Through the Easter School holidays families can explore North Lodge Park in rhyme

Saturday 1^st April to Easter Sunday 16^th April inclusive

This Easter, families can explore North Lodge Park with the help of a special Treasure Hunt. Carefully prepared by a trainee Bard, the rhyming couplets will encourage children to look around them and find the answers to the simple clues around the Park. On completion of the Treasure Hunt, the use of the magic word in the cafe will release an Easter Egg for successful children. Come and see what wonders there are in North Lodge Park.

The treasure hunt (and Easter Eggs!) will be available during cafe hours (10am-4pm Tuesday to Sunday)

Nominal Entry cost: 50p each

Date for your diary

Don’t forget our annual public meeting is on Wednesday 22nd March at 7.30 in the Community hall on Garden Street. Come and meet other supporters of North Lodge Park and discuss the Park and what you want to see over the coming year.

As a registered charity we’re entering a new phase in the life of the Friends. As well as needing volunteers for the day to day running of the group (and helping in the cafe and gardens) we’re looking for trustees who are specialists in their field – such as fundraisers, planners, and administrators – to help us take the charity forward. If you are interested and would like to give time and expertise to the charity please let us know.

The weather was kind to us, and even the one wet morning didn’t dampen the spirits.

The Park was buzzing all week with happy families.  A huge thank-you must go out to all of you who helped: the volunteers who helped with the organisation and in the cafe, and to the (almost) 2000 of you who came to see whether you could be the next Torvill or Dean.

Thanks to over 100 of you who completed the survey; you can see the results in the news.

The end of the beginning

At this morning’s NNDC Development Committee (Thursday 15th December) the planning application for developing part of North Lodge Park to provide a car park and new toilet facilities was refused, by 8 votes to 2, because it contravened several of the council’s core policies.

The decision was rather a surprise for us, but not unwelcome, and we must thank those councillors who spoke out against the proposals, and proved that a strong, evidence based argument is worth putting effort into.

We are pleased that councillors listened to arguments from the community, and think that a small celebration is allowed. It’s only a small celebration, because if the council had engaged with the community before submitting the application we could today be celebrating a bright future for the Park.

So the hard work starts now, to build bridges to avoid this new unexpected twist causing a lull in the future developments for the Park. We believe that if the park is invested in people will be attracted to it with the positive knock-on effect to the economy of the Town

Our ideas for a community trust are well advanced, and we hope to discuss these with NNDC early in the new year. If we can, and we believe we can, create a working proposal we’ll be able to have a proper celebration. We’ll then need your help to make the plans happen. The Park will not run itself and we’ll need many more of you to step up to the tasks.

But this evening it is time to relax, have a small celebratory drink, and lubricate the vocal chords for….

Carols in the Park

There is more reason to sing out at this weekend’s carol singing in the Park (2pm on Saturday) – hope to see many of you there.

To: NNDC Development Committee

PF/16/1251 | Change of use of former tennis court/play area to public car park and toilet facilities

The Friends of North Lodge Park, by nature of our constitution to improve the Park, have a special interest in this application, and want to do all we can, if there is to be a car park created in the Park, to make sure it is an appropriate development.

While, ideally, we would rather not have a car park we understand the financial pressures at NNDC and would accept a car-park if was of a sufficiently high quality and benefited the Park as a whole. However, the plans as submitted do not ensure sufficient quality and will not benefit the Park. There is also a real risk that these designs will lead to the creation of a car park that is inappropriate, dangerous to users, particularly children, and unsuitable for the disabled.

During the 3 months of the planning process we have tried to engage with NNDC, have been willing to discuss and compromise, but have been left frustrated by the lack of space in the planning process for dialogue; there has been little acknowledgement at NNDC that any of the points we have made have any merit to them and so we had to object to the application.

We are writing to you directly because it has not been possible to get a response to our specific concerns and we have no other means of ensuring these points are considered during the planning determination.

It remains our strong belief, that these are questions that should be resolved before the plans are passed, to confirm there is evidence for a public interest justification and to improve the design of the car park and toilet facilities.

1.   Is the design for the car park as proposed optimal, appropriate and safe?
The development of a part of North Lodge Park for non-recreational use is a major change. If the council is minded to make such a change we believe that the development should be the best for the space, appropriate and safe.

