Consultation on Proposed
Cromer Sports Pitch Facility
Responses to Public Consultation
23 March - 17 April 2015
Report of Representations
Consultation on Proposed Cromer Sports Pitch Facility
A consultation on potential locations for the development of a new sports pitch facility for Cromer was published for public consultation from 23
March to 17 April 2015 in order to consider any comments from the community. A total of 154 representations were received during this period,
including 1 petition document with 46 signatories (appended to this document). 1 comment was considered to be ‘inadmissible’ and not duly
made, and 1 comment was a duplication.
This document is a complete report of all duly made representations, as received. Please note that no alterations have been made in
relation to spelling or grammar.
The tables in this document display the content of each representation, showing the representation number and the name of the person or
organisation making the comment.
Respondents were given the opportunity to rank their preference of the four potential sites. Of those who opted to select a preference, 93%
(122 respondents) selected Site 3 as their preferred location for a sports pitch facility.
Page 2 of 70
Planning Policy Team
North Norfolk District Council,
Holt Road, Cromer, NR27 9EN
01263 516318
planningpolicy@north-norfolk.gov.uk
www.northnorfolk.org
All documents can be made available in
Braille, audio, large print or in other languages.
Please contact 01263 516318 to discuss your requirements.
Report of Representations
Consultation on Proposed Cromer Sports Pitch Facility
Comment
ID
Name
CS1
Mr S Self
Organisation
Comments
Site 1
1. Out of town which will mean most people would need to use vehicles to reach them
and therefore more road traffic. 2. Roughton Road would require upgrading to handle
the additional traffic. This means additional costs. 3. The road junctions with the B1436
have questionable safety. These junctions would require improvements to make them
safer. This means additional costs. 4. Carr Lane is narrow but would be used to access the
site. This road also has a riding stables on it who use both Carr Lane and Roughton Road.
To improve safety, Carr Lane will need widening and the junctions with the A149 and
Roughton Road improved. This means additional costs. 5. Roughton Road up to the site
must be provided with pavements and street lighting to improve safety. This means
additional costs.
Preferred
Site
Site 3
Site 2
1. Out of town which will mean most people would need to use vehicles to reach them
and therefore more road traffic. 2. Roughton Road would require upgrading to handle
the additional traffic. This means additional costs. 3. The road junctions with the B1436
have questionable safety. These junctions would require improvements to make them
safer. This means additional costs. 4. Carr Lane is narrow but would be used to access the
site. This road also has a riding stables on it who use both Carr Lane and Roughton Road.
To improve safety, Carr Lane will need widening and the junctions with the A149 and
Roughton Road improved. This means additional costs. 5. Roughton Road up to the site
must be provided with pavements and street lighting to improve safety. This means
additional costs.
Page 3 of 70
Comment
ID
Name
Organisation
Comments
Preferred
Site
Site 3
1. Nearest to the town making it easiest to access. This means people are more likely to
walk or cycle to it. 2. Only one with direct access from a major road. 3. Can be accessed
via existing pavements. 4. Already has street lighting. 5. Actually in Cromer while the
others are not.
Site 4
1. Out of town which will mean most people would need to use vehicles to reach them
and therefore more road traffic. 2. The Avenue is narrow would require upgrading to
handle the additional traffic. This means additional costs. 3. The junction with the A149
has questionable safety and would require improvements. This means additional costs. 4.
The Avenue up to the site must be provided with pavements and street lighting to
improve safety. This means additional costs.
General Comments
The only suitable option is: "Site 3 - Former Golf Practice Ground, Overstrand Road"
Whichever site is selected should have all parking onsite and parking restrictions should
be enforced on the access roads. Sites 1,2 and 4 all require additional infrastructure. The
Council Tax payers should not cover these additional costs.
CS2
Mrs Janet Goddard
Site 1
As if it isn't bad enough that over 140 dwellings are being built in Roughton Road already causing congestion before it's built and undoubtedly making the area so much
more built up! It's absurd! This will make the area even more built up and noisy.
Roughton Road could not cope with the extra traffic. I am 100% against this happening in
Roughton Road whether to the east or to the west.
Site 3
Site 2
As above
Site 3
At least this road would be able to take the extra traffic.
Page 4 of 70
Comment
ID
Name
Organisation
Comments
Preferred
Site
Site 4
As above
CS3
Mr David Masters
CS4
Mr Duane Wright
Site 3
Living near this site, it is a shame how the present land owner has tried to destroy it to
force the lands development. It forms part of the green belt of Cromer and attracts much
wildlife. Deer are an ever present feature on the site. The main concern would be with
noise and flood lighting to the properties in the area
Site 1
Hi i would like to object to the proposed building of the sports utility in this area as i think
the noise and powerful floodlights will impact on the surrounding area. We are at the
back of Compit hills and the land around us is designated ( Place of outstanding natural
beauty ) at the moment we have a wide variety of owls and other nocturnal birds here
and i am concerned the lighting and noise will interfere with their natural body clocks. At
the moment when darkness falls there is no light pollution at all and with the sports
facilities lighting and interrupting noise i think it would be a travesty to sight it here many
thanks
Site 4
Site 4
Site 2
As above
CS5
Mr Denis Connelly
Site 1
This site should not be considered for all of these stated reasons. This is called "Cromer
Community Sports Pitch Facility" and as such should be located within the Cromer Parish
and not offloaded into other Parish's. Sites 1 & 2 are both located to far away from the
schools and multiple bus routes which will make it difficult and possibly dangerous for
youngsters trying to get to the location especially if they are on their own. I am a Football
Coach and have been a Sports Teacher in schools around London and as such am fully
aware of how the chosen site needs to be easily and safely accessible to the young. As a
Football Coach I am also aware of how strong and frequent the winds are across sites 1 &
2 . Wind can be the biggest destroyer of what should be an enjoyable game, and it will
Site 3
Page 5 of 70
Comment
ID
Name
Organisation
Comments
Preferred
Site
definitely spoil it here. Sites 1 & 2 are also in countryside locations, and are fully visible to
the residents and holidaymakers that come to this area to enjoy the tranquillity and
beauty of the countryside. This will be completely destroyed if sites 1 or 2 are chosen.
Especially so with site 2 as this can be seen from miles away in all directions. I and
everyone that I have spoken to in Metton Road and Felbrigg object to this facility being
built on sites 1 & 2. Site 3 which is in Cromer and was a public facility previously has to be
the chosen location. It is close to more transport links, schools, hospitals and the safety
of more populated travel to and from the facility for youngsters. It is also in a location
sheltered from the elements. It is not visible from a distance and will have little impact
on the beautiful countryside that people come to see. Site 4 must be seen as the next
choice for similar reasons, plus it already has the Karttrak facility next door. I hope
common sense prevails and the correct choice is made.
Site 2
As above
Site 3
I see this as being what should be the 1st choice. It's in Cromer. Has no views to be spoilt.
Accessible with public transport and in a sheltered location [Comments reiterated as per
Site 1]
Site 4
I see this as being the 2nd choice. It's almost in Cromer. Has no views to be spoilt.
Accessible with public transport and also in a sheltered location. [Comments reiterated
as per Site 1]
General Comments
People come to Norfolk to enjoy the beautiful rural views. This treasure should be
preserved by the planners as it is the biggest industry along with agriculture in Norfolk.
Building football grounds and pitches in open countryside will be a blight on this and
destroy what we should be safeguarding. This is Cromer Community Sports Facility, and
should be kept in Cromer.
Page 6 of 70
Organisation
Comments
Preferred
Site
Comment
ID
Name
CS6
Mr Charlie Maguire
Site 3
Site 4
I live in Northrepps Rd, opposite the proposed site . While I have no problem with the
land opposite being developed as a sports centre, I do have some reservations. At the
moment Northrepps rd is a peaceful area full of wildlife, will it still be like that if
developed ? There will be traffic , noise from the field , possibly floodlights and our peace
shattered day and night . I would like to know where proposed changing rooms and car
park etc are going to be . What, if any , restrictions of use will there be , times of use and
will there be a clubhouse and where will it be . Where will the entrance be ? Will there be
a natural barrier between the houses and the sports field , i.e treeplanting as a barrier .
there are mature trees on this site along Northrepps rd , will these be preserved . ?? I
think all questions that need to be answered before any plans are made .
CS7
Mr Alistair Smith
Site 4
Site 3
It is hard to understand why The Avenue is being considered for this development as
access to and exit from The Avenue is extremely limited and the environmental effects
would be devastating to fauna and flora. Entry to the site via the A140 and Christophers
Close starts with a 60 metre stretch of two lane road that reduces to a single lane over a
narrow bridge and remains a single lane for the rest of its length. Exiting the bridge leads
to a blind right hand bend that needs approaching with great care. At the moment the
main traffic using the road is bound for the Kartrack and congestion is limited to their
peak usage times. Unfortunately most individuals travel to venues by car and groups such
as visiting teams travel by coach. A community centre with multiple pitches for football,
hockey, athletics etc would require a high attendance to make it financially feasible. A
small increase in traffic to The Avenue will result in gridlock. Exit from The Avenue and
Christophers Close on to the A140 during non peak times is reasonable but at peak times
and holiday periods is difficult and requires consideration from A140 traffic. Add coaches,
service vehicles and the odd ambulance to an increased number of cars and the result
will be the need for infrastructure changes such as building a new bridge changing the
single lane to dual lane road and building a roundabout at the A140 to make the junction
safe. Ignoring access would be an act of negligence. Currently The Avenue is lined by
hedgerow and then a band of uncultivated land full of wild flowers and insects. The
morning chorus in spring is more uplifting than a concert at The Royal Albert hall and well
worth a visit. The variety of birdlife during the year is exceptional. Apart from the more
Page 7 of 70
Comment
ID
Name
Organisation
Comments
Preferred
Site
common sparrows, finches, tits and spotted woodpeckers I have also seen the occasional
hen harrier. Tawny owls can also be heard at night. During the summer many parents
with young children walk along The Avenue collecting blackberries or just for the
pleasure of the environment. All this will be lost if the land is converted into manicured
sports pitches, tarmac areas and permanent buildings. Surely the best option of the four
considered sites would be the one already designated for sport in Cromer. Whilst it
would require levelling, this must be far cheaper than the structural alterations to roads,
access and junctions required for this proposal, not to mention the potential congestion
during the tourist season in gaining access to and from the A140, coupled with this is the
now extended hours, seven days a week of the Kartrack also attracting increased traffic.
CS8
Mr Barry Meadows
Site 1
Too far out of Cromer.
Site 3
Site 2
Too far out of Cromer.
Site 3
Favoured
Site 4
Not Suitable
General Comments
Comments relate to IF change is made and in no way assumes agreement to the plans
CS9
Mrs Margaret Woodrow
Site 1
Land situated behind my property. My difficulties with this site would be access, increase
in traffic. We are already experiencing increase in traffic due to development on
Roughton road, and houses are not inhabited yet.
Site 3
Site 2
Similar comments to Site 1
Page 8 of 70
Comment
ID
Name
Organisation
Comments
Preferred
Site
Site 3
Would be my site of choice. Site is an eyesore on entering Cromer. Situated in more
easily accessible position. Would form part of sports area with Golf club nearby. Youth
facilities, Sea scouts, Guides, Brownies in vicinity. Walking distance from Town and
Suffield Park. Would not interfere with agricultural land.
Site 4
To far out of town. Not central for town population.
General Comments
Very much in favour of development of Sports facilities for town and young people. No
personal axe to grind about Roughton Road site in relation to my personal property,
however I think that there are issues about traffic increase and access relating to both
Roughton Road sites.
CS10
Mrs Margaret Newton
Site 1
This site is farthest removed from main area of population and inappropriately set in a
productive area of farm-land.
Site 3
Site 2
An even less appropriate site, if any could be contemplated.
Site 3
I should have thought that this location would commend itself - proximity to the town
and an opportunity for the designer/architect to create an attractive landmark.
