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