• One key justification for the car park is to improve the economic wellbeing of the east end of Cromer, yet there is no pedestrian access to Overstrand Road to facilitate this. To achieve this objective we would expect to see a pedestrian exit at the Overstrand Road end of the drive for pedestrians.
• We are pleased that priority has been given to blue badge holders, with a higher number of spaces than standard, yet the proposed (shingle based Bodpave) car park surface is not optimal for wheelchair users. We would expect pedestrian walkways to be a surface optimised for wheelchairs.
• We are pleased that the proposed toilet facilities include a fully accessible ‘changing places’ facility. The design of the slope for the ramp to the new toilet facilities doesn’t seem to meet national standards (the incline appears too steep, but without any measurements on the plans it is difficult to be certain). We would like to see the measurements to confirm this ramp does conform to national standards.
• The building being converted into the toilet facilities, built as a bandstand in the 1950s, is a key feature of the heritage of the Park. We would expect the finishing of the conversion to be higher quality than suggested in the proposal.
• A strict one-way system will operate in the car park, but it is suggested that no signs will be installed other that inserts into the surface, which are not prominent on the shingle based Bodpave surface. We would like to see alternative proposals for visual aids to guide drivers around the proposed one way system in the car park, especially at the entrance.
• A car park for the Park and beach will be used by families, with park/beach paraphernalia, yet the spaces are packed in with no waiting space nor pedestrian walkways (NNDC recommend pedestrian areas in new car parks, and parking spaces larger than those proposed). We would like to see safety considerations for pedestrians, especially children, in the design of the car park.
• The proposed car park space sizes are smaller than recommended by NNDC, and – as can be seen on the plans – are not adequate for modern cars. It is more than likely, with drivers parking to enable people to get out of vehicles and to avoid knocks, the markings for the spaces will not be followed resulting in ‘poor’ parking alignment and with many fewer then the suggested 47 cars at peak times. We would like to see more realistic space sizes, perhaps with some family parking spaces, suitable for a modern park/beach based car park. Some short term, free, half hour spaces, as with other town car parks should also be included.
• There is only one small pedestrian exit point, past the bottom of the ramp to the toilets, opposite the motorcycle parking, past the cycle parking. This exit leads onto the main driveway to North Lodge on a ‘blind corner’ for pedestrians who will be at risk from cars entering the Park. Whilst the size of the pedestrian exit was enlarged after we raised our concerns, we would like to see see it larger still, and safety considerations for pedestrians, especially children, in the design of the pedestrian exit from the car park and into the Park.
• There is only one pay meter in the design, at the northern end of the car park, with no pedestrian routes to it. A second pay meter was removed after we highlighted its dangerous position (directly where cars entered the car park). Without safe routes for pedestrians we would like to see further consideration of the placement of pay meters.
• The proposed lighting plan uses low level lights behind where cars park, and higher level lights in the proposed central band of trees. Whilst the proposed lights have low light pollution (according to the manufacturer, there has been no independent lighting assessment published), we don’t think they are an appropriate design for the heritage site and don’t think the illumination be sufficient in a full car park. We would like to see alternate proposals for the car park lighting, and an independent assessment of the proposals.
• A 6 meter (plus?) wide height restriction barrier is proposed to stop commercial vehicles entering the car park. Whilst we agree with the need to restrict access, we are concerned about the sustainable safety of such a barrier which could become dangerous, and would like to see other options, and a risk assessment of the proposal.

2. Does the proposal meet the requirements of the council’s core policies?
NNDC Core policies exist to maintain the standard of the heritage in the area and to protect open space. Once the recreational space is lost to non-recreational use it is lost. The decision to make such a change needs proper justification, with full disclosure, if core policies are compromised.

• Following our suggestion, the second revision of the Design and Access statement supporting the application acknowledges that North Lodge Park is a park, in the Cromer Conservation area, is designated as Open Space and is in the curtilage of a grade II listed building (North Lodge). The Council’s adopted Core Strategy Document states: “Applicants for planning permission should be prepared to demonstrate how the provisions of all relevant development plan policies have been taken into account”. In our objection2 to the proposal we listed many of the policies that should be addressed by this planning application. To date, our concerns have not been answered, and there is no published justification in the proposal for not giving due consideration to the council’s policies. We would like the council to justify why the relevant policies have not been addressed.
• The National Planning Policy Framework is clear: “Applicants will be expected to work closely with those directly affected by their proposals to evolve designs that take account of the views of the community”. No such consultation has taken place; the planning process – with no space for a two way dialogue – is not a consultation. We would expect to see a two way consultation on the proposals with the community.
• It is acknowledged by NNDC, that Cromer is short of green open space. NNDC Policy CT1 (Open Space Designation) states: “Development [of open space] will not be permitted except where it enhances the open character or recreational use of the land.” With the shortage of recreational space in Cromer, further reduced with the loss of Cabbell Park, we would like the council to publish its justification for the further loss of recreational space in Cromer (North Lodge Park) if this development goes ahead.