CS11
Mr Reid
Site 1
As my garden backs onto one of the boundaries of this proposed site, I would be very
concerned about the possibility of having sporting activities being carried out so close to
my home. The noise, aggression, bad behaviour and bad language that is sometimes
associated with sport, could change what is now a reasonably tranquil existence into a
nightmare. Should this site be chosen, it may mean that I do not wish to continue living in
Page 9 of 70
Comment
ID
Name
Organisation
Comments
Preferred
Site
the area. Should this be the case, and I feel pressured into selling my property and
moving on, believe me, I would not be very happy. Sport is an excellent thing, and I am all
for people having proper facilities and the freedom to engage in their favourite sporting
activities, but not so close to my garden fence thank you very much. Please respect my
right to privacy and reasonable peace and quiet, and I will respect the sporting
community. I appreciate that at this stage no decision has been made as to which site will
ultimately be used. I quite understand that this site is only one out of a possible four.
However, some of the other sites are not so obviously adjacent to residential properties,
and therefore not so invasive and intrusive. I believe that I have made my views quite
clear, so I won't say any more at this stage.
CS12
Mr Richard Cox
Club Secretary,
Cromer Town
Football Club
Site 1
There is currently no access at all, whether by foot or vehicle, to the site in question. No
pavements. Not in Cromer!
Site 3
Site 2
Again no pavements and not in Cromer. Also currently has power cables running across it
which would require considerable additional expenditure if they were to be moved, and
surely that money would be better spent on the facility itself.
Site 3
Actually in Cromer! Definitely has the best access possibilities of all the sites as it is on a
main road and also accessible by the current pavements in place.
Site 4
Another not in Cromer. No pavements for access. Very narrow road and would question
the capability of being able to cope with the volumes of traffic there would be. Given the
additional vehicular use the lack of walkways would be a certain safety issue, and there is
no scope to add pavements along road, unless a considerable amount of hedgerow was
to be cleared.
General Comments
I believe accessibility and safety are two very important factors. Wherever the new
Page 10 of 70
Comment
ID
Name
Organisation
Comments
Preferred
Site
facility is developed it will see a considerable increase in road use in that area. Site 3 is on
a main road so is surely naturally more prepared for this. Also site 3 is the only site that
offers safer routes for those walking to the site, and is the only site with any footpaths
and street lighting. 1, 2 and 4 have no footpaths or lighting. All of these sites will require
a considerable overhaul to make them suitable for multiple sports pitches as they will all
require some form of levelling out and ground cleared of any stones, etc. so I don't feel
there is any site that has an advantage when this is considered. As someone who has
been involved in local football for many years I feel it is also very important that any
facility is built in Cromer, as any Cromer teams should really be playing their football, or
whatever the sport may be, within the Cromer boundary. Yes Cromer Youth have played
in multiple venues over the years but there is an opportunity for them to have a home in
the town. I believe site 3 just generally has more pro's than any of the others.
CS13
Mrs Gillian Racher
Site 1
Roughton Road continues as Old Mill Road towards B1436. After the changes were made
in Cromer for a one-way system the whole stretch of road has become increasingly busy
with speeding cars and HGV's as well as being a bus route. The Old Mill Road end has
several bends and the entire stretch into Cromer is quite narrow. We are not within the
Cromer area but i do feel residents in Old Mill Road are going to be considerably affected
by extra traffic if either of the proposed sites are agreed upon. I feel information leaflets
regarding the proposals should have been provided to ALL residents along Roughton
Road / Old Mill Road and trust this action will be considered / implemented.
Site 2
As above.
CS14
Mrs Fiona Everson
Site 1
One problem I see here is that this area is already suffering from congestion due to the
new housing development which is not yet completed. When the work is finished there
will be over 140 new properties, most with either one, two, or possibly more vehicles
from each property using this road. This leads to further congestion which traffic using
the sports facility will only add too. Obviously this extra traffic impacts upon the safety of
the area too. Another point for consideration is there are no pavements or streetlights
Site 3
Page 11 of 70
Comment
ID
Name
Organisation
Comments
Preferred
Site
leading to the proposed sites which would make it difficult, and potentially dangerous,
especially for children and the less able.
Site 2
As for site 1.
Site 3
I think that this would be far be the best site. Firstly, it is the only site actually in Cromer
and was also the only site which was previously used for sport purposes. There is good
access to this ground with pavements leading from Cromer itself, and also Overstrand, so
there would be no extra cost involved in putting these in place. There are bus stops close
by which will allow access for those not wishing to use their car or those without
transport. Street lighting is already in place. This site is more visible to passing traffic
which would possibly attract interest in the facility and the clubs which use it. Sports
clubs need money to survive and being able to be seen and therefore attract interest
could only be beneficial.
Site 4
This, like Site 1 and Site 2, sits outside the Cromer parish and I feel it would be a shame
to have Cromer Community Sports Pitch situated outside of Cromer. The main issue with
this site, however, is the access, part of which is single track. It is not a good road to drive
along as it is, let alone without extra traffic. Road improvements would need to be made
at extra cost as it is too dangerous as it is. This is a rural location and unlikely to attract
passing traffic so good signage would be needed from roads which link to the site. There
are no pavements to this site, again restricting access.
CS15
Mr Ashley Everson
Site 1
Too far out of the town and too much work required.
Site 3
Site 2
As above.
Site 3
Page 12 of 70
Comment
ID
Name
Organisation
Comments
Preferred
Site
The obvious choice as it has easy access by car and by foot as there are pavements along
the side of the site with street lights. It has previously been used as a sports facility and
done correctly could secure the future of youth and senior football in the town.
Site 4
With the single road this makes access dangerous, especially for those who want to walk
to the ground at night time as the senior team do play some games in the evening. The
road cannot be widened as part of it goes over a rail bridge and the cost involved could
be too high and swallow up any money that Cabbell Park will generate for it.
General Comments
As a supporter of Cromer Town FC, site 3 would be my preferred location for a new
sports complex. If the facilities are in line with the current FA regulations the town could
have a sports facility to be proud of.
CS16
Mrs Tracey Khalil
Site 1
This site is land locked it has no obvious access that would be suitable for the volume of
traffic to and from the sports use and other fund raising activities that would be required,
from either Roughton Road or Metton Road. It is directly backed by residents properties
on Roughton Road, Holway Close, Compit Hill and some on Metton Road. As a new multi
use site, there will be sports activity most day/evenings of the week and fund raising at
other times and this will need to be floodlit. The football club hosts Bingo evenings, car
boot sales, annual firework display, is available for parties and other functions - all of
which I presume will need to be continued and increased to help pay for the facilities.
Floodlighting a rural area of countryside which has an abundance of natural wildlife and
many residential properties close by would not be acceptable in any other context. The
assumption is access will be from Roughton Road and this will increase significantly for
the new facilities. Roughton Road will be seeing an increase of traffic from the new
housing development, Park View, which will add to the strain on the junctions with
Norwich Road to the north and Felbrigg Road to the south. This development along with
the Zoo traffic which did not allow, under its planning permission, vehicles to exit onto
Roughton Road and turn right and out of town through Roughton Village. Highways
stated that increasing the traffic on Roughton Road for the Zoo, once working at its
Site 3
Page 13 of 70
Comment
ID
Name
Organisation
Comments
Preferred
Site
expected capacity would increase the road use by 300 vehicles a day the maximum for
permitted development on Roughton Road. SINCE then the housing development has
been granted permission with no significant improvements in the road, its blind spots or
junctions, therefore one can only assume that Roughton Road has exceeded its safe
vehicle movement capacity. The road has no pavements beyond Compit Hills, Street
lighting is very poor from Brownshill to Compit Hills and there is none beyond. All of this
would need installing and maintaining at whose cost. This site is not suitable for the
future development of the club it will be constrained by its location and the proximity of
properties and poor road access.
Site 2
This site will effect less residences from its immediate location however it will be heard
and seen by a wide area. The assumption is access will be from Roughton Road and this
will increase significantly for the new facilities. Roughton Road will be seeing an increase
of traffic from the new housing development, Park View, which will add to the strain on
the junctions with Norwich Road to the north and Felbrigg Road to the south. This
development along with the Zoo traffic which did not allow, under its planning
permission, vehicles to exit onto Roughton Road and turn right and out of town through
Roughton Village. Highways stated that increasing the traffic on Roughton Road for the
Zoo, once working at its expected capacity would increase the road use by 300 vehicles a
day the maximum for permitted development on Roughton Road. SINCE then the
housing development has been granted permission with no significant improvements in
the road, its blind spots or junctions, therefore one can only assume that Roughton Road
has exceeded its safe vehicle movement capacity. There road has no pavements beyond
Compit Hills, Street lighting is very poor from Brownshill to Compit Hills and there is none
beyond. All of this would need installing and maintaining at whose cost. This site is in
open countryside, it is a very windy area and would need significant landscaping, robust
solid fencing and the use of Roughton Road would be significantly increased.
Floodlighting would effect the rural feel and wildlife in the area.
Site 3
Having been used for sport activities in the past the site has been abused by its owner to
deliberately try and work the system. Having said that it the most accessible by
Page 14 of 70
Comment
ID
Name
Organisation
Comments
Preferred
Site
pedestrians and vehicles. Floodlighting has the potential to effect some residential
properties along the Northrepps Road and this would be an area of concern. Perhaps this
should be the new doctors practice and surgery and the football stays where it is?
Otherwise this is the only accessible site of those included in this consultation.
Site 4
Well placed for the development of a sports facility alongside Kart-track. It is a way out of
town and would therefore be less accessible for pedestrians leading to greater car use
and that would be a problem as its access through the new housing development at the
entrance of The Avenues onto Norwich Road which is not ideal and has sight issues. The
Avenues itself is not really suitable for an increase in traffic it is barely wide enough for a
car in places and this would have to be significantly improved to make this site viable.
This site has more potential for future development and expansion and less of an impact
on residential neighbours. If access was not such an issue this might be a good location.
CS17
Miss Karen Rose
Site 1
The site is currently in agricultural use. Public access to the site will be difficult with no
public pathways available along Roughton Road beyond Compit Hills. It is located some
distance from Cromer Town Centre, it is not a sustainable or financially viable location for
such a proposal.
Site 3
Site 2
The site is currently in active agricultural use. Public access to the site will be difficult
with no public pathways available along Roughton Road and into the Holway beyond
Compit Hills. It is located some distance from Cromer Town Centre, it is not a sustainable
or financially viable location for such a proposal.
Site 3
This site is the closest to Cromer and has been in an abondoned state for many years. It
would be beneficial to locate the proposal here tidying up a scruffy site along the main
coastal route. Public access is feasible without too much additional expense, really the
only viable sustainable option put forward in this consultation.
Page 15 of 70
Comment
ID
Name
Organisation
Comments
Preferred
Site
Site 4
This site is currently in agricultural use. Public Access is less of an issue however it is
located some distance from Cromer Town Centre, although close to the A140 it is not
such a sustainable or financially viable location as site 3.
General Comments
Site 3 relates to the town, it is opposite Cromer Golf Club and is located on the main
coast road. However this is not the only sustainable location which could be considered
and have not been put forward as an option in this consultation. Fields opposite the
Runton Road Car Park next to Clifton Park currently used to graze a few cattle should also
be considered as it is located in close proximity to a large public car park, therefore the
provision of parking facilties would be less of a consideration. Fields off Hall Road,
between the Meadow Car Park and Cromer Zoo should also be considered as these are
currently accessible via public footpaths along Hall Road from the Meadow Car Park.
CS18
Mr Paul Jarvis
Chairman,
Cromer Town
Football Club
Site 1
Inaccessible, poor road conditions.
Site 3
Site 2
Inaccessible, poor road conditions, no pavements, overhead power cables.
Site 3
The clear choice of the Cromer Town Football Club, its proximity to their existing ground
is an advantage. It is the only site that is within Cromer Parish. It is easily accessible by
road or on foot as there are existing pavements and street lighting. Due to it's location
near to a residential area it is likely to be more secure. The land is already designated for
sports use, all other shortlisted areas are currently in use as agricultural land.
Site 4
Poor road conditions which would be very difficult and expensive to improve.
