CRINGLEFORD

Document Sample
CRINGLEFORD Powered By Docstoc
					CRINGLEFORD
PARISH PLAN




    2011




              1
2
CRINGLEFORD PARISH COUNCIL              PARISH PLAN



Contents

     Introduction                                     page 4

     1. Planning Policy Framework                     page 4

     2. Character Appraisal                           page 6

           2.1. Location                              page 6

           2.2. Development History                   page 7

           2.3 Physical Character                     page 9

           2.4 Social Character                       page 11

     3. Future Development                            page 13

           3.1. Vision for Cringleford in 2026        page 13

           3.2. Drivers                               page 14

           3.3. Constraints                           page 15

           3.4. Preferred Outcomes                    page 15

     Land Usage in Cringleford                        page 22

     Notes to the Map                                 page 23

     Glossary                                         page 24

     Summary                                          page 25




                                                                3
INTRODUCTION

The Parish Council is required to comment on the planning policies put forward by the

Greater Norwich Development Partnership and South Norfolk District Council, as well as

on the planning applications for specific developments such as Round House Park. As

comments are often required at short notice, the Parish Council has sometimes felt at a

disadvantage in representing the interests of residents to best advantage. Despite the

2006 Parish Plan, recent events have shown the need for the strategic guidance, which

can be provided by a parish plan aimed at managing future housing development in the

parish. This document seeks to provide that guidance. It sets out the planning

framework within which management decisions have to be made on behalf of the parish.

It describes the location of the parish and summarizes the historical development of its

built environment. The physical and social characters of the parish are then appraised.

These sections provide a solid basis for setting out not only a vision for the future of

Cringleford but also the development issues that must be addressed for it to be realised.



1. PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK

Cringleford is located on the south-western edge of the city of Norwich. Although

separated from the city by the River Yare and not historically administered by it,

spatial proximity has resulted in the parish being incorporated into the Norwich

Fringe (GDNP 2009). Norwich itself has been identified as one of the economic and

demographic growth poles in East Anglia. The parish is divided north/south by the

major road from Norwich to London (now the A11) and crossed east/west by

Norwich’s southern bypass (A47). These locational facts, together with the

availability of land, have made it a prime target for development, particularly for

housing,


                                                                                  4
The Norfolk Structure Plan of 1993 (Policy N.16) identified the area south and

west of the city as appropriate for major new housing developments. The 1999

Norfolk Structure Plan (Policy N.13) required the selection of specific development

locations on the edge of the built-up area. These were carried forward into the

South Norfolk Local Plan (adopted 2003). Individual Settlement Proposals were

made for Cringleford. A major site of 37 ha was allocated for residential

development between Colney Lane and the A11 (CR1). About 67 per cent of the

land (25 ha) was set aside for housing, about 11 per cent (4 ha) for community

facilities and open space, about 5 per cent (2 ha) for a new school and about 26.2

per cent for structural landscaping ‘to protect the open undulating landscape’

(p.202). Outline planning permission was sought by a group of landowners in

2001 and granted in August, 2004. The grant of permission provided for 750

residential dwellings, school, local shop, community facilities, playing fields, open

space, road, cycle ways and footpaths. Bovis Homes and Twigden Homes acquired

the site and a master plan was prepared in October, 2005. The first phase of

development (13 ha) began at the southern end of the site in February, 2006 and

Round House Park is currently being built. This aims ‘to achieve

      a sustainable development with its own sense of place and a distinct local

       identity

      a development that integrates with the existing community and into the

       surrounding landscape and

      an urban structure that is easy to explain and use and which will stand the

       tests of time’ (Cringleford Masterplan – Round House Park, 2, p.4).

Various applications were made for the development to proceed (2006/07) and

agreement was reached for the construction of 374 dwellings in Phase I of the


                                                                                   5
development. A further application was made in November, 2008 for Phase II.

Although this envisaged the construction of a further 691 dwellings, permission

was granted for a cumulative total of 1,000 dwelling units for the whole site.



