NOT TO BE PRINTED_Draft Final TAAP comments duly

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Mr Stuart Wilson Thetford Society Thetford 12 Policy TH 4 Agree The Boudicca Site should have interpretation boards and facilities in order to attract visitors from the A11. The site should be managed so that the siting of the monument is enhanced and the integrity of Thetford's heritage is preserved. Pigeon Investment Management stated that certain residential blocks would frame and face the important Boudicca Site. This is to be applauded. We would again reiterate our concerns in TH2 as the ‘framing' houses would have an industrial unit ruining the present stunning vista. Support noted. No further action. We greatly welcome the inclusion of a policy relating to Gallows Hill Scheduled Monument and the recognition of the monument's significance. In the first paragraph, we are uncertain exactly what is meant by "soft" enhancements in the first sentence and this needs some clarification in the supporting paragraphs (or alternatively, the word ‘soft' could be omitted). Furthermore, enhancement measures could potentially do more than raise awareness of the monument and aid biodiversity. They could help to preserve the physical condition of the monument and/or improve its setting, both of which could be referenced in the first sentence of this policy. In the second sentence, reference should be made to the monument's setting, particularly as some enhancement proposals, such as tourism features (Paragraph 12.13) could harm the setting of the monument. Mr Tom Gilbert- The first paragraph of the policy could be reworded as follows: "The Local Planning Authority will support [soft] enhancements that preserve, improve the setting, raise awareness of, and aid biodiversity on, the Gallows Hill Scheduled Monument as shown on the Proposals Map. Proposals that harm the monument and its setting will not be permitted." We welcome the wording in the second paragraph regarding the production of detailed plans for the urban extension, both in terms of liaison with English Heritage and the linking of improvement plans and management regimes for the monument into a formal legal agreement. The third paragraph needs to include reference to preserving the setting of the monument with regards to adjacent residential, commercial and infrastructure development (i.e. "preserves and enhances"), given that development has the potential to harm its setting. We welcome the reference to engendering community ownership of the monument through appropriate density and orientation, which will help to provide natural surveillance and better survival of physical remains. Map 12.1 summaries some of the potential features that could be located around the scheduled monument. The provision of appropriate screening and open space is welcomed, while the provision of tourist facilities is possible depending on the precise details and location. We have concerns about the area between the monument and the A11. Whilst walking and cycling routes are likely be acceptable and could be incorporated into landscaping and green infrastructure proposals, a public bus route could be more intrusive. At one point, there is little more than 40 metres between the A11 and the north-west corner of the monument, making it very difficult to accommodate a range of infrastructure (including a wastewater pipeline as suggested in Paragraph 16.3) without encroaching onto the monument and affecting its wider setting. Alternative routes for a public bus route should be explored (such as through the existing industrial estate). The Thetford Transport Study (2010) appears to consider a route to the south of the monument, which may be more Wooldridge English Heritage Cambridge 12 Policy TH 4 Comment appropriate. Agree. Refresh policy to take into account the rep. Mrs Patricia Poel Thetford 12 Policy TH 4 Agree Especially the archaeology aspect. Support noted. No further action. Mr Ed Chambers Thetford Town Council THETFORD 12 Policy TH 5 Agree Welcomed Support noted. No further action. Mr Jon Ford Thetford 12 Policy TH 5 Comment Existing pubs are closing Noted. No further action.
