Letter from City College

Note From CRC: Response from Dick Palmer regarding our letter and covering letter sent on 4thApril 2008.

Sent:

01 May 2008 16:41:52

Dear CRC Members

City College Norwich Campus Redevelopment

Thank you for your further letter which, in my holding reply, I promised to respond to in detail. I am sorry for the delay in doing so but you raised a number of points that I wished to respond to with as much further information as possible.

I genuinely don’t accept your first point about what you describe as a ‘predetermined PR exercise’ and it was absolutely not the intention to insult anyone’s intelligence, obfuscate or gloss over any facts. The decision to make sure that residents knew of our intentions at such an early stage – well in advance even of an Outline Planning application, over a year before a Full Planning application and potentially two years before any work begins on the site - was precisely to ensure that there was no suggestion of this being done in secret. The initial Open Days and communication to residents, and the recent newsletter (which will be a regular update) are all intended to ensure that residents are kept fully informed at every step of the way.

What I do accept is that the decision to share our plans months in advance of even having initial architects drawings or models, and specifically the decision to create a ‘blocking model’ of the Master Plan has led to some understandable concern among local residents. In hindsight, it was probably a mistake to use imagery and models that will bear absolutely no relation to the design of the campus that we actually intend to develop. Perhaps we should have waited until we had actual designs of what buildings will look like, their actual height and location but I still think it was right to begin a dialogue well in advance of that stage.

Doing so has enabled us to listen to concerns raised. For example, we have told our architects that they are to rethink the assumption in the Master Plan that some of the tallest buildings would be situated at the ‘back’ rather than along the Ipswich Road. Following our recent meetings I have now also asked for different options for transport on the site, rather than what has become known as the ‘ring road’ around the edge of the site.

As you rightly point out, the Master Plan is not in any way the actual ‘design’ for the campus. You are quite right to say that you have not been given what you need to assess the actual impact of what we propose. This is genuinely because we do not have those designs at this stage. We are at the stage in the process where we have now engaged architects and they are working on turning the Master Plan into actual designs from which you will be able to see precise heights, building positions, proposed use for each building. The Master Plan is simply a requirement to gain Outline Planning permission by setting out the absolute maximum extent of where we may build – in terms of density, closeness to the edge of the site and height (set out in the Design and Access Statement and Parameter Plan). I cannot stress enough that we have no intention of either building to all of these maximums (even if we were to gain the permission to do so), nor in any way to the style, shape or design of the pictures or model that we created to demonstrate the Master Plan.

I can assure you that we will share the designs as soon as we have agreed them with the architects and will present them, together with demonstrations of the actual views from the different positions of residents’ homes as part of a full further stage of consultation. I suspect this to be later this year, probably in the early Autumn. We will not be applying for Planning Permission based on these designs until the end of 2008 or early 2009..

Turning to the specific points that you raised in your letter:

Reliability of funding
You raised the concern that we are only at this stage applying for funding for Phase 1 of the project and you understandably raise the possibility that we will have a ‘half completed’ redevelopment – particularly as we are redeveloping the ‘two ends’ of the campus first. We would certainly have preferred to submit one application for capital grant funding from the LSC. However, a combination of the scale of the project and their rules require us to split the project into phases, each of which would require a separate funding application. As such we are in the process of preparing our Application in Principle to secure funding for Phase 1. This has nothing to do with the announced demise of the LSC in three years time. The Government has now announced that for the next three years the FE capital investment programme will continue to be administered by the LSC and that thereafter the main FE capital investment programme will be distributed via the new Skills Funding Agency who will be responsible for approving capital bids for FE Colleges. We have been clearly advised by DIUS that we should see no practical change as a result of this moving of responsibility. There is to be no reduction in the national capital budget for rebuilding FE institutions and it is simply a case of applying to a different quango. The Governors and I are committed to the redevelopment of the whole campus and our discussions with the LSC lead me to have confidence that there is support for our campus-wide proposals.

Student numbers
There are a number of new policy initiatives from the Government that will impact on our student numbers. The education leaving age is set to rise in 2013 from 16 to 18. There will be 17 new Diplomas introduced over the next three years, potentially meaning a substantial rise in the number of 14-16 year olds at City College (where they are likely to come for at least one or two days a week, alongside their own school, to access the facilities necessary for the teaching of many aspects of the Diplomas). The College is also part of the drive to meet a range of new national targets on skills, including the numbers of adults with Level 2 and 3 qualifications which will again see a rise in adult learners in coming years. The government has announced a very large expansion in apprenticeships, many of which will see apprentices coming to the College for a day or more a week. Finally, the housing growth set for Norwich is over 30,000 new homes leading to an increase in student numbers. Given all of these factors which collectively evidence a very substantial possible/latent demand for additional student places at the college, we have taken a considered view on overall growth in numbers.

