GNLP0311/0595/2060

Aylsham is a town, not a city. We have been completely inundated by new housing for the last few years. The town will not survive as a community with any more growth. there are no spare Doctors, dentists, school places, childminders, parking spaces, - It is being ruined. Please- no more houses.

I wish to appeal the decision about 300 new homes in aylsham on burgh road. There needs to be more schools. Doctor's. Dentists. Before any more houses. Also the car boot is a great help and good day out for alot off people and family's

I attended your roadshow at Aylsham Town Hall on 11th Feb.As regards development in Aylsham I feel that your preferred option GNPL031/0595/2060,Burgh Road, will create access problems where Burgh Road meets Oakfield Road and again where Burgh Road meets Norwich Road/Red LionStreet,this being route into town from development area.
For this reason I would suggest that your second option,GNLP/0596 Norwich Road would be preferable.

The Burgh and Tuttington Parish Council wish to comment upon the proposed development at Aylsham for 300 new homes at sites GNLP 0311, 0595 and 2060 west of the A140. We support the reduced scale of the development and also the view of Aylsham Town Council regarding its location. However, we remain concerned about the capacity of the Anglian Water sewage works just east of the A140 which feeds treated waste water into the Bure, one of Norfolk's premier rivers. We would like an assurance that the increase in sewage waste caused by the development will not raise the risk of release of untreated sewage. This could have a deleterious impact on wildlife, agriculture and the communities along downstream reaches of the Bure. There have been problems with waste disposal at previous developments in Aylsham and a requirement to match new development size with sewage works capacity was set out in Policy 2 VIII of the Aylsham Neighbourhood Plan, which we support. This potential problem could become more significant if the option for development of a further 250 homes in Aylsham is taken up

There are a number of highways issues:
1. Buses and cars cannot pass on Burgh Road without the cars mounting the pavement. A 2m footpath will make this worse.
2. There is on-street parking on Burgh Road which reduces it to a single lane.
3. Pupils cross the road at the end of Forster way. There is no crossing.
4. A 2m wide footpath is only possible east of Burgh Road if land is compulsory purchased from Burgh house with the loss of trees with protection orders.

The allocation of 300 houses and a primary school means no allocation for green space i.e. at 25 houses a hectare you need 12ha. This means that there is 0.86 ha for a primary school i.e. the same area as the Aegel house site. You need at least 10,000 m2 for Bure Valley size school (Year 3-6) and 15000m2 or 1.5 ha if you wish to provide Nursery to year 6 provision.

On-street parking at school drop of and pick up is a problem in every school in the land. The combined traffic flow from both ends of Burgh Road combined with school buses and parents parking up Burgh Road will most likely create a log-jam and tail backs along the A140 as currently happens when the car boot sales occur.

Pedestrian access between Ringsfield and Aegel house will significantly impinge on our privacy and amenity. We request that a 2.1m high treated timber fence with concrete posts and concrete kick board to the east and south boundary of Ringsfield is a condition of any future planing permission.

With the new development east of the high school traffic flows have increased significantly. This will only get worse with 300 houses and a school. A 20 mph speed limit should be applied between Buckenham Road and Oakfield Road.

It's highly unlikely that 33% will be affordable housing. 14% is probably the limit of viability.

Site GNLP 0596 is a better site.

The required area of land for a 210 pupil primary school would be about 1 hectare and for 500 pupils 2hectares. No green space is allocated for pupil playing fields. This would increase the housing density to achieve 300 homes. The 2 access roads are not marked on the site plan. As with all schools, traffic management is crucial. Cars will be parked along Burgh Road at shool opening and closing times interferring with Coach access to High School. Burgh Road would require widening at key points and a 2m wide path on each side for housing and school with permanent crossings and require purchase of land from properties bordering Burgh Road. a 20mph speed limit would require extending. Any consideration of making Burgh Road one-way would reqire traffic calming measures to discourage even more speeding than currently occurs. This road is used by large numbers of cyclists passing through Aylsham from the west and the North Norfolk lanes tothe east and the Broads Area. The roundabout is a safer crossing of the A140 than most others in the Aylsham area. No provision has been made for a green corridor for wildlife from the Marriotts Way alongside the Bure Valley Railway to open countryside.

Given new homes will be required, I do not feel this site is the best site. Burgh road cannot support a higher volume of traffic, and the A140 roundabout and burgh road struggle at peak times such as when the high school day starts/finishes and particularly when the car boot is on, demonstrating the issues with placing more development there. Any development needs to be incorporated into the town to encourage new residents to become part of the community and support the town, this is challenging when access from this site into town is not easy/considered. Encourage walking/cycling to link this site through upgrades along burgh road or/and bure valley path. Why is a new school required? Both existing schools have intake from across Aylsham, placing a school on the fringe of the town will likely divide intake geographically. This could impact inclusivity and community links. The site could have an easy walking link to an existing primary school. I can see that this site would be better for high school access by foot. I would also have concerns about waste management given there seems to be issues from bure meadows development including leaks onto the site.