The Joint Core Strategy proposals of November, 2009 allocated ‘at least’ a further

1,200 dwellings to Cringleford in the period 2014/15-2025/26 (pp. 43, 56 and 65,

Policies 5, 6 and 9), and indicated an ‘average annual built rate’ of 109 dwellings

(but rising to 125/annum in the years of peak development, 2017/18-2021/23)

(Appendix 8).



These figures, as well as the planning structure through which they were

produced, are likely to be reviewed as a result of the revocation of Regional

Strategies announced by the Secretary of State on 6 July, 2010. However, their

continuance is assumed for the purposes of this plan.



2. CHARACTER APPRAISAL

2.1 Location

The parish of Cringleford is comprised of gently sloping ground lying between the

Yare valley and the valley of the ‘Thickthorn stream’ (Parish History p. 25) which

rises in Hethersett parish. A maximum height of 30 m is reached in an area of

plateau in the north-west corner. The basic geology consists of the sands and

gravels of ‘Norwich Crag’ overlying chalk but with a covering of glacial till. Much of

the land was in cultivation (Grade 3) down to the 1970s. While cultivation

continues in parts of the parish, some of the arable land appears neglected or

underused. The Yare valley forms the eastern boundary to the parish. It is


                                                                                    6
wetland; drainage channels are evident; and in the past it was used as grazing and

meadow. Two Category C semi-natural habitat sites are found here.



In the early nineteenth century settlement in the parish consisted of a hamlet with

a medieval church, a mill and several separate houses, including Cringleford Hall

(adjacent to a moated site) and Meadow Farm (successor to America/Quebec farm

of the eighteenth century). The hamlet was strung along the London road as it rose

from the Yare crossing, and between the junctions of the north/south route above

the river (Colney Lane and Intwood Road) at the eastern end and that of Keswick

Road and Cantley Lane on the west. This area, including the village green, forms

the historic core of the present village and its landscape quality has been protected

by designation as a conservation area (1976). Its image is used by developers and

estate agents in their promotional material.



2.2 Development History

The historic core of Cringleford in the late eighteenth/early nineteenth century

contained the medieval parish church dedicated to St. Peter and the associated

vicarage at its eastern end. The house now called Ford End (formerly an inn) stood

opposite. Upstream of the stone bridge (1520, widened 1780) were the water mill

and the miller’s house (rebuilt 1795) and on the corner of Newmarket Road and

Intwood Lane stood the toll house (c.1816). Further west lay three grand houses,

Cringleford House (rebuilt 1784), Hill Grove (c.1780) and another house, the home

of George Redman, demolished in 1974 when Newmarket Road was realigned. Its

barn (built or rebuilt 1797) survives. Further along the road were Pound House

Farm and Hill Farm (formerly Corporation Farm) and then the so-called Round


                                                                                   7
House (c.1803). The original village school, facing the village green, was built in

1858.



During the nineteenth and early twentieth century Cringleford, like other parishes

near major urban areas, began to experience a phase of villa-estate development

as successful business men moved into the countryside. The Grove was built on

Colney Lane c.1820. Oaklands joined it in 1875 and Cringleford Lodge in 1892.

Towards the end of the nineteenth century some smaller houses were built on the

Loke and in Intwood Road. More development took place in the 1920s and 1930s

when detached houses in large gardens appeared along Intwood Road, Keswick

Road and Colney Lane, as well along new roads laid out off Colney Lane and

Intwood Road. Although densities were low, this was a significant stage in

Cringleford’s development. The population increased from 261 to 652 (149.8 per

cent) between the 1921 and the 1931 censuses.



Infill continued during the 1950s and 1960s, but housing estates emerged with the

construction of Tungate Crescent, off Keswick Road, and then the Brettingham

Avenue estate between Colney Lane, Keswick Road and the southern section of

Intwood Road. This development was completed during the 1970s. It was followed

in the 1980s by the building of a group of roads off The Ridings and Aspen Way, a

development which filled the western section of the space between Intwood Road,

Newmarket Road and Keswick Road. The builders’ merchants, Jewson’s, the

successors to Taylors on the site, and the Cringleford Business Centre fill the

remaining space. By 2001 the population of Cringleford parish reached 2,076. In

2008 it was estimated at 2,143.


