NOT TO BE PRINTED_Draft Final TAAP comments duly

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Mr Ed Chambers Thetford Town Council Norfolk 21 Policy TH 30 Agree Mr Michael Meadows Natural England Norwich 21 Policy TH 30 Agree Mr Paul Leeming Carter Jonas Harrogate 21 Policy TH 30 Comment Mr Stephen Faulkner Norfolk County Council Norwich 21 Policy TH 30 Comment Approved, although the Committee notes that no clear precepting arrangement for their provision is being proposed. Noted. Improve delivery section With specific reference to the Thetford Loops, as previously stated Natural England welcomes and supports the Thetford Loops initiative and we do not anticipate that there are nature conservation issues which cannot be overcome. Support noted. Amend policy according to HRA. Proposals for the Loops tie many strands of the TAAP together providing a strategic network of routes for recreational use as well as for utility to assist modal shift. Policy TH30 The Thetford Loops provides the relevant framework. As a starting point it should make reference to existing routes (Map19) and how it will augment and increase connectivity across the town and links to key features and destinations. Map 21 should be clear about which parts of the proposals are within the TAAP and those which are outside it. So far as the wording of the draft policy is concerned we would suggest that it is not deliverable (and is therefore not sound). It is not reasonable for the developers of the Major Development Locations (presumably the SUE) to deliver parts of the Loops proposals on land they do not own or control, or which is otherwise outside the scope of the TAAP (see comment above). This section needs to be edited. Those parts of the Loops proposal which are within the area of the SUE have been included within the draft Masterplan according to the guidelines set out in the relevant Evidence Base Report (Footnote 28.) Agree to some extent. Policy TH30 Thetford Loops - The Policy should be amended to giving priority in the first instance to those parts of the loops that provide for utility cycling. Noted. The overlap between the cycle network and the Loops needs to be addressed and could see this issue covered. Mr Stuart Wilson Thetford Society Thetford 21 Policy TH 30 Agree Support noted. No further action. Mr Stuart Wilson Thetford 21 Policy TH 30 Agree Support noted. No further action. Mrs Janet Smith Gibbons Thetford 21 Policy TH 30 Comment Cycle routes both into and around the town centre are needed. It is also necessary to provide safe cycle routes out of town, for instance to the High Lodge Forest and Centre Parcs area - currently the only way to cycle to High Lodge from Thetford involves competing with fast moving cars and lorries whilst trying to cross the dual carriageway of the A11. Thetford Loops seeks to address access to routes out of town. Proposed A11 dualling indicates a shared use path to Elvedon with grade separation near to Centre Parcs which could make things easier for cyclists. No further action. Consider how the loops fit in with the Cycling network. Suggest combining the two on the Loops map. Amend parts of section to take on board rep. Consider how the loops fit in with the Cycling network. Suggest combining the two on the Loops map. Mrs L Holmes Thetford 21 Policy TH 30 Agree I am very pleased to see the proposed safe cycling and walking loops for access to High Lodge and Croxton Forest. This can't come too soon enough! It is too expensive to park at High Lodge for a single person on a low income so will be great to be able to go there safely which I can't do at the moment and I like to exercise.2 Support noted. Government have announced a withdrawal of the proposals to No further action. Mrs Patricia Poel Thetford 21 Policy TH 30 Comment If not sold off before 2016. sell off Forests. No further action. Elveden Farms Ltd London 21 Policy TH 30 Disagree Whilst Elveden Farms Ltd support the principle of the proposed Thetford Loops, it is considered that a greater level of consultation needs to be undertaken with relevant stakeholders to determine the compatibility of the proposed loop locations with existing land uses. It is apparent from Map 4 'Proposed Thetford Loops' that part of the proposed 'Thetford Forest Loop Non - priority' runs through part of the Elveden Estate land where existing shooting activities take place. Such a route in this location is therefore clearly not compatible with this existing land use. It is therefore suggested that discussions are held between the Council and local landowners to determine a more Comments noted. There are two other preferred options to get suitable alternative route. to High Lodge. Non priority means less favoured. Explain the difference between the routes. Consider removing the non priority routes from the map. Consider adding text about engaging landowners.