3. How can the justifications for the car park be considered material considerations when they are purely hypothetical?

• It is suggested that the car park would provide a benefit to the East End of Cromer. Every single shop & commercial premises from Jarrolds up to and around the corner of Overstrand Road is currently occupied with a wide variety of shops and services. The same cannot be said for the West End of Cromer where, for example, the old cycle shop adjacent to the main car park has been empty since 2015. The planning submission does not provide any evidence or substantiation how or what difference 27 additional parking spaces would make. Without any evidence or substantiation how can this be a material consideration?
• It is intimated that a car park could somehow make North Lodge Park a commercially viable asset to an investor. If this is a material consideration to be seriously considered then that investment proposal needs to be established and published before a loss to the Open Space should be permitted. North Lodge Park needs to considered and planned for as a whole, to do otherwise would be irresponsible management of a public asset and against the requirements of NNDC’s core policy on Public Realm. A material consideration cannot be based on pure conjecture and should not be used for the breaking up of a public asset.

4. Is the application a full and accurate representation of the proposal?
At all stages we have been directed to raise our concerns in the planning process, rather than with the officers concerned, where all comments, concerns, issues and suggestions are managed. The planning process relies on full accurate disclosure of all information regarding the application.

• The original description of the proposal incorrectly described the site as ‘brownfield’ which was removed after we raised our concerns, however the revised proposal, supported by several of the officer comments, continues to refer to the site as ‘vacant’ which it isn’t; we suggest this is a misrepresentation and should be corrected.
• In addition, the dilapidated state of the existing area is being used as justification for this development, within the proposal and supported by officers, on the basis that it is an improvement. The National Planning Policy Framework states that “…where there has been deliberate neglect, a state of dilapidation should not be taken into account in allowing permission for something that would otherwise be unacceptable…”. There are many other opportunities which would improve the site whilst retaining its recreational use. We suggest that this justification be removed from the application, and it should not influence the determination of the application.
• The 47 car park spaces proposed, whilst possible on paper, is unlikely to be achieved in reality as modern cars are too large to fit safely in the allocated spaces. If any financial justification has been made on the assumption of 47 cars this would need to be reviewed. We have not seen any financial justification.
• As indicated above, there is a suggestion in the proposal that the car park may help the “…vitality and viability of the eastern end of the town…”, but there is no evidence for this. There are more empty shops at the west end of Cromer, near the main car parks, than at the east end. The proposal acknowledges that at least 20 on street parking spaces will be lost on Overstrand Road so the actual increase in parking provision is minimal. In addition, it is likely that more on street parking spaces will need to be removed (Cromwell Road and Cliff Avenue) when actual traffic movements for the car park are analysed which could result in an actual loss of parking provision for the east end of Cromer (no traffic analysis has been published).
• Again, as indicated above, there is a suggestion that the proposal will address “…a wider concern that the town’s North Lodge Park was suffering from declining numbers of visitors…”. We would suggest that the decline in the visitor numbers is caused by lack of investment, and that during the last 18 months the Friends have been bringing life to the Park this significantly increased visitor numbers without a car park.
• Whilst there is some discussion about access in the proposal, there are no details about how drivers will be directed to and from the proposed car park, and the signage round town to facilitate this. NNDC’s policy CT5 requires planning proposals to be examined to ensure “…the expected nature and volume of traffic generated by the proposal could be accommodated by the existing road network without detriment to the amenity or character of the surrounding area or highway safety…”. If there is to be signage on the Norwich Road directing cars along Cromwell Road to the car park this could have a significant impact on traffic flow around Cromer which needs to be understood before this proposal can be determined.
• It is standard for such developments to be supported by an independent tree survey, the results of which may influence the design and approach. There has been no tree survey to support this application; after we queried why no tree survey has been undertaken a condition has been added to the application to ensure one is completed before any works commence. Without sight of the tree survey it is not possible to know whether the proposed development is appropriate.
• Whilst not acknowledged by the application, the planning officer has confirmed that bats are known to fly around the park, yet no independent survey from a licensed operator has been published. A planning officer visited the building with a torch and reported that a bat survey was not required. We don’t think this is independent nor complete. NNDC’s Policy EN9 states “…where there is reason to suspect the presence of protected species applications should be accompanied by a survey assessing their presence and, if present, the proposal must be sensitive to, and make provision for, their needs…”. Without the output from such an independent analysis we do not know the impact of this development on bats and their habitats; any disturbance would be illegal.

