CRINGLEFORD PARISH COUNCIL PARISH PLAN
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
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
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
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
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)
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
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
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
House (c.1803). The original village school, facing the village green, was built in
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.
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
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
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
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
B 2.8 per cent F 17.3 per
C 4.9 per cent G 18.5 per
D 18.1 per cent H 2.4 per
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
people in the population. Mapping the figures shows some spatial variation across
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
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.
The major forces expected to drive development in the parish include the
The condition of the national and local economies;
A growing but also ageing population and the trend towards smaller
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.
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
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
The capacity of Cringleford Bridge to take peak-time traffic along
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
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;
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
the designation of land specifically for recreational use, including
the separation of developed areas by open space and appropriate
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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’
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
‘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.
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
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
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
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
7. Adequate provision must be made for the car in terms of road widths, parking, and
8. Archaeological investigations should be carried out where appropriate.
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