General Comments
Page 16 of 70
Comment
ID
Name
Organisation
Comments
Preferred
Site
The only site that we consider to be suitable is Site 3, all others fall outside the Cromer
Parish and do not provide safe access without extensive road improvement works which
would greatly increase the cost of those developments
CS19
Mr Roy MacDonald
Site 1
This site is, as mentioned, in the Parish of Roughton, where I am a resident (near to
proposed site) and Parish Councillor. I strongly object to this site due to 1) lack of safe
access (no pavement or streetlights on access). 2) Road already suffers from too much
unsuitable and speeding traffic (reflected in community speedwatch results). 3)
Objections from high percentage of neighbouring residents, when I recently went round
parishioners doors about another matter this was a major concern brought up with me.
Site 3
Site 2
As above.
Site 3
Most suitable
Site 4
Unknown to me.
General Comments
I strongly object to the Roughton sites as local resident and as a Parish Councillor
representing the area in area 1 & 2
CS20
Mrs Elizabeth Bartman
Site 3
My personal opinion is that site 3, the former Cromer golf practice ground would be
much more central, and I believe already has planning permission for a sports facilities.
Site 3
General Comments
I feel compelled to write to and voice my opinion on the above proposal. The two sites
off the Roughton Road are both totally unsuitable for such a facility as this. We are
already going to have much increased traffic from the housing estate being built down
Page 17 of 70
Comment
ID
Name
Organisation
Comments
Preferred
Site
the road, on a road that is not wide enough now and would certainly not accommodate
numerous large coaches and associated traffic to these sites. Old Mill Road is not wide
enough now for two vehicles to pass. There would be a considerable amount of noise
from games and spectators, and flood lighting would be an issue, both for site 1, because
of the nearby houses, and site 2, because it would stand out like a sore thumb in the
middle of the country!
CS21
Mrs Christine Jones
General Comments
I am totally against this project being anywhere near ROUGHTON ROAD. We have so
many problems along here as it is, there are speeding vehicles, no footpath to get off the
road and no street lighting, people walk their dogs along this road and holiday makers
from the holiday homes also walk here. There is an accident waiting to happen already,
so why make it more dangerous? This road is already used as a rat run and it is going to
get worse when the new housing estate is occupied. From a quiet rural place to live this
area is turning into a mini town, I for one intend to move if this project goes ahead. The
house prices will fall too so where does that leave us all?
CS22
Ms Barbara Gibson
Site 1
We make our comments based on the NNDC introduction to this proposal, in particular
the relationship with the town, landscape impact, ground condition/levels, relationship
with adjoining land users and accessibility. The first obvious comment is that this piece of
land is in the parish of Roughton and not Cromer, making the relationship with Cromer
more tenuous. If high-level floodlighting is used this would surely be visible and thereby
impact on the landscape and also residents when in use. The site is surrounded by
agricultural land and is immediately adjacent to a residential area, thus leading to
accessibility issues. Roughton Road is situated in a semi rural/rural area and is used by
walkers/dog walkers, cyclists and horse riders(frequently groups of riders). A higher
volume of motor vehicles taking full advantage of the less restricted speed limit would
seriously impact on the safety of these other users. The location in relation to the railway
station is of little consequence because not all trains stop at Roughton Road, but they do
all stop at Cromer. The bus service is infrequent, and doesn't operate at all on Sunday. In
reality few of the users will use public transport resulting in a considerable increase in
motor vehicles and presumably coaches, on a stretch of road that is, in parts, narrow
Page 18 of 70
Comment
ID
Name
Organisation
Comments
Preferred
Site
enough to cause current users to pull over to let existing service buses and other vehicles
pass. The NNDC document mentions a 'club house' as part of the development. This
suggests a licensed premesis which will presumably be used for functions and social
events ( late night?) to generate funds for the football club. Located so close to a
residential area could lead to unacceptable noise-nuisance, particularly late at night. In
conclusion, we do not believe this is an acceptable location for a community sports pitch
facility.
Site 2
We make our comments based on the NNDC introduction to this proposal, in particular
the relationship with the town, landscape impact, ground condition/levels, relationship
with adjoining land users and accessibility. The first obvious comment is that this piece of
land is in the parish of Roughton and not Cromer, making the relationship with Cromer
more tenuous. If high-level floodlighting is used this would surely be visible and thereby
impact on the landscape and also residents when in use. The site is surrounded by
agricultural land and is close to a residential area. There are accessibility issues, including
the already identified lack of footways and lack of street lighting. Roughton Road is
situated in a semi rural/rural area and is used by walkers/dog walkers, cyclists and horse
riders(frequently groups of riders). A higher volume of motor vehicles taking full
advantage of the less restricted speed limit would seriously impact on the safety of these
other users. The location in relation to the railway station is of little consequence
because not all trains stop at Roughton Road, but they do all stop at Cromer. The bus
service is infrequent, and doesn't operate at all on Sunday. In reality few of the users will
use public transport resulting in a considerable increase in motor vehicles and
presumably coaches, on a stretch of road that is, in parts, narrow enough to cause
current users to pull over to let existing service buses and other vehicles pass. The NNDC
document mentions a 'club house' as part of the development. This suggests a licensed
premesis which will presumably be used for functions and social events ( late night?) to
generate funds for the football club. Located so close to a residential area could lead to
unacceptable noise-nuisance, particularly late at night. In conclusion, we do not believe
this is an acceptable location for a community sports pitch facility.
Site 3
Page 19 of 70
Comment
ID
Name
Organisation
Comments
Preferred
Site
The former golf practice ground is in the parish of Cromer. Closer to the town centre and
better served by public transport. The ground is adjacent to an existing sports facility,
and is located on a road capable of taking a higher volume of motor vehicles. There are
existing footways and street lighting. Ground works will be required on all sites, so a
sloping site should not be a barrier to development. The site does appear to be adjacent
to a residential area, and there may be concerns regarding light pollution from
floodlighting, and noise-nuisance from a club house, particularly late at night.
Site 4
We are not sufficiently familiar with this piece of land to comment.
General Comments
We feel unable to express a preference for any of the sites suggested.
CS23
Mrs Jane Haresign
Site 1
Too far out of town. Most impact on existing residents.
Site 3
Site 2
As above.
Site 3
Would appear to be the most sensible site. More central, accessible and with existing
pathways.
Site 4
Too far outside of the town which would not help with the club's identity. Site would
take a lot of development to make suitable.
CS24
Mrs Carole Cobb
General Comments
I am a resident of Cromer Road, Roughton and believe that Sites 1,2 and 4 have no merit.
Site 3, which is the preferred site of the football club, and already has previous sporting
use, would seem to be the obvious choice. There is reasonable road access, and this
development would cause less upheaval to residents. Also, it is the only site within
Site 3
Page 20 of 70
Comment
ID
Name
Organisation
Comments
Preferred
Site
Cromer. All the other sites have access problems, which should remain as rural roads.
How long would it be before the site chosen is used for events, entailing late night traffic,
lighting etc. Agricultural land should not even be considered for this facility, When the
surgery is demolished, would that site not be large enough for the youth sporting facility?
Football and hockey are winter games, could they not share a portion of the cricket pitch
which is unused over the winter period, with parking on the old surgery site? I would
prefer my children to be within the town, not waiting for a bus home from Roughton or
Northrepps.
CS25
Mr R F Moreton
Moreton
Site 1
Road access not suitable, already the road is almost a "rat run" and that's before the new
housing estate lower down the road is occupied. More farming land lost. Far too exposed
an area plus the re routing of the electricity poles and cables will push the price way up.
Finally too far out of Cromer making for more vehicles on Roughton Rd.
Site 3
Site 2
As with site 1.
Site 3
Well suited as has already been used for sports facilities, nearer to Cromer plus better
road access.
Site 4
Yet again too far out of town.
CS26
Dr Peter NICHOLS
Site 1
Roughton Road is a country lane and as such is very narrow, it is impossible for two
vehicles to pass properly, it is a totally unsuitable road for the servicing of such a
development. There are no pavements and as such all access will have to be by vehicle
which is against the spirit of the aims of sport UK which is to get everyone active. To
develop a site that no one can walk too is a ridiculous concept. The proposed site is also
too far out of Cromer. Roughton Road is unsuitable to sustain the current new housing
development, it should have been part of the planning consents for Norfolk Homes to
Site 3
Page 21 of 70
Comment
ID
Name
Organisation
Comments
Preferred
Site
have to widen the road and straighten it. Access onto Norwich Road is also sometime
difficult.
Site 2
This site is even further outside of Cromer and has the same issues as site 1.
Site 3
This site is probably the most suitable as regards to access both vehicular and pedestrian.
It is within the town boundary, with wide roads and public footpaths. Furthermore it has
all of the infrastructure that is required and would probably be cheaper to develop. It is
obvious to any thinking person that has not got a vested interest in any of the sites that
this site is the most suitable.
Site 4
I suppose this site would be more or less suitable but it is still too far out and access will
be difficult.
General Comments
It is typical for NNDC to consult over a holiday period and make it virtually impossible for
anyone without internet connection to comment. Why have we not be contacted by our
local councillors on this.
CS27
Mr Dave Wilcox
Site 1
Green belt farmland - LEAVE IT ALONE
Site 3
Site 2
Green belt farmland - LEAVE IT ALONE
Site 3
This piece of land is an eye sore and needs something doing with it. Someone has stated
it already has planning permission surely this is the prime spot and is close to other
sporting facilities.
Page 22 of 70
Comment
ID
Name
Organisation
Comments
Preferred
Site
Site 4
Green belt farmland - LEAVE IT ALONE
General Comments
Why is it always the easy option to build on 'Green Belt'. You only have to look around
the North Norfolk area to see housing estates and the like shooting up everywhere on
green belt land whilst there is adequate opportunity to build on brown land. Why are
these options not taken up on a priority basis first? We cannot keep on hacking into our
farmland. Many people have already made comment on the infrastructure needed to
place estates and complexes, none of these seem to be taken into account when
planning for the future. Do you not feel it is time for planners to earn their name and
their salaries and start planning? A prime example is the new estate on Roughton Road
by the Zoo, others have mentioned safety quite rightly as a paramount concern but
surely anyone can see if you add this many more houses you need to improve the
facilities that feed them and the rest of the locale to maintain quality and standards as
they are. We are always getting power cuts for whatever reason, more demand can only
aggravate this, water supplies are nearly always on low pressure, new demand can only
aggravate this, broadband is slow due to number of users and distances from exchanges,
more users will only compound this, and the list goes on and on, the roads cannot cater
safely for the traffic flows, the local Medical systems are already inundated and we
continue to entice people into the area. When they get here they have little or no
prospect for employment. Everyone else can see the short comings of expansion but not
those that permit it, it seems. From the four options only the Cromer Road site has a
suitable feed road, the others are lanes or do you plan on doing major road
improvements so you can facilitate your selections? Stand up and say enough is enough
we have no more room for development.
CS28
MS ELAINE GIBBS
Site 1
It’s not even in Cromer but in Roughton Parish and yet the original football field was in
commemoration of Cromer War I dead ...100 years later that doesn't matter ???? Says
who ????? This site backs on to private dwellings to the rear and to the site no one will
want to live there in future ! Traffic,noise Floodlights ??? o Joy !! . It is a totally green
field site what a waste of good agricultural land ! I recommend someone on the council
Site 3
Page 23 of 70
Comment
ID
Name
Organisation
Comments
Preferred
Site
or a deputy tries exiting Cromer by the Roughton Road and negotiating the blind, narrow
and extremely difficult turn at the Old Mill in the height of summer traffic. The site is too
far out of town to walk to.
Site 2
As above. I think there may well be problems with the various power lines over and
underground. No consideration for the impact on the environment or Roughton Parish.
Site 3
This is a section of land actually in Cromer, within easy walking distance of town. The
Land has been derelict for years, nothing will be lost by putting this to good use for the
benefit of the local people. I believe concerns have already been raised due to the cost of
preparing/levelling the site ? Well now a simple alternative football field and club house
is being trumpetted as a new 'SPORTS HUB' presumably adequate funding will be forth
coming for this 'Prestige Venture' IT iS SURELY BY FAR THE BEST SITE FOR ACCESS AND
LAND USE. the road links are good much better than Roughton Road where access
roads/tracks will need to be set up.
Site 4
Again its not Cromer is it? Apparently the idea that local adjoining parishes will simple
agree to the imposition is assumed again.
