There are already 2 sites with allocations from the last plan COL1 and COL2. COL1 has outline planning permission for 30 houses. The Parish Council and residents fought against this site due to safety of the roads, capacity of the drains and sewers and visual impact. The proposed development is by a private developer and for large family houses, not first-time homes and social housing that is required.

COL2 is yet to sought planning permission.

Both GNLP0265 and GNLP0388 were rejected from the last adopted plan.

Coltishall is a Broads Village, from the 2011 census data its population is already 2687 - at the top end of the population noted for a village. The two sites currently adopted and the two proposed would lead to a potential of 125 additional dwellings, as a minimum assuming 2 occupants per dwelling that is an additional 250 residents. I have grave concerns that this is highly problematic for the village on the following grounds.

Infrastructure capacity - Rectory and Station Roads are narrow roads and cannot and should not be widened. There is already issues with pavement parking, congestion, speeding and going the wrong way down the one -ay section. The bus routes have already been affected, with the bus route being cancelled for a number of months due to the struggle to get down Rectory Road. The effects of other town and village developments, specifically at North Walsham have increased traffic through the village. The route though Coltishall is narrow and has blind corners and small bridges. Regularly at peak times traffic backs up.
Safety - there are weekly near misses with children going to school, Ling Way, Rectory Road and St Johns Close. Access to proposed estate would increase volume of traffic further estimated 400 additional car journeys down Rectory Rd per day.
The capacity of the sewers and drains are at maximum.
Services at capacity - Schools, Surgery and pre-school, set up to service a village.
Environmental impacts - the 2 sites adopted and 2 proposed are green field sites within a Broads village. COL2 is noted as being a brownfield site, however it is not, it is a contaminated site of great environmental and historical significance, with an escarpment, trees, buzzards nesting and of great importance to the history of the village with its lime pit and brick making past. All true brownfield sites should be exhausted prior to proposing green field sites.
Character of the village, has already been (Queens Road, St Johns Close developments) and will be diluted. Coltishall is tourist attraction because of its character. People choose to live here because it is a Broads village, quality of life will continue to diminish. We do not want to go from a Broads village to a Norwich suburb. The new developments are generic house types with no relation to the individual place, the developments look the same, brick and tile choice do not match the local palette and the mass is out of scale.
Coltishall is a tourist attraction, this means traffic volumes increase at peak season - which should be considered before developing the village further. Tourists have already noted that they are surprised at how much traffic goes through the village.
I accept the need for housing, but development is led by profit and not by need. Norfolk has an aging population, has it been considered that over the period to 2036 population have decrease due to the high percentage of people over the age of 70?
Although the proposed sites are outside the conversation area, they have a visual and environmental impact on it.
I have a few further specific comments of each of the sites:

GNLP0388 - Land end of St Johns Close. As aforementioned safety and loss of character is of concern. If this site is to be developed it should be reserved for future expansion of the school and surgery not for residential development.