consultation statement - north quay spd · great yarmouth civic society – agreed with constraints...

CONSULTATION STATEMENT

Draft North Quay Supplementary Planning Document

How we consulted during the preparation of the North Quay Supplementary

Planning Document and considered the comments received

January 2020

Draft North Quay SPD | Consultation Statement– Jan 2020

Page | 1

Contents

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 2

How did the council respond to comments received? ........................................................................... 3

Question 1 - Are there any other constraints, issues or opportunities which we need to be aware

of when drafting the Supplementary Planning Document? ............................................................... 3

Question 2 - Is there any other evidence which you think would be useful to support the

preparation of the Supplementary Planning Document? ................................................................... 5

Question 3 - Do you agree with the overall proposed content of the Supplementary Planning

Document and is there anything else that the Supplementary Planning Document should contain?

............................................................................................................................................................ 6

Question 4 - Do you have any thoughts as to what the vision should be for the North Quay site? .. 7

Question 5 - Do you have any thoughts of the best mix of uses for North Quay and how they could

be distributed across the site? Or should there be just a single use on this site? ............................. 8

Question 6 - Are there any buildings or features on the site which should be retained as part of

any redevelopment? ........................................................................................................................... 9

Question 7 - Should the Supplementary Planning Document set limits or guidance on building

heights? If so how many storeys do you think would be appropriate in different parts of North

Quay? ................................................................................................................................................ 10

Question 8 - Do you have any thoughts on what elements of urban design should be included in

the design guidance for the site? ...................................................................................................... 11

Question 9 - Are you aware of any capacity issues in local infrastructure (such as schools,

healthcare, transport network) which may require improvements as a result of development on

North Quay? ...................................................................................................................................... 12

Question 10 - Do you have any other comments which could help the Council in preparing a

Supplementary Planning Document for North Quay? ...................................................................... 14

Appendix 1. ........................................................................................................................................... 16


Page | 2

Introduction This document provides a summary of the consultation undertaken on the North Quay, Great

Yarmouth Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) under Regulation 12 of the Town and County

Planning (Local Planning) Regulations 2012 (as amended). It provides the information required under

Regulation 12 and 13 of the above mentioned regulations. The document sets out:

• Which bodies and persons the local planning authority invited to make representations

under regulation 12,

• How those bodies and persons were invited to make representations under regulation 12,

• A summary of the main issues raised by the representations made pursuant to regulation 12,

• How these representations have been taken into account in the production of the Final Draft

SPD

The consultation took place over a 4 week period and commenced on Monday the 28th October

2019 and closed on Sunday 24th November 2019.

In accordance with the Councils adopted Statement of Community Involvement (SCI), direct

notification of the consultation was sent to:

• All Local Members

• Individuals who own property within the North Quay Supplementary Planning Document

Area

• Individuals who own property neighbouring the North Quay Supplementary Planning

Document Area

• General Consultees on our Local Plan consultation database

A press release for the consultation was issued and articles advertising the consultation were

published in the Great Yarmouth Advertiser and Great Yarmouth Mercury, these are shown in

Appendix 1.

The consultation itself was in the form of a questionnaire leaflet, which is shown in Appendix 2.

These were made available from Great Yarmouth Town Hall as well as from Local Libraries across the

Borough.

The Council also arranged a drop-in session consultation event at Great Yarmouth Town Hall on

Wednesday 6th November 2019, from 2pm-7pm.

Comments to the consultation were accepted via post to Great Yarmouth Town Hall or email to

[email protected].

The consultation attracted responses from 30 individuals or organisations. These responses

answered either some or all of the questions raised in the consultation leaflet generating 153

responses to the questions in total.

mailto:[email protected]


Page | 3

How did the council respond to comments received?

Question 1 - Are there any other constraints, issues or

opportunities which we need to be aware of when drafting the

Supplementary Planning Document?

Comments Summary

Statutory Consultees Anglian Water – Identified foul sewers located at Fishers Quay and Quay Hill Walk. They added the

SPD should ensure these assets are not built over and that suitable access is maintained for drainage

infrastructure. Provided some suggested text for inclusion in the SPD to reflect this.