General Comments
I hope that whichever site is decided on that those who will benefit financially from the
new sports development, sorry HUB and the reuse of the Cabbell park land will 'pay up
and look big' when it comes to financing the new venture and that none of the work
involves those doing the building work on the PARK VIEW site next to the zoo. Such
outstanding rubbish being cobbled together there.... just walk down and admire the
colouful random mosaic brick work as they scour the county for odd job lots of left over
bricks. There is growing local resistance to both of the Roughton Road sites which will
continue to mount even though not all of those affected can access this internet based
consultation.
Page 24 of 70
Comment
ID
Name
CS30
Mr David Bailey
Organisation
Comments
Site 1
I don't think this site is suitable due to the poor access by narrow road and no pavement
for pedestrians. Also the site is not in Cromer.
Preferred
Site
Site 3
Site 2
The same reasons as my comments on site 1
Site 3
This site seems like the obvious choice as there is better access by car or pedestrians and
it is also in Cromer.
Site 4
Too far out of Cromer and again very poor access to the site.
CS31
Ms Angela Carpenter
Site 1
Site 3
To even consider siting such a development along Roughton Road is insanity and surely
not remotely viable. There are many reasons which should be given the most serious
consideration: 1. Think of the population demographic in the immediate vicinity of the
proposed development. The vast majority are shall we say not in the first flush of youth
(myself included) and almost certainly purchased these properties because all they want
is a bit of peace and quiet away from the bustle of the town. The fact that the majority of
housing stock consists of bungalows should indicate that we are mostly middle-aged and
beyond. In other words, households without children, who will surely be the main users
of a sports facility. Why consider siting a development away from the target market? 2.
As insinuated in point 1, this development will potentially have a significant impact on
the quality of life of those living in the immediate area of the development, to say
nothing of the degradation of our environment and negative impact on our house prices.
3. We have all experienced the negative impact the new Norfolk Homes development has
had on our access routes. Roughton Road is already experiencing significant congestion
and disruption and the new homes are not even occupied yet! The road itself has
certainly been narrowed by the site vehicles churning up the verges and kerbsides, and
the length of Roughton Road is becoming a rat run. The current 30 MPH speed limit is
largely completely disregarded with many drivers travelling at dangerous and
Page 25 of 70
Comment
ID
Name
Organisation
Comments
Preferred
Site
unnecessary speed. Very few drivers have the courtesy to slow down and pull slightly to
the side to allow both vehicles to pass safely and this can only worsen when the volume
of traffic increases. 4. Beyond Burnt Hills, Roughton Road has no street lighting or
footpath. If this development goes ahead the addition of street lighting and pavements
will be mandatory, which will completely destroy the natural beauty of the environment
and impose further disruption on the long-suffering residents. The street lighting will also
have a devastating impact on the resident wildlife, which includes a large and thriving bat
population, plus the presence of owls, birds of prey and deers. 5. To claw back the
financial outlay on the development, no doubt the facilities will be available for hire and
potentially could accommodate private parties, weddings, stag/hen parties, musical
events........etc, etc. Again, the impact on a very quiet, entirely residential area populated
by a generation desperate for peace and quiet will be devastating. 6. There is a bus
service along Roughton Road, albeit infrequent. Surely the lack of public transport will
further encourage an huge surge in car usage in the area? Also, to highlight Roughton
Road train station as serving the development with public transport is ludicrous - again,
trains are infrequent and will not help the local service users to access the site. 7.
Without the widening of Roughton Road, the addition of footpaths and street lighting
and an increase in the frequency of public transport, how on earth will this site be
accessible to young service users? How will this encourage people to leave their cars at
home? The irony should not be lost on you. 8. For those of us living in the immediate
area, this end of Roughton Road is still a pleasure - we can see trees, fields and
countryside, we can hear birds and see wildlife. It is a natural haven enjoyed by horse
riders from the nearby stables, by residents walking their dogs along this road (and bear
in mind that for many of these people this may be their only social interaction on a daily
basis), and most importantly it allows us to enjoy the life we have chosen. 9. Being a
sports facility, there will be banks of floodlighting. This will also have a serious impact on
the wildlife, especially the owls and bats. Once we lose these creatures we will never see
them return. The floodlighting will also absolutely destroy the peace and serenity of
living in the area. There is also grave concern regarding the noise pollution from the
facility and the often aggressive and foul language used on the field of play. 10. This area
is not even in Cromer Parish, the intended beneficiary, it is Roughton Parish!
Site 2
Page 26 of 70
Comment
ID
Name
Organisation
Comments
Preferred
Site
As above.
Site 3
All things considered, surely this is the obvious choice for the siting of this development?
1. The land has been neglected for many years and is by definition derelict? It is a
complete eyesore and gives visitors using Overstrand Road a very poor impression of the
town. 2. Much of the necessary infrastructure is already in place - it is within walking
distance of the town, the bus station and the main road routes. It is also accessible by
footpaths fit for purpose. 3. The site is as close as it could be to what will surely be the
main user group - families and younger people. The housing stock in the area supports
this and it is also accessible for the local schools to use. The close proximity to the town
will certainly increase the footfall of visitors and residents alike.
Site 4
I have no knowledge of this particular area, but again, this is Northrepps Parish, not
Cromer! Please don't be a NIMBY - use the Golf Practice Ground and keep it in Cromer,
thank you!
CS32
miss elaine belshaw
General Comments
In my opinion the doctors surgery should move to the hospital site. This would be a
practical solution,all the medical facilities in one place. The existing surgery space should
combine with the cricket ground to make those facilities bigger and multi purpose. The
football ground should be improved NOT moved. It is a special part of the town where
generations of family's have played. it is an important piece of our towns history and we
should make more of that fact.
CS33
Mr Phil Harris
Site 1
This site is too close to housing. The new housing on Roughton will increase traffic even
before there are new sports pitches. The site can't be accessed easily by foot. Not in the
Parish of Cromer
Site 3
Site 2
The new housing on Roughton will increase traffic even before there are new sports
Page 27 of 70
Comment
ID
Name
Organisation
Comments
Preferred
Site
pitches. The site can't be accessed easily by foot. Too much work needs to be done to the
site removing power cables etc. There will be agricultural land to the north of the site
which could be developed for housing. Floodlights would be seen from a long distance.
Not in the Parish of Cromer.
Site 3
Cabbell Park was established as a memorial to the people of Cromer lost in the First
World War and any transfer of that to a site outside of Cromer would be a disgrace. This
is my preferred site because it can be accessed by foot, bicycle and other forms of
transport. It is the preferred site of Cromer Town Football Club.
Site 4
Access to this site is poor, it is not in the Parish of Cromer.
General Comments
The way this consultation has been carried out is very poor.
CS34
CS35
Mr John Dennis
Mr David Hurdle
CS36
Mr John Sheer
Site 3
General Comments
For all sites the main factor is accessibility by sustainable travel. So you need to
encourage people to walk, cycle and use public transport. For example the site chosen
should have a network of safe cycle routes from all relevant directions. A common
problem for such sites is too much car use. This is clearly demonstrated with Cromer
Hospital. An excellent facility but some car parking occurs off site in Mill Road which
causes delays to buses. Completely avoidable if planned. But this has not happened
despite the hospital having a Travel Plan because the Trust will not have a low parking
charge for short stay parking. So when choosing the site please think ahead - good
walking and cycle routes, good public transport close by, and EFFECTIVE car parking
management.
Site 1
In my opinion this site is totally unsuitable for the proposed use. The volume of extra
traffic it will create during its construction and subsequent use will be intolerable for
Site 3
Page 28 of 70
Comment
ID
Name
Organisation
Comments
Preferred
Site
residents. Both Roughton Road (location of the proposed site) and Old Mill Road leading
to/from Roughton Road are both Narrow country roads. They both do not have
footpaths or street lighting and the route is used as a rat run for quick access to and from
Cromer from the Felbrigg side. Currently we endure heavy use by HGV's, PSV's and
Tractors of varying shapes and sizes. This type of use is constant throughout the year and
is in addition to Zoo traffic. The speed limit at the Roughton end is 30mph which the
majority of traffic ignores. (it should be 20mph, max.) Residents and holiday makers
walking and cycling literally dice with death when using the road as traffic thunders past.
Grass verges are being ruined as vehicles squeeze by each other. We have very elderly
residents, some with walking difficulties, who currently struggle with the traffic to and
from the 'bus stop. Such a development would make matters much, much worse.
Site 2
As above
Site 3
In my opinion this would be the best location for such a use. It is away from housing and
has excellent vehicular access. IT IS ALSO THE ONLY PROPOSED SITE WITHIN THE
BOUNDARY OF CROMER PARISH.
Site 4
I do not exactly know the location of this site and therefore I cannot make any comment.
General Comments
The site should be within Cromer Parish Boundary and not forced on other Parishes.
CS37
Mr Steve Bushby
Site 3
I support the Cromer FC's stated preferred choice. It is important to have an accessible
sporting facility within the town for the health and well being of the community. A
combined site will provide opportunities for the youth set up to develop the adult side
and maintain a senior club in Cromer.
Site 3
General Comments
Page 29 of 70
Comment
ID
Name
Organisation
Comments
Preferred
Site
Please ensure the memorial stone (Mill Road entrance next to green gate) that
commemorates the donation of Cabbell Park in grateful remembrance of those who gave
their lives in the Great War is protected, restored and also registered with the War
Memorials Trust (warmemorials.org).
CS38
Mr & Mrs D E Barrow
CS39
Mrs Elaine Pugh
CS40
Ms Scoones
Locum Parish
Clerk, Roughton
Parish Council
General Comments
We think it would be a great shame to lose more valuable farm land. The best site for the
sports pitch causing the least disruption all round would be site 3, the existing sport
facility at Overstrand [road].
Site 3
General Comments
I write to inform that Roughton Parish Council strongly OBJECTS AND OPPOSES any
future development in Roughton Parish connected with Sports Facilities for Cromer. The
two options outlined in Roughton are agricultural and should remain as such; they are
totally unacceptable. The Council wishes to stress that it is facilities for Cromer that are
required and these should be accommodated and remain within their boundary; not
designated or re-allocated to another Parish. Roughton Parish does not have the
necessary infrastructure to support the proposed development and there are no
footpaths or street lighting along the Roughton Road. The road is insufficient to allow
high volumes of traffic by foot or vehicle and this is compounded by the nature of the
road system. An increase in vehicle movements on the surrounding network is likely to
lead to increased vehicular and pedestrian conflict, all to the detriment of highway
safety. The proposed development does not adequately provide off-site facilities for
pedestrians/people with disabilities (those confined to a wheelchair or others with
mobility difficulties) to link with existing provision and / or local services. The proposal
would be likely to give rise to conditions detrimental to highway safety. We would
politely suggest that the best option would be Site 3 within Cromer Parish - the former
golf Practice Ground, Overstrand Road.
Site 3
General Comments
I am totally against the proposal to move the doctors' surgery onto the land at Cabbell
Park. It is a memorial to the people of Cromer that were lost in the First World War.
Page 30 of 70
Comment
ID
Name
Organisation
Comments
Preferred
Site
Putting a medical centre on an already congested road is the most ridiculous thing I've
ever heard. I am surprised that I have only just learnt of this consultation today and feel
that the people of Cromer have not been made aware of NNDC's plans nor given enough
time to respond to them.
CS41
T.C & G.D Davy
General Comments
Re your proposed sites for the new sports facilities, namely, sites 1 & 2 at Roughton
Road. 1) Considering the already heavy amount of traffic, which very soon will be added
to when the new housing site is finished 2) We have no pavement, which is already a
hazard for anyone having to walk, and will certainly increase, if either of the sites are
selected. 3) No street lighting either, which when the sports centre is used at night, it will
prove another serious problem, for people living in this area, and anyone walking to use
these facilities. Hence sites 3 and 4 would surely be more suitable with their lighting and
pavements already in place. Overstrand Road also does not carry the volume of traffic
that Roughton Road does. We hope you will look into these objections seriously.
CS42
Mr D Rutterford
General Comments
The housing development going on at present has put a lot of extra vehicles onto
Roughton Road and will continue to do so when completed. With extra traffic for football
and other sports, Roughton Road will become very unsafe, because all the way from
Norwich Road to Carr Lane it is very narrow in places, if two vehicles meet in the same
spot you nearly hit, with the big increase in excessive speeding on Roughton Road, it is
now dangerous to get in or out of driveways, i think an accident is waiting to happen. A
sports building sitting on top of a high spot up Roughton Road will look an eyesore. I
would have thought the golf practice ground would be more suitable, being already at
the side of a wide main road. This site is more central for the public and many will not
have to use their vehicles.