                                                                                 8
The largest housing estate to date is Round House Park. This lies north of the

Cringleford bypass (1974) and west of Colney Lane. Construction began in 2007

and is designedly of a different character to the rest of the village. On completion it

will house an estimated population of at least 2,500 people and accommodate a

similar number of cars.



2.3 Physical Character

Cringleford in 2011 has an extensive built-up area divided into clear sections by

the A11/Newmarket Road, Intwood Road and Keswick Road. Each is associated to

a large degree with a particular chronological phase of development and

characterized by a distinctive building style.

The conservation area along Newmarket Road, from the bridge to the schoolhouse,

contains the oldest and most distinctive set of buildings in the village. It is the part

of the village which approximates to the traditional Norfolk village: winding road,

church, old characterful houses, the green, trees and a sense of space.            The

commercial site used by Jewson’s, though large, does not intrude visually on the

street scene, partly because the site slopes away from Newmarket Road.

Unfortunately, the electric sub-station is more conspicuous The Patteson Room

(1911), however, blends in well with neighbouring buildings, while the church hall

is partially screened from the road. Overall, the visual impression given by this

section of the village colours the character assessment of Cringleford as a pleasant

and desirable place to live.

Colney Lane leads north from the old core to Newfound Farm and the village of

Colney, passing the Norfolk and Norwich Hospital and the John Innes Centre.

Through traffic has been prevented to preserve the tranquillity of the road’s


                                                                                      9
southern section. Detached houses on large plots characterize it. To some extent,

the winding road and the trees give it a rural character. This is less evident in the

roads leading off it, where gardens are smaller and house densities greater.



Intwood Road is lined with large linear plots containing houses of various dates

and styles. It also contains the Cringleford Business Centre, the character of which

is out of keeping with its setting. Although glimpses of the countryside may be

caught between houses on the east side, the views are largely closed on the

western side. South and east of Intwood Road are more recent developments of

very mixed character, reflecting the different phases of development (E.g.

Oakfields Road compared with Keswick Close). The appearance is more that of an

urban suburb than a village.



The northern section of Intwood Road separates two areas of comparatively

recent development, though the houses along its western side are of interwar date

and stand in comparatively large plots. To the west of Intwood Road, though

separated from it, the Aspen Way and The Ridings area is characterized by small

detached houses in close proximity, on small plots but at different angles to each

other. Keswick Close and Mark Lemmon Close lie south-east of Intwood Road and

contain a mixture of dwellings, predominantly dating from the 1970s. They have

the advantages of views towards the Recreation Ground and access to it.



Development on the south-west side of Keswick Rd, down the slope towards the

‘Thickthorn stream’, has a more spacious feel to it, though characterized by short

roads and closes. This is achieved partly by the slopes and partly by designing


                                                                                 10
unfenced front gardens to open on to the roads. Houses are set at an angle to each

other, giving a degree of privacy. Mature trees are relatively sparse.



North of the A11 and adjacent to Colney Lane is Round House Park. This very

recent development is highly visible on the approach to Norwich from the south

and west. It contains a mixture of house-styles, including buildings which are

three-storeys high, arranged along a curving network of fairly narrow roads.

Although open space has been provided on the inside of the development and

natural screening has been preserved towards Colney Lane, the ‘urban structure’

is clear and a deliberate part of the design.



Some of Cringleford still retains a rural quality, but despite its undoubted

attractions, much of the development since about 1970 has a more suburban feel

about it. Since much of the new development is hidden by the fall of the ground

and a screen of older houses along the historic through routes, and mature trees

are common, the built environment presented by the conservation area tends to

prevail, even among residents. The image is misleading, though promoted for

selling property throughout the village. In reality, the built-up area continues to

be transformed and the built environment has moved towards the urban end of

the rural-urban spectrum. Round House Park has added to the shift



2.4 Social Character

Cringleford lost much of its rural character during the inter-war period. The

importance of farming declined and rural crafts finally vanished. The expanding




                                                                               11
population was largely dependent upon work outside the village, particularly in

Norwich, the centre of which is only 3 miles away.