Broads Authority - Noted the forthcoming Norfolk Green Infrastructure Strategy and Recreational

Avoidance and Mitigation Strategy. The Broads Authority also stated that development should take

account of providing a dark river corridor for wildlife and navigation of boats. They added it is a bye-

law offence to shine lights into the river that could confuse vessels navigating.

Environment Agency – Noted that Flood Risk is a key issue with the site being in Flood Zone 3a. They

noted that highly vulnerable land uses would not be acceptable. They noted their draft National

Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Strategy which is due to be published in 2020.

Suggested that flood risk management should fully integrated into the SPD. They identified the

opportunity for buildings to act as a retired flood defence removes the dependency on the existing

flood defences. This would allow the removal of steel sheet piling which could provide

environmental and aesthetic improvements. They noted the risk of overtopping of defences with

climate change over the lifetime of the development. They added that any works within 16m of the

existing flood defences would require a Flood Risk Activity Permit from the Environment Agency. It is

likely there will be tie rods and ground anchors associated with the steel sheet piling. They added

it would be useful to see studies prepared on ground conditions. They would want to see on-site

mitigation for ecology.

Historic England - Highlighted the importance of the historic environment within and adjacent to the

area. They noted the history of the town is reflected in its surviving historic fabric which gives it a

distinctive character. They stated that if the historic character is sustained and enhanced it will

serve as a positive and memorable arrival point to the historic town and improve connections

between the railway station and the town.

Marine Management Organisation – Noted the possible requirement for a marine licences for works

which take place below the mean high water mark. Noted the requirement to take into account the

Marine Policy Statement and the East Inshore and East Offshore Marine Plans.

Natural England - Noted the special features of Breydon Water SPA, Breydon Water Ramsar,

Breydon Water, SSSI and the Outer Thames SPA which will need to be taken into account fully.

Noted the potential for impact during construction phase in terms of the timing of work, noise and

lighting. Noted the potential need for a license from Marine Management Organisation.

National Grid – Stated they had no apparatus within the site.


Page | 4

Norfolk County Council – Noted the requirement for net gains for biodiversity. Recommended that

ecology work is in line with industry best practice (CIEEM guidelines) and the relevant British

Standard BS42020:2013. They welcomed the preparation of a flood risk assessment.

Other Consultees – Citygate Developments (Adjacent Landowner - Owners of Haven Bridge House) – Noted that car

parking is extremely important to attracting and retaining tenants.

Mr Westrup (Landowner) – noted that the local ground conditions are likely to prove worse that the

site surveys suggest. Previous developments involved piles that were twice as long as originally

considered appropriate by the survey. Noted that Lime Kiln House could be extended upwards based

on existing piled foundations. Therefore, the existing piles to this building are a hidden asset to the

site.

Great Yarmouth Civic Society – Agreed with constraints identified so far. Noted the need to consult

with the health and education bodies about the need for extra provision of these services. They

stated that this is a great opportunity to develop first class housing in a wonderful site with easy

access to the railway station and town centre. They hoped that such a development will attract

people who have money to spend in the town and a tree lined river-side walk would be a great

attraction.

General Public – A number of respondents noted the importance to take into account the need and opportunity to

allow space for community buildings that would benefit all in and around the North Quay area.

One respondent stated that an imaginative, carefully considered, truly well-designed redevelopment

of this extremely sensitive site could become the catalyst which sets the whole town of Great

Yarmouth on a new path to wealth and wellbeing and national and even international recognition.

They added that the development of the site could solve a number of dilemmas from which the

town currently suffers.

One respondent stated that development needs to be of sufficient scale in order to be viable and

noted the 7 storey apartment blocks opposite the site as attractive examples.

One respondent stated there was an opportunity for a modern statement building on the site.

One respondent stated there was an opportunity for the provision of a landing stage and riverside

facilities, linked to a transport hub.

One respondent stated the quality of architecture and open space around the river frontage should

be considered and that generic development should not be allowed.

One respondent stated that the restoration of the bridge should be completed and added it could be

utilised as a tram or electric bus link.

How comments have been addressed in Final Draft SPD Suggestions made by the statutory authorities relating to specific policy considerations were added

to the document where deemed appropriate.

Other consultees mentioned the priority of parking for any new developments which is noted within

the document. The potential for poor ground conditions is acknowledged and addressed in the

document.