CS43
Miss C E Eccles
General Comments
Having studied the paper showing the short-listed sites under consideration, I think site 3
or 4 would be the most suitable. I think that choosing site 3 would make a very sensible
use of a piece of ground which is currently not used for anything. It's easy to access, and
it wouldn't interfere in local residents' views, etc. Also, the Overstrand Road could cope
Site 3
Page 31 of 70
Comment
ID
Name
Organisation
Comments
Preferred
Site
more easily with the extra traffic a sports centre will generate. Site 4 is even better as far
as being out of sight for local residents, but near enough town and a main road for easy
access. And, as the plan says, it has potential for future expansion. You could make a nice
little sports village there. However, I am against site 2 as i think it would cause a lot of
disruption to all the local residents along the whole length of Roughton Road. Roughton
Road is very narrow in places, particularly around Benjamin Court, and it is already
difficult to get out onto the Norwich Road at that junction. If there was more sports
centre traffic including coaches using this road it could cause bigger holdups at the
junction, particularly through the holiday season. My road, Old Mill Road, is a
continuation of Roughton Road in the opposite direction, and is already far too busy with
current levels of traffic for a country road without adding to it. It is often used as a shortcut and really it isn't big enough to cope with more traffic. Where i live on the bend of
Old Mill Road I wouldn't want to see the road get any busier as the size of the road just
can't take it, and personally i can't cope with any more constant noise from extra traffic.
It is already tricky to get out onto the road from my property at times as i'm sure my
neighbours also find it so. I'm sorry i've gone on about the traffic but this is supposed to
be a country road not a main thoroughfare. Also, I'm against Site 2 because it would be
highly visible to everybody, and i think it would spoil the landscape. I came to live in the
country and go for local quiet country walks which i don't want spoilt by a busy and noisy
sports centre, particularly at weekends. Site 1 is tucked away without any visible means
of access at the moment, and the noise would impinge the local residents, being at the
end of their back gardens. I don't think this site is very practical. I hope my views will help
the Council make a suitable decision to please both sports enthusiasts and local
residents.
CS44
Mr Jess William
Stubenbord
Site 3
This appears to offer: - the best access - least interference to local residents than any of
the sites. Of course it will affect those on Northrepps Road. - is within Cromer parish
boundary.
Site 3
CS45
Mrs Janet Bowman
Site 1
I consider this is not a suitable site. It is not even in Cromer and surely the local football
team should have their home ground in their home town. It is not convenient for public
Site 3
Page 32 of 70
Comment
ID
Name
Organisation
Comments
Preferred
Site
transport, there being no existing pavements and the road is too narrow for all the
additional traffic which will be using it when the housing development is completed,
without all the traffic resulting from the sports centre as well. We have already had
roughton road closed for 2 months while the services were installed at the new housing
development so the road is obviously not wide enough to build here without causing
extreme inconvenience to residents. Roughton road has already been ruined by the new
housing development with large lorries up and down a narrow road tearing up the grass
verges. It is completely unacceptable and grossly unfair of the council to even consider
building this facility so close to residential homes. I have lived near a similar facility in the
past and it was quite frankly a nuisance, noise, bad language, social events with loud
music late at night, lighting etc. of course people don't want this going on right at the
bottom of their garden.
Site 2
I consider this site is also unsuitable for the same reasons as stated above.
Site 3
I consider this the most suitable site the main reason being that it is in Cromer and surely
Cromer town should have a site in their home town, it is also directly on bus routes and
offers plenty of room for parking. The road is wider and the site is a reasonable distance
from residential properties. It is also the preferred site of Cromer town football club and
already has planning permission for sports use.
Site 4
Unsuitable for access
General Comments
I consider the consultation process has been very badly handled by NNDC. I would have
been unaware of this proposal were it not for a leaflet delivered by Tim Adams and Phil
Harris. i would like to ask why no location in hall road has been selected for the cromer
sports facility. Hall road is no narrower than roughton road, it is in the heart of cromer
town, within walking distance and convenient for all transport facilities. It would seem to
me to be an ideal location for such a proposal. Roughton road seems to be a magnet for
Page 33 of 70
Comment
ID
Name
Organisation
Comments
Preferred
Site
property developers now while hall road always seems to escape the developments that
blight the rest of Cromer.
CS46
Mr C Hare
General Comments
Site 3
This consultation seems to pre-suppose that the Covenant protecting Cabbell Park for the
people of Cromer will be removed and I believe that is something that the people of
Cromer should be consulted on. If the Covenant is removed, by agreement with the
people of Cromer, what guarantees are there that the money raised from the sale of our
land will be used for the proposed sports facility? And , should such a facility be built,
how will it be funded and managed in the future? My preferred option is site 3
CS47
Mrs Julie Leaver
Site 1
Not suitable too residential, parking and other disruption especially now the new housing
estate is being built.
Site 3
Site 2
As above.
Site 3
The best site away from residential zones, good transport links and good access.
Site 4
Again access issues.
General Comments
This is really needed for Cromer. I have moved here from a town in Buckinghamshire
which had excellent sporting facilities something I sorely miss here. Travelling to
Sheringham or North Walsham is a pain.
CS48
Mr M Green
Site 1
Perfect site as there is a dual Access, yes there is a country lane one side but its regularly
used by Cromer people and can take 2 cars either way so no issues in terms of traffic. The
site is large enough to accommodate several disciplines and i would look to it becoming
Site 4
Page 34 of 70
Comment
ID
Name
Organisation
Comments
Preferred
Site
sports facility for not just hockey and football ( youth and adults set up ), maybe consider
rugby and athletics...... This is long over due and much needed for Cromer.
Site 2
As above.
Site 3
Why not develop this land into a golf centre, driving range and centre of excellence for
young golfers. With a stunning course over the road, lets develop the future and give the
opportunity of lots of sports on Cromer.
Site 4
Main road access so a great idea for a development, fits in terms of how close it is to the
town. I think out of the 4 proposed sites this is my number 1. Its large enough to develop
and increase for the future and could house lots of disciplines across the 2 sites.
General Comments
This is massively overdue and how anyone can object i will never know! Let’s do this for
the kids of the town and give something back that simply isnt there now! Cromer Town
fc, the youth, Hockey club and possibly introduce Rugby and athletics. Exciting times,
please don't let this fail!
CS49
Mrs Y Ford
Site 1
Reviewing the proposed four development sites we feel that site 1 is totally
inappropriate being sited in a quiet residential area, that mostly consists of retired and
older people who do NOT wish to be subjected to the noise of football, car boot sales
and the like. There are no access arrangements and the additional traffic along this road,
which is both narrow and has no footpath, is both dangerous and not fit for purpose. The
current building work taking place by the zoo has proved this, with lorries and buses
running up onto the grass verges in order to pass other vehicles and the road surface has
increasingly become damaged with potholes and worn tarmac. You only have to look at
the chaos of 'car boot tuesday' in Mill Road to see what Roughton Road would become if
it were to be placed here. There are few younger families living in Burnt Hills, Compit
Site 4
Page 35 of 70
Comment
ID
Name
Organisation
Comments
Preferred
Site
Hills, Holway Close and Roughton Road, who would appreciate and use these facilities, so
why site it here away from where the majority of users live? The area along Roughton
Road has no street lighting, not that we are complaining, far from it! One of the pleasures
of the countryside is darker skies and we do NOT want to be disturbed by floodlighting
from football pitches or dazzled by any additional light sources.
Site 2
While site 2 may cause less noise and light pollution to disturb nearby residents, the
narrowness of the road, increase in traffic, parking chaos would remain a problem.
Site 3
We do not feel able to comment on Site 3 particularly, except to say it seems closer to
Overstrand village than Cromer.
Site 4
The best site in our opinion, if it can no longer remain at Cabbell Park, is site 4. Not only is
there room for expansion, but the site is already partially amenity land with Karttack
facilities nearby. A large number of younger families, and the schools, live in the Suffield
Park area, and Norwich Road, which is not very far from the current football facilities.
The A140 is a main road, wide enough to cope with the additional traffic, and there is
both pavements and lighting. Parking onsite would be much more easily accommodated
on this larger site and be hidden from views by the surrounding woodland. This would
also help with noise deflection too.
General Comments
In conclusion we feel the worst possible option would be site 1, surrounded by privately
owned houses and bungalows, which people have chosen with peace and quiet in mind,
on the edge of Cromer / Roughton parish, to enjoy retirement and the countryside....and
before you ask, I have lived here since aged 14 years, so as a local i well understand the
area.
CS50
Mrs M W Hurn
General Comments
As the owner of a house on Roughton Road I say NO to the proposed site for the football,
Page 36 of 70
Comment
ID
Name
Organisation
Comments
Preferred
Site
sports etc on the Roughton Road. At the moment 145 houses are being built on the
Roughton Road and traffic from there will be using a very narrow road.
CS51
Mr E J Turner
General Comments
There is certainly a need for a Sports complex in Cromer and in my opinion the former
golf practice course appears to be the best option. However, Cabbell Park should never
be built on, but left as an open space as I'm sure that is what it was originally intended to
be.
Site 3
CS52
Mr Ken Baker
Site 1
I live in Roughton Road and I know this road cannot accommodate the proposal of a
sports pitch facility here. Sites 1 and 2 - these are agricultural land and should stay that
way. There are no pavements or lighting here. The road is far too narrow to
accommodate more cars or coaches that would bring visiting teams. Site 1 is not a level
playing field it slopes downhill from my home and site 2 as you know has electricity
cables the length of the field and down Roughton Road. Transport is near but a bus in
opposite directions every half hour that finishes at 6.00! And trains every two hours
unless at peak times. Not a good transport system is it? So most young people using this
centre will be walking. Very dangerous down this road!
Site 3
Site 2
As above.
Site 3
The obvious site is site 3. In Cromer, near transport, pavements and street lighting and it
is the safest site to get to from town. Just down the road from the present ground.
Site 4
I don't know much about site 4, but it is another site not in Cromer.
CS53
Mr Robin Lindsey
Site 1
This is the site I have a direct personal interest in. My concern is on the question of noise.
Holway Close where I live is quiet. If the sports facility is located here, will there be
Site 4
Page 37 of 70
Comment
ID
Name
Organisation
Comments
Preferred
Site
floodlights, evening games and general sports-match noise? More generally, this site is
not, as claimed, "well-related" to Cromer. In fact it's in Roughton. I doubt if anyone from
Cromer journeys up Roughton Road except en route to Aylsham and Norwich. Also there
is no footpath south of Compit Hills. Nor is the bus service particularly frequent. If this
site is chosen and it results in the footpath between Roughton Road and Metton Road
being better maintained, and the junk at the western end of the path being cleared up,
that would be some compensation.
Site 2
If Site 1 is not "well-related" to Cromer, this site is even worse. It is seriously out-of-town.
Site 3
Site 3 has the same problems for the residents in the area as Site 1 has for me.
Site 4
This site is the obvious site to use. It is "well-related" to Cromer, on a bus route with
frequent services, there is already a sports activity at the location (the cart track), and
there is little in the way of nearby housing.
General Comments
I am unclear why Cromer needs a new doctors' surgery. No case has been made for this. I
was under the impression the NHS is short of money.
CS54
Mr Owen Pauley
Site 1
Site 3
I live in Roughton Road and therefore I am very aware that this road cannot
accommodate the possibility of a sports facility here. Sites 1 and 2 - they are both
agricultural land and should remain so. We have no pavements or lighting up here. The
road is far too narrow to accommodate more cars or indeed coaches that may bring
visiting teams. Site 1 is not level it slopes downhill and site 2 has electricity cables the
length of the site and down Roughton Road. Transport is close-by but one bus in opposite
directions every half hour, and trains every two hours unless at peak times does not
provide a good transport system, so most people using this facility will be on foot.
Dangerous!