Traffic and parking
Within the outline planning application a detailed traffic survey has been carried out and submitted to Norwich City Council. On-site parking during Phase 1 will be limited due to the loss of both the staff car park to the North and the student car park to the South; it should be noted that the new car park is currently planned for completion at the end of Phase 1 (2012). Options to provide off-site parking during this time are being reviewed but no agreements have been made to date. A detailed Transport Assessment was undertaken and has been submitted to Norwich City Council as part of the planning application. The Transport Assessment included an appraisal of current traffic levels both within the College campus and on the adjoining roads. This appraisal was based on traffic surveys that were undertaken at the College on Tuesday 11 December 2007 between 0700 and 2200. The surveys included multi-modal surveys at all College accesses (vehicular and pedestrian) and classified vehicle turning counts at the Ipswich Road/Town Close Road junction. In addition, an automatic traffic counter (ATC) was installed on Ipswich Road for a period of a week around the date of the other surveys.

The Master Plan study identified the need for an internal access road to serve the development. The current proposals allow for this access road to have a typical kerb to kerb width of 6.0 to 7.0 metres.

The issue of whether this road needs to be one-way or two-way will be subject to further study during the detailed design stage of the project, which will consider the impact on the Ipswich Road. The Transport Assessment does not specifically address the issue of buses and coaches using the access road, however, the area indicated on the Parameter Plans for access and parking infrastructure would allow for a larger road width (if this is considered necessary) which means that these vehicles could be safely accommodated if required.

On-site parking will be limited during Phase 1 due to the loss of both the staff car park to the north and the student car park to the south. The College is exploring a number of options for providing car parking during this phase of the development, however, no agreements have been made to date. It should be noted that the new car park is currently planned for completion at the end of Phase 1 (2012).

Regarding the parking of buses and coaches to the West side of Ipswich Road north of Hornor Close I have investigated and this appears to be a ‘Bus Layover Bay’ where any bus operator can park for a maximum 30 minute stay.

Buildings
The number of buildings is not yet known. Page 62 of the Outline Planning application explains the extent of our knowledge in this area at this time. I will know more when more detailed architectural plans have been developed. The use of the building adjacent to the Car park could range from an energy centre to a warehouse; it should be noted that we are seeking other options on situating the energy centre within the building envelope of either plots to the North or South. The main use of the road-way will be for access to the car park, the drop-off/pick-up area and also for deliveries to the College; access and egress will be from Ipswich Road as indicated in our Outline Planning application. Although the PPG indicates that a greater number of parking spaces should be provided the College has committed to maintain the numbers in the Outline Planning application. This is due to the limitations of the campus but genuinely a commitment to the environment. The College has a Green Travel Plan, submitted as part of the planning application, which sets out the policy of the College. The purpose of seeking Outline Planning permission is to provide the College with some certainty while plans develop.

Neighbourhood studies
As I advised in my previous letter, a number of surveys have been conducted as part of the planning application including Ecology, Arboricultural, Flood Risk, Geo-Environmental, Sustainability and Transport Assessment. Further and more detailed studies will need to be carried out as part of our detailed planning application which comes later in the process.

A screening letter was sent to Norwich City Council planners to enable them to assess whether there was a need to conduct an environmental impact assessment. The City Council has subsequently confirmed that the College does not need to conduct such a survey. However, the College did commission a desk study resulting in a Geo-environmental report which was submitted as part of the planning application. As the project progresses more detailed site surveys will be carried out and appropriate measures taken.

Tree Preservation
A detailed tree survey was undertaken and submitted as part of the planning application. The council’s Tree protection Officer was consulted on the survey and mitigation measures before the application was submitted.

Timetable
The outline planning application was validated by the Council on 19 March 2008 and they have advised that to meet their government target of dealing with major applications a decision is due by 18 June. Detailed planning applications for the first buildings at the Northern & Southern ends of the campus along with a car park and building adjacent to the new car park are planned to be submitted early in 2009 and will involve a further round of public consultation in advance of that

Architects
To date the project has completed the Materplanning Stage and the Outline Planning Stage (submission of) and is currently in the Application in Principle Stage. One design team led by Aukett Fitzroy Robinson were commissioned for the Masterplanning and outline planning stages and this commission is now complete. A new commission competed under the Official Journal of the European Union was awarded to a new design, Building Design Partnership, to take the project forward. The consultant project team is also augmented by a Project Manager, Quantity Surveyor, Construction and Design Management Coordinator, and Town and Country Planner. These appointments will be further enhanced with specialist support as and when needed. These appointments are not extraordinary for a scheme of this nature or size and have been amassed to ensure that the College has the right level of support and advice in progression of its plans. Much of this team will be taken through the whole project. In terms of legal support the project team has only one consultant legal team working on the scheme providing legal advice as necessary.