Page | 5

Members of the public raised that the area could have some provision of community buildings which

was taken forward in the document text that community buildings could complement other uses on

site. The question of viability is noted within the document and seeks to address how development

will be delivered. The links with the proximity to the station to provide a transport hub are also

noted.

Question 2 - Is there any other evidence which you think would be

useful to support the preparation of the Supplementary Planning

Document?

Comments Summary

Statutory Consultees Broads Authority – Stated that any scheme needs to be worked up involving the Broads Authority.

They added that development should make the link to the internationally important estuary habitat

by encouraging net gain for wildlife.

Historic England- Stated that a study of the historic townscape should inform the SPD. They stated

that conservation area appraisals should be up to date. They also stated an understanding of views

into and out of the site would help establish principles of mass and scale. They added that

development should seek to enhance the setting of the listed buildings and character of the

conservation area.

Other Consultees – Citygate Developments (Adjacent Landowner - Owners of Haven Bridge House) – Note that

significant movements of heavy vehicles along North quay should be considered.

Great Yarmouth Civic Society – Stated that flood risk could be mitigated by raising flood defences or

the level of the land.

Mr Westrup (Landowner) – stated that Lime Kiln House is ideally suited to be used by people using

the train and the preferred option for the use of the building is for educational use.

General Public – One respondent noted that buildings opposite the site had been improved, exacerbating the run-

down appearance of the proposed area.

One respondent noted the risks from climate change and loss of flora and fauna. They also noted

the growth of renewables and that the site could be developed as a world-class example of how we

are going to live and work in the future.

One respondent stated that the Dutch barn-end architecture which is common in Great Yarmouth

could help inspire architecture.

One respondent stated that evidence should take into account the wider area surrounding the North

Quay area, especially the railway station and adjoining parking.

How comments have been addressed in Final Draft SPD The Broads authority’s suggestion to be consulted on schemes going forward is noted. However with

the Broads Area being adjacent to the site, the Broads Authority would be routinely consulted with


Page | 6

any schemes coming forward. The movement of Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGV’s) northwards was

raised and this should be somewhat addressed by the Third River Crossing project (which is expected

to lead to a reduction in HGV traffic through the town when operational) .

Historic England’s comments on the study of the townscape and other evidence is considered in the

production of the SPD.

Further evidence was suggested by others relating to information on climate change and

architecture which could influence design on the site. The SPD in its final draft form however in the

design principles section does not seek to be prescriptive over the design on site but should be in

conformity with the surrounding existing buildings of heritage as well as having regard to flood risk.

Question 3 - Do you agree with the overall proposed content of the

Supplementary Planning Document and is there anything else that

the Supplementary Planning Document should contain?

Comments Summary

Statutory Consultees Environment Agency – Stated that the context with regard to groundwater and contaminated land

needs to better specify details on potentially contaminative uses and details on surface water

drainage.

Historic England – Agreed with the proposed content.

Other Consultees – Great Yarmouth Civic Society- Agreed with the proposed content.

General Public – Most respondents agreed with the proposed content. A number of respondents requested

reference to community uses.

One respondent questioned the need for retail. Requested content on tree planting along footpath

and housing to be set back from the road. Also requested information signs overlooking Breydon

Water.

One respondent stated that public access along the river would enhance public support for major

development.

One respondent stated that more might be included about the overall planning framework,

aspirations for the Town and identification of similar areas with redevelopment potential.

One respondent highlighted the need to consider the site as a historic waterfront site and that the

open space, integration, views, recreation and seating must be a prime aspect. It was requested that

the document does not allow overshadowed areas.

How comments have been addressed in Final Draft SPD Groundwater and contaminated land are considered in the context section of the SPD. Reference to

community uses within the site is noted as possible in the SPD as well as landscaping and footpath

links.


Page | 7

Question 4 - Do you have any thoughts as to what the vision should

be for the North Quay site?

Comments Summary

Statutory Consultees Historic England – Stated that the vision should detail a vibrant urban quarter utilising its rich

heritage and prime urban riverside location to create a unique and high quality environment

Norfolk County Council – Recognised the potential development opportunities arising from the site

and the wider economic benefits development could bring. Noted that as gateway site with links to

the town centre and railway station, the site has significant potential for both housing and other

commercial development.

