GNLP Regulation 18 Consultation - New, Revised and Small Sites

Thank you for your email of 29 October seeking reaction to the latest stage in the development of the GNLP Plan. I have assumed that I have been approached as a "consultee" following my reaction to the consultation of January and March 2018, and the subsequent alterations outlined in your current report on page 91 - headed Marlingford and Colton.

I wish to confine my comments on this occasion to site GNLP0475R, where the application has been increased by 0.41h to 2.85h. How this increase has been achieved is unclear but it does give me the opportunity to outline again my opposition to this particular proposal. There is a danger that some of my following comments will appear to be a repeat of earlier comments but these are very important significant issues which should benefit from some additions and emphases.

Incidentally, it is heartening to see that some earlier objections re 0475R have been reflected in the present assessment. However, I wish to re-emphasise the special importance of particular matters. The "local road network capacity" is particularly relevant. The whole length of High House Farm Lane is totally inadequate for the additional traffic which would be generated in both directions by a development of GNLP0475R - potentially around 50 residences. Colton is a car-dominated hamlet. There is no public transport except Flexibus and a "once a week" short bus visit to Norwich, so any additional development is likely to generate a very difficult transport problem over and above the present in High House Farm Lane.

Your report also draws attention to "poor access to services" - there are only two in Colton, the public house and the village hall.

I must also re-emphasise the importance of the drainage problems. The several large ponds in the area of Norwich Road/High House Farm Lane are situated at the lowest point in Colton and are the receivers, via land drains, of virtually all of the drainage from the land making up the large area to the south of the hamlet leading up to the watershed overlooking the Yare valley. Development of GNLP0475 is bound to interfere with this important ecological feature.

I have already expressed my concern over the suggestion that "Residential development possibly including retirement and holiday/staff accommodation for Barnham Broom Golf and Country Club" would be possible for GNLP4075. This is a totally impracticable suggestion and appears to be designed to overcome potential criticism of the emergence of a housing estate at this location. It is still not made clear how the inadequate and extremely narrow Church Lane with its section of roadside high banks can be in any way improved and made practical to provide extra resource for a country club with large land resources well outside of the Parish of Colton and the boundaries of the GNLP.

It would be reasonable to expect that the Parish Plan for Marlingford and Colton would have some influence in the final decisions on the GNLP. The present Parish Plan reflects the response to the survey which led to its establishment; there is virtually unanimous opposition to any further development of the two villages for the reasons which have already been clearly identified. Limited infill development and some affordable housing are supported and some of the latter has already been provided. The significance of Grade 2 agricultural land in 0475R is well recognised and there are no obvious objections from parishioners to the expansion of the present horticultural greenhouse activities as this is regarded as reasonable development of the land. A clear contrast to housing.

Finally, a very relevant point. In bullet point No 2 in your email you make passing reference to the possibility of altering settlement boundaries to allow small scale developments to come forward. The boundaries on the south side of Colton are the subject of intense interest in the village. Both my wife and I have served as Chairs of the Parish Council over the forty years we have lived in Colton and we have been made aware in no uncertain terms of the attitudes of parishioners. These boundaries are of long standing historical record, were recently confirmed by South Norfolk District Council, and have been used by them to defeat planning applications and the recent appeal mentioned below. As things stand at the moment GNLP4075 lies outside of the boundary and would not be eligible for development. In considering this point it might be useful for you to re-examine the reaction of the Planning Inspectorate to an appeal re an application for development of a plot adjacent to the (then) Ugly Bug, dated 8 March 2016. I enclosed a copy of the Inspector, Stephen Normington's, report with my earlier comments. You will have noticed that he was very forceful in his support of the present settlement boundary.

Thank you for the opportunity to make these further comments.