voice their concerns and influence the planning process.
4. PLANNING HISTORY
4.1 This is the first planning application for building on the Hewett School playing fields.
4.2 The application has gone through various stages before reaching the present proposal, and it is necessary to make brief reference to the history.
4.3 In the first part of 2001, discussions took place between Norfolk Property Services Limited (the property development arm of Norfolk County Council) and governors of the Hewett School regarding the sale of the school playing fields (as outlined in NPS Architectural Services drawing number SP03/Project Number AD7382). With some reservations, the project was supported by the Hewett School governors by letter of 19th July 2001, as will be evidenced.
4.4 The project as originally proposed was for five-a-side football pitches and a leisure centre. It was on this basis (i.e. purely leisure use) that consent was sought from the Department for Education of Skills and granted in August 2002.
4.5 Some limited consultation took place with local people on the plans as first proposed in late 2001 and early 2002. The local SE Norwich Community Forum was consulted and did not in any way support the proposals, as further discussed below.
4.6 Subsequently the first developers pulled out from the project, and the present consortium comprising David Lloyd Leisure Sports and Fitness Club, Teddies Nursery (BUPA Homes) and Westminster Health Nursing Home was persuaded to take on a project that had been approved in principle.
4.7 As first proposed by the new consortium of developers, plans envisaged a David Lloyd Leisure Club, a Teddies Day Nursery, and a mid-price small hotel.
4.8 Plans for the hotel were turned down by Norwich City Council Planning Department in preliminary discussions and were not pursued.
4.9 Rather late in the day, proposals were made for the Westminster Health Nursing Home as part of the development. We have evidence that this “came as a surprise” to Norwich City Councillors, again as further discussed below.
4.10 Nevertheless, consent was sought from the Department for Education and Skills in respect of the revised proposals as currently constituted, and in December 2003, it was confirmed that the consent granted in August 2002 stood, even though the facilities now to be provided are not exactly the same as those specified in the original application. Copy correspondence will be produced in evidence.
4.11 We will be submitting that this process was in breach of the Secretary of State’s powers, as being an improper exercise of the Secretary of State’s consent.
4.12 As further discussed below, local residents were given very little chance to comment on the latest set of proposals.
4.13 On the basis that the plans apparently had public support (which is challenged) the proposals then went before Norwich City Council Planning Committee in September 2004. We will be submitting evidence that the conduct of the Planning Committee fell short of the standards expected of Councillors and was in breach of Norwich City Council’s own code for conduct.
4.14 Objections were received at the consultation stage from interested parties, and in particular from Sport England, to the Planning Application (as discussed further below). Despite representations by members of the public attending the meeting, by 3 of the 5 Labour members of the Planning Committee, by the Norwich Green Party member of the Planning Committee, and by a Norwich Green Party Councillor speaking from the floor, the Planning Committee approved the Planning Application, subject to the matter being referred to “GO-East” (the Government Office for the East of England).
4.15 When people became aware of this development, local residents were very greatly concerned at the planning implications. Numerous letters and submissions were sent to GO-East, by groups including “R.A.I.D”, the Norwich and Norfolk Transport Action Group, the Gardens for Wildlife Group and the Norwich Over the Water Group. In addition, the five Norwich Green Party Councillors on Norwich City Council wrote en bloc, to place on record their committed objections to the Planning Application. The South Harford Pensioners’ Association are additionally against the proposal. The objections have received considerable local press coverage and coverage on local radio, as will be evidenced.
5. INFRINGEMENT OF RIGHT TO BE HEARD
5.1 It is fundamental both to European Community and U.K. law that parties have a right to be heard in matters that affect them (ECHR Article 6; Human Rights Act 1998, Schedule 1). We submit, as further explained below, that as interested parties in the above matter, we have been denied the right to be heard enshrined by legislation.
5.2 This is also a planning issue. Section 10.22 of the Local Plan states:
“Whilst development proposals will be considered in the context of policy SR3… There will also need to be extensive consultation on such proposals to ensure that the local community is fully aware and involved in the decision.”
5.3 The claim by the developers to have engaged in full and proper public consultation is simply untrue. We have established from the public files available at Norwich City Hall that a letter from Mr Tom Samain, headmaster of the Hewett School, was sent to Norwich City Councillors on 27 February 2004 inviting them to attend an exhibition. The letter states:
“A public exhibition of the plans will be held at the Hewett School on 17th and 18th March and will include a Councillors’ preview”
5.4 Residents in Cecil Road, Norwich received a letter produced dated 11 March 2004, as will be evidenced, and leaflet (referring on the cover to “New Sports Facilities for the Hewett School”) stating that the school would be hosting an exhibition of the plans on Wednesday 17th March between 2pm and 6pm and Thursday 18th March between 12pm and 8pm.
5.5 While this may comply with the letter of the law of disclosure, we submit that the short notice of a two day-period when the plans were open for inspection, held mid-week with limited opening hours when most people are at work and so unable to attend during the day, cannot be fit and proper.
5.6 By contrast, plans by Norwich City Council to engage in a major traffic calming exercise in the roads represented by R.A.I.D. (and see further below) were subject to a very detailed and helpful consultation process including public exhibitions and opportunity to make proposals and be involved in the decision.
5.7 Furthermore, we note the rejection by developers and planners of results of previous consultations. We have established that a meeting was held between the developers, Norfolk County Council, and the former SE Norwich Community Forum some two years ago, to discuss an earlier version of this plan. The SE Norwich Community Forum was an experiment in engaging local people with issues in their area that concerned them. The SE Norwich Community Forum did put out notices to people in the immediate area. At the meeting held to discuss these plans, the SE Norwich Community Forum rejected the proposals, as will be evidenced.
5.8 At the Norwich City Council Planning Committee meeting on Thursday 16th September 2004, much sport was had at the lateness of our objections. Had we been fully aware and consulted with by our local councillors, we would have objected earlier. The chair frequently referred to the fact that only 3 people had bothered to write objecting, and this alleged fact forms a plank of the developers’ submissions. But does the fact that 10-15 people took time off work to attend the planning meeting (at less than a week’s notice) to object to these proposals not signify a considerable level of public concern? We will respectfully submit evidence that the conduct of this meeting was in breach of Section I of the Norwich City Council Planning Services Code of Conduct (“Voting and Impartiality”).
5.9 As will be evidenced, we are aware that several members of the public who were not connected with the main group of objectors but nevertheless wished to speak, and informed the Chair of their wish to do so, were denied the opportunity to speak at the meeting. This is in breach of Section II of the Norwich City Council Planning Services Code of Conduct (“Public Speaking at Committee”).