Page 38 of 70
Comment
ID
Name
Organisation
Comments
Preferred
Site
Site 2
Sites 1 and 2 - they are both agricultural land and should remain so. We have no
pavements or lighting up here. The road is far too narrow to accommodate more cars or
indeed coaches that may bring visiting teams. Site 1 is not level it slopes downhill and site
2 has electricity cables the length of the site and down Roughton Road. Transport is
close-by but one bus in opposite directions every half hour, and trains every two hours
unless at peak times does not provide a good transport system, so most people using this
facility will be on foot. Dangerous!
Site 3
The most logical site is site 3. It is in Cromer, near transport, has pavements and street
lighting and it is the safest site to get to from town.
Site 4
I have no opinion on this site other than this site isn't in Cromer either!
CS55
Peter & Lynda Moore
General Comments
I would like to register our objections to using the sites suggested in Roughton Road. We
already have a housing development under construction of some 145 properties which
will cause a large increase in the numbers of vehicles using this 'C' class road, and
therefore reject outright the proposed location of a football ground in this location. Also,
i feel that the ground should be within Cromer and not Roughton parish. Sites 3 & 4
would be the most suitable, as they are already used for recreational purposes and
would have the least impact.
CS56
Mrs A Bowles
General Comments
Only one site at the former golf practice ground appears to be suitable. The covenant
protecting Cabbell Park as an open space should not be removed.
Site 3
CS57
Mr & Mrs R O'Leary
General Comments
Site 3. Within Cromer boundary. Easier access for all age groups (buses etc).
Site 3
Page 39 of 70
Organisation
Comments
Preferred
Site
Comment
ID
Name
CS58
A Sharp
Site 3
Preferred by football club. Already has planning permission. Main road access. The site is
an eyesore on one of the main access roads to Cromer.
Site 3
CS59
A Goulding
General Comments
Cromer Town FC should be able to stay at their present site. The covenant should stay in
place.
Site 4
CS60
Mrs S Reid
Site 1
Site 1 is too close to housing. In fact would be right behind a lot of rear gardens. This site
would also create noise nuisance to people living in Compit Hills, Holway Close and
Roughton/Cromer Road.
Site 3
CS61
D L Hughes
Site 3
This site has ample space for pitches and/or car parking for anyone who wishes to travel
from visiting teams and locals.
Site 3
CS62
Mrs Linda Greenland
Site 1
No
Site 3
Site 2
No
Site 3
Definitely the ideal choice, just out of town, easily accessible.
Site 4
No
General Comments
Must add I am against the idea of the medical centre being put on Cabbell park due to
the road parking that is already a problem. This will just exacerbate the problem.
Page 40 of 70
Organisation
Comments
Preferred
Site
Comment
ID
Name
CS63
Mr H Worsley
Site 3
Obvious choice in my opinion is site three "already has planning for sports use". Not very
far to walk from town centre. "Pedestrian footpath to access it". I do not know if there is
space for car parking?
Site 3
CS64
Mr Aldis
Site 3
Ideal place as the field is an eyesore as you are coming into Cromer (from Overstrand)
and for visitors out walking from the cliffs.
Site 3
CS65
CS66
Mr J Wright
Mr & Mrs D S Viles
Site 1
Both options on Roughton Road (Site 1 and Site 2) are: quite a distance OUTSIDE
CROMER BOUNDARIES, on agricultural land, quite near quiet semi-rural residential areas,
on narrow road, will impact on noise, traffic congestion, light pollution from floodlights.
Site 3
Site 3
Site 2
As above.
Site 3
This is the only acceptable option for the proposed new site of Cromer Football Club as it
has: good access, is on bus routes, easy for people to cycle/walk to, is already in a
developed area, and IT'S THE ONLY SITE ACTUALLY SITUATED WITHIN CROMER
BOUNDARIES.
Site 4
We are unfamiliar with this location but it is OUTSIDE CROMER BOUNDARIES.
General Comments
Cromer Football Club should remain within Cromer. The people of Roughton Parish
Council and Northrepps Parish Council should not have this development forced upon
them.
CS67
Mr oliver whitwood
General Comments
Page 41 of 70
Comment
ID
Name
Organisation
Comments
Preferred
Site
As a long serving player of North Walsham hockey club which has now become the newly
formed North Norfolk Hockey Club and now coach of the youth section,I feel the most
important thing is that the site is larger enough to home facilities for all sports clubs. Not
just football which seems to be the only sport ever mentioned!
CS68
Mrs Brenda Stbbons
Site 1
Not acceptable as it is outside Cromer parish. Use of this site would increase traffic which
would be unacceptable in this area.
Site 3
Site 2
As above.
Site 3
This is the preferable site. It is in the parish of Cromer. It is easily accessible and has been
used as a sports facility. Development of this site would enhance this area.
Site 4
Not acceptable. It is outside the parish of Cromer.
CS69
Mr John Newell
Site 1
Roughton Road is too busy especially as new housing development taking place. The road
is narrow and any increased traffic would lead to accidents. The water pressure is low
and any additional facility would cause further problems. The rural nature of this part of
Cromer would be spoilt.
Site 3
Site 2
As above.
Site 3
Possible a good option because land is not used fully.
General Comments
Road Safety considerations including lack of space for walkways should stop any
Page 42 of 70
Comment
ID
Name
Organisation
Comments
Preferred
Site
consideration of the Roughton Road options.
CS70
Mr Michael Cole
Site 1
This is out of the parish of Cromer, very open and wind swept for children to play sport
on also enough traffic using Roughton road with zoo and the big housing site (norfolk
homes). NOT SUITABLE.
Site 3
Site 2
Same comment as above site 1. NOT SUITABLE
Site 3
Very sheltered by woodland, good main road access and also good pedestrian access,
closest to existing football ground and the only site in Cromer parish. Would also tidy and
improve an eyesore. VERY SUITABLE
Site 4
Out of Cromer parish. access by very narrow lane No good for pedestrians access. NOT
SUITABLE
CS71
Mrs S Annison
Site 1
Not a bad site but perhaps not so convenient for people in and around Cromer and could
cause traffic issues especially with the new housing on the Roughton Road and the
existing housing off that road.
Site 3
Site 3
This seems a great site, easily accessed by car, it's on a bus route, pavements for those
who walk to the site. Also it is very unsightly and has been for years now due to the mess
made by the current owner. He promised a lot for the community and never kept to the
plans. It really is time that something is done with this land. This is on my doorstep and is
very much welcomed. Certainly my number one site.
Site 4
This does seem to be a great second choice.
Page 43 of 70
Comment
ID
Name
Organisation
Comments
Preferred
Site
General Comments
This is something Cromer really needs and I hope it gets sorted soon.
CS72
Jane Charnley
Site 1
Definitely NO. This parcel of land is not in my opinion well related to Cromer at all. Using
this site as a public facility has been ill thought out. Risk assessments, health and safety
procedures and environmental assessments should be taken into account for the safety
of all users of this road i.e. residents (many elderly), pedestrians, dog walkers, horse
riders, cyclists, and very importantly protection of the environment to existing residents.
Health and Safety Assessments and consultation are urgently needed on : - Increased
volume of traffic - Safety of the Junction at B1436 - Lack of pavements - No street lighting
- Pedestrian safety - Noise pollution (day and potential night matches) - players,
supporters shouting. Referees whistles. Vehicle noise. - Light pollution - floodlights at
potential evening matches - Lack of public transport - Winter hazards - snow and ice on
the un-gritted roads during winter months - Disregard for speed limits - Dangerous
driving - Narrow roads - Cyclists - Impact on existing residents
Site 3
Site 2
As above.
Site 3
In my opinion this site is much better suited for the proposed Cromer Sports facility and
is particularly "well-related" to Cromer. It has also previously been used as a sports
facility.
Site 4
Can't comment. Do not know this area.
General Comments
In my opinion Cromer Sports Pitch Facility should be kept within the Parish of Cromer
and definitely not bulldozed into the Parish of Roughton or any other Parish in the
surrounding area.
Page 44 of 70
Comment
ID
Name
CS73
Mr Will Adams
Organisation
Comments
Site 1
Roughton Road for the past few years has been either closed for substantial periods of
time due to the ongoing building work which has caused huge disruption to the local
residents. The idea that this could be repeated if this site is chosen is ridiculous-the
amount additional traffic using the road due to the huge increase in housing is not as yet
known add to this the increase in noise,disruption and traffic should this also go ahead
and existing local residents lives will be made a misery.The junction at the top of
Roughton Road is an accident waiting to happen as it is. This will also set the precedent
for yet more housing to be built! Has anyone tried walking up Roughton Road? No
footpaths,no lighting,no speed limit and so narrow in places two cars have difficulty
passing one another let alone yet more heavy good vehicles.
Preferred
Site
CS73
Site 2
As above.
Site 3
Site 4
General Comments
CS74
Mrs CAROL BRETT
Site 1
Not suitable for various reasons
Site 3
Site 2
As above
Site 3
If it is absolute a must that Cromer town football club has to be moved from an already
suitable site, then this would be the more preferred site as it is within Cromer, is a
already frequent bus service route, but also a walkable distance. The road has street
lighting which help deter vandalism which would be likely on a out of town site
Page 45 of 70
Comment
ID
Name
Organisation
Comments
Preferred
Site
Site 4
No
General Comments
At present Cromer town F/C Host many social functions not only for Cromer people but
others in surrounding areas, a car boot which is well supported from people near and far.
As I understand Cromer football F/C fully support their selves with no financial help from
the district council. If the new proposed plan goes ahead who will take control of running
it with so many organizations involved and who will finance the continuing project. By
moving to another site we the people of Cromer will not only lose an inherited 1st world
War memorial but all the social interactions the present site provides. The Cromer
Surgery would be best suited for this site.
CS75
Mr Christopher
Branford
Site 3
I prefer this option. I can imagine a layout similar to that at Kinver in the West Midlands.
If the ground was levelled retaining the bank for seating there could be a couple of
football pitches with enough room between them for a cricket square. At Kinver there is
a good clubhouse, changing facilities, catering, a bar, a stage for local dramatics and a
hall big enough for book fairs, etc, all with plenty of parking. I support site 3 so that both
cricket and football could be played there with changing room, parking and catering
facilities.
Site 3
CS76
mr john neale
Site 1
A totally inappropriate site, as Roughton Road is not large enough to take the extra
traffic, with the new housing estate already being built, this would just add to the already
over used Roughton Road, which would then be dangerous for both motorists and
pedestrians alike. A new sports facility indicates we are talking about more than just
football, but it seems the whole community is presuming it will only be a football facility.
Site 3
Site 3
Most appropriate, that has a road which can take the extra traffic, and have room for
good parking facility. also within walking distance for pedestrians, without danger as
Page 46 of 70
Comment
ID
Name
Organisation
Comments
Preferred
Site
pavements already in place.
CS77
CS78
Mrs CAROL BRETT
Mr Clive Elgar
DUPLICATE OF COMMENT CS74
Site 3
Northreppes Road is designated a Quiet Lane, it also an access road to Forest Park which
is a prime holiday location which prides itself in being set in a beautiful quiet area. This
proposed development would change the nature of this area fundamentally with its
increased noise, traffic and floodlighting, not to mention the impact on wildlife. If the
council is spending money on environmentally friendly street lighting in this area
floodlights would be a retrograde step. Sports grounds and their facilities, from
observation of places like Dereham Football Club, seem to be used to host all sorts of
events to make money so this is not just about a playing field with changing facilities but
a total change to the nature of the area, from quiet residential to high use and impact. Is
this site also outside of the permitted development area? I am totally opposed to this
ground being developed as a sports recreational area.
CS79
Mr Eryl Williams
Site 3
Easily the most suitable site: on a main road; within walking distance to town centre;
near to buses; near to housing. All the other sites have drawbacks, including poor
accessibility via private or public transport; or incursion onto farmland; or incursion onto
green separation between Cromer and Roughton, which could create a precedence for
ribbon development along Roughton Road.
CS80
CS81
Mr Robson
Mrs A Cowie
Site 1
Site not in Cromer. Narrow access road, no pavement and no street lighting.
Site 4
Site 3
Site 3
Site 3
Site 2
As above.
CS82
C D Bradnam
General Comments
Too much going on on the Roughton Road already.