Of the 4,148 people resident in the Cringleford ward in 2008, 52.1 per cent were

female and 47.9 per cent male. Those aged between 45 and 59 formed 55.5 per

cent of the total and those over 60 29.5 per cent; (6.9 per cent of the total were

over 80). The age/sex pyramids for the parish reveal an unbalanced population

structure in which females over 60 formed 17.8 per cent of the total and males

over 60 formed 11.8 per cent. While the age/sex distribution of the population,

and associated leisure, may help to explain the rich social life of the village, it also

raises the questions of how care provision in the parish should be enhanced and

appropriate housing provided.



In the absence of occupational data, property valuations developed for Council Tax

purposes may be used as a surrogate social indicator, though information is not

available for Round House Park. Although some properties are found in all bands

A to H, where H is the most highly rated, the distribution is as follows

       Band A          0.6 per cent                        Band E          34.9 per
                                                                           cent

             B         2.8 per cent                              F         17.3 per
                                                                            cent

             C         4.9 per cent                              G         18.5 per
                                                                           cent

             D       18.1 per cent                               H     2.4 per
                                                                      cent.
It indicates that the majority of properties are in the upper middle range of the

valuation, perhaps indicating a predominance of active and retired professional




                                                                                      12
people in the population. Mapping the figures shows some spatial variation across

the parish.



Twenty-five organizations, excluding the school and the church, meet in the parish

and make use of three public halls – the Patteson Parish Room, the Pavilion and

the Church Hall. They include 3 sport clubs, 7 scouting organizations catering for a

wide age range of young people, and 7 special interest groups. Two groups provide

for pre-school children. Altogether the returns from organization secretaries show

that membership exceeds 1,324. In addition, the village school has more than 200

pupils and around 120 people attend the three Sunday services at the church.

Even allowing for overlapping memberships and non-residents, these figures

indicate a vibrant community in Cringleford and dense social networks. The parish

is fortunate in having a recreational ground which is used for football, cricket and

tennis, though no longer of sufficient size to meet current demands.



3. FUTURE DEVELOPMENT

3.1 Vision for Cringleford in 2026

Residents want Cringleford to continue to be a pleasant and desirable place to live,

with a moderate sized and more balanced population, forming a vibrant, caring

community in which all residents feel comfortably at home and valued. Physical

planning for future developments must focus on these objectives. Future

development will maintain and enhance a sense of space, while providing

opportunities for people to interact informally, as well as through organized

events. Parks, greens, play areas, sport facilities, community facilities, pedestrian

and cycle routes are essential. However, the social and physical future of the


                                                                                 13
parish will be shaped by the interplay between development ‘drivers’ and

constraints on their operation, as well as by the wishes of the residents.

The preferred outcomes detailed below reflect, at least in part, the lessons learnt

from the development of Round House Park Phase 1. Both the Parish Council and

the residents feel that their concerns about the physical planning of the site were

discounted at the planning stage, but have proved justified by events.



3.2 Drivers

The major forces expected to drive development in the parish include the

following:

                The condition of the national and local economies;

                A growing but also ageing population and the trend towards smaller

                 households;

                Proximity to Norwich and major routes (A11 and A47);

                The availability of land between the current edge of the built up area

                 of the village and the Southern Bypass (A47);

                The willingness of landlords to sell, partly because of the low return

                 from land compared with its capital value;

                The allocation of more than 1,200 houses to the parish through

                 policies produced at higher levels in the administrative hierarchy.




                                                                                   14
3.3 Constraints

Some constraints on future development are socio-political in nature; others are

physical, but some overlap occurs.

The socio-political constraints include

             The legacy from previous planning policy decisions;

             The previous decisions about the location of development within the

              parish;

             The perception of the parish as a desirable place to live;

             The high relative value of houses in the parish.

Physical constraints cover a broad spectrum, but include

             The wetlands of the Yare Valley and the ‘Thickthorn stream’;

             The location of major roads (A11 and A47), together with the

              pattern of roads giving access to the parish (Round House Way, the

              north-western section of Colney Lane, Newmarket Road, Intwood

              Road, and Keswick Road);

             The traffic capacity of all these roads and of the Thickthorn

              roundabout;

             The capacity of Cringleford Bridge to take peak-time traffic along

              Newmarket Road;

             The location of the conservation area.