Other Consultees – Citygate Developments (Adjacent Landowner - Owners of Haven Bridge House) – Noted that the site

was a prime gateway site and has an opportunity to create stock of housing/style of living that is not

currently available in the town. Stated that viability is key and subsidies or Council involvement may

be needed to make development happen.

Great Yarmouth Civic Society – Stated that the area should be mainly residential, built to a very high

standard and eco-friendly with the aim to attract people who have money to spend in the town.

Considered that such a development would be a nucleus to encourage other people to move into

the town.

General Public – The following thoughts were expressed with regard to the vision:

• Mixed-use residential, recreational and restaurants and bars.

• Cycling and pedestrian provision

• New church with outward focus and community space to meet emotional and spiritual needs

• Mixed-use retail, residential and community uses.

• Community uses which bring together people of different ethnicities.

• Provision of a college annex

• Vibrant riverside location which will enhance the appearance and appeal of the whole of the approach to Great Yarmouth.

• Provision of greenspace near roundabout, landscape with seats.

• Public footpath along waterfront

• Car park screened from the road

• Attract people with spending power to live in the centre. People are attracted by heritage, good buildings, and pleasant places to stay and eat.

• North Quay, South Quay and rows have the potential to attract year-round tourism.

• River is the essence of the location.

• Sustainable location adjacent to town centre, rail station and public services and ideal for both residential retail/leisure purposes.

• Vast expanse of Breydon Water and the potential for beautiful sunsets.

• Opportunity to create a passenger boat quay

• Celebrate the location by the station and iconic bridge.

• Unify river and views of this space.


Page | 8

• Avoid over dense development (e.g. new restaurant at Wroxham). One member of public questioned the spending of public money on the area and stated there was a

danger the Council was being too ambitious. They added that the public would only visit a small part

of the site whatever attractions are delivered. They concluded that the Council should have a clear

idea what the site should be modelled on , if not piecemeal development would be preferable.

Another member of the public questioned the demand for an area of restaurants and stated that the

Council’s priority should be on the Winter Gardens and addressing traffic problems.

How comments have been addressed in Final Draft SPD There were a range of views expressed through the consultation of what the vision for North Quay

should incorporate. The overall vision has incorporated some of the views expressed. However, it

was more appropriate to incorporate some of the suitable suggestions into other areas of the

document, such as the possibility of community uses on site.

Question 5 - Do you have any thoughts of the best mix of uses for

North Quay and how they could be distributed across the site? Or

should there be just a single use on this site?

Comments Summary

Statutory Consultees Historic England – Considered that mixed-use is most likely to support a vibrant and sustainable use

of the area. They added an analysis of the townscape will help guide the distribution of uses. They

stated in the area of small scale domestic historic buildings, a similar scale of buildings and character

of intervening spaces would help to sustain and enhance the significance of the area.

Norfolk County Council – Uses outlined in the Core Strategy would be fully supported by the County

Council subject to appropriate infrastructure provision and mitigation. Added that reference should

be made to their planning obligations standards. Also invited the Borough to consider the need for a

Health Impact Assessment.

Other Consultees – Citygate Developments (Adjacent Landowner - Owners of Haven Bridge House) – Stated that a mix of

uses is essential, but given poor demand for retail/leisure and offices, residential should be the

bedrock. Emphasis should be on quality and attracting people that currently are not considering

Great Yarmouth as a place to live/visit.

Great Yarmouth Civic Society – The site should be mainly residential with good recreational uses and

river-side walk. Some provision of office space and some provision of food and drink use.

Mr Westrup (Landowner) – Stated that the area should not be a single use and a mix of uses would

be more sustainable.

General Public – Suggested approaches to the mix of development included:

• Community focused buildings in addition to residential, retail and offices.

• Combination of retail, leisure, employment and residential


Page | 9

• No food and retail outlets as these should be in town centre

• No more housing.

• Mixed-use which attracts new visitors to the town.

• Well-designed affordable housing (Norwich Sterling Prize winning scheme referenced as a

precedent)

• Small-scale mixed use developments with individual designs.

• Overemphasis on office or retail could lead a scale of development which is too large.