5.10 Our own Minutes of the Norwich City Council Planning Committee meeting on Thursday 16th September 2004 will be produced in evidence in contrast to the official version.
5.11 We submit that the process as above described shows that the developers have not fulfilled the requirement of Section 10 of PPG17 to consult with the local community and demonstrate that their proposals are widely supported by them.
5.12 If time and resources permit, we are aiming to carry out a full survey of the area affected by the Planning Application to ascertain properly the views of the community.
6. PLAYING FIELDS ARE NOT “SURPLUS TO REQUIREMENTS”
6.1 It is a matter of simple fact that there is very little “urban green-space” in the immediate area of this proposed development (defined as within 1 km of the Hewett School main buildings). Maps of the local area will be shown in evidence. Evidence will be presented that the whole of the Hewett School playing fields are a valued local amenity, used regularly by sections of the local community.
6.2 Evidence will show that the whole of the playing fields have been used until very recently for community activities such as (in the past) Norfolk Police Gala days, and (within the last year) religious festivals, demonstrations of model engineering and the like. Local people are gathering together a photographic library showing the extent to which the Hewett School playing fields are a valued community resource, which it is hoped to present as evidence. Evidence will be submitted that Norfolk Constabulary’s Gala Day was first held on the Hewett School playing field on 3rd September 1978 and featured athletics on the programme. Evidence will be led that by the early 1980’s the scope and popularity of the Gala Day had widened to include five-a-side football, tug of war, a police dog display, a free-fall parachute team and a motorcycle stunt rider. The popular Gala Day event was held at the Hewett School playing fields until 1986.
6.3 Development on what little urban green-space as exists is in principle contrary to PPG17 Section 10, where it is stated that: “Existing open space, sports and recreational buildings and land should not be built on unless an assessment has been undertaken which has clearly shown the open space or the buildings and land to be surplus to requirements.” PPG17 requires that developers carry out an audit of local supply and demand for green spaces (especially playing fields). Developers must show there is a surplus of playing fields to local requirements. As further discussed below, we submit that far from being a surplus of playing fields, there is in fact a deficit.
6.4 It is a plank of the developers’ case that the land being sold is redundant and not used. This is simply untrue (although it is admitted, and greatly deplored, that the Hewett School has recently permitted its pavilion and running track to become grossly derelict, as discussed further below).
6.5 A statement will be provided from a recent former governor of the Hewett School. The statement will show that the claim made by the developers that the Hewett School playing field site is surplus to requirements is demonstrably false.
6.6 Evidence will shown that up until 1989, the Hewett School running track was the main athletics facility in Norfolk. Evidence and a set of pictures will be produced to show that as recently as the year 2000, the running track and pavilion facilities were in an acceptable state for schools athletics and promoted and marketed as such.
6.7 The statement from the same recent former governor will show that the Hewett School governors and management allowed the existing cinder running track and the existing pavilion and changing rooms to become derelict as a matter of deliberate policy in order to “prove” that this land was not used and therefore surplus to requirements. Evidence will show that questions were addressed to the governors as to the costs of repairing and refurbishing the cinder running track and pavilion, costs which escalated during the lengthy period during which discussions have been taking place regarding the sale of the fields. Evidence will be led that had the cinder track been refurbished six years ago, it would not be in the derelict state it is in now.
6.8 The statement will show that the governors had originally very high and unrealistic expectations of the benefits that would be realised to the Hewett School by the proposed sale of land. Evidence will be led that the governors tried to place constraints on how the money raised would be used, but through a long process of discussions with Norfolk County Council have had their expectations reduced.
6.9 It is a further plank of the developers’ case that part of the money raised by sale of the Hewett School playing fields will be hypothecated to the building of a new sports hall for the school. Nevertheless we have established that there is no clear and direct correlation between the sale and the new sports hall. A statement will be provided of the most recent discussions of the governors to the effect that the money raised by the sale of the Hewett School playing fields would go to the central Norfolk County Council educational funding reserve. Building of the promised Hewett School sports hall may possibly be delayed until complete refurbishment of the Hewett School in totality that is promised at some future date (not specified) by Norfolk County Council as part of its rolling PFI programme for refurbishment of all the secondary schools in the County.
6.10 In view of the fact that the Hewett School has falling roll numbers (OFSTED report dated March 2004, as will be evidenced) it must be questionable whether such investment is ever likely to take place.
6.11 As well as being used by the Hewett School, the playing fields are also used by the City Centre schools such as Notre Dame School, which does not have its own playing fields. Therefore statements that the size of the playing fields are in excess of requirements of the Hewett School should be read in the context that two schools, not one, share these playing fields. Evidence will be presented showing the extent to which the running track has been used until recently by local schools for sports days, including Notre Dame.
6.12 The Planning Application is also contrary to the Local Plan and to the “Draft Supplementary Planning Guidance Open Space and Play Provision” issued April 2004 which will be evidenced. This states that (paragraph 7): “The provision of open space is also recognised to assist the enhancement of the physical environment and supports the encouragement of a healthy lifestyle.”
6.13 Photographic evidence will show that the football pitches currently occupying the majority of the 9 hectares of urban green-space now threatened by the present Planning Application are all used, particularly for competitive Saturday and Sunday League football. Such competitive sport goes towards meeting Government targets for health and fitness, and will be disadvantaged by loss of space (and in particular cramped alignment of the remaining redrawn football pitches shown on the Planning Application) if it is permitted to proceed.
6.14 We draw attention to page 99 of the Proposed Modifications to the Second Deposit Version, April 2004 which recognises that there is a substantial shortfall of sports pitch provision in Norwich. The City Council has received a consultant’s report on a “Playing Pitch Assessment and Open Space Strategy for the Norwich Policy Area” which emphasises the importance of protecting the public playing pitches in the City.
6.15 The Planning Application is in clear breach of Local Plan Policy NR1 which seeks to ensure that at least the present provision of formal open space and children’s play space is maintained. Evidence will be led that the Planning Application will limit the availability of football pitches for competitive use, and will mean that the remaining pitches are unacceptably cramped. Furthermore, evidence will be led that the latest modifications to for proposed development by Norfolk County Council of a school sports hall (Planning Application ref: P/Y/4/2004/4001), which envisage a grass running track and area for shot put will further restrict the already limited availability of full-size football pitches.
7. INFRINGEMENT OF SAFEGUARDS GOVERNING SALE OF SCHOOL PLAYING FIELDS
7.1 The Government issued “the toughest-ever protection for school playing fields” in a joint initiative by the Department for Education and Skills and the National Playing Fields Association. A press release issued by the 10 Downing Street newsroom, dated 27 August 2004, will be attached in evidence as will a Parliamentary Written Answer to a question asked by Lord Moynihan: reported Hansard House of Lords 26 Oct 2004: Column WA113.