Public Consultation
Letters to those who forwarded a feedback form were sent out on 28^th February. Subsequently, a Newsletter on the proposals was delivered to households in the area on 11^th April and also separately sent on 15^th April to those who forwarded a feedback form. Also, a letter was delivered to Cecil Road residents concerning separate plans for a new building at the back of the existing Thetford Building.

Relocation
Finally, you raise the possible relocation of the College to a ‘greenfield site’. Even if one were available, would be difficult to justify in planning terms. The thrust of government policy is for the reuse of brownfield sites and to relocate developments in sustainable locations where there is high quality access by means other than the private car. If the college were to relocate then the current site would need to be redeveloped in such a way as to maximise its value to offset the cost of a new site. This would almost certainly be for housing. Given the size of the site (some 7.7 hectares) this could reasonably be expected to accommodate well in excess of 400 units (with at least some of this in apartment blocks of a similar height to that proposed in the outline application), given its proximity to the city centre. The traffic generation, construction issues etc being raised in connection with the college proposals would all be present in such an eventuality.

In conclusion, I do understand and acknowledge the concerns of residents. As I have said, I accept that the pictures and blocking model of the Master Plan caused unnecessary and added worry as they have been interpreted as representing the scale and even design of how the College will look post redevelopment. That will not be the case. As soon as we are in a position to share actual designs of buildings, their precise location, size, the views from local houses and the proposed use of each building we will do so, and consult properly with residents on the proposals. We are not at that stage yet.

However, in the interim, I will continue to listen to the concerns of residents, have an open door to discussing those concerns and ensure that our architects are aware of the specific issues that it may be possible to address in the design process. As I have said, we have already done so in relation to the pushing of the maximum heights of buildings to the Ipswich Road side of the campus (a change from the masterplan) and I am now looking at different options in terms of vehicles on the site. I will continue to do all I can to ensure we take all practical steps to meet the concerns of residents without compromising the needs of our future students and the education and skills needs of our wider community in Norwich.

Yours sincerely

Dick Palmer

Principal

CRC - College Meeting Minutes

MINUTES OF MEETING
Norwich City College
9a.m. 10th April 2008

Attendees:-
Norwich City College - Dick Palmer - Tony Huggins - Phil Taylor

College Redevelopmentent Concerns - Barrie Nunn - Peter Caryer - Mark

Purpose of Meeting:- Review of Plans for development of new building adjacent to Thetford Building

1) The Proposal

- Government has instigated 17 new vocational courses for 14-19yr-olds, with staged rollout from 2009-2013, and of which City College has successfully applied as part of a consortium, for 3 of the 9 courses currently available;
- One of these is in “Bricklaying, Building and Construction in the Built Environment”;
- The project is grant-aided with £600k of the £1m grant for the project is to be allocated to NCC, with the balance split between partners, Hewett School, Blyth Jex and Costessey;
- Project cost for NCC is £1.6m, balance to be funded from borrowing or reserves;
- Building to be integrated into overall redevelopment plan subject to Detailed Planning Permission.

2) The Building
- A “green” 2-storey building incorporating modern environmental design aimed at low carbon footprint;
- Construction to be a mix of hemp-block, timber, stone, sedums to the roof, “revealed” construction, and use of solar panels, sustainable materials;
- Low impact development, less intense construction, need for bore-hole to provide water;
- Usage – courses in CAD-based, project-focussed building design, allowing students to energy-saving concepts in action, use of materials and sustainability of alternative building methods;
- Footprint stated as being equivalent to current terrapin building.


3) Student Numbers
- NCC already have 1,000 students attending similar but more practical courses;
- Expected numbers for the new courses are 80-100 day-to-day.

4) Transport
- Points were raised concerning the conflict with construction of the new perimeter road, if the main plan receives planning approval.

5) Critical Cost Comparison
- Cost will be greater than for construction using conventional materials, due to their scarcity in this relatively undeveloped market within the construction industry;
- Old-tech techniques have been updated to modern design;
- Longevity of the building is projected as 40-50yrs.

6) Action-Plan
- CRC to communicate plans to neighbours, but allowing for reservations to be expressed given the nature and location, as well as impact on trees and neighbouring property;
- NCC to write confirming submission of Detailed Planning Application.
- Plans to be made available to CRC possibly by e-mail post-submission.

7) Main Application
- Meeting was not aimed at addressing the main application, but questions were aired concerning the location, impact and screening of the car-park, and the location of the “Energy Centre”.
Meeting concluded 10.25 a.m.