Mr Paul Leeming Carter Jonas Harrogate 12 Policy TH 5 Comment Mr Stuart Wilson Thetford 12 Policy TH 5 Agree Mr Stuart Wilson Thetford Society Thetford 12 Policy TH 5 Agree Mr Tom Gilbert- Wooldridge English Heritage Cambridge 12 Policy TH 5 Agree Mrs Janet Smith Gibbons Thetford 12 Policy TH 5 Comment Mrs Patricia Poel Thetford 12 Policy TH 5 Comment Anchor Hotel should be retained. Proposals within the Masterplan include the retention of existing buildings within the SUE where they contribute to the local character of the area. It is proposed that the Blakeney Farm and Lodge Farm buildings are utilised for community/commercial uses, where this is demonstrated to be feasible. This is set out within Policy TH5 Existing Buildings in the Thetford Sustainable Urban Extension . Other cottages within the SUE are to be retained; although there appears to be an inconsistency between the wording of the policy and the Proposals Map. The Map appears to exclude several cottages at the north end of Norwich Road from the Development Limit and therefore the SUE. Noted. Settlement boundary issue. See related comment. Parts of boundary will be changed. Agree. These building could provide community facilities e.g. public house, but a viability study needs to be carried out first. These building could provide community facilities e.g. public house, Support noted. No further action. but a viability study needs to be carried out first. We welcome the identification and proposed retention of existing buildings within the urban extension area as undesignated heritage assets of local historic interest. This is consistent with PPS5, which supports the identification of heritage assets through the process of plan-making and local listing and their preservation wherever Support noted. No further action. possible. Support noted. No further action. I would like to think that existing buildings will be retained and used; however Breckland has not previously demonstrated a wish to conserve local buildings, with the debacle over the Abbey Barns and the council's reluctance to enforce owners of buildings such as St Mary's Church and the old Cosy Carpets buildings to maintain them. Comments noted. No further action. This policy refers to the area to the north of Thetford and not the town centre. See bus interchange (TH25) response. Mike Jones Contamination from flood water and surface run-off. The initial HRA notes that no adverse effect on the integrity of European sites is expected provided that Thetford's sewerage capacity is upgraded prior to development. As per our <strong>comments</strong> above on water abstraction, we recommend that the wording of the relevant <strong>TAAP</strong> policies is worded strongly to ensure that no related development can RSPB RSPB Brettenham and Norwich 12 Policy TH 6 Comment occur until the necessary sewerage infrastructure is in place. Agree. Improve section 16. Mr Anthony Kilverstone Parish Thetford Urban Extension? How will the appropriate water BDC, NCC and environment agency approval. Could be that the Poulter Council Thetford Town Thetford 12 Policy TH 6 Comment Management Plan be gauged? planning application not approved until SWMP is adequate. No further action. Mr Ed Chambers Council Norfolk 12 Policy TH 6 Agree Approved Support noted. No further action. Mr Paul Leeming Carter Jonas Harrogate 12 Policy TH 6 Comment For Policy TH6 Surface Water Management, and the subsequent justification we would question the level of duplication and consistency with Policy TH34 Water & Drainage. Disagree. Given the scale of development of the Urban extension it is felt that it warrants a SWMP and this policy. No further action. Mr Stuart Wilson Thetford 12 Policy TH 6 Agree Support noted. No further action. Mr Stuart Wilson Thetford Society Thetford 12 Policy TH 6 Agree Support noted. No further action. Mrs Patricia Poel Thetford 12 Policy TH 6 Agree Support noted. No further action. Sustrans Peterborough 13 13.01 Disagree Accommodating walking and cycling is not acceptable. The new towns accommodated walking and cycling, but they ended up bringing about reductions in walking and cycling because they gave great advantage to the private car. It is essential that the whole design of the Thetford Urban Extension encourages walking and cycling. Agree. Change wording to further emphasise the importance of walking and cycling.
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 23: Mr Stuart Wilson Thetford Society T
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 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 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 61 and 62: Melinda Raker By email 18 Policy TH
Page 63 and 64: Mr John Kitson Thetford 18 Policy T
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 93 and 94:
Mr Stuart Wilson Thetford 19 Policy
Page 95 and 96:
Mr Paul Leeming Carter Jonas Harrog
Page 97 and 98:
D Tricker D Tricker D Tricker D Tri
Page 99 and 100:
Chisman Gary Highways Agency Bedfor
Page 101 and 102:
This is another vague and wishy was
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?