R.A.I.D.
Residents against Inappropriate Development
R.A.I.D. was formed by concerned residents in the Town Close area of Norwich. Our concern is proposals that adversely affect residents in this area and the adjoining area of Lakenham, particularly in the Cecil Road area. Our original campaign was in connection with proposals to sell most of the Hewett School playing field to developers (link at the bottom of this page).
City College
We are currently very concerned about the proposals to redevelop City College. These pictures, published by kind permission of a Cecil Road resident, show how some of the new buildings would look as seen from 7 Cecil Road. It is clear that the change in visual impact in the area would be enormous. The pictures are thumbnails. Please click on them to see the full-sized versions.
Before After
More details
The proposals involve
* Pulling down most of the existing buildings and replacing them - generally with much larger ones, including ones almost twice as high as those they will be replacing. These would tower over houses in the area, and be completely out of proportion and scale in a residential area.
We wholly oppose any proposals to replace existing buildings with ones that are taller. When we attended a planning meeting, we were told that the new buildings would be no higher than the existing ones. The actual planning application shows that this assertion was untrue.
* Building a new 2-storey car park.
* Constructing a small ring road within the site.
The plans refer to a future increase of 25% in expected staff and student numbers and it appears that City College is making provision for a huge increase of traffic in the area. We wholly oppose any proposals that would bring more traffic into an area already prone to heavy traffic at peak hours and rat-running at all times. In view of current environmental concerns, any traffic increase is unacceptable. We would prefer to see park and ride schemes.
Other concerns
* Ground water and flood risk
This area has underground streams and is already prone to flooding. We oppose any proposals that would increase this.
* Subsidence
We fear that the scale of the proposed building programme could cause subsidence in the area.
Comment
We have no objections, in principle, to City College replacing its outdated buildings. However, the plans as submitted are completely wrong and ludicrously out of scale for a residential area.
Below is our letter to the planning office stating our concerns. We are also aware of the forthcoming application to build another very large building behind the Thetford Building, and will be objecting to that at the appropriate time.
______________________________________________________________________________
RESIDENTS AGAINST INAPPROPRIATE DEVELOPMENT
7 Cecil Road, Norwich, NR1 2QL
To: Neil Campbell
Planning Services
City Hall,
Norwich,
NR2 1NH
15th April 2008
Dear Sirs
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 Application No.08/00255/O
Norwich City College, Ipswich Road, Norwich, NR2 2LL
We wish to raise the following concerns and objections to the above application. We are particularly concerned as to how the proposals will affect the area of Cecil Road at the Ipswich Road end, and the corresponding part of Ipswich Road itself.
R.A.I.D.
R.A.I.D. is a group formed from people living in the streets adjoining City College. R.A.I.D. was initially formed to object to the inappropriate development of the Hewett School playing fields. R.A.I.D continues to act as a voice for local residents affected by the present development at City College, in co-operation with other residents’ associations and local groups.
In our objections, we refer to the published “City College Design and Access Statement” and the headings in this Statement as follows..
Context
The impression given by this section is misleading, as are the photographs. A number of City College buildings are already clearly visible from our house regardless of whether trees are in leaf or not. Changes to the size of the buildings would have a considerable detrimental impact in this area, and would change its appearance for the worse. We note that there are also, separately, proposals to remove a number of trees near the Thetford Building. Removal of any part of the present tree screen would mean that the impact of the proposed new buildings would be even more damaging to this area.
The photographs showing the area on the pavements of Ipswich Road outside City College are very misleading. These pavements are very narrow and often extremely crowded with students, to the extent that at most times of day when the College is open, one has to walk, dangerously, in the road rather than on the pavement.
Consultation
We attended a public consultation event. What we were told there differs in some significant particulars from what we now see in the planning application. In particular, we were told that the proposed new buildings would be no higher than the existing buildings. However, the planning application show that the proposed buildings would, in some cases, be almost twice as high as the existing buildings (and see further below).
At the public consultation event, we were not made aware of proposals to put in a new arterial road round the site, with access at a new junction between Cecil Road and Town Close Road, which as further discussed, we regard as one of the worst features of this plan.