Note

Please Note - This page runs with most recent letter first, so you will find first letter of correspondence is at the bottom of this page

Letter from City College

NOTE FROM CRC COMMITTEE-
We await Dick Palmers reply to our letter and covering letter both dated 4th April 2008

04 April 2008 16:43

Dear Mr Nunn
Thank you for this correspondence.

I will respond to you as soon as is practically possible; given the detailed nature of some of your points/questions, however, this may take quite a time.

Regards


Dick Palmer
Principal
City College Norwich

Letter To College From CRC

NOTE FROM CRC COMMITTEE - Covering letter sent attached to letter below

4 Apr 2008 16:24:43

Dear Mr Palmer

You kindly replied to original questions raised in March by John Cockburn.
Following discussions at committee and the meeting with you at the College on 18th March 2008, the attached is our considered response in light of both that meeting, the consultation process itself, and the now actual application submitted to Norwich City Council for Outline Planning in respect of the redevelopment programme.

We should be grateful if you would let us have your responses to additional questions raised as soon as practicable, bearing in mind the clock is now ticking following letters issued by the Council under the 21-day notification rules in such cases.

We would like to thank you for your time and attention, and in advance for a rapid response to the attached, in order that we may have a clear understanding of the issues raised.

Yours sincerely


Barrie Nunn
On Behalf of the Committee
College Re-Development Concerns

Letter To College From CRC

Dear Mr Palmer,
Thank you for your responses to the questions outlined in John Cockburn’s letter to you, as per your e-mail dated 3rd March 2008. As stated, the questions posed to you were asked on behalf of a committee of extremely concerned residents and neighbours of the College, and it is as a Committee that we are now writing to you afresh having had an opportunity to consider the responses in light of the meeting between some of the members and yourself on Tuesday, 18th March 2008.

The following is a synopsis of our responses to your replies, and of impressions from the meeting of 18th March 2008:-

* frankly, it is felt some responses are part of a predetermined PR exercise, engineered to soften the impact of the reality of things to come on neighbours, whose lives will be affected profoundly should the proposals for redevelopment be allowed to proceed without check;

* the impression is given that this is an attempt to gloss over the facts, which rather insults the intelligence of those who have rather more than the ultimate finished work of the proposed development to consider;

* we do not feel that all questions have been addressed in a straightforward fashion, but that instead of clear and simple responses, an attempt at obfuscation pervades intended to divert attention from some of the real issues;

* nothing is offered to reassure that the entire scheme is not constructed in such a way as to obtain planning permission on the basis of potential local and regional benefits, but without the substance of factual and studied data or research which would either support or undermine the college’s estimation of educational, demographic, environmental and structural impacts and fundamentals. After all, you admitted during our meeting that the College as it stands now, without redevelopment, could accept 5,000 extra students plus the required extra staff, only bringing the College back in line with the capacity existing at the commencement of your tenure as Principal;

* the Outline Planning Application and supporting documentation, now submitted and a copy of which you have kindly arranged for us to have, sets out, as you yourself confirmed, the “Master Plan”, rather than what you verbally indicated to us is the actual “design” for Phases I and II. In other words, we, together with all affected residents and neighbours, still have very little to give a guide as to the actuality of what disruption and upheaval we might face, over the possible 7 years of the project;

* the thought occurs that the entire scheme could have as its founding concept the determination to achieve Phase I, with the awareness that either funding will not be forthcoming, or the disbanding of the LSC in 2011 with the project less than half-completed would result in Phase II not being built. The net result is that the entire “consultation process” would appear to have been a complete waste of time, and hardly effective in either informing or winning over the very residents and neighbours we would have thought the College would have seen as essential to your cause. However, you would have your “inner ring road”, car-park and buildings to the North and South ends of the campus. After all, when the late Sir John Harvey-Jones was asked how he would run a college and what he thought of the then 3-year strategic plans required in the early 1990’s, he is reported to have fallen about laughing, stating that “one year is a plan, three years is a dream”!!!



We are concerned that only a relatively small number of neighbouring residents have been made fully aware of your proposals, and that the entire “public consultation” exercise appears to have been carried out in a short-notice and “air-brushed” fashion. We have attempted to redress this imbalance, as we represent a very large number of concerned residents, not only those homeowners immediately adjacent to the college boundary, but also many more whose properties and lifestyle stand to be impacted upon by virtue of traffic and environmental effects of the proposed redevelopment programme, over a number of years, and to a degree to which little concern or awareness on the part of the management and governors of the college appeared to be in evidence at your open days.

