We are writing to object in the strongest possible terms to the potential inclusion of the above site in the forthcoming Greater Norwich Local Plan.
Coltishall is designated a “Service Village” in the current Local Plan, suitable for “small-scale housing development subject to form and character considerations” with an expectation of 10-20 new properties in the period to 2026.
Between 2004 and 2018, 54 new houses were completed in Coltishall outside the Local Plan. At least a further 7 will since have been completed or be close to completion (Source: Broadland District Council, Freedom of Information Request, 18/12/2018). In the same period, permission has been sought (and so far refused) to build approximately 16 further houses in the vicinity of the proposed site (Rectory Road, Station Road). The Local Plan already adds 30 houses to this sum on the COL1 site adjacent to GNLP2015 and a further 30 houses on the COL2 site.
In contrast, the stated housing need for Coltishall (FOI, e-mail 07 June 2018) for current residents is:
1 bedroom need: 11
2 bedroom need: 3
3 bedroom need: 3
Total 17
The same source makes clear that there is already a full five year land supply.
Thus, we have a situation where the developer wishes to extend an existing 30-house development beyond the settlement limit in Coltishall to pack in a further 25 houses. There is no housing need justification for this whatsoever, and there is no “land supply” rationale for permitting it. Put simply, GNLP2019 should be rejected from inclusion in the next Local Plan because it is entirely opportunistic and has no grounding in rational public policy.
Arguments against GNLP2019
It is reasonable to suppose that the site would not remain in the Plan draft if a rational approach to planning policy were sufficient to remove it. We have therefore listed out further reasons why this site should be rejected from consideration for further development now and preferably for ever more.
Planning Policy
1. It is outside the settlement limit for Coltishall. The site COL1 was also outside the settlement limit and was brought into it on a supposedly exceptional basis.
2. It is a (literally) greenfield site and a wildflower meadow, as was COL1.
3. It sits far too close to a major aquifer to risk contamination.
Access and Traffic
4. The site stands on a single carriageway, one-way stretch of road that leads away from the village.
5. Access to the site will require access points to be established that cut across a pavement, installed at a cost of £100,000, to provide a safe route to school for children from the Ling Estate.
6. To build 55 houses will require somewhere around 5000 lorry journeys onto the site, in addition to vehicle access and parking for site employees.
7. Those 5000 lorries will have to traverse Rectory Road, which is regularly blocked by parked cars, buses, tractors and bin lorries. They will have to pass the pre-school, the primary school, the GP surgery, the Village Hall and the main Community Hall as well as most village leisure facilities.
8. When leaving the site, all lorries and cars will have to traverse a blind humpback bridge over the (currently scenic) Bure Valley Railway.
9. Once completed, the site will generate around 600 car journeys per day which will all cross the pavement and then attempt to join the B1150 opposite the Ling Estate.
10. Most cars will turn left and go to or through the village to Norwich. They will immediately (25 metres) cross the road crossing point for Ling Estate residents but will be looking the other way at traffic travelling between 50 and 70mph from North Walsham. This dangerous situation is known to Broadland District Council and to Norfolk Highways but both have chosen to ignore it beyond support from Norfolk County Council in 50% funding for flashing lights that have sadly proved ineffectual at slowing traffic.
11. Since the opening of the Northern Distributor Road, traffic through Coltishall has increased by over one third. Congestion in the village is so bad that the local Councillor has begun to lobby for a relief road/bypass. This is before 600 car journeys a day are added to the mix.
12. The site itself is relatively near village services on Rectory Road but is far too far from the village centre to believe anyone will walk to the shops, cafes, pubs, hairdressers etc. that are located there. Station Road is only pavemented on one side and is regarded as a ‘deathtrap’ by villagers because of the number of (often speeding) HGVs and tractors that risk swiping pedestrians with their huge mirrors. Cycling in Coltishall is now regarded as a dangerous sport by many.
13. Westbourne Road, which meets Rectory Road near the site, has blind junctions at both ends. It is already dangerous to turn into Station or Rectory Roads due to volume and speed of traffic. Several accidents have occurred from vehicles driving the wrong way on the one-way stretch of Rectory Road. The road itself is 5 metres wide. For two years, lorries entering a development on Westbourne Road illegally mounted the pavement to gain access and vans parked illegally on the pavement. Despite constant protests, no enforcement action whatsoever took place.