Furthermore, no mention was made of the separate plans before the Council to build the new Diploma Building. We refer also to comments below on the Diploma building.
Description of the proposals
We repeat our comments concerning the proposed loss of trees, in connection with the separate application for a new Diploma Building. And regardless of this, the present screen of trees is not adequate to conceal the existing buildings, let alone the proposed new ones.
There would definitely be significant detrimental impact on the amenity of local residents, contrary to the assertions at paragraph 5.5.
The fact that the highest buildings will be at the Ipswich Road end means that these buildings will, in fact, have detrimental impact on the residents at the Ipswich Road end of Cecil Road.
Building Heights
We wish to object strongly to the proposed change in heights of buildings. At the Ipswich Road end, it appears that buildings that are now 10m high will be replaced by ones that are 18m high. We object strenuously to this. They will not be appropriate to border on the existing residential area. They will overlook existing houses. It is unsuitable in this area to have any development of buildings which are any higher than the buildings they replace, and we strongly oppose proposals to replace any building with a taller one. The “additional boundary tree planting” referred to is unlikely to ameliorate this, firstly because 18m is higher than the existing tree screens, and secondly because any new trees planted would take many years to achieve this sort of height.
Although the College has stated in letters to the local residents that the building heights will be no higher than existing buildings, the plans as submitted do allow for much higher buildings.
We request that the planners make it a condition of grant of planning permission (if granted) that the new buildings neighbouring Cecil Road will be no higher than the existing residential blocks.
Vehicle Access
We wish to express extreme concern at the proposals for “two new priority controlled junctions”. We oppose any proposals which would cause a likely increase in traffic in this area. The existing junctions into City College from Ipswich Road, along with those into Town Close Road and Cecil Road are, like Ipswich Road itself, already dangerously and excessively busy. We find that we often already have very long delays in trying to turn out of Cecil Road onto Ipswich Road (in either direction) and queues of traffic building up are frequently observed, particularly in the morning and evening peaks.
Any proposals likely to increase traffic would be contrary to current environmental concerns. We also observe that there is already a problem with young students leaving the City College site by car, who speed and make turns excessively quickly. This is already a considerable danger to residents and we oppose any proposals likely to see an increase in the numbers of students entering and leaving the site by car.
We submit that the standard Transport Assessment provided in support of these plans is methodologically flawed in its assessments of likely numbers walking or cycling to the site from the local area.
Although of course numerous students do walk and cycle into the College, the nature of City College and its role in the broader Norfolk educational structure means that many users of the site come from outside the immediate area. Although some use public transport, a large number of students and staff drive. The proposed increase in numbers of 25% mean that there will undoubtedly be an increase in numbers of both staff and students who drive to the site.
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.
Planners are referred to the “Report for Resolution” to the Norwich Highways Agency Committee dated 8th January 2004 on the Lakenham Traffic Action Plan.
On the present planning application, no proper assessment appears to have 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.
We note that the main periods of anticipated use of the College are precisely at the times when people come to or go from work in Norwich City Centre, or drop children off at the local on Ipswich Road, Cecil Road and Newmarket Road by car.
The proposals to put in a new arterial road round the site, with access at a new junction between Cecil Road and Town Close Road is one of the worst features of this plan.
The intention is clearly that inbound traffic will enter the site from Ipswich Road (S). Such traffic presumably is intended to join the Ipswich road from the outer ring-road. However, not all peak-time traffic is going to move in this neat manner. We anticipate heavy traffic along Cecil Road that will seek to turn right onto Ipswich Road the immediately right again into the College, forming a dangerous set of traffic movements.
Dedicated Vehicle Route
We are concerned at the planned arterial vehicle route around the site. This would, in effect, introduce a whole new road into the area. We do not feel that the case is made for such a new road.
Having reviewed the tree plans for this development, it appears that the planned vehicle route will be dropped in depth below the current ground level so that the road and its foundations cuts away part of the roots of the important specimen Wellingtonia tree. This tree is therefore at risk from the proposal.