This is another vague and wishy washy promise, much like previous promises. As an example of Breckland Council's failure to act on such statements I cite the case of the play area in Ramsey Close (Norwich Rd Estate) adjacent to the railway line established by way of a 106 Agreement supposedly for the benefit of estate residents. Failure to replace inadequate wire fencing around this play area with more substantial more appropriate fencing as was suggested and requested, unfortunately resulted in play equipment being vandalised. Breckland Council therefore closed the play area and has kept it closed for the past 10+ years despite the overwhelming need for such an area on the estate. Breckland Council listens to and supports its local communities. During consultation we received a number of responses The Council now intends to sell the site to a developer in order to regarding the play area at Ramsay Close in Thetford. Having raise funds to line its' coffers. The Council will not reopen the site as listened to Thetford Town Council and local residents, Breckland a play area and a counter proposal by the Norwich Road Estate Council has undertaken to write to Thetford Town Council and Residents Association, supported by Thetford Town Council, that the formally begin the process of transferring the land to the town site be used for allotments has also been summarily rejected! It is with the existing restrictive covenants in place. Breckland therefore total hypocrisy for Breckland Council to make statements Council is proud of its asset management strategy and through suggesting it will look at ways to increase provision of play areas, its Active Land Management programme all pieces of land that and find new allotment space. In all probability these two matters will the Council owns are reviewed on an ongoing basis to ensure be seen as relatively low profile issues and deemed as being of low that the Council achieves best value from its assets for all Mr P Dunnett Thetford 22 22.03 Comment priority, to be achieved as and when, sometime in the future. residents in Breckland. No further action. Linda Payne Thetford 22 Policy TH 31 Comment Mr Anthony Poulter Mr Ed Chambers Brettenham and Kilverstone Parish Council Thetford 22 Policy TH 31 Comment So should there be sports facilities or not? Thetford Town Council Norfolk 22 Policy TH 31 Comment Mr P Dunnett Thetford 22 Policy TH 31 Comment Mr Paul Leeming Carter Jonas Harrogate 22 Policy TH 31 Comment new sports facilities when the existing sports centre is underused due to high costs of participation for especially low income families? Comment noted. The Committee wonders what scope there is for the sports facilities within the existing Academy South Site complex (formerly Charles Burrell High School) - namely, the sports hall and swimming pool - to be retained, notwithstanding the presumed, intended demolition of the other structures on that site. The statements provided regarding new indoors sports facilities are weak and not worth the paper they are written on. "Proposals .... will be supported" and "The Council will consider...." are worthless and tantamount to saying "You'll be lucky to get anything!" No explanation is offered of what the new facilities "in the town centre" might be or whether they will be Council or privately run. Expansion of the Breckland Sports Centre is only to be ‘considered' - not good enough! Too easily ignored - I feel sure there will be a good financial excuse for it not happening. IF " health is at the heart of change in Thetford" (TH27 the TAAP should include a definite, firm commitment to provide new facilities and expand existing ones. To do otherwise would make a mockery of stated health claims! Furthermore, such facilities are a social / lifestyle necessity. For a town of this size (the fourth largest in Norfolk), Thetford's social, leisure and recreational facilities are currently poor and getting no better - just more expensive to use. Noted. Meeting held with Parkwood who are involved in the PFI with Breckland Council. Pass on comment to Thetford Healthy Town and BDC sports team. No further action for the TAAP. Wording of the policy and supporting text to be improved to reflect meeting and representations. If the Academy proposal for one site and to the north of the town goes ahead, the future use of the Charles Burrell School and its surrounds will indeed need investigating. The comments on potential detainment of some of its assets is noted. Pass on comments to NCC. Noted. Meeting held with Parkwood who are involved in the PFI with Breckland Council. The Policy has been refreshed to provide additional text on current provision and usage in Thetford, the wider catchment area which looks to Thetford for indoor sports and benchmarking against existing provision and likely requirements arising from the growth. The Council wishes to maintain some flexibility regarding the nature of indoor sports rather than provide prescriptive requirements which could change over the plan period. Section 22 and the associated Policy TH31 Indoor Sports Facilities suggests a rationale for a new sports court, and swimming lanes, as well as a section upon Play equipment. It is not clear why this is separated for instance from Social Infrastructure Policy TH27 Healthy Indoor sport is different to the new health section on facilities Lifestyles. Furthermore it is not set out to what extent the SUE is the and checklists, as such, will remain where is. Comment re causal factor in the additional provision and whether a contribution is causal factor noted - the Urban Extension is the causal factor required or if it is a current shortfall. and approach in the TAAP identified in the EDAW 2009 study. Wording of the policy and supporting text to be improved to reflect meeting and representations. Improve policy in light of the comment.