7.2 This joint initiative makes clear that: “The sale of a playing field must be an absolute last resort. Local authorities will have to prove that they have exhausted all other possibilities for funding for improved school sports facilities”.
7.3 Our group has been unable to find out very much about the proposed funding for the improved sports facilities for the Hewett School because the information is deemed to be “exempt information” and excluded from public deposit. Minutes of the meeting of Norfolk County Council Cabinet held on 2nd February 2004 and a report obtained from Ms Susan Farrell, Democratic Support Manager, Norfolk County Council on 21 September 2004 will be evidenced confirming that the information on funding the improved sports facilities for the Hewett School remains excluded.
7.4 We have established from the public files available at Norwich City Hall, as will be evidenced, that some discussion of funding exists in the “Planning Statement” issued March 2004 prepared by Cliff Walsingham & Company. Here, it is stated at Section 2.8: “The other sources of potential funding available are a County Council’s funded capital building programme or the National Lottery”.
7.5 At Section 2.10 of the same document, it is stated that no Lottery application has been made, just a “view” taken in informal discussions that Norfolk has had its share in success at National Lottery funding.
7.6 We respectfully submit that the developers and County Council have not discharged their obligations “to prove that they have exhausted all other possibilities for funding for improved school sports facilities” as required by the above joint initiative by the Department for Education and Skills and the National Playing Fields Association. In particular, no rigorous and thorough consideration appears to have been given to other means of raising finance, such as commercial sponsorship.
7.7 The failure to discharge the onus of proof on funding is a matter of more than local concern, as impacting upon Government policy.
7.8 Revised Government Guidelines on the Protection of Playing Fields and Land for Academies are published in the DfES Spectrum Issue 81, December 2004.
The main changes to the assessment criteria are:
- the sale of a playing field is an absolute last resort with local authorities having to demonstrate that the have exhausted all other sources of funding for the proposed new school sports facilities.
- sale proceeds must be used to improve outdoor facilities wherever possible, so that local authorities will have to provide first class outdoor facilities before introducing new indoor facilities, for example by selling unused portions of playing fields to upgrade sports pitches with floodlighting.
- new sports facilities must be sustainable for at least 10 years, with ‘locking-in’ arrangements to ensure that they are available to pupils for the long-term.
The new criteria are set out in Guidance DfE 1017 2004 The Protection of School Playing Fields and Land for Academies. The new guidelines came into effect from 8 November 2004.
7.9 We respectfully draw attention to the fact that Local Plan Policy SR3 appears to be in breach of revised Government policy. The Modifications to the Local Plan for Policy SR3 makes no reference to the over-riding requirement to prove that the developers have exhausted all other possibilities for funding for improved school sports facilities.
7.10 Although Sport England has stated (in the consultation on the Planning Application) that the David Lloyd Leisure Centre accords with Exception E5 of their guidance “Policy on Planning Applications for Development on Playing Fields” we respectfully question whether such consent would be granted today in the light of the increasingly rigorous government policy just outlined.
7.11 It is, we believe, incontestable that the building of an 80 bed Nursing Home as proposed in the Planning Application is wholly contrary to PPG17 and to the Local Plan.
7.12 Furthermore, as stated above (“Planning History”) we respectfully draw attention to the fact that when this planning proposal was first debated, it was limited to a leisure club and nursery. As will be evidenced in a letter from local Ward Councillor Felicity Hartley, “the Home appeared subsequently somewhat to our surprise”.
7.13 In other words, the Planning Application is an attempt by the developers, introduced at a late stage in the planning process, to obtain permission for a development that is clearly known to be contrary both to PPG17 and to the Local Plan.
7.14 It should be noted that Sport England raised objections to the Planning Application at the consultation stage because the inclusion of the proposed Nursing Home and nursery elements of the development would be contrary to Sport England and government policy on loss of playing fields. Evidence of the existence of these objections will be presented.
8. FAILURE TO PROVE “NEED” FOR DEVELOPMENT
8.1 As stated on the Government website, the purpose of PPG6 is to sustain and enhance the vitality and viability of town and other existing centres by focusing retail, leisure and other key town centre uses which attract a lot of people within those centres. PPG6 emphasises the plan-led approach to promoting development in town centres, both through plan policies and the identification of locations and sites for development. It sets out a number of tests that must be satisfied if applications to develop retail or leisure facilities are to be successful. In summary, applicants must:
- demonstrate that there is a need for the development;
- having established that such a need exists, adopt a sequential approach to site selection;
- consider the impact on nearby centres; and
- provide evidence on the site's accessibility by a choice of means of transport, as demonstrated by a transport assessment (see PPG13), the likely changes in travel patterns over the relevant catchment area, and any significant environmental impacts.
8.2 The principles outlined above apply also to leisure uses.
8.3 We are concerned that the tests in PPG6 for sequential development, and adopted by the Local Plan, have not been properly pursued. In evidence, we will file statements found on the public planning file from Cliff Walsingham & Company that, in the developers’ view, the sequential planning tests must be adapted in view of the alleged aim of this development to raise money for the Hewett School sports hall.
8.4 We argue that the sequential tests in PPG6 are not intended to be adapted or minimised in the manner envisaged by the developers. Instead, they are intended to be rigorous guidelines, and have been written into the Local Plan.
8.5 It is clear that in reading the sequential tests in PPG6, it is first necessary to have reference to the “need” for development to take place at all. We understand from this that the need must be established before the sequential tests are carried out.
8.6 As stated above, we do not believe that the developers have proven an overriding need for this development at all in terms of raising money for the Hewett School sports hall.
8.7 We will be providing in evidence lists and details of:
- locally available sports facilities in the immediate and wider catchment areas
- locally available Nursing Homes
- locally available children’s nursery provision
Failure to prove need for David Lloyd Leisure Centre
8.8 In strict planning terms, as further demonstrated below, we submit that the developers have not demonstrated an over-riding need for a David Lloyd Leisure Centre in the area.
8.9 In particular, we will submit evidence that the developers substantially under-reported and understated the availability of high quality sport and leisure facilities within the catchment area. In addition, the developers have not taken into account the good quality public provision of sports and leisure facilities, as will also be evidenced.
8.10 An extract from the comparable David Lloyd Leisure Centre in Stevenage, Herts, will be evidenced, showing that membership fees for a couple are £135 joining fee and £100.50 monthly subscription (£1,341 per annum) putting these facilities well out of range of many local residents. Residents least able to afford the fees are also those geographically nearest to the proposed development, living on the Lakenham and Tuckswood estates. We will refer again to this fact in our statement below on the failure to conduct a rigorous transport analysis.