Allow us to be candid – we are not anti-college, anti-student, anti-technology or anti-progress. Our concerns are that the primary concepts of the project itself are fundamentally flawed, paying only passing attention to the very significant potential structural, mental, environmental and economic effects on the entire wider community of otherwise supportive neighbouring residents.

We must, therefore, go over the original questions again, and state unequivocally why, having met with you and now had the opportunity to review the Planning Application, we do not consider some of your responses to be satisfactory. We would ask that you respect our intentions as representatives of concerned residents and neighbours, and give detailed and supported answers to the issues raised, as this would seem a more sensible approach than to face the prospect of these and other objections being put forward by a large number of people in the context of public representations at Planning Committee.


1. Given the demographic projections, what evidence is there that the College could attract anything like 20,000 students?

Your comments are noted. We would, however, ask whether consideration has been given to the current economic slowdown, and the far-reaching effects this may have on both the completion of the projected 30,000 new houses in Norwich, and the throughput in terms of eligible students? Given the fact that you are proposing to make redundant 60 members of your staff, and we also understand that some of your classes are half-full and some courses have been withdrawn. Further, has there not been a considerable drop in the number of adult learners in LSC-funded courses, with vey many more adult places disappearing by 2011?

2. Has a traffic impact study been carried out? – Please give details

Your original answer referred only to data to accompany the planning application, but you made further reference under 7.1 – Does the traffic assessment analysis cover current traffic levels inside the campus as well as all adjoining local routes, or are these projections only? If so, to what date and based on what original data? Does any traffic assessment relate to, or involve, proposed bus and coach routes through the campus, or allow for traffic flow for construction traffic for a period of 8 years? The proposal is for a 6-metre road, which could be either one or two-way – however it seems as yet undecided which it is to be, and thus unclear as to how this could impact on traffic movements.

Reference was made during our meeting to the nuisance created by the parking of buses and coaches to the West side of Ipswich Road north of Hornor Close – a situation of which you acknowledged you were aware. If any of these vehicles are for the use of College students and any part of this nuisance therefore relates to the College can you please confirm this in writing? Are we correct in understanding that you cannot rule out the possibility of these sizes of vehicles entering the campus to drop off and pick up student passengers?

Also, what consideration has been given, or assessment conducted, as to the need for/impact of off-campus parking for staff/students/construction workers, again over a period of 8 years from 2009? Have specific sites been considered or designated? Is the Hewett School a possible or considered location?

3. Has a neighbourhood study been carried out – Please give details

Your comments are noted.

4. Where is the funding coming from?

Your comments are noted. However, as it appears you have been unable to obtain any firm indication from the LSC of funding even for Phase I, there would appear to be a black-hole in your calculations to the tune of at least £70m, with no indication of available funding for Phase II.
Is this correct? You have confirmed an “indication of support” by the LSC, but this brings no guarantees. Can you confirm that a “permission in principle” – ie: Outline Permission – to your Outline Application is required even in order to apply for funding?

In addition, as estimates for the cost of redevelopment will be, at best, 2 or 3 years out of date by the time construction would be planned to commence in 2009, are these estimates themselves realistic?

5. How much has been confirmed and from which sources?

Your comments have been noted. Can you be more specific concerning “the level of their likely support”?

6. When will the public (especially local residents) be able to see realistic and comprehensive plans?

The application for Outline Planning Permission has now been submitted, to come before Committee by the end of May 2008.

Can you give us details of the number and uses of the proposed buildings at the north (Ipswich Grove) and south (Cecil Road) ends of the campus? You also omit to mention the use of the building adjacent to the proposed car-park, or detail how buses, coaches and other vehicles will access or egress the car-park and the campus – can you give details? Having now seen the Outline Application, some of the questions have been answered, however we are concerned that there are flaws in the proposals and we will be commenting on these at a later date.

We note from the Outline Application that you are hoping to provide 650 spaces to the car-park to the rear of the properties in Grove Walk, and another 90 spaces elsewhere on the campus, a total of 740 spaces. However, we understand that policy requirements set out under PPG13 require up to as many as 2050 spaces. Can you comment, bearing in mind this is not a “green” issue but a reflection of the restrictions limited by the capacity of the campus?

In the context of your suggestion that further public consultation will take place prior to detailed planning being sought in early 2009, is it not the case that approval of “outline planning” will render this an unproductive and irrelevant exercise, in that the College will already have approval “in principle” for the development as a whole, and it is difficult therefore to see that any public input at that stage would have any significant influence whatsoever?