Page 1 and 2:
Full Name Company / Organisation Po
Page 3 and 4:
Mr Tom Gilbert- Wooldridge English
Page 5 and 6:
Mr Simon Malone Thetford 4 4.21 Com
Page 7 and 8:
Ian Poole St Edmundsbury Borough Co
Page 9 and 10:
Mrs Jenny Gladstone Norfolk Geodive
Page 11 and 12:
Tony Poulter Brettenham and Kilvers
Page 13 and 14:
Mr Paul Leeming Carter Jonas Harrog
Page 15 and 16:
Mr. neil Thetford healthy blackshaw
Page 17 and 18:
Mr A M Cox Thetford 11 Map 11.1 Com
Page 19 and 20:
Mr Anthony Poulter Mr Ed Chambers B
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Mr Stuart Wilson Thetford Society T
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Charlotte Poel Thetford 13 Policy T
Page 29 and 30:
C A Brooks Thetford 13 Policy TH 11
Page 31 and 32:
Chisman Gary Highways Agency Bedfor
Page 33 and 34:
Chisman Gary Highways Agency Bedfor
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Velda Luckhurst Thetford 13 Policy
Page 39 and 40:
E Friend Thetford 13 Policy TH 8 Ag
Page 41 and 42:
Katie Benford Planning Potential Lt
Page 43 and 44:
P Dunnett 19 Admirals Way Thetford
Page 45 and 46:
Mr Stuart Wilson Thetford 14 Policy
Page 47 and 48:
Katie Benford Katie Benford Plannin
Page 49 and 50: Mr Anthony Poulter Mr Stephen Faulk
Page 51 and 52: Mr Stuart Wilson Thetford 16 Policy
Page 53 and 54: Mr Stephen Faulkner Mr Stephen Faul
Page 55 and 56: Mr P Dunnett Thetford 16 Policy TH
Page 57 and 58: Mr. neil blackshaw Thetford healthy
Page 59 and 60: Mr Tom Gilbert- Wooldridge English
Page 61 and 62: Melinda Raker By email 18 Policy TH
Page 63 and 64: Mr John Kitson Thetford 18 Policy T
Page 67 and 68: Mr Tom Gilbert- Wooldridge English
Page 69 and 70: Mrs L Brightman Thetford 18 Policy
Page 71 and 72: Val Moore By email 18 Policy TH 21
Page 73 and 74: S Lenane Thetford Mr Anthony Lewis
Page 75 and 76: Mr Ed Chambers Thetford Town Counci
Page 77 and 78: Mr Paul Leeming Carter Jonas Harrog
Page 79 and 80: E Friend Thetford 19 Policy TH 25 D
Page 81 and 82: Mr and Mrs Baker Mr and Mrs M Moor
Page 83 and 84: Mr E Leeder Thetford 19 Policy TH 2
Page 85 and 86: Mr P King Thetford 19 Policy TH 25
Page 87 and 88: Mrs E McGuire Thetford 19 Policy TH
Page 89 and 90: Mrs L Holmes Thetford 19 Policy TH
Page 91 and 92: S Lenane Thetford 19 Policy TH 25 D
Page 95 and 96: Mr Paul Leeming Carter Jonas Harrog
Page 97 and 98: D Tricker D Tricker D Tricker D Tri
Page 99: Chisman Gary Highways Agency Bedfor
Page 103 and 104: Mrs K Turner Thetford 22 Policy TH
Page 105 and 106: Melinda Raker By email 24 Policy TH
Page 107 and 108: The WW2 pillbox at the entrance to
Page 109 and 110: Mr. neil blackshaw Mr. neil blacksh
Page 111 and 112: Mr. g Brighton Thetford 29 Policy T
Page 113 and 114: P Dunnett 19 Admirals Way Thetford
Page 115 and 116: Mr Stephen Faulkner Mr Neil Stott N
Page 117: Tony Poulter Brettenham and Kilvers
show all

NOT TO BE PRINTED_Draft Final TAAP comments duly

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?