GREATER NORWICH LOCAL PLAN REGULATION 18 CONSULTATION

SITE PROPOSAL OPTIONS -COLTISHALL & HORSTEAD

SITES GNLP0265 AND GNPL0388 -OBJECTIONS



1. I wish to formally register my objection to the two proposed residential development sites allocated reference numbers GNLP0265 and GNLP0388 in the parish of Coltishall for the following reasons:

2. The current Greater Norwich Local Plan ("GNLP") Growth Options Regulation 18 Consultation Document ("GO Document") does not specifically identify Coltishall as a center for future housing growth and there is already an existing housing allocation (COL1 and COL2) which is more than sufficient to meet any new demand for housing within Coltishall during the plan period. There is therefore no need or demand for any further allocations as proposed under GNLP0265 and GNLP0388;

3. The existing highway network serving the proposed sites GNLP0265 and GNLP0388 is not sufficient to meet the needs that would be generated by an additional 30-65 dwellings and neither is there sufficient land available within Rectory Road to accommodate any increase in the capacity of the highway to facilitate the additional traffic use to and from sites GNLP0265 and GNLP0388 were these sites to be allocated for residential development. The inadequacies of the road structure both in Rectory road and St Johns Close can be demonstrated by the fact that Sanders coaches withdrew services along Rectory road for a period of time due to the inadequacy of the road. In addition on a daily basis the school traffic leads to a dangerous overloading of Saint Johns Close so that egress on to the road from the properties it serves is potentially a serious danger to the children attending the school and a real hazard to the owners of the properties. During the day the Doctors surgery car park is inadequate to cope with patients attending the surgery. This leads to on street parking on St Johns close which simply cannot cope with the volume that it now has to take

4. Whilst Coltishall has been classified as a Service Village within the Settlement Hierarchy of the GO Document the existing services such as the local primary school and doctors surgery are already operating at capacity and would therefore not be able to cope with any future demands generated by the additional residents of sites GNLP0265 and GNLP0388 if such sites were to be allocated for residential development;

5. Sites GNLP0265 and GNLP0388 are I understand greenfield sites. Paragraph 4.49 of the GO Document states that "To meet national policy requirements to make the most efficient use of land, it is critical that the best possible use is made of brownfield land ( my emphasis), which is mainly within Norwich and the urban fringe" Clearly these two sites do not meet this test and as there is an already an existing allocation sufficient to meet the future demands of Coltishall without having to resort to these two sites there is no justification for the use of these greenfield sites as an addition to the existing available or proposed brownfield sites within Norwich and the urban fringe to meet the estimated housing needs arising during the plan period for Norwich and the urban fringe.

6. Finally, at the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework ("NPPF") is the presumption of sustainable development. The allocation of sites GNLP0265 and GNLP0388 for residential development would be contrary to this golden principle in that the adverse impacts arising form such an allocation would far outweigh the benefits of allocating the sites for residential development when assessed against the polices "taken as a whole" in the NPPF.

7. For the above reasons I would strongly urge you to not to allocate sites GNLP0265 and GNLP0388 for residential development