7. What estimates of impact have you made on:-
i – Local Housing

The tree survey you refer to relates to trees on the boundaries or within neighbouring gardens; you omit reference to your policy or proposals relating to existing trees within the campus? The arboricultural report refers on this point.
We wonder why you are not required to carry out a “local housing” survey? Surely, given the following this should be a priority? (see ii below).


ii – The physical ground on which the neighbourhood rests

We expect you will be aware that the college campus and the surrounding neighbourhood are situated on “bad ground”, evidenced by the fact that some adjacent properties have in the past had to have underpinning and piling work completed to correct subsidence. At the present time, we are aware of one property adjoining the college boundary which has suffered damage due to the recent earthquake, bearing in mind the epicentre was in Lincolnshire. Further, whena 4-metre wide private road (half the width of your proposed road access) was constructed for access to Cecil Road at the Ipswich Road end, a large semi-detached property suffered subsidence as a consequence. Remedial works to this property included piling and underpinning in order to make the building stable.

We are therefore greatly concerned as to whether any consideration has been given to the probable impacts on adjacent and other neighbouring properties during redevelopment of the following:-

a) Demolition of existing buildings, including the grubbing out of existing foundations – e.g. shock waves, tremors, vibrations, noise pollution from heavy plant and air-pollution during removal by heavy lorries, plus impact on surrounding communities;
b) Large excavations – e.g. construction of underground car-parking and swimming-pool;
c) Further excavations – e.g. piling, footings and foundations – associated heavy traffic;
d) Hardcore compaction – relating to all building work and roadworks;
e) Movements of large industrial plant – e.g. JCBs, skip-lorries, removal of demolition debris, spoil, delivery of plant, materials, delivery & construction of cranes, on-site contractors’ site-huts, and so on;
f) Vibration, dust and noise-pollution affecting a wider range of properties opposite to, and in surrounding roads to, those directly adjoining the college boundary, associated with delivery and removal of materials as well as on-site construction work.

It should be stressed and understood that numbers of concerned residents may seek to protect their interests by looking to obtain pre- and post-construction structural surveys of their properties, and in so doing may look to the college and governors for reimbursement of costs in this regard, together with compensation of remedial costs in the event these prove that structural degradation to their properties has been caused directly or indirectly by the works to be carried out.

We wonder why you are not required to carry out an Environmental Impact Assessment?

We would refer you, in this context, to para 5.14 of the Norwich City Council Local Plan, and Policies EMP1, EMP2, EMP5, EMP16 (b) + (d), and in particular, EMP18, some of which appear to be directly in conflict with your proposed redevelopment proposals centred upon the existing campus. It is our opinion that a “local housing” survey of the potential impact of the plans on adjacent housing and amenities should be a pre-requisite of any planning application which would itself appear to be in contravention of the City’s own Local Plan.


8. Which publicly available documents contain discussions of the development plans and where can they be accessed?

Your comments are noted, although at this late stage with the planning application now submitted, we would expect the College web-site now to have available additional information, including details of the application itself and associated documents related to pre-application discussions, which would fall within the scope of the Freedom of Information Act. Please advise if this is now the case.

9. Who is the commissioned Architect?

It is unusual to see two substantial Architectural practices and a Project Manager appointed for a single scheme – is there an explanation for this? We are also aware that two further Consultants and two large firms of Solicitors have been independently commissioned to act on behalf of the College in support of the proposals. This would appear to be an extremely heavyweight team of representatives, and we wonder whether this is indicative of a central concern that favourable consideration may not be forthcoming from the Planning Committee. Please comment.

10. At what stage will schematic drawings be made available?

Your comments are noted.

11. When do you expect to go before the Planning Committee

This has now been submitted, and you advised should come before the Planning Committee at the end of May. Are you able to advise if notes of any pre-application meetings with the City or Planners are now available, and from where?

12. Are you expecting to submit a) and outline application, or b) a full detailed application?

You advised that the application was for Outline Planning.


Further questions

a) Public Consultation

Were recent letters giving further details of when you would be submitting your planning application sent only to residents/households who completed the questionnaires that were made available at the first public consultation meeting?

Did residents who attended the open days receive only duplicated, identical responses to their written feed-back concerns? We would have thought that these concerns – density, height of buildings, loss of light, loss of privacy & open space, road layout, bus/coach routes, local environmental impacts, impact on quality of life, traffic and associated noise & pollution – would be seen as indicative of general anxieties, and surely worthy of more individual replies. We therefore reserve the right to comment further at a later date.

What of those who attended the open days but did not complete a feed-back questionnaire, those who were unable to attend, those who are/were unaware of the open days, those who took no action as they felt nothing could be done, or the plans will not affect them? Would an appropriate approach perhaps have been to send a summary of the replies to some or all of these concerns to those on your “barbecue list” of residents? They are, after all, or should be considered as such, part of your “public consultation”!!
Will any of the questionnaire replies be posted on the College web-site? We would reserve the right to comment further on these points at a later date, however at this time can we state unreservedly as a committee representing very many concerned and anxious residents, that we are very unhappy with the way in which their views and worries appear to have been ambiguously manipulated.

b) Tree Preservation

We are reliably informed from discussions with a number of residents who have lived as neighbours to the college for years that the general standard of tree management by the college, conducted on the trees subject to preservation orders, is poor.