• A single use would introduce sterility during working hours and not realise the unique

locational potential.

• Connectivity with railway station both logistically and visually.

How comments have been addressed in Final Draft SPD Comments broadly support the rationale of mixed use and the SPD expectation is that schemes

coming forward would likely include a mix of uses. The SPD states that the comprehensive nature of

any scheme(s) is particularly important.

Question 6 - Are there any buildings or features on the site which

should be retained as part of any redevelopment?

Comments Summary

Statutory Consultees Broads Authority – Stated that the site is very prominent providing part of the wider gateway to the

Broads from Great Yarmouth and visa-versa. They added that the conservation area, listed buildings

and other non-designated heritage assets have a level of historic significance. They added that

some of large industrial buildings hint to the industrial past. They stated that it would be important

to preserve and better reveal these assets. They stated that new development should reflect the

history of the site and relationship to the Broads.

Historic England – The noted that legislation and policy support the retention of listed buildings and

buildings that make a positive contribution to conservation areas. They concluded that these should

be retained and their significance sustained and enhanced as part of the redevelopment.

Other Consultees – Mr Westrup (Landowner) – Stated that Lime Kiln House already has substantial foundations and

could be converted into multiple uses. Added that cladding could be added to make it look more

pretty so long as it does not create a fire risk.

General Public – Members of the public suggested the following buildings and feature should be retained:

• Listed buildings

• Brick features present within the built context – however, should not discourage new

development from proposing contemporary materials and textures.


Page | 10

• Concern raised about loss of businesses.

• All of the houses and the Seafood Restaurant.

• The Seafood Restaurant could be enhanced by a non-conventional building using modern

using contemporary materials

All buildings of character, architectural and historical interest. Would be a waste of heritage,

opportunity for re-use and energy to demolish these buildings

How comments have been addressed in Final Draft SPD The Broads Authority’s comments in regards to the gateway to the Broads were noted within the

scale and density section of the SPD as well as the Landmark Buildings section.

The SPD is not explicit over the buildings which should be retained, however, it does give regard to

national and local policies which seek the safeguarding of heritage assets, as raised by respondents

to the consultation. These would need to be taken into account in the development of any schemes,

as appropriate.

Question 7 - Should the Supplementary Planning Document set

limits or guidance on building heights? If so how many storeys do

you think would be appropriate in different parts of North Quay?

Comments Summary

Statutory Consultees Historic England - Encouraged the SPD to have guidance on heights of new buildings and added that

what would be appropriate should be informed by the detailed studies and an informed

understanding of the context. They emphasised the strong historic character and quality of the

historic buildings on nearby Hall Quay which include the Town Hall and that the scale of new

development does not detract from the Town Hall as a focal point for the area.

Other Consultees – Great Yarmouth Civic Society - Stated that buildings should be limited to 3-4 storeys in height with

the exception of one tall building.

Mr Westrup (Landowner) – Noted that local ground conditions will create a natural restriction on the

height of buildings

General Public – One member of the public suggested four storeys should be the height limit.

It was suggested that regard needs to be had to context in terms of height. However, key elements

could be higher in the form of a landmark to give the area a new identity.

One respondent suggested that height was not a major consideration and the height should be

appropriate to the maximum use of this prime site.

It was suggested that a height restriction would help meet Government housing policy. It was added

that Georgian style would look very nice.


Page | 11

It was suggested by one respondent that up to 7 storeys would work on the waterfront with 3

storeys height limit along North Quay.

One respondent suggested Goldsmith Street in Norwich as a precedent.

One member of the public suggested that a tower like structure, echoing a traditional wind

pump/light house - a vertical feature visible from Breydon Water and parts of the town and Station

could be appropriate.

It was suggested a community building could have a greater height and serve as a local landmark just

as St. Nicholas Minster Tower is seen from a long way off.

How comments have been addressed in Final Draft SPD There were mixed views on whether the SPD should set a maximum height for development on site.

The SPD does have a section on building heights but is not explicit over a maximum height, stating

that the height of the buildings are a key consideration in development on the site and are key in the

sense and quality of place that will be achieved on site. The SPD explains that building heights will

need to take into account the historic environment.

Question 8 - Do you have any thoughts on what elements of urban

design should be included in the design guidance for the site?