Car Parking
We oppose the proposed construction of a new two-storey car park. This is not appropriate to the area, which is substantially residential. Further, constructing larger car parks goes wholly against current environmental concerns.
The availability of such car parking will inevitably also increase the amount of traffic in the area, and we object strenuously to this. We would prefer to see access to City College to be primarily either pedestrian, or where this is not possible, by park and ride schemes, with cars not being brought into the area at all.
We are especially alarmed by the “expected 25% increase in staff and student numbers”, and concerned that this should not result in a 25% increase in cars coming in to the area.
We understand that the scope of the geographical area reviewed by the Transport Assessment is within standard guidelines. 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.
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.
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.
Flood risk Assessment
We object to any proposals which would cause any additional flow of any kind into the ground in this area. Although the College is on relatively high ground, it is very noticeable that there is a very high groundwater table. A major aquifer runs through the area. The nature of the area is such that even very light rainfalls take an abnormally long time to drain away.
Reviewing the 1878 Ordnance Map of the area shows that two small streams (“cockeys”) run from the Grove Walk end of the site down towards Ipswich Road. The proposed plans appear to take no account of the original topography of the area. We note in passing the comments on the plans that part of the site regularly floods.
Concerns about Subsidence
This is not, as far as we can see, addressed in the Access Statement. However, we wish to draw the Planner’s attention to problems already experienced in Cecil Road. There is a small access road to the Methodist Home between 1A and 1 Cecil Road. Problems resulting from this small road were so bad that 1 and 3 Cecil Road had to be underpinned following its construction.
Under the circumstances, we wish to object to the proposals on the grounds that the scale of the proposed new buildings is such that dangerous subsidence could result in the area. This would be enormously detrimental to the residents of Cecil Road.
The size and scale of the proposed new buildings are such that deep piling is likely to be necessary. In view of the identified subsidence in adjacent properties, the Council is asked to investigate subsidence risk.
New Diploma Building
This is subject to separate planning application procedures which have not yet been published. However, since the context of the new Diploma building is inextricably related to the College redevelopment plans as a whole, we wish our objections to the Diploma building to be noted now.
We object to this on the following grounds:
1. Compared with the existing temporary building, the proposed new building is extremely large – far larger than anything else at this end of Cecil Road. We have noted the College’s statement that it will only be two stories high. From what we have seen, from the College flyer “Campus Newsletter Summer 2008”, it will be several times the size of the existing building that it will replace, and will be as high as the apex of the Thetford building roof. The size of this seems inappropriate to a primarily residential area.
2. It appears that several trees will be lost, namely a mature weeping beech, a western red cedar, a birch and a rowan, as well as various shrubs. We wish to object to this. Trees are beneficial to the environment generally, and enhance this area.
3. The exact purpose of the proposed building is unclear, other than that it is “To enable the teaching of the new Construction and the Built Environment Diploma”. In particular, it is not clear whether this building will house only classrooms, or will also house workshops. If the intention is to include workshops, then the sort of noise generated by construction and building classes is likely to be very loud indeed and wholly unsuited to a residential area and we object on the grounds of noise nuisance.
4. The previous application to build on the site of the present small car-park in 1997 was withdrawn following consultation with the planners. The present proposals will infill the car-park. If the 1997 application was withdrawn because of concerns about infill, and effect of infill on neighbouring properties, the present application should likewise fall.
5. The Thetford building (teacher training centre) is a building of architectural note within the Town Close conservation area. The Town Close conservation area runs up to the car-park. The application to build the Diploma building will take out most of the garden – i.e. be within the conservation area – and its large size and footprint makes it unsuitable to adjoin the conservation area in our view.
Yours faithfully
Rebecca and Keith Farwell
On behalf of R.A.I.D. - Residents Against Inappropriate Development
____________________________________________
To find links to our campaign in connection with the Hewett School, please look here.
CONTACT US
R.A.I.D.
c/o Keith Farwell
7 Cecil Road
Norwich
NR1 2QL