14. Road accidents at or near the GNLP2019 site appear to have been ignored by planners. One involved the Air Ambulance landing but was not recorded (23/02/2016, 3.30pm); another (21/10/17 2.13pm) involved a car doing 70mph the wrong way on the one-way stretch, destroying a parked car, demolishing a telegraph pole and forcing a car into a garden pond.
15. Residents on the one-way stretch of Rectory Road opposite GNLP2019 will face constant disruption and will have to ‘bargain’ with vehicles coming from the site to gain access to Rectory Road.
16. Parking on Rectory Road becomes impossible at key times of day and during certain evenings. School-run traffic completely clogs the road twice a day in the week. Football traffic regularly parks on pavements along Rectory and Westbourne Roads on Thursdays and Saturdays. The scale of parking congestion is already dangerous and will become unworkable.
Sewerage and Drains
17. There is a significant local concern about surface water flooding on Rectory and Westbourne Roads, which will be made worse by concreting over the neighbouring field. Storm drains on Rectory, Westbourne and Station Roads are regularly overwhelmed.
18. Several houses on Rectory Road have suffered significant problems with drains and sewerage, and there is a widely held belief that the unchecked addition of housing stacked back from these roads has placed an increasingly unmanageable burden on sewer and drain infrastructure.
Village Facilities
19. There is no risk to village facilities in Coltishall from under-use. The pub and café car parks are full all day, every day, and there is genuine concern how the village will cope when tourists start to arrive again. Unchecked development within the settlement limit has caused a significant population growth.
20. The School is currently outstanding and full. An influx of pupils would require a significant reduction in quality of service as mobile classrooms are placed on the playing fields. The ethos of the school – which makes it outstanding – will be adversely affected by sudden growth. There are many primary schools in Norfolk that require increased catchments to survive but this is not one of them. The wording on the GNLP website about primary school capacity in Coltishall exhibits a complete lack of insight into how schools work.
21. Many elderly and less well-off villagers rely on the Sanders bus route for access to village facilities and especially the GP practice on Rectory Road. It is obvious to any observer that the bus route on Rectory Road will not survive any development on COL1 or GNLP2019. That will materially damage the quality of life for many residents, as will the need to walk to the village centre to access the bus to Norwich.
Design and landscape
22. Coltishall is a Broads tourist village. Many residents rely to some extent on tourist income (by owning or working in local businesses). The reputation of Coltishall as an idyllic tourist location is already under threat from traffic congestion and noise. The sight of a housing estate dropped on the edge of the village and directly overlooking the Bure Valley Railway will be both incongruous and damaging. It is notable that the recent decision in BDC 20191473 states:
“The proposed development would encroach into the undeveloped countryside and given its elevated position the development would be dominant in the landscape including views from the Bure Valley Railway contrary policy 2 in the Joint Core Strategy for Broadland, Norwich and South Norfolk to the contrary to policy EN2 in the Broadland Development Management Development Plan Document”.
How exactly is GNLP2019 any different?
Popular Opinion
23. This site has been considered for, and rejected for, development on numerous occasions in the last 25 years. On every occasion, large-scale village meetings have (often unanimously) rejected the possibility for the reasons mentioned here and more. As recently as February 2018, 200 people came out in driving snow to protest about development on Rectory Road, including at COL1 and unanimously rejected the possibility. The local Councillor attended and witnessed this event. A similar event took place in July 2013.
24. It is a source of great frustration that the inclusion of GNLP2019 was done subsequent to the main consultation process, and it is obvious that most villagers are completely unaware of the attempt to increase housing numbers. This process has been deeply undemocratic, and contrary to the regularly expressed wishes of Coltishall residents for the last 25 years.
25. It is also lamentable that Crocus Homes has chosen to cancel its “public consultation” on GNLP2019 less than 48 hours before it is due to happen. Everybody is concerned about coronavirus, but still our school is open, our surgery is open, our Lunch Club for the Elderly met today over the road from the Crocus Homes event. Perhaps that is because precisely ZERO cases of coronavirus have so far occurred in Norfolk.

In conclusion, there is no evidence whatsoever to support the need for an additional 25 houses on GNLP2019. It is fundamentally contrary to planning policy and no arguments whatsoever have been put forward that might override that policy – it is simply opportunistic. It will do immense damage to the character of Coltishall, it will overwhelm its limited infrastructure, it will damage its attraction for tourists, it will add massively to traffic congestion that already threatens to overwhelm the village and worst of all, it will create a series of major hazards for children, pavement users and drivers alike.