Burgh Rd is too narrow for any increased traffic. To widen along the length would require large, mature trees to be cut down. Traffic management is already an issue, with buses regularly mounting pavements to avoid cars. Parked cars have been damaged by passing vehicles. Additional traffic would move congestion to the top of Burgh Rd and impact ability to exit Oakfield Rd. The 2 access roads are not evident and would create more pinch points. Cyclists appear to have been ignored rather than encouraged; environmental aspects and green issues, so important moving forward have been completely ignored - where are the green spaces or green corridors, how is it planned to mitigate the increased car pollution? How can the centre of Aylsham cope with more traffic flowing into it from Burgh Road and why would that even be encouraged? The road should be limited to 20MPH to reduce speeding and pollution.
I believe there are better suited sites either GNLP0596 or GNLP0336. Further consideration should be given to these rather than what appears to be a decision based on what is "easiest or cheapest" to do rather than what is right to do.

If any building has to take place then extending Bure Meadows estate north towards river site, with its already planned school, neighbourhood centre, Riverside Country park, footpaths etc and the Burgh Rd site with its accessibility via Burgh roundabout and new Aegel house roads and its room for a school make sense .

GNLP0311 GNLP0595 GNLP2060 A practical consolidation site, ready now for housing, school, Long stay carparking. Aegel house site 20161711 possibility of access here to GNLP0311 is feasible, plus second access closer to the Burgh road A140 roundabout. Petrol station M&S supermarket already established immediately opposite.In addition new bus stops recently constructed very close by in Burgh road, thereby serving residents and long stay drivers/passengers the convenience to use the bus into Aylsham.
Observation of all sites terrain slopes down gradually to Burgh road hence naturally drain off water
Therefore I consider the above the best practical enhancement for Aylsham

Please consider my objections to the traffic management enhancements to the above development at Burgh Road Aylsham bringing 300 new house and a new school.

Currently, there is a non regulation width pedestrian path on one side only and the road is non regulation width also. It has a recently constructed downhill priority pinch point at the junction with Oakfield Road culminating in a final pinch point at the market place access between two historic roadside dwellings ....where the public transport buses are unable to smoothly negotiate without crossing into the oncoming traffic

The first proposal, to widen the road to regulation width will merely bring more traffic to the pinch point at the market place access. It already is a five point junction (considering the exit to the bank car park at that point) . As the boundaries are historic properties at this point and cannot be demolished this pinch point cannot be expanded. (Pinch point: buses require crossing onto oncoming traffic lane to turn left). The plan will exacerbate this already considerably busy junction.

The second proposal is to create a new 2 metre wide footpath where there currently is no footpath at all. In order to create this path you will need to demolish a boundary of mature dense tree line of oak, ash , lime and sycamore which belongs to locals . ‘up to the tarmac’ (is owned by locals) and was the subject of much correspondence with Broadland District Council and the Land Registry several years ago. Please do not consider the general rule that highways have one or more metres from the tarmac as their right of ownership ! (The owners) will resist any effort to execute this plan and make it a costly battle.

Can the traffic management team relook at this development with the possibility of MAKING BURGH ROAD A ONE WAY ROAD HEADING TOWARD THE A 140 negating the need for road widening or a new footpath.

For me, I naturally prefer the alternate site proposal close to the motel. Viewed from the air, the surrounding gardens are a welcome and necessary part of a healthy environment, “the lungs of Aylsham” and destroying trees in favour of traffic would be a controversial issue at a time when the health of our planet is such a “hot” subject.

As a long term resident of Aylsham (since January 1971) I have seen many changes and adapted to them but the time has come to say "enough is enough"!

1. If the proposed new housing estate and school plan goes ahead on the car boot sale fields this could result on at least 600 more car journeys daily, plus school traffic, with increased pollution levels and congestion.

2. Some houses in Burgh Road do not have any off-street parking. Delivery vans and tradesmen's vehicles need to park and frequently cause single lane traffic.

3. There is already confusion at the junction with Oakfield Road with very little room to manoeuvre. Cycling has become increasingly dangerous and stressful; many fewer people (including myself) now cycle up to town.

4. The pavement is quite narrow and due to large vehicles having to mount the pavement to pass each other can be dangerous especially for people with walking aids, pushchairs and young children.