3.4 Preferred Outcomes

Recognising the ‘drivers’ and constraints identified in Section 3.2, the history of

development in the parish (Section 2.3) and the social and physical character of




                                                                               15
the village (Sections 2.4 and 2.5), the final section of the plan sets out the

residents’ vision for future development in Cringleford.



3.4.1. The history of building development in the parish and the development

‘drivers’ mean that the parish will receive more dwellings in the future. The total

should be set at an absolute maximum of 1,200 (preferably lower) by 2026, in

addition to the 1,000 already agreed for Round House Park (Phases I and II). The

total population estimated for the new developments would reach at least 5,500,

thereby more than doubling the total population of the entire parish. The

absorptive capacity of the parish will be reached at that level. Even this increase

will change the social and physical character of the village completely,

transforming it from a village into a small town, with all the associated needs.



3.4.2. Further urbanization, as represented by the development of Round House

Park Phase I and projected for Phase II, as well as the more speculative outlines

presented on behalf of landowners, is totally inappropriate.



3.4.3. Residents insist upon the prevention of further urbanisation by requiring

              lower building densities;

              a ‘human scale’ to the spatial arrangement of buildings;

             buildings of no more than two storeys;

             broken rather than continuous building lines;




                                                                                   16
             transition from the built-up area to the countryside*;

             the creation of open spaces/greens within the structure of the future

              developments and over-looked by houses** (these must be in

              addition to the Norwich Southern Bypass Protection Zone which

              must be maintained);

             the linking of open spaces by ‘green corridors’ and footpaths in

              order to encourage not only free movement of wild life, but also

              recreational walking;

             the designation of land specifically for recreational use, including

              allotments;

             the separation of developed areas by open space and appropriate

              screening;

             the sensitive use of materials and detailing, as advocated in South

              Norfolk’s Heritage (1976);

             the careful positioning of trees and the use of hedgerows of

              hawthorn and blackthorn.



3.4.4. The land currently being offered for development (2011) is located along the

line of the Southern Bypass (A47). The residents of Cringleford require the

Southern Bypass Protection Zone to be maintained at a minimum width of 250

metres and would welcome denser tree planting.




* The concept of an imposing, urban gateway to Norwich is totally alien to the
broad transition zone between the outer parish boundary and the Yare Valley and
will be opposed.
** Research has shown that ‘neighbourliness’ is encouraged by shared green space



                                                                               17
   3.4.5. Development in the Yare Valley and along the ‘Thickthorn stream’ will be

   opposed. These areas should be considered as ‘green infrastructure’ to be

   improved and managed for the benefit of the community.



   3.4.6. Development must be sensitive to the local topography of the site. Every

   effort must be made to preserve existing trees, copses, hedgerows and footpaths.

   As in earlier developments in the village, the fall of the ground must be used to

   hide new development. The erection of tall buildings on hilltops and solid massing

   on high ground is inappropriate and will be opposed.



   3.4.7. New developments will form distinctive enclaves on the edge of the existing

   village. Some of them will be separated from it, not just by distance but also by the

   line of the major roads (All and Road House Way). Two outcomes are desirable

                  the creation of communities with a sense of cohesion and

                   identity;

                  connection with other parts of the built up area of the village.

Layout designs must seek to achieve these objectives and provide practical solutions

to the problem of providing secure links (pedestrian and cycle and vehicular)

between the new, outlining areas of the village and its older sections. Physical

planning must enable new residents to share in the social life of the village. Mere

assertion of future benefit is insufficient.



3.4.8. Further population growth will require an increase in educational, medical and

recreational provision. Sites must be set aside to meet these needs. More than one

school may be required, and thought should be given to the need for a secondary


                                                                                      18
school for the expanded village. Space in the churchyard is limited. When capacity is

reached, the Parish Council, as a Burial Authority (Local Government Act, 1972), may

be required to provide a Burial Ground, with associated facilities; land should be

acquired for this at an appropriate site under a Section 106 Agreement.



3.4.9. Estimated population levels indicate that some retail and other business units

will be required to meet the needs of the local population and provision must be made

for these at an early stage.