8.11 Turning now to the final part of modified Local Plan Policy SR3, it is clear that the proposed David Lloyd Leisure Centre will have a significant detrimental impact on existing leisure facilities in the immediate area.
8.12 The Norfolk Lawn Tennis Association supported the Planning Application at the consultation stage. However it should be noted that the Norfolk Lawn Tennis Association is headquartered at the Lakenham Sports and Leisure Club, Cricket Ground Road, Norwich. The Lakenham Sports and Leisure Club hosts the Lakenham Academy, which is a tennis “Centre of Excellence” part-funded by the Norfolk Lawn Tennis Association. Clearly there is only room for a unique tennis “Centre of Excellence” in the immediate area, a point recognised by paragraph 10.55 of the Local Plan which states that:
“for many activities, such as indoor tennis, it is likely that only one such facility, at most, will be economically viable in the Norwich area…”
8.13 It should be noted that the Lakenham Sports and Leisure Club was one of the objectors to the Planning Application at the consultation stage. As will be evidenced, the papers before the Planning Committee meeting of 16 September 2004 noted that a letter of objection had been received from Lakenham Sports and Leisure Club that the proposed development would be “severely detrimental to the viability of their sporting facilities”.
8.14 Evidence will be presented that the Lakenham Academy is a leading “Accredited Performance Club”. We will submit that the Planning Committee were misdirected in over-riding the objections to the Planning Application from Lakenham Sports and Leisure Club.
8.15 Evidence will be provided from local tennis players that there are sufficient tennis facilities within the catchment area of the proposed development, and indeed many of these are not fully used.
Failure to prove need for Nursing Home
8.16 We submit that the need for an 80 bed intensive care Nursing Home is not proven in this area. Although there have been some problems in the wider Norwich area in the provision of care homes for the elderly because of the closure of smaller homes, nevertheless there is no proven need for a very exclusive, expensive nursing home. We will be submitting evidence that shows the existing availability of old people’s care and nursing home care across the spectrum from warden controlled housing through to intensively managed nursing homes in the area.
8.17 We will also be submitting evidence that existing nursing homes are finding a huge difficulty in obtaining staff, which leads us to question whether there is any business case or social need for the nursing home proposed. In particular, we will be evidencing that the Methodist Home for the Elderly on Cecil Road, which adjoins and overlooks the Hewett School playing fields is currently experiencing difficulty recruiting staff. We will submit that such problems will be exacerbated by the inevitable “poaching” of staff by a new Nursing Home, to the detriment of the people currently in the care of existing facilities for the elderly.
8.18 We found and will evidence corresponding details from a Westminster Home in Peterborough, which is a comparable modern new-build Westminster Nursing Home by the same developers. We have established that costs are based on total medical care and are banded depending on need. The minimum cost is £555 per week; the maximum is £665 per week. Multiplied by 52, these costs represent between £28,860 and £34,380, payable out of taxed income (£38,000 to £45,000 range, gross). We have established that there is some local authority help available, but local authority help will not cover anything like this level of fees. Therefore the development is scarcely likely to assist social exclusivity and will take the facilities offered well outside the price-range of most local residents, particularly those on the Tuckswood and Lakenham estates.
8.19 The proposed 80 bed Nursing Home will severely impact upon provision of local primary healthcare facilities, due to the time and resource implications for local doctors’ practices of providing primary healthcare for 80 very ill residents of the Nursing Home. We have seen no evidence that this has been considered in making the Planning Application. Evidence will be led that the Tuckswood Surgery is deeply concerned at the impact of the proposed Nursing Home on the services that it is able to provide.
Failure to prove need for Teddies Nursery
8.20 In strict terms of need, we are questioning whether the Teddies children’s nursery is needed. We note that those using the Teddies nursery facilities are likely to be from outside the immediate area, because the fees charged by the Teddies nursery are very high. Evidence in this matter will be put forward.
8.21 We found and will evidence corresponding details from a Teddies nursery in Southampton. We also found and will evidence an OFSTED report on this Southampton facility for reference. We noted in particular that the catchment area for the Southampton nursery is recorded as being within a 30 minute/ 10 mile radius drive (not local), and we refer to this again below.
8.22 The OFSTED Report shows the Teddies nursery in Southampton to be socially exclusive (all white and all middle class, with little cultural diversity). We have established that there is a £40 registration fee for the Southampton nursery, then costs for children under 3 are £672.92 per month and costs for children over 3 - £629.17 per month. There is a sibling discount of 15% for older child. That is £14,532.57 per year for 2 children (out of earned income). So we calculate that a person needs to be earning £19,000 approx per year to pay the nursery fees for 2 children. This is scarcely likely to assist social inclusivity and no use for the Tuckswood estate or Lakenham estate.
8.23 As residents, we are greatly concerned at the impact the proposed building of a Teddies nursery will have on the well-regarded and popular Hewett School under-5’s nursery. The Hewett School nursery is for the benefit of teachers and the local community. Approximately a third of its children are children of teachers at the Hewett School; the remainder are from the local area. The Hewett School nursery was established in 1974 and recently celebrated its 30th anniversary. Its buildings are adjacent to those of the proposed Teddies nursery. We have established that fees payable to the Hewett School nursery are very considerably less than those payable to the proposed Teddies Nursery.
9. FAILURE TO CONDUCT RIGOROUS SEQUENTIAL ANALYSIS
9.1 PPG6 is reflected in Policy SR15 of the Local Plan, as amended.
9.2 We do not believe that the current proposals should be permitted because as discussed above, a need has not been properly identified.
9.3 Moreover, we will be submitting evidence that there are other more suitable sites for this development which more accurately reflect the sequential tests. The evidence of the Norwich and Norfolk Transport Action Group will show good availability of transport links in and to Norwich City Centre, including substantial investment in a new central bus station and bus lanes.
9.4 The Norwich Over The Water Party submissions will draw attention to various sites in the neglected northern part of the City Centre, including the large St. Augustine Street site and the newly available Barrack Street/Whitefriars (Jarrolds Print Works) site which would both be highly suitable for the David Lloyd Leisure Centre, as well as having considerable social benefit in terms of the holistic approach to the communities needs identified in paragraph 10.3 of the Local Plan. This states that:
“The quantity, diversity and distribution as well as the ability to access facilities is especially vital to ensure that less mobile groups such as the young and elderly as well as target groups such as the low waged are not disadvantaged or excluded from recreational opportunities”.