We are concerned as to whether the present poor state of many of the trees around the college boundaries is part of an intentional strategy allowing deterioration so that trees may be easier to remove despite orders being in existence, or simply die from neglect. What reassurance can you give that existing tree preservation orders will be observed during the proposed redevelopment programme, if approved?
We are aware that provision is included within the Planning Application for limited removal of a small number of trees, but our concerns cover the whole site.

(It is clear that the trees featured attractively on the model at the open days were the result of architects’ or model-makers licence, and bear little or no relation to actual final landscaping proposals, which most residents will consider to be a nuisance if trees are planted too close to their boundaries, due to the limitations of the site, further reduced in area by the scope of your proposals).

c) NIMBY?

As a former resident, with your family, of Grove Walk, albeit only as a tenant, would you be quite so in favour of the redevelopment programme, if you would have to live through the 8 years of upheaval all those now living in the immediate and surrounding area will have to do?

d) Sale of Property

Can you comment upon the dilemma which will face those residents neighbouring and in close proximity to the college who, through circumstance – eg: approaching retirement, ill-health, relocation, and other situations - must consider the sale of their property at any stage during the next 8 years?

The scope and nature of the demolition and reconstruction work will render it almost impossible for occupants to sell their properties, always assuming there are willing buyers to be found, who will not be put off totally by the outcome of initial searches. HIP packs, which are now required by law to be provided by the vendor for all properties offered for sale, will have to include notice of the application or granting of permission, and thus make plain the existence of a proposed industrial-scale building site on their doorstep.

In this context, the effects of the current downturn in the UK property market, due to the credit squeeze arising from the US sub-prime debacle, are likely to be seriously felt for many months, if not years, to come, putting further pressure on local residents and neighbours who might find themselves in a situation where a sale of property during the early part of the development phase could prove unavoidable.

Summary

We are most grateful for the time that you gave the members of the Committee and look forward to your further detailed responses in due course. In the meantime, we have been asked to acknowledge the courtesy and undivided attention extended by two of your staff – namely Duncan Anderson-Brown (Deputy Principal for Business Services) and Andrew Barrow (Director of Property Services) to one of our Committee members during a subsequent and more recent meeting.

Our understanding from these discussions is that the height of the proposed rear “tutorial” blocks have been reduced by one floor, this being added to the blocks fronting Ipswich Road, as a result of your “Consultations”. We consider this overall a minimal amendment, however, it would be churlish not to admit that at least it is the beginning of a step in the right direction.

Restricted as you are by the confines of your island site, we find it difficult to understand your lack of compromise in foregoing your proximity to the City Centre, in return for all the other numerous and positive benefits that a move to a green site would bring to your tutorial staff and students.

Perhaps, in closing, you could comment on this apparent lack of vision in widening your horizons and aspirations for a modern College of Excellence, starting with a “blank canvas”?

Letter from City College

Reply from Dick Palmer to letter 22nd February 2008

Received 03 March 2008
John

Apologies for the delay in getting these responses to you; I wanted to make sure that I gave you as much information as I can.

1. Given the demographic projections, what evidence is there that the College could attract anything like 20.000 students?
There are a number of new policy initiatives from the Government that will impact on our student numbers. The education leaving age is set to rise in 2013 from 16 to 18. There will be 17 new Diplomas introduced over the next three years, potentially meaning very large rise in the number of 14-16 year olds at City College (where they are likely to come for at least one or two days a week, alongside their own school, to access the facilities necessary for the teaching of many aspects of the Diplomas). The College is also part of the drive to meet a range of new national targets on skills, including the numbers of adults with Level 2 and 3 qualifications which will again see a rise in adult learners in coming years. The government has announced a very large expansion in apprenticeships, many of which will see apprentices coming to the College for a day or more a week. Finally, the housing growth set for Norwich is over 30,000 new homes leading to an increase in student numbers. Given all of these factors which collectively evidence a very substantial possible/latent demand for additional student places at the college, we have taken a considered view on overall growth in numbers.

