GNLP2019

I object based on traffic congestion grounds - how can the single lane one way road at the top of Rectory Road cope with the extra demand? The junction on to North Walsham road is already a dangerous turning. At school drop off and pick up time it is already very congested with safety fears for the children having had several near misses in the last year alone. I also object based on all the wildlife that use the rural edge of the village and onto the Bure Valley Railway - buzzards, deer, and many smaller bird and for recreation purposes. The whole character of the village would be affected into the St James hamlet.

Applications COL1 and COL2 are already approved, which will significantly affect the character and fabric of this Broads National Park village and we do not want even more houses.
The school is unsuitable for incremental enlargement and is at capacity with classes of around 30 pupils. Therefore any capacity increase would need to be significant (e.g. doubled/tripled) which is not a viable option for the school and village. This contradicts Windfall development policy 7.4.
The access to the site via highways through the village (B1150, B1534, Rectory Road, Westbourne Road) are already dangerously over congested with blind bends, causing excessive noise and posing a genuine danger to pedestrians and vehicles, most notably at school time.
The landscape and footpaths of the area is popular with walkers and this would ruin the unique landscape, such as the Bure Valley Railway.
The local wildlife seen on the site, including bats, owls, wild flowers and fauna would be affected.

This is beautiful, rural countryside, next to the Bure Valley Railway which lots of people enjoy. Rectory Road can not support the extra traffic, it’s a dangerous road already at school times and when the football field is in use, when lots of cars park on the road. Coltishall Primary is up to capacity.

Parker Planning Services and Crocus Contractors Limited (Crocus Homes) support the identification of site GNLP2019 (Land at Rectory Road and South of the Bure Valley Railway, Coltishall) as a ‘Preferred Housing Allocation’ within the context of the emerging GNLP and for the reasons outlined within the GNLP Site Submission Statement prepared by Parker Planning Services which accompanies this submission.

Rectory Road traffic is already very dangerous as is the amount of traffic already in Coltishall
The turnings into Rectory Road are a hazard, buses, school run cars, doctors traffic, the road cannot take any more traffic
The school and doctors are at bursting point already, Coltishall cannot take more people
Again there has been no public consultation for another housing development in Coltishall - another project is going under the radar so that it gets approval with nobody even knowing about it
Coltishall is meant to be a conservation area

Safety issues with pedestrians including children crossing the roads already , More cars and service vehicles etc, will make the situation even worse!
The children from the Ling Way estate will have to cross the road at the junction to the new estate , whereas at the moment they have a continuous footpath to the school. The school is at full capacity at the moment, so new residents will over crowd it, the doctors at the moment are doing well but again all the new residents will over crowd the surgery making it more difficult on the staff , doctors and patients, not being able to get appointments.
The roads around that proposed development and in the village as a whole are not designed for the traffic as it is at the moment , let alone MORE traffic using the roads. They are dangerous as it is.
Crossing the B1150 North Walsham road from the Ling Way estate is already unsafe and near misses have already happened there. There are already major speeding issues in that area. Surely this new proposed building plan will only go to make matters even worse.

As a member of our local speed watch team I can easily confirm that the safety aspect / added traffic problems will cause problems.
Already we have had a major increase in traffic through our village and any increase will result in congestion

Contradicts Windfall development policy 7.4 - Primary School already at capacity. Traffic esp on B1150 is beyond capacity, junction w/B1534 a deathtrap. Danger for pedestrians esp at school times. Already overloaded NHS provision - can't get GP appointment for several weeks! Threatens wildlife including bats, owls, wild flowers and fauna. Ruins the character of this Broads National Park village and its unique rural landscape. OVERLOADS AN ALREADY OVERLOADED INFRASTRUCTURE: it's madness to overload capacity!

The traffic along Rectory Road is already excessive - it cannot cope with more cars as it is already very dangerous with buses, cars and is a complete hazard for pedestrians. Likewise the village school and surgery are already full and cannot take more. Building over another field will also effect the wildlife. This is yet another plan that is going under the radar with no consultation and is only being suggested for the profits of selling new houses in Coltishall.

Rectory Road is a hazardous road of cars, buses and lorries - it is very dangerous for pedestrians even now and I have witnessed numerous car crashes and even pedestrian accidents with cars. This road like Westbourne Road cannot take more cars and traffic. Loosing another field looses more wildlife. The surgery and school is already full and cannot take more. It is worrying to see another development get through with no public consultation or communication which is how the last one got through. This is a conservation village and yet new plans keep being submitted for profit .