9.5 We point out that the Planning Application is not in accordance with Policy SR15 of the Local Plan as amended which requires that the developer must demonstrate by means of a sequential site analysis that, subject to identified need, no site is available in the City Centre as first priority.
9.6 We submit that the developers have not shown the required flexibility to consider sites which may be available to accommodate different elements of the Planning Application (i.e. unbundling the three constituent elements of the David Lloyd Leisure Centre, the Nursing Home and the Teddies nursery) rather than just considering the whole of the development as one inseparable unit. This is in accordance with PPG6 and with the requirement stated in paragraph 10.56 of the Local Plan that:
“Developers should be flexible in the scale and form of their proposal to enable development to fully utilise opportunities for reusing sites, enhancing the Centre and promoting more sustainable transport modes.”
10. FAILURE TO CONDUCT RIGOROUS TRANSPORT ANALYSIS
10.1 Paragraph 20 of PPG13 states:
“Local planning authorities should also encourage the provision of leisure and entertainment facilities serving local catchments and make provision for attractive local play areas, public open space and other recreational facilities in locations likely to be accessible without use of a car”.
10.2 The areas within a 2 km radius of this proposed development are, to a large extent, areas of local authority housing on the Tuckswood and Lakenham estates, occupied by people on low incomes and with a high proportion of poor pensioners. The development of a private, exclusive, leisure club will do nothing for the local community who will be unable to afford the facilities.
10.3 Evidence will be led in particular from the South Harford Pensioners’ Association, representing pensioners on the Tuckswood estate.
10.4 Therefore the standard Transport Assessment provided on behalf of David Lloyd Leisure Limited in support of these plans by the Denis Wilson Partnership and issued February 2004 is methodologically flawed in its assessments of likely numbers walking or cycling to the site from the local area.
10.5 Instead, the users of the site will be higher income people from outside the immediate area who will undoubtedly drive to the site.
10.6 We understand that the scope of the geographical area reviewed by the Transport Assessment (i.e., Hall Road (N), Barrett Road, Hall Road (S) and Lakenham Road) is within standard guidelines.
10.7 Nevertheless, the nature of the site, the purpose of the site, and (in particular) the access arrangements to and from the site cause us to submit that the Transport Assessment was unduly restricted in its geographical scope.
10.8 Instead, we submit that it should have looked also at the traffic impact on Cecil Road, Ipswich Road, Trafford Road and Grove Walk in particular, as further explained below. We did ask for such a traffic impact assessment during the planning process, but our request was apparently ignored.
10.9 As such, we submit that the present proposals are an infringement of PPG13 and an infringement of the Local Plan, Policies TRA4, TRA14 and TRA31. In particular, as further described below, this Planning Application does little to encourage the “modal shift from car to walking, cycling and public transport” as required by Policy TRA4.
10.10 Cecil Road, Ipswich Road, Trafford Road and Grove Walk form a quiet, tree-lined residential neighbourhood. Like many areas in the city, these roads suffer their share of “rat running”. As a result, parking permits were introduced some years’ ago. More recently, an agreed traffic calming strategy (“Traffic Action Plan”) involving speed humps, road narrowing, some road realignments, and a 20 MPH speed limit was agreed between residents and Norwich City Council for the whole area. The Planning Application appears to be in clear breach of Local Plan Policy TRA31, as doing nothing to reduce traffic speeds and impact within a primarily residential area.
10.11 In evidence, we provide a copy of the “Report for Resolution” to the Norwich Highways Agency Committee dated 8th January 2004 on the Lakenham Traffic Action Plan. In passing, we draw attention to the number of responses received to this Traffic Action Plan – showing that local people are interested in their area and do wish to take an active role in its development, if given the proper and timely opportunity to do so (see above).
10.12 On the present planning application for an expensive private leisure complex, private nursery and nursing home, no assessment has been made public of the impact of traffic build ups, in particular in the morning and evening rush hours, on the Ipswich Road which is one of the main routes into and out of Norwich to the south.
10.13 We note that the main periods of anticipated use of the leisure centre are precisely at these times, as people come to or go from work, or drop children off at the local fee-paying schools on Ipswich Road and Newmarket Road by car.
10.14 In the morning rush hour, by way of example, traffic from the presumed main catchment area for this leisure complex, namely the affluent villages and countryside to the south and east of Norwich will drive into the site via the Ipswich Road, then Hall Road (S) then Hall Road (N). On leaving the site, such traffic will wish to continue its journey into Norwich. It will exit the site on Hall Road (N) or left onto Lakenham Road, then be unable to progress very far down Hall Road because of traffic, so “rat run” through Cecil Road, Trafford Road and Grove Walk in particular into the City Centre.
10.15 Coming back from work, to use the leisure centre in the evening, traffic faces the problem of how to enter the leisure site at all, from a left-hand only entrance off Hall Road (N). We assume that the developers expect it to follow the Ipswich Road to the lights on the junction with Daniel Road, then left into Lakenham Road, then left at the Barrett Road roundabout. In practice, this just is not going to happen because traffic on the Ipswich Road is solid every evening in the week. Photographic evidence of traffic build up at peak times will be provided in support of this statement. So traffic will exit the Ipswich Road into the area of roads covered by the Lakenham Area Traffic Plan, “rat-run” through, then emerge onto the Hall Road, heading north, go 360’ round the Barrett Road roundabout, then enter the site.
10.16 A fuller assessment of the traffic implications of the proposed planning application now follow and form part of our Statement of Case. All section references unless otherwise stated are to the Transport Assessment.
Traffic impact on the residential area bounded by Ipswich Road, Cecil Road, Hall Road (N), Lakenham Way and Grove Road.
10.17 Assuming that the Traffic Assessment’s figures are accurate, then, even with the proposed changes to Hall Road (N), there are still likely to be significant delays for traffic heading S on Hall Road (N) to the roundabout (section 9) – certainly of the order of half a minute per vehicle in the Friday p.m. peak hour. This will lead to queues such that a proportion of southbound traffic is likely to divert onto Cecil Road to reach the ring road via Ipswich Road.
10.18 The developer would no doubt argue that such queues will be even more of an issue as a result of the Cattlemarket development and that the widening of the end of Hall Road (N) will therefore be of benefit to Cecil Road and the residential roads to which it leads. However, the Cattlemarket development’s impact on this area will be almost exclusively in terms of southbound queues on Hall Road. It is therefore worth considering the traffic solely due to the new development that is actually trying to get to or from the site and is directly affected by congestion on Hall Road.