Regards

Barry Meadows
Secretary, Friends of North Lodge Park

There are a number of flaws in the design of the proposed car park that make it not fit for purpose. The table below consolidates our concerns which have been entered in the planning system.

Issue	Comments
Parking spaces are too small The spaces are smaller than the NNDC recommended car park space size why hasn’t this design taken into account the council’s own standard?	Take a look at the scale plan of the car park and the way car images are placed in the spaces. It would not be possible to open the doors if two cars park side by side.The results will be: bad parking, such as across spaces; risk of car damage from cars manoeuvring close to other cars; risk of car damage from knocked doors; drivers will park elsewhere
No pedestrian routes NNDC policy is that pedestrian routes should be clearly defined and not restricted by vehicular movement requirements, but there are no separate pedestrian routes in the proposal why hasn’t this design taken into account the council’s own standard?	After parking a car the passengers and their bits and bobs need to alight and move from the car park. As a beach car park in summer this will include lots of children and lots of bits and bobs. In the summer there will be cars constantly moving round the car park looking for spaces. The result will be: risk to children waiting for their family to be ready to move on conflict between pedestrians, wheelchairs and cars with a risk of injury drivers, especially with children and pushchairs/strollers will park elsewhere to minimise risk
No pedestrian access to Overstrand Road the only justification for the car park is to improve the vitality and viability of the east end of Cromer if this really is the justification why hasn’t this been given priority?	The only pedestrian exit from the car park is at the north-west corner into the Park, from where pedestrians will walk through the Park and into town missing the east end of the town. The design is not fit to match this justification.
Pedestrian access to Park exit from the car park is via a small opening at the north west corner, much too small to cater for the expected flow of pedestrians, wheelchairs and cycles.	Take a look at the scale plan of the car park and look at the only pedestrian exit and ask why no-one has thought about how to accommodate the flow of pedestrians to and from the car park. A narrow exit such as proposed would cause pedestrian, wheelchair, pushchairs to ‘tail back’ into the car park causing further unnecessary risk to pedestrians.
Car Park entrance a new entrance from Overstrand Road is proposed	Take a look at the scale plan of the car park and look at where the entrance to the car park is, just to the west of the exit lane; without clear signage (not just a bodpave insert) drivers could easily enter on the exit lane causing holdups. Whilst the ‘sweep analysis’ shows cars entering from the east and leaving to the west (which they can’t do on the current road system), there is no sweep analysis for car circulating, and the plan suggests this could be difficult
Bodpave surface Bodpave is a reinforced plastic grid that can be infilled with gravel to provide a durable surface   Bodpave as installed in the NNDC Overflow car park	Take a look at the NNDC overflow car park, behind the Police Station on Holt Road in Cromer, which was made with this system and is currently unusable because it is coming apart.Whilst Bodpave can be successfully used in parking bays, on traffic routes where vehicles turn sharply (as in a car park) it can be problematic (as is seen from the NNDC overflow car park). The gravel surface isn’t really suited for a conservation heritage site where a more formal look is more appropriate. The gravel surface isn’t ideal for wheel chair use.
Bodpave signage limited space in the car park will result in on ground signage using plastic inserts	Take a look at the NNDC overflow carpark, behind the Police Station on Holt Road in Cromer, which was made with this system and see if you can see the plastic inserts that mark out the spaces and think about how significant direction arrows will be. The design of the car park is such that there is not space for other signs so the only way drivers will know there is a one way system is through the plastic inserts.
Other signage / street furniture there is nothing in the design to indicate where signs and bins will be	There will be a need for other signs in the car park, such as to indicate to pedestrians how to get out of the park, where the pay meters are, and where the cycle park is. Additional furniture such as waste bins are proposed for the planted areas, ie behind where the cars will be parked so impossible to use
Pay meters the pay meters are planned to be at the end of the planted area in the middle of the car park	The pay meters will be placed opposite the entry point to the car park where pedestrians waiting to pay will be most at risk
No motorcycle spaces NNDC standards state: Parking for motorcycles, mopeds and scooters should be provided in all new non-residential developments at a rate of 1 space per 20 car parking spaces with a minimum of one space why hasn’t this design taken into account the council’s own standard?
Entrance 6ft barrier to stop commercial vehicle and camper vans a height restrictive barrier is to be installed across the entrance	The barrier will be a heritage design, spanning about 6 metres, about 8 feet from the ground (ideal height for people to swing from) How long will it be before a roof-box or roof-cycle will accidentally knock into this requiring expensive repairs