Why is it even being considered for an extra 20-25 homes to be built in a village where the traffic congestion and safety of residents, especially children is at an already its highest level. This is ludicrous! Besides this very valid and common sense reasoning, there is the wildlife aspect, which we all know iscurrently in great need of human attention. This area of conservation should be the highest of priorities when considering any further development for greedy humans. In fact it currently is according to Natural England. This exact field is considered the highest value to wildlife and is currently in the Higher Level Tier of an agri environment scheme. The government are paying the land owner tax payers money to enhance and protect what they consider an area of important ecological value and highest biodiversity. It is a targeted area for the farm wildlife package which offers farm options such and pollen and nectar and wild bird seed mixes. These options support and have a positive impact on a range of farmland birds and of course naturally the ecology in and around this area, such as bees, butterflies, pollinators, bats, small mammals , birds of prey etc - the whole food web. It has also been highlighted for priority species such as Lapwing and Turtle Dove. All this information is available online at Natural Englands MAGIC maps. Close by the woodlands are classified as priority for woodland improvement. Why would the government dedicate these areas as important for wildlife but change their minds if more money can be made. Building here WILL be of spectacular detriment to our beautiful wildlife, who all need homes as much as we do. Lets not forget how much we depend on a diverse Ecology to support our lifestyles either. Do the right thing for once Broadland District Council and protect our already overpopulated, village and special area of conservation.

The site in question is Rectory Road in Coltishall - we're afraid we don't have your reference number. We made comments about this site in an email dated 3 February 2017 to Broadland Distict Council. These comments still apply with the additional one that the proposed extension to the original site will further exacerbate the problems outlined. A copy is attached.

(Original email contents as follows)
Having inspected the plan for above (Planning application 20170075 rectory road coltishall) we have the following objections to the application:
the local primary school and doctor's surgery will be hard pressed to meet the extra demand imposed on them by this development. We understand that statistics to support this objection are available
the vast majority of traffic leaving the development will pass through the junction on to the B1150 Norwich to North Walsham road, which is regarded by users as dangerous. There is also the question as to whether the railway bridge on Rectory Road is capable of taking heavy goods vehicles both in the short term construction phase and the long term delivery to the development phases. All traffic, including the HGVs mentioned above, wishing to enter the development will have to pass along either Westbourne Road or Rectory Road, which are narrow roads with blind junctions made even less negotiable by parked vehicles. We understand that a virtually identical planning application made in 2013 was turned down by highways on safety grounds - nothing has changed since then with regards to the safety issues on these roads and the B1150 junction
the plans show facility to extend the development in future to the east which if it happens would only exacerbate the problems outlined above. We believe that this facility should be deleted if the proposal reaches the detailed planning stage. We understand that the adjacent field belongs to the same owner as the field for the current proposed development.
with increased numbers of houses now being the Council's priority it is worth noting that the brown field site on the B1150 just north of the village centre offers substantially more plots than the agricultural green field site in Rectory Road. The Government has recently reiterated their call for more housing, albeit on green field land, but bear in mind that in Coltishall we unusually have this brown field site option.

As a proud 'National Broads Village', please maintain Coltishall's important tourist appeal. Coltishall has accommodated additional housing for the Broadland area, but the infra-structure is not in place for further development sites. Surrounding villages would be better suited as their growth is needed to maintain their schools and services, instead of putting further pressure on Coltishall's utility services and facilities which are currently struggling to manage.
The access road for this site is already inadequate for the traffic it carries, with a one-way bridge and narrow roadways public transport and local traffic struggles to pass safely to local amenities which including a Recreation ground, School and Doctor's surgery. It is also utilised as a 'by road' for those travelling between Wroxham and the North Walsham road, who do not wish to be delayed by travelling through the village centre. The safety of local children will be put at higher risk by introducing more housing and traffic on to this school access route. The village centre is over-run with traffic from North Walsham's addtional housing, effecting local business as there is inadequate parking. Plant crops or trees on this site not houses, the ongoing local flooding issues, and food needs would support this. Further to this the NDR has caused huge hold-ups for residents trying to travel North and South to/from Norwich, it can not cope with more housing introducing yet more traffic to this appalling highways addition to our countryside landscape.

"There is an informal agreement in place with the Highway Authority that this access could serve up-to 50 dwellings." This is what Parker Planning Services published about access to this site. It is completely unacceptable that a proposed development of this size should rest on "informal agreements" and language liker "should serve". The access will bisect a safe route to school for children attending Coltishall Primary, also the surrounding highway infrastructure is inadequate on Rectory Road and extremely dangerous on the B1150. Altering the existing village road layout will cause congestion and is inherently dangerous for vehicles and pedestrians alike.

I think the road infrastructure isn’t up to the needs of this new development.

I attended an initial presentation of the development on Rectory several years ago when my children were still at the primary school. At the time I remember being told that 1.5 parking spaces were allowed per property and that money would be given re school, etc to support local community. However, when I questioned about the money I was advised that it would go to the council but not be specifically ring fenced for school/doctors etc.

The traffic on Rectory road was bad when I used to do the school run 3 years ago. The road rage of parents trying to get their children to school, most taking to their cars (few walked despite constant ‘walk to school schemes’)lack of parking as residents park outside their own terrace houses and limited car parks, doctors surgery on same dead end road as school plus the one way system all make it an absolute bottle neck on Rectory Road. I did object to the proposed development at the time.

The car congestion will get worse with the number of houses already granted permission. Indeed I see it where I live, most families have more than one car and the excess cars clog up the road.