10.19 The figures cited in the Traffic Assessment for trips generated by the three parts of the new development give the following vehicle movements on Hall Road that are directly related to the development. In passing, these figures seem to be unrealistically low in terms of the numbers of people expected to be using the David Lloyd Leisure Centre, and for the reasons stated further below, we dispute that visitors will in fact arrive on foot, by bike or by bus as stated in the Transport Assessment in anything like the numbers suggested. So we submit little credibility should be attached to the developer’s traffic figures.
Southbound Northbound
Friday a.m. peak 0800-0900 21 18
Friday p.m. peak 1600-1700 24 15
Saturday peak 1315-1415 11 14
10.20 According to Norfolk County Council’s 2001 manual vehicle count – figures that will be evidenced - on Cecil Road, at its eastern end (cordon between Brian Avenue and Hall Road), the following vehicle flows occur.
Westbound Eastbound
A.M. peak (hourly average) 123 132
P.M. peak (hourly average) 92 145
10.21 It is instructive to compare the traffic flows just stated with the projected flows from the development. Whilst the numbers of extra vehicles present as a direct result of the new development are a small compared to flows on Hall Road, they represent some 15-17% of the current flows on the eastern end of Cecil Road. Clearly, only a proportion of this traffic will divert onto Cecil Road, but it will be on top of any diversion of traffic due to queuing on Hall Road (N) as a result of traffic generated by the Cattlemarket development.
10.22 The impact on the residential roads has not been considered at all in the Transport Assessment, which represents a serious flaw in its methodology. Furthermore, the junction capacity analysis is purely focussed on vehicle capacity, ignoring the impact of these flows on cyclists and crossing pedestrians. As stated below, the junction of the proposed development on the Hall Road is close to the main Hewett School entrance and large numbers of child pedestrians are directly affected by the proposals.
The quality of the Traffic Assessment’s figures
10.23 The above analysis assumes that the figures and forecasts in the Traffic Assessment are accurate. However, this depends crucially on four factors:
- The overall rate of traffic growth in Norwich (as good an estimate as any).
- The car trip generation rates for visitors to and staff of the development (see below).
- Traffic generation by the Cattlemarket development and its distribution on Hall Road (S) and at the roundabout (see 10.35 and following, below).
- The distribution of traffic generated by the new development by time and by direction (see 10.35 and following below).
Trip generation rates
10.24 There are serious questions as to the achievability of the trip generation rates suggested for the development. Those for the leisure centre are based on a centre in Basildon, in an unspecified location, and are assumed to be comparable purely on the basis of similar membership capacity and available facilities. This emphasises that the proposed location in Norwich is not conducive to non-car travel.
10.25 The figures for a nursery are from 1997, which is not ideal. However, the figures are revealing in terms of their distribution over time (see below).
10.26 The nursery is presented (8.3.5) as having very low trip generation rates for a 70-child facility. This is because the peak hour figures are narrowly focussed on the specific hour with highest observed traffic on the main roads near the site (16:00-17:00, Friday PM), whereas the nursery PM peak falls a little later (17:00-18:00). This is misleading, as the hour 17:00-18:00 still has large traffic flows, even if not as high as the previous hour. (See below.)
The sustainability of the trips generated
10.27 The Transport Assessment assumes that a trip by car that is linked to another trip purpose is inherently sustainable (6.1.1 & 6.5). This is not the case because:
- The trip can embed car travel.
- It will generate a diversion, i.e. extra distance travelled.
- It may make car use a more attractive proposition.
10.28 It also assumes that car sharing and people being dropped off is sustainable (6.5). Again, this is not true. Two people in a car constitutes sharing, and this is still not a sustainable option. Similarly, someone who is dropped off is still travelling by car, and the driver may even be making a total of four trips to drop off and pick up their passenger. In any case, as far as the immediate vicinity is concerned, a drop-off and a pick-up results in four vehicle movements, rather than the two resulting from someone who parks on site for the duration of their visit.
10.29 Thus the modal split data presented for other David Lloyd facilities is used to derive fallacious conclusions. Contrary to the Transport Assessment’s assertion (6.5.3), sustainable modes of transport constitute not 27% of Friday PM modal share, but merely 11%, with the car being used by 80% of arrivals. Assuming two persons per shared car and that drop-offs lead to a total of four vehicle movements per person, car movements are generated for 75% of members arriving. Interestingly, the figures cited (table 6.2) include no-one coming by public transport.
10.30 The claim (6.2) that 54% of members of the leisure club (staff are not considered) have a bus link (implied direct) to the site is fallacious. It is based on those living within a 400m as-the-crow-flies catchment for all the bus routes passing the site. These include two daytime medium-frequency routes, one evening and Sunday low-frequency route (hourly), which does not serve the same areas, and one route (the 31) that only runs once a day, early in the morning, but which takes in a swathe of Norwich by following the outer ring road.
10.31 It is submitted that a 400m corridor is also too broad for a realistic catchment for an at-best medium frequency bus service, especially in a city where the buses are notorious for their unreliability. Such a corridor is more usually applied to urban rail networks.
10.32 Furthermore, no evidence is given for the claim that 2,952 people living in this area would become members of the leisure club (54% of the expected total membership). Indeed, no predictions of the likely catchment area based on realistic factors are given. Such factors would be expected to include, at the very least:
- numbers of people in the higher socio-economic groups (to be able to afford the membership fees) in different areas,
- the locations of competing leisure centres and alternative fitness facilities, and
- residence patterns for the membership (and staff) of similar facilities elsewhere (both those of the same company in other places and other comparable leisure facilities locally).
It would be consistent with the kind of facility proposed that the majority of members would be drawn from the more affluent parts of Norwich and, given the location, particularly from the commuter villages of South Norfolk. Bus links are poorer here and, indeed, the propensity of the likely clientele to use buses is much lower.
10.33 There is similarly no evidence cited for 997 members living within an as-the-crow-flies distance of 2 km (6.3.2). Given that the actual walking distance is much longer in most cases than the crow-flight distance, the value of this measure is highly questionable. Similarly, in attempting to gain support from PPG13 (6.4.1), the report confuses the 5 km journey length that PPG13 suggests as a likely threshold below which the bicycle has particular potential for replacing car trips, with the numbers of people living within 5 km of the site as-the-crow-flies.
10.34 As referred to above, the majority of people living within a 2 km as-the-crow-flies distance from the Hewett School playing fields are those living on the Lakenham and Tuckswood estates. These are largely occupied by people on low incomes and with a high proportion of poor pensioners, who, as stated, are least likely to be able to afford the proposed facilities. In view of this, figures based on 997 members living within an as-the-crow-flies distance of 2 km must be treated as highly suspect.