5. I understand that there has been a suggestion that the road could be widened by cutting away the grassy area and felling trees on (a resident's) land. This is in the Aylsham Conservation Zone and would mean destroying a lovely woodland area of wonderful mature trees which are home to a large and very long established rookery. This would surely be contrary to any wildlife and climate change principles.

6, There have been suggestions to make Burgh Road one way. This would make life very difficult for the residents as it would involve lengthy narrow detours and push more traffic into the town centre which ever the direction of travel. It would also encourage speeding and cause problems for the no.43 bus route.

I understand there is a possible alternative site in the area of the old Motel on Norwich Road, which is the only road in Aylsham capable of coping with the additional traffic and would not compromise bus routes or traffic flow/management in the centre of this historic market town. This would seem to a far better place for this proposed development.

Unlike other allocation policies there is no reference to water efficiency forming part of the design.

Please also see comments relating to Policy 2 of the Sustainable Communities of the Strategy document.

This is the favoured site from the GNLP Board but Aylsham Town Council do not feel it is suitable for the development planned.
The policy indicates two entrances to the site, these will both need to be via Burgh Road. This road is a busy narrow road with no scope for widening as it heads towards the town centre. The junctions with Oakfield Road and Norwich Road will cause issues if more traffic utilises this road. Plans for a primary school on this road especially if it is a moved school will exacerbate the issues. The roundabout is still in its infancy and was not planned with this development and a school and as such there is no data on whether it could cope with the additional traffic this development would bring.
This is a higher density than other sites put forward. In view of the fact Aylsham took a larger number of houses than allocated in the last plan there should be scope for reducing the number this time.
This site is amber for flood risk.
The site is within the consultation area of a safeguarded water recycling centre. Any future development on this site will need to address the requirements of Norfolk Minerals Waste Core Strategy Policy CS16.
The close proximity to the A140 does not make this a good site for a school.
Do not understand the need for two entrances – have asked for a response from Highways but this has not been received.

This objection is regarding the gnlp for main towns, viz Aylsham, sites GNLP0311,0595,2060 at the junction with Burgh Road and A140.

The objection is on the grounds of health and safety.

The exiting traffic from three hundred new houses and a new school will be obliged to exit onto Burgh Road since an exit onto A140 is probably not desirable.

Burgh Road direction into the town of Aylsham is not regulation width.

It has a narrow pedestrian footpath on one side only

It has a traffic calming island at the junction with Oakfield Road that has caused angry confusion which I have witnessed.

Public transport (eg Sanders’ buses) cannot exit the left hand turn without using the full width of Norwich Road, thus causing a halt to the traffic flow into the Market Square.

Thus my objection highlights the extra pollution from the increased traffic, the safety of pedestrians especially (extra) school children, the narrowness of the non regulation sized carriageway, the narrowness of the existing pavement, the unhelpful traffic calming construction at Oakfield Road and the inability of public transport to negotiate the left turn bend into Norwich Road at the town end of Burgh Road without disruption to traffic flow into the town.

P.S.
I might comment on a throw away remark from an officer at the exhibition in tHe Aylsham Town Hall in response to a query about the narrowness of Burgh Road, ‘Well, we’ll just widen Burgh Road , in that case”.
Has anyone who compiled this gnlp with Aylsham in mind made a site visit ?

Please consider my objections to the traffic management enhancements to the above development at Burgh Road Aylsham bringing 300 new house and a new school.

Currently, there is a non regulation width pedestrian path on one side only and the road is non regulation width also. It has a recently constructed downhill priority pinch point at the junction with Oakfield Road culminating in a final pinch point at the market place access between two historic roadside dwellings ....where the public transport buses are unable to smoothly negotiate without crossing into the oncoming traffic

The first proposal, to widen the road to regulation width will merely bring more traffic to the pinch point at the market place access. It already is a five point junction (considering the exit to the bank car park at that point) . As the boundaries are historic properties at this point and cannot be demolished this pinch point cannot be expanded. (Pinch point: buses require crossing onto oncoming traffic lane to turn left). The plan will exacerbate this already considerably busy junction.

The second proposal is to create a new 2 metre wide footpath where there currently is no footpath at all. In order to create this path you will need to demolish a boundary of mature dense tree line of oak, ash , lime and sycamore which belongs to me . My property owns ‘up to the tarmac’ and was the subject of much correspondence with Broadland District Council and the Land Registry several years ago. Please do not consider the general rule that highways have one or more metres from the tarmac as their right of ownership ! I will resist any effort to execute this plan and make it a costly battle.

Can the traffic management team relook at this development with the possibility of MAKING BURGH ROAD A ONE WAY ROAD HEADING TOWARD THE A 140 negating the need for road widening or a new footpath.