Comments Summary

Statutory Consultees Environment Agency – Stated that the vision for redevelopment should set out how flood risk

management will be incorporated into the layout and design.

Historic England – Stated that the design guidance should consider height, mass, layout, public

realm, design codes and quality in a way that is constructive and clear to ensure an appropriate

design response but also enables a creative approach. They drew attention to the Streets for All

guidance and Manual for Streets.

Sport England - Drew attention to Active Design publication and commended its use in the

masterplanning process.

Other Consultees – Citygate Developments (Adjacent Landowner - Owners of Haven Bridge House) – Stated that height

was an important factor to benefit from the views across Breydon Water and out to Scroby Sands.

General Public – A few respondents stated that design should be modern and contemporary and be of a high

standard making a positive contribution to the character of the area.

It was suggested that wide pavements should be provided to promote interaction and friendliness.

It was suggested that there should be a mix of materials and greenery to cultivate an atmosphere of

welcome and friendliness; something that is currently severely lacking.

It was stated that the scale and height of the developments should blend in with the whole area and

look aesthetically pleasing as you enter the town along the road.


Page | 12

It was suggested that the site should included houses and apartments with parking underneath.

It was opined that it would be a real tragedy if this precious site were to become just another area of

poor quality cheap housing. It was stated that Great Yarmouth should be aspiring to become a

leading example of sustainable and beautiful housing. They added that the opportunity of creating

an avenue of good modern housing along The Conge is exciting and should be considered as part of

the North Quay development project.

One respondent suggested they liked the Dutch Barn style of architecture potentially with a modern

twist.

It was suggested that local vernacular style, scale, and materials common to Yarmouth would be

appropriate.

It was suggested that public areas should be made of low maintenance robust materials. Residential

design should conceal bin storage.

One respondent stated that historic replication of buildings should not be allowed.

How comments have been addressed in Final Draft SPD The Environment Agency’s suggestion that the SPD should provide guidance over how flood risk

management is incorporated into the design of any scheme to come forward was included within

the SPD.

The suggestions from Historic England for elements of urban design guidance to be incorporated

into the SPD were considered and included where appropriate. Sport England’s suggestion of

referencing the Active design publication for proposals coming forward was included.

Suggestions relating to height and views was acknowledged and the potential for such views whilst

having regard to the setting of listed buildings on site was included within the SPD.

Integration with the wider area was also raised and this is incorporated into the SPD.

A high standard of modern design was raised by a number of respondents as well as by others

suggesting that materials should be in keeping with the local vernacular. Other suggestions were

made suggesting particular precedents for design which were considered when exploring the design

principles section of the SPD.

Question 9 - Are you aware of any capacity issues in local

infrastructure (such as schools, healthcare, transport network)

which may require improvements as a result of development on

North Quay?

Comments Summary

Statutory Consultees Norfolk County Council – Welcomed reference to transport considerations and note any future

development would need to be accommodated by a Transport Assessment. They encouraged

engagement with the Highway Authority ahead of taking forward the SPD. They noted there was

considerable opportunities for improving sustainable transport links in this part of the town.


Page | 13

Other Consultees – Citygate Developments (Adjacent Landowner - Owners of Haven Bridge House) – Stated that

development was unlikely to have much of an impact on traffic. They added that pedestrian links to

the town centre are important. They state that a proper crossing over the North Quay road should

be considered along with narrow footpaths.

Mr Westrup (Landowner) – Noted that accessibility to the site is good. Stated that other parts of the

town needed regenerating. Also added that a college would be good for the site.

General Public – A number of respondents suggested a church and community hub could be provided on the site to

meet spiritual needs.

It was suggested that traffic calming measures must be adopted.

It was stated that the increased population would increase the need for educational and health

needs and increase traffic.

It was suggested that the redevelopment will put pressure on the rail company to improve the

station and its approach.

It was stated that there was a need for controlled parking (i.e. resident/business permit zone).

It was suggested that the railway bridge project does need to be completed.

One respondent suggested that North Quay road could be closed as an all vehicle traffic route and

suggested that the County Council should carry out assessment to see if it was feasible.