Trip distribution
10.35 There are two distributional issues: direction and time. The directions that visitors and staff take to and from a facility are critical to the traffic flow analyses. These in turn depend on where people live (and work, for the main linked trips), which would have to be predicted from socio-economic patterns and the distribution of competing facilities (see above), and on ambient traffic conditions.
10.36 However, the Transport Assessment does not assess these factors. Instead, it makes a leap of faith and assumes that the traffic generated by the Cattlemarket development will be distributed north and south on Hall Road (S) in the same proportions as existing traffic on the road, and that the traffic generated by the new development on the Hewett site will be distributed amongst the four arms of the roundabout in the same proportions as existing traffic there. This defies logic; the existing traffic is there for completely different reasons and there is no support for assuming new traffic put onto these roads by new facilities located on them will follow the existing pattern. A completely random distribution would be as likely.
10.37 The Transport Assessment has not carried out the work necessary to forecast likely travel directions and attempts to skate over what amounts to a guess – or perhaps an optimistic hope.
10.38 The treatment of trip distribution over time is also misleading. Serious traffic surveys highlight peak periods – Norfolk County Council’s 2001 traffic counts in the residential roads in question here covered a two-and-half-hour period, morning and afternoon. Hourly average flows can be calculated from this. Yet the Transport Assessment selects the maximum flow observed and looks for generated traffic flows for this period only. The reason for this is doubtless its blinkered concern with junction capacity issues, but it is inadequate even for this, as it is the total flow at any time that affects capacity, not the total flow at a time selected before future growth has been factored in.
10.39 Different peak hours are cited for different elements:
Friday PM peak for traffic on the roundabout,
(taken as the PM peak hour in the traffic assessments (4.1.2)) 16:00 - 17:00
Friday PM peak movements at other leisure facilities (6.5.2) 17:00 - 18:00
TRICS nursery data (Appendix F) 17:00 - 18:00
10.40 This dislocation tends to play down the likely impact of the new development on peak period traffic levels. It is interesting to note that no data is presented to suggest how the surveyed traffic levels at the roundabout change either side of the chosen peak hour.
Design and sustainable travel
10.41 The whole location is clearly geared to access by car. This is indicated by the fact that it takes cars from, and delivers them to, a major roundabout on the Norwich outer ring road.
10.42 There is no alternative approach route for pedestrians and cyclists; simply entry from Hall Road and Lakenham Road (the latter pedestrian only).
10.43 The plans are not clear and consistent on the route of the shared foot and cycle path. On the plan included in the Transport Assesment (DWP5), there is a clear foot and cycle path all the way in from Hall Road (although access onto this path and its crossing of the nursing home access road are not clear). However, the larger, separate plan shows disjointed paths without clear linkages or crossings. As the latter plan appears to be more recent, this represents a very clear change for the worse.
10.44 It is also not clear how the cycle path connects with the southern cycle racks (which are presumably those for staff). Given the likely usage on the site, the numbers of cycle racks are very limited and this presumably reflects the fact that the developers do not actually expect people to attempt to cycle here. This assumption would be consistent with its situation on a busy and dangerous main road and the lack of coherent thought in the provision of cycle paths.
10.45 Regarding external cycle links, there is a proposal that the shared cycle and pedestrian path along Hall Road will join the Lakenham Way (formerly Hall Road Railway) cycle route into the centre of the city, but it is not clear what corresponding cycle links are proposed along and across Lakenham Road. Indeed, the cycle links appear to have been inserted as an after-thought, with no coherent planning as to proposed cycle usage. In particular it appears that cyclists are expected to share the very busy traffic of Lakenham Road in order to move between the development and residential areas to the south and west.
10.46 The proposed shared pedestrian and cycle path along Hall Road is not advantageous to pedestrians and indeed is likely to cause considerable danger to e.g. mothers with prams or younger children walking to and from the Hewett School.
10.47 From a cyclist’s point of view, a shared footpath is neither attractive nor convenient either.
10.48 The existing bus stop adjacent to the Hewett School on Hall Road for passengers entering the city is in conflict with the shared cycle path, which is not good practice. It is also not clear how passengers alighting on the eastern side of Hall Road will cross the road, with the increased traffic flows (the crossing is quite dangerous enough for pedestrians even without the new development). It is also not clear how the widening of the carriageway of Hall Road will impact on pedestrian access, since it appears that pavement will be lost to the widened apron.
10.49 Regarding the car parking provision, it is clear (7.5.4) that, whilst the number of parking spaces is below the maximum permitted, the Council’s view is that this maximum is too high in this situation. Therefore, 275 spaces pushes the number as high as is realistic permissible, which is hardly sustainable!
Green travel plan
10.50 The Norwich Local Plan requires a coherent travel plan from a developer. Such a plan sets out how the developer intends to manage the travel of the staff of and visitors to the development in the future, with a view to controlling car use and encouraging sustainable travel. However, the Transport Assessment merely includes a sketchy draft (Appendix B), which does not even include targets for modal split. This is clearly wholly inadequate.
Conclusion to Section 10
10.51 The Transport Assessment fails to analyse the likely traffic generation of the proposed new development, fails to assess its impact on all relevant roads in the vicinity, and cites misleading and inaccurate evidence to attempt to justify the claim that the development will only have a limited impact on local traffic.
10.52 Further evidence will be provided by Chris Wood, an independent Transport Consultant, currently employed as Transport Partnership Officer for The National Trust and the RSPB, East of England, formerly Transport Researcher and Transport Consultant with the Centre for Independent Transport Research in London, Director of TransPlan and Media Consultant to Norfolk Transport 2000.
11. FAILURE TO CONDUCT RIGOROUS ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
11.1 Residents’ concerns at the proposed long opening hours of the David Lloyd Sports & Leisure Centre have not been addressed. As presently proposed, the opening hours are from 6.30 am to 11 pm throughout the week. Clearly staff at the leisure centre will be required to arrive earlier than the opening time and leave later than the closing time. Therefore residents anticipate that additional traffic movements, noise and disturbance will be generated between 6 am and midnight.
11.2 Residents particularly in Cecil Road, Trafford Road and Grove Walk which will bear the brunt of this early morning and late evening traffic regard the disruption of sleep occasioned by such additional traffic noise and traffic movements during quiet times of the day as unacceptable. But attempts to raise these concerns at the Norwich City Council planning meeting in September 2004 were ignored.
11.3 In particular, residents regard the opening hours on a Sunday to be highly detrimental to their quality of life.
11.4 We submit that the impact of road traffic noise and noise nuisance from this proposed development is contrary to the safeguards stated in Policy EP11 and Policy EP25 of the Local Plan.