For me, I naturally prefer the alternate site proposal close to the motel. Viewed from the air, my garden is a welcome and necessary part of a healthy environment, “the lungs of Aylsham” and destroying trees in favour of traffic would be a controversial issue at a time when the health of our planet is such a “hot” subject.

Please find my response to the GNLP as it affects Aylsham town, the residents of Burgh Road and those pedestrians who use the current walkway to access the town with particular regard to the pavement run between the junction with Oakfield Road and Number 57 Burgh Road.

The road, which is never without parked vehicles, is narrow to the extent that one or other driver must always give way to oncoming traffic when meeting cars parked at the kerb. Not all residents enjoy off-road parking and those that do are mainly only able to accommodate one vehicle. Most if not all of the town buses use the road as do large farm vehicles and HGVs. They commonly mount the pavement to facilitate their passing of each other.

I recently witnessed an elderly pedestrian whose sleeve and shopping bag were brushed by the wing mirror of a passing private car. The driver: hugging the kerb as he/she met an approaching car, I assume?

Even with current traffic levels I feel that steps MUST be taken to improve safety and traffic congestion. A move to a ONE WAY flow must benefit all residents and those drivers who would no longer suffer the frustration caused by two way traffic.

Another 300 houses (+400 cars?). Please consider and take action now to redirect the traffic flow for the benefit of all.

There do not appear to be icons of pens to click onto to make a comment today, although today is advertised as the last day for comment on the GNLP business cards circulated.
As District Councillor for Aylsham, I would like to make the following comments.
1. Aylsham Town Council concluded, and I concur, that the site at Burgh Road is not the preferred site for the town. Instead, the site at Norwich Road is expected to be developed first. A bus terminus on site would reduce the need for buses to enter the town centre. Electric hook ups for Electric cars should be provided in a car park on the Norwich Road site. A school is required and should be planned in too. A sixth form at Aylsham High school is required with the increased population and the distance to colleges.
Burgh & Tuttington Parish Council, are concerned and I concur that the extra capacity required for sewerage works with more development. We would like an undertaking that the river Bure will not be polluted.
Marsham Parish Council are concerned and I concur, that there is no need to build outside of the originally designated area, especially now that the fire has occurred on the old chicken farm plot. Building on that site should be considered first.
Green space will become increasingly important and should be provided within any development.

Please see attached for full submission

I hereby make representations pursuant to the current (Regulation 18) consultation on behalf of
Norfolk Land Ltd.
Norfolk Land Ltd supports the proposed allocation of the sites for residential development but
wishes to highlight that Aylsham is a highly sustainable location capable of accommodating greater,
planned growth. The town has all the requisite services, facilities and employment, together with
good transport links, sufficient to support sustained housing and associated growth (as set out in
the HEIAA and related Local Plan evidence).
Indeed, the town has seen continuous and planned housing growth since the early 1990s; it is
capable of continuing to accommodate sustainable growth through at least the new Plan period and
thereby make an important contribution to the provision of new housing in Greater Norwich, above
existing commitments and the 300 houses indicated in the draft Local Plan.

For full representation, please refer to attached documents

Please see attached for full submission and supporting documents.
As outlined in the attached submission, the site is suitable, available, achievable and viable, and is therefore deliverable within the plan period.
Development in this location would represent sustainable development, as defined within the National Planning Policy Framework. Aylsham, as a Main Town, with the fourth highest level of shops and services outside Norwich, is already acknowledged as a highly sustainable location for residential growth, as evidenced through the significant quantum of development that has been approved in the last decade, and the attached text demonstrates that this specific site is a suitable location for further development in all respects.
Economically, residential development here in the plan period would help sustain and enhance local
services and facilities, and would also provide employment opportunities during the construction period.
Socially, the scale of development envisaged is such that it will enable the creation of a strong, vibrant and
healthy community, with easy access to existing and planned local services and facilities, as well as onsite
open space. A wide mix of dwelling types, sizes and tenures will be provided to meet local needs, and
CIL payments will ensure the provision of the necessary health and cultural facilities. The site is located
in close proximity to established communities in Aylsham, which should assist in achieving social
integration between the existing and new residents.
Environmentally, the site is located close to a range of services and facilities, and enjoys good access to
sustainable transport options providing access to the extensive array of facilities and services available
within Norwich and further afield. Residents will be able to meet their day-to-day needs easily and without
the need to use their car, assisting in reducing pollution and minimising the contribution to climate change.
On this basis, the site should be taken forward as an allocation, and is capable of making an important
contribution to the planned growth of the Greater Norwich Area in the period to 2036.