3.4.10. Cars. The location of future developments in the parish with respect to major

centres of employment and major routes, together with the inflexibility of bus routes

and times, will require provision for car use. Road widths, parking spaces and

garaging must be adequate to actual need. Traffic calming measures will be needed,

but not to the detriment of adequate road width. On-street parking, which impedes

traffic flow and the progress of emergency vehicles, will result in petitions for parking

restrictions.



3.4.11. Storage space must be designed into domestic buildings so that garages are

used for the purpose for which they are provided. Garages must be spacious enough

to accommodate the average family car. Parking courts will be positively discouraged.



3.4.12. Bicycles. Adequate provision must be made for dedicated cycle paths. These

should include through routes to link new developments with Norwich and

neighbouring settlements, as well as routes allowing access to the older sections of

the village and circulation within the new developments themselves. Consideration


                                                                                     19
should be given to creating a cycle route across the River Yare, either adjacent to

Cringleford Bridge or elsewhere.



3.4.13. Pedestrians. Care must be taken to provide pedestrian routes through any new

development and to provide secure routes to the older sections of the village,

including the building of footbridges where necessary.



3.4.14. Public Transport. A public transport policy must be formulated at an early

stage when planning applications are being prepared. It must be incorporated into

detailed site planning in advance of the building of dwellings and their occupation.



3.4.15. While it may be impossible to replicate the rich social life and dense networks

of the old village, at least in the short term, a sense of community should be sought in

the new areas by providing appropriate community facilities. Signing of Section 106

Agreements will be dependent upon on this.



3.4.16. New development provides an excellent opportunity to build environmentally

‘passive’ dwellings and to design-in heating, lighting, water and waste-disposal

systems which are self-sustaining. It must be seized.



3.4.17. To enhance social cohesion and avoid mini ‘ghettoisation’ affordable housing

must not be concentrated in one or two locations but dispersed throughout areas of

new development.




                                                                                       20
3.4.18. Preliminary site investigations prior to development proposals being advanced

have shown that there is abundant archaeological evidence in the area for previous

land use, including settlement. Developers must be prepared to provide adequate

time and funding for more detailed research to be carried out, prior to building.

Where settlement sites are located, facilities must be made available for excavation.

Heritage is important to both a sense of place and community identity.




                                                                                 21
22
                         LAND USAGE IN CRINGLEFORD

NOTES TO THE MAP

  1). The hedgerow with standards on the historic boundary should be preserved
  and properly laid.

  2). The former quarry could be converted into a sunken garden and form the
  centre of a public park reached by 3).

  3). The track from Newfound Farm should be retained (possibly surfaced) and
  more trees planted along it. Playing fields could be laid out along it.

  4). The hedged close with a southerly aspect would be a good site for allotments.
  It can be reached from the track leading from the John Innes store and Colney
  Lane.

  5). Preferred access points, should new development take place.

  6). The pronounced hollow in this vicinity provides an opportunity for
  imaginative development which would avoid the hill crests.

  7). The hedgerows with standards along the upper section of Cantley Lane should
  be retained and properly managed.

  8). The footpaths in this area, although not currently rights of way, should be
  retained and possibly upgraded to take bicycles.

  9). Community space above the steep slope down to Thickthorn stream.

  10). Screening trees and shrubs (indigenous species) should be planted on plot
  1021 west of Round House Way.

  11). Plots 504 and 505b should be considered for a wildlife park with lightly
  managed public access. The Yare Valley wetlands should be better managed.

  12). Significant buildings outside the Conservation Area should be preserved and
  redevelopment of the sites should be subject of special permissions. They are
  Oakfields, The Grove, the Round House, Cringleford Hall (with gardens and moat)
  and Meadow Farm.




                                                                                    23
Glossary

Greater Norwich
The Greater Norwich area consists of the city of Norwich and a group of surrounding
and adjacent parishes (including Cringleford and Colney) ‘strongly influenced by the
presence of Norwich as a centre for employment, shopping and entertainment’ (Joint
Core Strategy, Nov. 2009, p.153).

Greater Norwich Partnership
The Partnership consists of Broadlands District Council, Norwich City Council, and
South Norfolk District Council, and works with Norfolk County Council and the Broads
Authority ‘to deliver a growth strategy for the area, which equates to at least 37,000
homes and 27,000 new jobs by 2226, as well as ensure the services and facilities
needed for communities are made available in the right place at the right time’
(www.gndp.org.uk.).