11.5 The additional traffic movements generated by the early morning and late evening opening hours will have a disproportionately injurious affect on night mammals, in particular the thriving local hedgehog population. Many residents actively encourage hedgehogs and frogs as a result of the efforts of the Gardens for Wildlife Group. These creatures are active just after dusk, and particularly susceptible to road kill.
11.6 Residents are greatly concerned by the proposals to floodlight the car park and playing area of the David Lloyd Leisure Centre. We understand that it is one of the selling points of the proposal that it will have floodlit tennis facilities.
11.7 Residents particularly in Cecil Road and Lakenham Road do have good night sky views with visible stars and occasional comets. Although there is ambient lighting pollution, the Hewett School playing fields currently provide a sufficiently large light-free space to enjoy the night sky. This will change irrevocably if the planning application is permitted and residents are greatly concerned at the number of spotlights shown on the plans which appear to be grossly disproportionate to any actual benefit. The night sky is recognised as an amenity and environmental factor in deciding whether to grant planning applications and evidence will be led to this effect.
11.8 The proposed lighting schemes in the Planning Application appear in clear breach of Policy HBE19 in the Local Plan, particularly with regard to the criteria of privacy and light pollution. We submit that the proposals in the Planning Application for flood-lighting are excessive and will not in any way positively enhance the built environment as directed by HBE19. Furthermore the artificial light pollution generated by the proposed development appears contrary to Policy EP25 of the Local Plan.
11.9 The Hewett School playing fields are used by a surprising number of wild birds and in particular flocks of black-backed gulls and lapwings are regularly observed, along with a range of other bird visitors such as a flock of bramblings observed by residents in early December 2004. Clearly the birds co-exist with other users of the playing fields, and benefit from the existence of a large open area. Evidence will be produced of numbers and varieties of birds using the playing fields.
11.10 In terms of National planning guidelines and the Local Plan, it should be recognised that the Hewett School playing fields are an important final “stepping stone” on green corridors extending in two arcs towards on the south side Harford Marshes and towards Whitlingham and, on the north side, Eaton Marshes and open countryside. Maps will be produced in evidence. The proposed development will substantially reduce the green corridor affect particularly on the southern arc.
11.11 Residents are concerned that the planning application does not take fully into account local topography. In particular, the Hewett School playing fields are somewhat higher than the surrounding area to the north and west of the site. Evidence will be led showing the extent to which the junction of Cecil Road and Ipswich Road regularly floods due to the very high local water table.
11.12 At present, the Hewett School playing fields constitute a natural sponge, soaking up an appreciable amount of the local rainfall. If 25% of the playing field area is lost to the proposed development, the residents are concerned that increased water run-off from the remaining areas will have unforeseen local effects.
11.13 We note that the Environment Agency raised concerns during the consultation process of the Planning Application as to surface water run off. In particular, a Flood Risk Assessment was required. It is therefore clear that sustainable drainage on this site is considered to be an issue. The developers are put to the proof that surface water run off will indeed be controlled as near to its source as possible and that the proposed sustainable drainage approach to surface water management together with on site storage of surface water run off will be sufficient on the present site.
11.14 The loss of green space resulting from the Planning Application is in principle in breach of PPG9 (“Nature Conservation”, paragraph 3) which states that “attractive environments, where attention is given to nature conservation, are essential to social and economic wellbeing”. It should be noted that the Local Plan states (paragraph 2.3) that there “are clearly strong inter-relationships with both the potential for use of this environment for recreational and amenity benefits set out in other chapters, and with the environmental assets of the adjoining districts” (our emphasis). Therefore it is a planning issue that the potential of the Hewett School playing fields to be developed as either informal open space for the benefit of local residents, or a wildlife area for the benefit of the Hewett School teaching programme have not been fully explored. Such developments would be consistent with the Local Plan.
11.15 There is no evidence that the developers carried out a wildlife impact assessment in accordance with Local Plan Policy NE12. In particular, we note that a wholly building-dominated design approach is not appropriate to the character of the area. It is not clear that a very substantial area of car parking will in any way enhance the bio-diversity of the area, create new areas of wildlife habitat, or facilitate the establishment of links between existing areas of habitat locally.
12. FAILURE TO DESIGN DEVELOPMENT TO BEST PRACTICE
12.1 We note that the Norwich Society raised concerns during the consultation period to the Planning Application that the Sports & Fitness Club could prove intrusive, especially to the houses on Lakenham Road. We note that the proposed David Lloyd Leisure Centre is a two storey building with a curved roof. The walls as presently proposed are of brick, cladding panels and glazing and the roof of standing seam aluminum. The design appears little different from any modern industrial warehousing or retail shed and we compare some of the visually intrusive and unappealing developments in the recent Riverside Complex.
12.2 The design appears clearly to be in breach of policy HBE14 of the Local Plan in that the design is not of any particular high quality as far as can be seen from the plans and it is not clear how such a design with reinforce and complement the character and townscape of the city.
12.3 In particular it is noted that traditional materials predominate in the buildings on Lakenham Road and on Ipswich Road as well as on Hall Road North, all of which are areas of brick built urban housing. As such, it appears clear that the design of the proposed development will in no way have a sympathetic relationship with the traditional materials predominating in the vicinity of the development.
12.4 Furthermore, the Planning Application will be directly detrimental in terms of inappropriate development to the groups of houses at the junctions of the Ipswich Road/Cecil Road and Ipswich Road/ Lime Tree Road which are conservation areas (paragraph 3.22 of the Local Plan).
12.5 Therefore this development which is adjacent to, and visible from, a conservation area is in principle in breach of policy HBE10 of the Local Plan, in particular in breach of policy HBE10(ii) in that the Planning Application cannot be said to by sympathetic to the form and character of the area’s development.
12.6 As stated above, light pollution from the proposed development is of concern to many local residents and this light pollution will impact upon the conservation area.
12.7 As stated above, the Planning Application will lead to increased traffic in particular on the Ipswich Road (which has not been properly analysed by the Transport Assessment). This will adversely impact upon the conservation area.
12.8 In terms of the overall design of the proposed development, it is clear that the Planning Application is in breach of policy TRA8 of the Local Plan in that necessary vehicle movements, together with parking and service areas, do in fact dominate the overall design in terms of the large area occupied by proposed car parking.
13. STATEMENT OF TRUTH
I believe the contents of this Statement of Case to be true.
KEITH ROBERT FARWELL
Signed this 17th day of December 2004
For & on behalf of R.A.I.D
(Residents Against Inappropriate Development)
c/o 7 Cecil Road
Norwich
Norfolk
NR1 2QL