2. Has a traffic impact study been carried out – please give details
Within the outline planning application a detailed traffic survey has been carried out (and will be submitted to Norwich City Council in March 2008).
3. Has a neighbourhood study been carried out – please give details
A number of surveys have been conducted as part of the planning application including Ecology, Arboricultural, Flood Risk, Geo-Environmental, Sustainability and Transport Assessment. We think that what you are referring to could be the Context Appraisal, which is embedded in our Design and Access Statement – this is part of our Initial Planning Application. Further and more detailed studies will need to be carried out as part of our detailed planning application which comes later in the process.
4. Where is the funding coming from?
Initially, the Government requires the College to utilise its own resources (both reserves and borrowings – estimated up to £20m), then the College will seek “gap” funding from the Learning & Skills Council which has a nationally funded capital programme for colleges, to which we are able to bid. A number of discussions have taken place with the LSC prior to the College setting out its plans to redevelop the campus and they (the LSC) have been supportive, in principle, to the sort of level of funding we are looking to access.

5. How much has been confirmed and from which sources?
Governors at the Corporation of City College have committed the funds to develop the first phase of an application to the LSC; this is known as the Application in Principle (AiP). The balance depends upon LSC approval of the AiP. As I have stated in 4 above, a number of discussions with the LSC have taken place prior to the plans being made public to assess the level of their likely support and the plans have been framed in response to that.

6. When will the public (especially local residents) be able to see realistic and comprehensive plans?
The outline planning application will be submitted in March 2008. Detailed planning applications for the first buildings at the Northern & Southern ends of the campus along with a car park and building adjacent to the new car park are planned to be submitted early in 2009 and will involve a further round of public consultation in advance of that

7. What estimates of impact have you made on
i. Local housing,
The traffic assessment included in the outline planning application includes an analysis of local traffic conditions including cars, buses & bus routes, motor cyclists, cyclists pedestrians and others. The tree survey will have considered the impact of the proposals on trees whose root protection zone extends to within the College boundary. We are not required to undertake a “local housing” survey nor are we sure as to what this would entail. Again, please see 3 above as to what surveys we have carried out.

ii. The physical ground on which the neighbourhood rests?
A screening letter was sent to Norwich City Council planners to enable them to assess whether there was a need to conduct an environmental impact assessment. The City Council has subsequently confirmed that the College does not need to conduct such a survey.

8. Which publicly available documents contain discussions of the development plans and where can they be accessed?
Materials about the College’s plans are available on the College website at www.ccn.ac.uk. After the submission of the outline planning application, the application itself and other associated documents will be available from Norwich City Council.

9. Who is the commissioned architect?
Aukett Fitzroy Robinson are the master planners who have prepared the outline planning application, Building Design Partnership have been appointed to develop the design of the buildings at least until AiP stage.
10. At what stage are their schematic drawings?
Master plans will be submitted with the Outline Planning application. More detailed, schematic plans will be available as the detailed design process progresses (see 6 above). These will be made available and subject to further consultation at the appropriate stage. These designs will be prepared by Building Design Partnership
11. When do you expect the plans to go before the Planning Committee?
This is a matter for Norwich City Council but the application is due to be submitted in March 2008 and the Council have 13 weeks to respond. It has been indicated that the application will be determined during May 2008.
12. Are you expecting to submit a) an outline application or b) a full detailed application?
It is outline planning permission that will be submitted in March 2008.
13. If you are unaware of timings do you expect it to be within the next 3 months?
See 12.

Please let me know if I can help more. I believe that we are now meeting on the 18th March – I look forward to seeing you then.

Regards


Dick Palmer
Principal
City College Norwich

Letter To College From CRC

From the CRC Committee -
First Correspondence between Dick Palmer the College Principal and the CRC Committee is as follows

22nd February 2008

Hello Dick

Ref: College Development Plans

I’m sure you’ll appreciate the proposals to rebuild the College have given rise to some concerns in the neighbourhood. Consequently a resident’s committee has been formed to monitor your plans. We have put together a set of questions we’d appreciate your responses to and they are as follows:

1. Given the demographic projections, what evidence is there that the College could attract anything like 20.000 students?
2. Has a traffic impact study been carried out – please give details
3. Has a neighbourhood study been carried out – please give details
4. Where is the funding coming from?
5. How much has been confirmed and from which sources?
6. When will the public (especially local residents) be able to see realistic and comprehensive plans?
7. What estimates of impact have you made on i. Local housing, ii. The physical ground on which the neighbourhood rests?
8. Which publicly available documents contain discussions of the development plans and where can they be accessed?
9. Who is the commissioned architect?
10. At what stage are their schematic drawings?
11. When do you expect the plans to go before the Planning Committee?
12. Are you expecting to submit a) an outline application or b) a full detailed application?
13. If you are unaware of timings do you expect it to be within the next 3 months?

These questions have put posed by a committee of residents and I have offered to submit them to you. Many thanks in anticipation of your reply. If necessary we’ll invoke the Freedom of Information Act to ensure we stay as fully informed as possible.

Yours

John Cockburn