Joint Core Strategy
The Greater Norwich Development Partnership has developed this for the Greater
Norwich Area. It ‘sets out guide lines for carefully managed growth in the Greater
Norwich Area which will protect local communities from unwanted opportunistic
development’ (Statement from the GNDP Policy Group, 23 September, 2010).

Local Development Frameworks
These replaced local plans in 2004. They consist of ‘a suite of documents that contain
policies and proposals that will guide development proposals for the district, as well
as identifying areas that require special attention’ (South Norfolk Local Development
Framework, 2004).

Norwich Fringe
‘The area next to the city of Norwich, but lying in another administrative district
which is predominantly developed, including open spaces encompassed within the
developed area”. Fringe parishes in the South Norfolk District include Colney,
Costessey, Cringleford and Trowse (Joint Core Strategy, Nov. 2009, p. 153).

South Norfolk Development Plan (originally adopted 2003)
It contained all the policies deemed necessary to guide development (physical and
economic) in the district. The aim was to ensure that growth and change took place in
a coordinated manner, while safeguarding the quality of the environment. The Local
Development Framework replaced it in 2004, in turn reformatted in 2008.

Structure Plans
They were first introduced in 1968 as a means for developing broad policies for
planning social, economic and land use developments in a specified area or region
over a 20 year period, and covered land use, open space, infrastructure and the
economy. Regional Development Strategies and Local Development Documents,
particularly Core Strategies, replaced them in 2004, but they have been hugely
influential.




                                                                                  24
                                       Summary

The Parish Plan 2011 sets out the basis on which the Parish Council will comment on
future developments proposed for the parish. It sets out first an analysis of the
planning framework, the historical development of the parish and its physical and
social characteristics. The Plan then turns to how future development should be
managed in the interests of the residents.
1. Location, land availability and previous planning decisions mean that Cringleford
will be required to absorb more houses in addition to the 1,000 allowed at Round
House Park. Although a total of more than 1,200 new dwellings has been put forward
by the planners for 2026, the Parish Plan suggests that this will exceed the capacity of
the parish to absorb new development while preserving its current physical and
social character.
2. The land available for development lies principally between the edge of the present
built-up area (including Round House Park) and the Norwich Southern Bypass (A47).
The Parish Plan insists that the Southern Bypass Protection Zone is maintained.
3. Further urbanization will result from the designs proposed for Round House Park
Phase II and subsequent developments. The process will be resisted by requiring such
things as lower building densities, a ‘human scale’ to development, buildings of less
than 3 storeys, open textures and the sensitive use of materials.
4. Careful adaptation to local topography will be required to reduce visual intrusion.
The erection of tall buildings on hilltops and solid massing on high ground will be
opposed.
5. As in the past, new developments will form distinctive enclaves on the edge of the
existing village, but efforts should be made to link them to the older village by
footpaths and cycle ways and to ensure that their residents are able to share in the
rich social life of the village, while maintaining their own cohesion and identity.
6. The opportunity must be taken of building ‘passive’ dwellings and incorporating
self-sustaining systems of heating, water provisions and waste disposal into area
designs.
7. Adequate provision must be made for the car in terms of road widths, parking, and
useable garages.
8. Archaeological investigations should be carried out where appropriate.



                                                                                      25
26
                     THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS:

   Professor Malcolm Wagstaff BA, PhD, FRGS, FRSA – Parish Councillor
                    George James – Parish Councillor
                     Len Stroud – Parish Councillor
                   Anne Barnes PILCM – Parish Clerk




                         OUR THANKS GO TO:

                All those who assisted with the Open Day

  Our thanks especially go to Professor Wagstaff for producing the Plan

                 Cringleford Parish Council for grant aid




THIS DOCUMENT CAN BE MADE AVAILABLE IN LARGE PRINT, BRAILLE, OR
                    OTHER TRANSLATIONS.




                           FEBRUARY 2011




                                                                          27
28

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:10
posted:11/23/2011
language:English
pages:28