Site 3
Page 47 of 70
Organisation
Comments
Preferred
Site
Comment
ID
Name
CS83
G & S Wall
Site 3
Site 3 best choice, safest access, near golf course, keeping sport facilities together.
Fairest site being within Cromer.
Site 3
CS84
P Simons
General Comments
Site 3 only one in Cromer. Site 1, 2 & 4 narrow roads, no footpaths or street lights.
Site 3
CS85
Terry & Trish Wood
General Comments
Go with the football clubs feelings. Keep within Cromer Town boundary.
Site 3
CS86
Ms Jane Woollard
General Comments
Roughton Road is not wide enough to take extra traffic and no pavement to sites 1 & 2.
Site 3 appears to be the most obvious choice by far.
Site 3
CS87
Mrs R Murcer
General Comments
There is no public footpath from the station/bus stop to make a pavement. Ground
would have to be taken from the properties along the road, and probably mean
uprooting the hedges. It would also spoil the open views and quietness of the area. Site 3
does seem to be the most obvious choice - it has a decent pathway / road and bus route.
It has planning permmission and is also in Cromer.
Site 3
CS88
Mrs J Cheeseman
General Comments
Site 1 too close to housing. Site 1 & 2 Too far from town. Narrow busy road, zoo exit, new
140 housing estate exit, footpath ends at Compit HIlls also street lighting, a very busy cut
through for traffic.
Site 3
CS89
R Gore
General Comments
None of sites 1, 2 or 4 are suitable so no preference order.
Site 3
CS90
Valerie & Harold
Frosdick
General Comments
We were not previously aware of this consultation. Site 3 is the obvious place for the
sports facility. We are aware that selling land for housing is attractive but this area is
needed for the town and youth.
Site 3
Page 48 of 70
Organisation
Comments
Preferred
Site
Comment
ID
Name
CS91
D Hathaway
General Comments
Cabbell Park established as a memorial to the people of Cromer. Has lots of visitors to
access car boot sales and good football ground. Why not leave it as it is. If it's not broken
don't mend. Let's have some green space for enjoyment left.
CS92
Mrs Barbara Percil
General Comments
The new football ground needs to be near the old one, easy for people to walk to and a
site that is in desperate need of revitalising. Site 3 is this site.
Site 3
CS93
Mrs C James
General Comments
Only one site seems to fill the bill.
Site 3
CS94
Ms Sandra Paice
General Comments
I believe that site 3 is the only option because of easy access. If it is any further out of
town it will put people off and we need sport in Cromer.
Site 3
CS95
Mrs D Smith
General Comments
Site 3 only logical option!!
Site 3
CS96
Miss J S Walker
General Comments
Site 1 Roughton Road is too narrow no pavements no street lights. New estate just
started to sell properties. People and families will move in. Most will have cars. I have
noticed the road has not been made wider. Top end r: road plus Carr Lane plus 2 lanes
leading one to Cromer, other old Felbrigg Road. Both more or less 1 car single traffic. Also
no roundabout Holt Road.
Site 3
CS97
A Tovey
General Comments
THE most central site for footballers to WALK to if they had to, I walk UP Roughton Road.
It's a drag and busy. Site 3.
Site 3
CS98
Ms Jeannette Ruddick
General Comments
Do these sites include parking spaces?
Site 3
Page 49 of 70
Organisation
Comments
Preferred
Site
Comment
ID
Name
CS99
R & M Salter
General Comments
Site 3 is the only practical site, for all the reasons already mentioned. The Roughton Road
for access is diabolical. Little more than a farm track with too much traffic already. (If i
was a betting person i would say that the Roughton Road is where it will be put).
Site 3
CS100
Mr & Mrs Clive & Stella
Bastable
General Comments
Site 1 is too close to many elderly residents in Holway Close and Compit Hills.
Site 3
CS101
P Carter
General Comments
Cabbell Park should be retained for current purpose. Houses at Weavers Tye would be
affected by site 4 but have not been consulted.
Site 3
CS102
M & M Barker
General Comments
We live close to the practice golf course and feel a sports hut would be better use of the
land than the mess it's in at the moment. Also closer to Cromer and near local housing
estates to attract more young people.
Site 3
CS103
Bill & Joanna Miller
General Comments
My husband and I retired here in 2013 for the peace and quiet. That would be wrecked if
the sports pitch came to site 1. There would be lots of shouting during matches which
would ruin the peace.
Site 3
CS104
Aida Dixon
General Comments
[Site 3] a) within Cromer parish council, b) already has planning permission for sports
use.
Site 3
CS105
Mr & Mrs R L Brookey
General Comments
Only one option as far as we're concerned. Willing to oppose any other site.
Site 3
CS106
CS107
B Cushings
Mr & Mrs M Austin
General Comments
Site 2 - as above. Site 4 - As Above Site 1 = no buses on Sundays and only hourly
Site 3
Site 3
Page 50 of 70
Comment
ID
Name
Organisation
Comments
Preferred
Site
weekdays - NOT EVENINGS - not all trains stop at Roughton Road = no footpaths.
CS108
Mrs F Davidson
General Comments
I think the football field should be left where it is, convenient for the people in Cromer
and sufficient park access. To a bus route and also A&E and it was given to the people
who were lost in the first world war.
CS109
Rev & Mrs A & M
Windridge
General Comments
Sites 1, 2 and 4 all totally unsuitable. Roughton Road is too narrow for further traffic on
top of the park view development.
Site 3
CS110
Ms Joan Joyce
General Comments
We need outdoor sports facilities for everyone, in Cromer.
Site 3
CS111
M Jenkins
General Comments
To keep football in Cromer.
Site 3
CS112
CS113
Mr K Hull
Mr & Mrs T Winterbone
CS114
Mr Mark Potter
General Comments
Site 3 is the only viable option. Keep Cromer football in Cromer!
Site 3
CS115
Jacqueline & Ron
Barnett
Site 1
Too close to houses, road too narrow to take extra traffic. Not in Cromer.
Site 3
General Comments
Good access for cars and pedestrian. Plenty open space for football pitches. It's about
time Cromer teams had a playing area.
Site 3
Site 3
Site 2
As above.
Site 3
Seems all round best site as there are pavements, roads wider and already has sports
use. Also in Cromer.
Page 51 of 70
Comment
ID
Name
Organisation
Comments
Preferred
Site
Site 4
Not in Cromer.
General Comments
Site 3 is the only feasible solution as sites 1, 2 and 4 are totally impracticable.
CS116
Flower Family
General Comments
Roughton Road is already being overdeveloped and cannot cope with all the additional
traffic. There are no pavements for pedestrians on this part of the road. Overstrand Road
is closer to town centre, More suitable for pedestrian access.
Site 3
CS117
Mr Chris Adderley
General Comments
Prefer site 3.
Site 3
CS118
Mrs J Newstead
General Comments
I think the Overstrand Road practice is the best place.
Site 3
CS119
Mrs D Trimmer
General Comments
[Site 3] Ideal site so long as its also available to the young footballers of the future.
Site 3
CS120
R D Winn
Site 3
CS121
Richard & Pauline Gotts
General Comments
On a narrow country lane. No pavements for pedestrians.
General Comments
Although not a labour voter I agree this well presented clear document and wish you well
in your campaign. The site has to remain in Cromer and for the benefit of sportsmen and
women.
CS122
Mr & Mrs F Dennis
Site 1
Site 3
Site 3
Site 2
Site 3
Page 52 of 70
Comment
ID
Name
Organisation
Comments
Preferred
Site
Site 4
General Comments
CS123
Les Frary
General Comments
Site 3
Cabbell Park was left to the people of Cromer to be enjoyed as open space of which there
is already a shortage. Mill Road is a very busy road and NNDC's development plans would
add to the traffic volume.
CS124
Jupp
General Comments
Site 3 is the only suitable site. Roughton Road sites unsuitable i.e. bad access, 'minimal'
public transport, too much traffic - out of town. Cabbell Park should be kept as 'Open
Space'. Doctors surgery should be on hospital site - plenty of room on car park site.
Always many empty spaces.
Site 3
CS125
Mr Barry Girling
General Comments
It's time Cromer Football Club and the Youth Club had shared facilities, NNDC does not
seem over-interested in the covenant on Cabbell Park, perhaps thinking more of money
from sale of surgery. I hope the new facilities are started before the surgery.
Site 3
CS126
Mr & Mrs R Chaplin
General Comments
Site 3 ideal! Larger Cromer surgery urgently required as it serves all of Cromer and
beyond!
Site 3
CS127
Mrs Hannah
General Comments
Shouldn't really move! Has anyone considered parking issues with hospital if doctors
surgery offers free parking?
Site 3
CS128
Mr & Mrs Merritt
General Comments
Sites 1 & 2 are not suitable at all as Roughton Road isn't capable of taking all the extra
work and traffic
Site 3
Page 53 of 70
Organisation
Comments
Preferred
Site
Comment
ID
Name
CS129
Mr & Mrs Neale
General Comments
Concerned that the volume of traffic will increase considerably with the housing estate
being built next to the zoo on Roughton Road. If site 1 & 2 go ahead it will make
Roughton Road traffic horrendous on an unsuitable road.
Site 3
CS130
Mrs S M Cox
General Comments
In my opinion the other sites are not suitable, certainly not site 4.
Site 3
CS131
B Boyd
Site 3
CS132
Derrick & Tom Harrison
General Comments
Can Mill Road cope with more parking on already very congested road for the doctors
surgery?
General Comments
Realistically there is only one site, site 3, if Cromer FC is to move from Cabbell Park.
Having played for Cromer in the 60's and 70's + my son for Cromer Youth in the 90's site
3 has planning permission for sport facility, near the golf course and many old football
club players are golfing members.
CS133
Mr & Mrs P Cole
General Comments
Sites 1 & 2 we believe are totally unsuitable. Roads too narrow, noise to local residents,
60mph speed limits, no footpaths, traffic, electricity pylons.
Site 3
CS134
K Hicks
General Comments
Roughton Road is very narrow, and traffic from the new housing development will soon
be causing congestion on the road, as no exit is allowed to allow traffic to pass 'Cromer
Hall'.
CS135
Ms Janet Newcombe
General Comments
Obvious choice [site 3].
Site 3
CS136
J E & M Talbot
General Comments
On Roughton Road, after the road into Compit HIlls, we have no footpath or lighting. Also
buses from Cromer stop at 6.30pm. Last bus into Cromer 6.21pm.
Site 3
Site 3
Page 54 of 70
Organisation
Comments
Preferred
Site
Comment
ID
Name
CS137
Ms Anne Alfheim
General Comments
This is the only suitable choice (Site 3).
Site 3
CS138
Mr & Mrs P Kirkham
General Comments
Have chosen site 2 to protect our green spaces as all land seems to be taken for building.
Site 3 is the only other practical alternative.
Site 2
CS139
M Townsend
General Comments
Obvious choice for reasons stated in this leaflet.
Site 3
CS140
C J Seekings
General Comments
Roughton Road is being called on to bear a considerable increase of traffic with the new
housing development. Site 4 seems to present access problems. STAY WHERE IT IS seems
the best option - development on existing site will cause more problems.
Site 3
CS141
Jean & Brian Herriott
General Comments
The obvious new ground must be on the Overstrand Road opposite the golf club. If for no
other reason it is the only site within the Cromer Parish. This whole business concerning
Cabbell Park has been badly handled, and nobody who may have a genuine interest in
the football club, or the local youth, has been comfortable with the movement behind
this. Obviously public opinion does not count for much here.
CS142
Mrs Helen Frary
General Comments
The document regarding this proposal highlights the lack of suitable recreational land
available for the above facility in the Cromer area. Site 3 would fit the criteria of having
easy pedestrian access, with street lighting, and being less likely to be vandalised as out
of town sites can be. However Cabbell Park cannot be sold for funding towards the
Community Sports Pitch Facility. When Cabbell Park Trust was set up in 1922, the Trust
Deed stated: "that the Trusteers shall stand posessed of the trust property upon trust for
the Council with a view to the enjoyment thereof of the public as an open space within
the meaning of the Open Spaces Act 1906". It also states "that the Trustees shall in
relation to the trust property have all powers of absolute owners (other than except
power of sale)."North Norfolk District Council have adhererd and accepted this Trust
Page 55 of 70
Comment
ID
Name
Organisation
Comments
Preferred
Site
Deed by havin gthe legal title of Cabbell Park transferred to them. Before they can
proceed further they must clarify to the people of Cromer how by transferring the land to
the Council the Trust Deed has come to an end, and thereby the disposal of the Trustees
who were instructed to oversee the ground for the Council. There is no date given for the
Trust Deed to cease. In February Norman Lamb asked Mrs Oxtoby for a legal explanation
to this question and so far there has not been a reply.