How comments have been addressed in Final Draft SPD Transport was raised by both Norfolk County Council and members of the public, the SPD states that

a transport assessment would need to accompany any application for development on site, this also

includes reference to parking which was raised. Pedestrian linkages were raised as important and

this has been reflected in the “Access for All” section of the SPD.

The railway station, its approach and railway bridge was noted by respondents. Recently there has

been a significant improvement project to the station and its public realm but the SPD does

recognise the opportunity through the site to improve links to and from the station into the town

centre of Great Yarmouth.

Community uses were also raised, and this type of use has been raised as a potential use within the

mixed use offer which could be provided on site.

Other infrastructure such as education and health were raised. Policy CS17 which the SPD builds

upon, already references through part m) educational and health facilities to meet the day to day

needs of future and existing residents.


Page | 14

Question 10 - Do you have any other comments which could help

the Council in preparing a Supplementary Planning Document for

North Quay?

Comments Summary

Statutory Consultees Broads Authority - Advised that they has considered the potential for moorings but concluded that

the tide and sand/mud would render it unsuitable. They added that safety by the water is an

important consideration. They advised consulting with the RNLI, Coastguard and ROSPA.

Norfolk County Council – Advised that the site is not on a Mineral Safeguarding Area, nor does it fall

within the consultation area of any existing mineral site or waste management facility, or the

consultation area of any allocated mineral extraction site.

Other Consultees – Great Yarmouth Civic Society - Provided a number of comments:

• housing should be the main component with views across Breydon Water.

• Housing should attract people who have money to spend in the town.

• Housing should be of excellent quality, eco-friendly with minimal heat loss

• The use of heat pumps, extracting heat from the water should be investigated.

• The Seafood Restaurant and existing houses should be protected.

• A building housing start-up businesses would be ideal.

• Considered the potential of relocating the Winter Gardens, but raised concern about the

provision of parking to serve it.

• Retail provision not required as it could draw people away from the centre.

• Food and drink-uses supported.

• A riverside walk, lined with trees was essential.

• A park and recreational are was also supported.

• Educational and health services should not be provided on the site.

• An iconic tall building on one-side of the site would provide amazing views over Breydon

water

• Traffic issues need to be considered.

• Need to re-vamp the station

• Suggestion of a tram or robotic electric vehicle to link up parts of Great Yarmouth.

• Encouragement of people to use bicycles.


Page | 15

General Public – A number of respondents supported the provision of a new church for the Baptist community on the

site.

It was stated that the site is currently an eyesore and has major potential to improve approaches to

town.

It was stated that the Winter Gardens could be dismantled and relocated to the North Quay site to

provide a key iconic building on the site. It was suggested that the site could then become a

botanical garden similar to Kew.

One member of the public noted that much of the space to the rear of the site is used for car parking

for Havenbridge House.

One respondent suggested that the Broads Authority should relocate to Great Yarmouth on the

North Quay site.

One respondent stressed that it is important not to miss this opportunity to deliver a quality scheme

and it is critical to provide open space for public use and enhance heritage buildings even if not

listed.

How comments have been addressed in Final Draft SPD Mooring facilities have been deemed unsuitable by the Broads Authority, therefore mooring

facilities were not considered in the SPD. Water safety and the risk of flooding is noted as a key

consideration in development of the site. Norfolk County Council stated there are no underlying

minerals concerns on site. A number of respondents raised that there was the need to provide a high

quality development which is an key part of the SPD’s Vision to require high quality land uses.

The value of regenerating historic assets such as the Winter Gardens in Great Yarmouth is

recognised by the Council, and the historic assets within the site are noted within the context of the

SPD. However, the suggestion of the relocation of the Winter Gardens is deemed outside the scope

of the SPD.

The riverside path and access including encouragement of cycling infrastructure is also included

within the scope of the SPD.

A new church or community facility on site was raised. Community buildings could complement

other uses on site and is noted in the Land uses and Mix section of the document but would need to

be considered in a comprehensive manner across the site.

The view that the site was currently an eyesore was expressed and is acknowledged. The vision of

the SPD is to enhance this important part of Great Yarmouth through comprehensive regeneration.


Page | 16

Appendix 1.

Press releases in Local Press for the North Quay SPD


Page | 17

consultation statement - north quay spd · great yarmouth civic society – agreed with constraints...

Documents