Restrict vehicles to Park the proposal will encourage more cars onto Overstrand Road looking for parking	The park driveway will be mistaken for the car park and vehicle numbers in the park will increase. There is already a problem with unauthorised vehicles, driving too fast, parking in odd places and turning where children are playing. There is no proposal in this design for how this will be addressed.
NNDC standard on cycle parking is that it should: be secure, under effective surveillance and conveniently located to the entrance … with safe and direct routes to the surrounding road network; it is difficult to see how this standard has been adhered to	The cycle parking has been moved in the latest design to be adjacent to the pedestrian exit from the car park into the Park why is the cycle parking at the back of the car park which will encourage cyclists down the Park drive rather than through the car park (the Bodpave surface isn’t good for cycles) what is there to separate cyclists from pedestrians exiting the car park?
Excavations near trees NNDC policy: a Tree Survey/Arboricultural Implications assessment is required where there are trees within the application site, or on land adjacent to it that could influence or be affected by the development (including street trees). Information will be required on which trees are to be retained and on the means of protecting these trees during construction works. why hasn’t this policy been enforced?	The proposal is to excavate the current surface and replace with a Bodpave and gravel covering. This will require excavations of at least 500mm less than a metre from mature trees in the Park. An independent arboricultural assessment would determine the impact of this on the trees and influence the design.
Entrance to new toilets sloped access to toilets should be at least 1:20 for a ramp to rise to the necessary height	Unfortunately there are no measurements on the plan but an estimate shows the ramp to the toilets to be too steep. The lower end of the ramp is in the middle of pedestrian exit to the car which will cause risk to wheel chair users, and pedestrians.The small turning area at the bottom of the ramp would make it difficult to turn wheelchairs and mobility scooters safely.
Potential of bats in building Legislation states: local planning authorities must fully consider a proposed development’s impact upon protected species as they are a ‘material consideration’ in the determination of planning applications. In the context of bat surveys, where there is a reasonable likelihood of protected species being materially impacted upon by a development, surveys must be carried out before a planning application is determined.	NNDC acknowledge bats fly around the Park but, contrary to legislation, no independent bat survey has been completed, although a planning officer has stated: “it is recommended that the removal of the roof covering (felt) be executed under a Method Statement to ensure that, on the small chance a bat is discovered, proper procedure is followed.” There has been no independent assessment of the impact of cars, their lights, noise and pollution on the bats in the Park. Disturbance of bats and their habitats is illegal.
Assessment of noise and pollution Government advice is: Noise needs to be considered when new developments may create additional noise and when new developments would be sensitive to the prevailing acoustic environment.	Creating a car park in a quiet park in a residential area will increase traffic, particularly slow moving traffic which causes the most pollution and noise.Increased pollution in a recreational area, particularly where children are playing, is a major consideration and an assessment of this should be undertaken to, at least, see if there are any mitigating design features that could alleviate the impact.
Lighting assessment the lighting is all placed within the planted areas lighting will be behind parked cars or hidden by plants	There has been no assessment of the effectiveness of the lighting plan, nor the impact on local residents, or wildlife (including protected species such as bats).Lighting schemes can be costly and difficult to change, so getting the design right up front is critical; there is no independent assessment (other than a manufacturer’s proposal) that the planned lighting scheme is appropriate.
Traffic analysis there are no details about proposed traffic movement around Cromer as a result of this proposal Why wasn’t NNDC Property Services asked for a traffic assessment before the application was validated?	Traffic flow around Cromer is difficult in the summer; this proposal is for a car park on a route where traffic is discouraged so there will need to be a significant change to traffic flow to facilitate use of this car park: how will carsget to and from the site, and onto other car parks? What will the impact be on current on-street parking (for example, how many (free) on street spaces will be lost to enable the car park?) What additional street furniture will be needed round Cromer? Answer to these questions are a key part of the decision process and should have been part of the original submission. Highways have stated that “no works shall commence on site … until a detailed scheme for the off-site highway improvement[s]…”