CS143
T M Sparrow
Site 1
In ref to the new sports facilities site, I feel sites 1 & 2 are the most appropriate sites as
they are both located near the town itself, providing excellent accessibility for people
either to walk to the venue or use public transport. The roads around these sites are not
single track thus providing no traffic issues, i.e. cars passing with children walking on the
side of the road. They are also easy for children to attend after school fixtures and clubs
by walking from school without having to use cars.
Site 2
As above.
Site 3
Site 3 is also a good option due to highway access.
Site 4
Site 4 is poor on highway access due to single track roads.
CS144
Mrs D Evans
General Comments
I should like to lodge my objection to both of the sites off the Roughton Road being used
in respect of the above. I have lived here since 1977, with the exception of two years
spent in Norwich, and during that time this minor road has been developed at the
Cromer 'end' with the Bloggs Road and Brownshills developments. Then, more recently,
with the exit road from Amazona Zoo. There is now the large Norfolk Homes site being
built, which currently means lots of lorries but when complete will be even more traffic. I
do not believe that this road should cope with any more traffic, both from a 'quality of
life' aspect for current residents and because of the safety of pedestrians since the
Site 3
Page 56 of 70
Comment
ID
Name
Organisation
Comments
Preferred
Site
pavement ends at Compit Hills (fine for a rural road but this is rapidly becoming a town
road). The sharp corner at the junction of Mill Road and Cromer Road also has daily 'near
misses' due to the narrowness of the road. I also think that, on a technicality, the Cromer
Community facility should actually be in Cromer rather than Rougthon so i believe this
shoudl make the former Golf Practice Ground would be more suitable; in Cromer and
within easy walking distance for those without transport.
CS145
M A Norman
Site 1
I live in Roughton Road and therefore I am very aware that this road could not safely
accommodate the proposal of a sports facility. Roughton is not Cromer. These fields are
agricultural land and should remain so, with an ever expanding population, who will need
feeding, agricultural land is vitally important for the future and shouldn't automatically
be built on in such a cavalier manner. A sports facility with the extremely bright lighting
that it needs would do damage to the habitat of bats and owls up here. As you are aware
there are no pavements or street lighting at this end up Roughton Road. The road is very
narrow, two cars abreast means one is nearly in the ditch or up a neighbours grass verge.
The road is far too narrow to accommodate more cars or coaches that would bring
visiting teams to the sports facility. Already we have had to consider the increaed
number of cars that will be on this road once 'Park View' is completed. We have had a
taster of this with the advent of huge lorries ferrying earth back and forth along this road
for the past year and the ensuing problems and speeding this has incurred. This road has
been hell since the building work on 'Park View' begun! Both ends are bottlenecks on a
busy day particularly in the late spring, summer and early autumn! This obviously wasn't
checked by Highways for 'Park View'. Early November doesn't count!! Within your leaflet
it is stated that public transport is nearby. There is a station but trains only stop every
two hours outside of peak times! The buses are every half hour in opposite directions
and stop at 6.30! This does not constitute a good transport system. So to consider
Roughton Road a safe road for young people to be walking up to play football implies to
me, that the planners haven't walked up this road. Also within your leaflet it is stated
that site 1 is level. I can assure you it is not, i look downhill at it.
Site 3
Site 2
As above + The electricity cables mentioned along the length of site 2 would be
Page 57 of 70
Comment
ID
Name
Organisation
Comments
Preferred
Site
extremely costly to put underground and take a large chunk of the budget. As well as
causing a great deal of aggravation and inconveniences to the residents when it was
being done.
Site 3
The most obvious and appropriate site for this facility is site 3. It is in Cromer! There are
pavements and street lighting and it is within easy walking distance from the town centre
and the present football pitch. Also Overstrand Road is more suited to large volumes of
traffic.
Site 4
Site 4 in Northrepps is again important agricultural land and should therefore be out of
bounds. This is not in Cromer either.
General Comments
CS146
M & E Husar & Smith
Raptor House
Boarding Cattery
Site 1
Site 2
Site 3
Site 4
General Comments
CS147
Ms Kathleen Meaney
General Comments
We enclose a petition signed by a small sample of our customers
SEE ATTACHED PETITION AT END OF THIS DOCUMENT
CS148
Mr and Mrs Norman
and Helen Ascough
General Comments
a) Three of the four sites use existing utilised agricultural land, the Overstrand Road site
is the only one which does not. Is it a good idea to keep on reducing farm land? We think
Page 58 of 70
Comment
ID
Name
Organisation
Comments
Preferred
Site
not. b) Three of the proposed sites are not even within the Cromer boundary, again the
only one which is within the boundary is the Overstrand Road site. c) Roughton Road in
particular is already badly affected by traffic movement because of the Park View
development. This traffic problem will only become worse when the properties become
occupied. The Roughton end of Roughton Road (Old Mill Road, Carr Lane) will have
severe problems with extra traffic. This appears to have been ignored when considering
the Park View development; a serious omission as there seems to be no way of widening
those roads at those points. d) The Overstrand Road site would have i) better road
access, ii) a link (perhaps somewhat tenuous) with an existing sport facility, i.e. the golf
club, iii) be within easy walking distance of the town centre. e) We hope that the
statement from NNDC that land ownership will not influence the decision really is abided
by. f) The best approach would have been to leave the Cabbell Park facility untouched.
This would have avoided all this hassle and public expense. The proposed Overstrand
Road site could have been used for housing. One can only assume that land ownership
and money are involved, which makes our point e) something of a forlorn hope.
CS149
Miss Karen Modle
Site 4
Today I have been informed of the above proposal of site 4. As a new resident of
Christophers Close I oppose the plans, as Alongside the other residents of Christophers
Close I will be directly affected by the plans. The Avenue/Christophers Close is only a very
small minor road, an increase in traffic would not be appropriate. Visibility is limited on
the approach from The Avenue into Christophers Close and traffic is restricted to one
vehicle passing at a time. Several children live on the site and walk to and from school
which involves crossing this road an increase in traffic volume would present a major
hazard. There are also no pavements leading along The Avenue to proposed site 4. Also
floodlighting and noise pollution would spoil the landscape and directly affect the rear of
my property and all neighbouring properties, therefore permanently disturbing the
current outlook and tranquillity.
CS150
Craig and Susan Bellis
General Comments
We have studied the proposed sites in question. We feel site 3 is the best choice. Our
reasons for this is that this site is still close to Cromer community and more importantly
is safe to access by foot, public and private transport. Many people who will be using the
Site 3
Page 59 of 70
Comment
ID
Name
Organisation
Comments
Preferred
Site
community sports pitch facility will be young children and youths. This group of people
will be safe using this route by foot and is close to many housing estates. This site is
currently unused. We feel it is better to keep and protect our green spaces and
agricultural land of other proposed sites.
CS151
Mr John Graveling
Site 1
LAND OFF ROUGHTON ROAD. Both sites are unsuitable. They are both far too open and
subject to wind. They are also not in Cromer and not easy to access except by car. The
argument that there is a rail station nearby is silly. Who is going to walk to Cromer Beach
Station, catch a train for one stop then face a fairly long walk up a hill at the other end?
Site 3
Site 2
As above.
Site 3
THE FORMER PRACTICE GOLF COURSE ALONGSIDE OVERSTRAND ROAD. This would be a
much better site. It is within easy access of Suffield Park and not a huge distance from
parts of the town. Yes, it would require levelling but that is no great problem with
modern earth moving machinery. Some four years ago when I was chairman of Cromer
Cricket Club and the lease for the Norton Warnes Ground was being discussed I did
approach the owner of this site as to the possibility of using it for cricket. It transpired, at
the time, that the Cricket Club lease was extended for a further eleven years so the
immediate need was removed.
Site 4
LAND OFF THE AVENUE. This would be slightly preferable to Roughton Road being nearer
the larger population of Suffield Park and with easier access from buses along the
Norwich Road, but still not in Cromer.
General Comments
As someone who has always been very interested and involved in sport in Cromer I wish
to make comments on the various proposals. CABBELL PARK. I have played many games
of football here and am greatly saddened to think that this ground will not continue to be
Page 60 of 70
Comment
ID
Name
Organisation
Comments
Preferred
Site
used for this purpose. I cannot see why the pitch itself cannot be moved to the west
(towards the Academy). There would then be ample room for a new surgery at the
hospital end. There is already car parking space. Cabbell Park would then retain the
intimacy and atmosphere that it still has; and be easily accessible. To sacrifice this
sporting facility simply to satisfy the perceived need for more housing is tragic. If there is
such a great need why not build a similar number of houses on one of the sites off
Roughton Road? LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK (LDF) Having made the above
comments I do find the whole situation to be very ironic. When the Local Development
Framework was under discussion prior and up till 2009 there was land off Overstrand
Road, behind what is now Sutherland Court Gardens. This land (known as The Warren
Field) had been reserved for recreational purpose under the previous Structure Plan. The
LDF recognised that Cromer was already deficient of recreational land and it was pointed
out to the Planning Department under comments on the LDF that, with the proposed
increase in population in Cromer, the town would become even more deficient in
recreational space. To add insult to injury the Planners decided that this very field should
no longer be reserved for recreation purposes but should be allowed to have 60 houses
built on it. This therefore made the deficiency even greater. The Warren could have, with
some levelling, be made to accommodate sufficient youth football pitches. This was all
pointed out at great length under the LDF, but no, the Planners would not listen - even
though there were over 400 objections to using this field for building, and building here
was totally contrary to the previous structure plan. Now we have the North Norfolk
District Council searching for land for much needed playing fields!
CS152
Ms Fiona Rogers
Site 1
Not suitable because: 1. Not in Cromer Parish. 2. Not within walking distance of Cromer
Town generating the use of more vehicles.
Site 3
Site 2
Not suitable because: 1. Not in Cromer Parish. 2. Not within walking distance of Cromer
Town generating the use of more vehicles.
Site 3
Of all the shortlisted sites this one would be the most practical 1. Within Cromer Parish
Page 61 of 70
Comment
ID
Name
Organisation
Comments
Preferred
Site
and within the town boundary. 2. Road access onto the Overstrand road is good and this
is also a bus route. 3. Not too close to residential properties so light and noise nuisance
minimal. 4. Land would be brought into use again and not left derelict.
Site 4
Not suitable because: 1. Not in Cromer Parish. 2. Too far out from the centre of Cromer,
generating the use of more vehicles (even though on a bus route). 3. Access from The
Avenue is not a viable proposition. It is a narrow country lane totally unsuitable for the
sort of traffic that would be generated were the sports facility move to this location,
inevitably causing damage to verges. 3. Both fields are too close to the housing in
Christophers Close (light and noise nuisance). 4. Increased traffic would inevitably cause
problems for the residents of Christophers Close trying to enter and leave the
development and it might become a "car park" for users of the sports facility. (the road is
only just sufficient for the current residents use!).
General Comments
I accept there is a need for a new doctors surgery in Cromer, however careful
consideration must be given to the new location of the sports facility. I believe this
facility should remain within the bounds of Cromer itself and not move to another parish
- it is after all Cromer Football Club. One final comment - is there no room within the
hospital development for a new surgery to be built?
CS153
R Belshaw
CS154
Julie Chance
Clerk,
Cromer Town
Council
General Comments
It is clear that site 3 makes the best climate, business and environmental sense. The
others don't compare.
General Comments
The matter of the possible sites for the Cromer Community Sports Pitch facility was
discussed at the Full Council meeting last Monday.
Site 3
Site 3
The Members fully support Site 3 as the most appropriate site for this project.
Page 62 of 70
Page 63 of 70
Page 64 of 70
Page 65 of 70
Page 66 of 70
Page 67 of 70
Page 68 of 70
Page 69 of 70
Page 70 of 70