The school is at capacity, there is no space to expand being a relatively a small site and the lunches have to already be done in two sittings due to lack of hall space. This was all 3 years ago, I am sure the situation hasn’t improved. They had absolutely no spare space. The doctors surgery is stretched already.

The bus would certainly not get down Rectory Road if this development went ahead. It is a valuable service for many residents who rely on public transport, several elderly who cannot get into the main high street to pick it up. The school bus also takes the route down Rectory road, which would again cause difficulties for high school pupils.

I totally object to further development on Rectory Road, it isn’t the right place. This has come up many times and parishioners have constantly objected. I accept that there has to be development, but this is the wrong location. The village is so congested with the extra traffic due to increased traffic flow of late re NDR etc. We just don’t have the infrastructure to cope with the volume of houses and the extra people/traffic.

I hope you will listen to the opinion of local people.

I am writing in response to the proposal to add site GNLP2019 (20-25 houses) to the existing but yet unbuilt COL1 site of 30 houses. I object to this proposal in the strongest terms.

Any new development will create additional traffic movements. Rectory Road is a narrow residential street, generally parked along one side, effectively being single carriageway for sections. It also has the school, doctors’ surgery, village hall, bowling green and a large football pitch pavilion and car park. All of these and in particular the school and football pitch generate large amounts of traffic at peak times.

Traffic and parking issues on Rectory Road have led the bus operator to reduce services through this road.

There is a history of speeding and accidents on Rectory Road and in 2010 a footpath was added to increase safety for pedestrians. This scheme also reduced the road width necessitating the road to become one-way northbound. Unfortunately the one way section in front of site COL1 (and consequently GNLP 2019) has become a raceway for drivers who leaving the parked up sections of the road accelerate along the one way section and over the blind brow of the railway bridge. Also there is a constant issue with drivers ignoring the one way system and proceeding south along the same blind section. All of this was ignored in passing permission for COL1. This road is dangerous and should not have to suffer further traffic and congestion.

The statement that Coltishall has a wide range of core and secondary services is incorrect with school and doctors’ surgery capacity limited. Scope for employment in the village is also limited so new homeowners will have to commute. Public transport is very limited with the last bus leaving Norwich at 18,12 weekdays and during the day buses a full by the time they reach Coltishall, hardly good public transport links.

The village has to deal with much increased traffic since developments in North Walsham and Hoveton/ Wroxham. The advent of the NDR has hugely increased traffic volumes, and yet there are only two bridges over the river Bure on the A1151 and B1150. If one is obstructed the other cannot cope. They barely cope at peak times anyway. Development on the Coltishall/ Hoveton side of the Bure should be stopped at once – and yet 2130 houses are proposed at North Walsham alone… madness.

All traffic leaving this development for Norwich will have to access the B1150 at two busy and dangerous junctions. These are also crossing points for pedestrians from Ling Way and the station area (poor visibility in both directions). There are no safe crossings with the current level of traffic. A schoolhirl was knocked down at the Ling Way crossing two years ago but in spite of a new light crossing, flashing signs and the 30mph limit, many drivers are still doing 60 at this point. This precise junction is a known problem for speeding with regular speed traps there.

If there is a traffic restriction in the village centre, Rectory Road and Westbourne Road become unofficial relief roads for all traffic with chaotic and dangerous consequences.

Infrastructure on Rectory Road is hardly reliable. In the last five years we have had two water main leaks, a gas main leak and a serious power cable failure, all within 50metres of the site. Yet the supporting details for the COL1 planning permission was told of no issues. The sewer in the village runs to Belaugh and before Christmas 2019 blocked - flooding lower properties in the village.

The site will be visually damaging to the area, the northern aspect borders the Bure Valley Railway amenity and will be visible from the B1150 approaching Coltishall. The Eastern aspect will dominate the view from St James. These are areas appreciated for their attractive amenity and visitors cannot believe the site is to be developed. The existing 1960s bungalows opposite the site have low roof pitches and trees behind, a crowd of ugly steeply pitched orange/red and black/grey roofs crowding the aspect will be dreadful and will not be mitigated by landscaping, the point being it is an open view.

A historical note to the whole site is that when the farm sold the land around 2010, the Broadland DC planners advised an enquirer that it would not be considered for development being outside the permitted development border and having highways issues.

I feel that I’ve been through this too many times and common sense is ignored. Exactly the same issues were prevalent when COL1 was a planning application stage. We have not seen the effects of that site and will not for at least two years. The village is much more congested since the NDR and we are consulting on increasing a development which is not yet built!

Please understand that while there is a housing crisis, the legacy of poor and rushed decisions are ruining areas just to meet arbitrary targets. And why don’t we at least get the existing housing stock more occupied – that’s the achievable priority.

I utterly object to this development. I cannot believe that any development was ever passed on this site in the first instance. With the sickening increase in the amount of traffic passing, on narrow roads, through our village this will only make matters even more treacherous. No-one dares walk alongside the B1150 to access the village centre as it’s too frightening and dangerous with the one narrow path and enormous lorries and speeding traffic.

Westbourne Road only has one pavement, is narrow and a much relied on bus route. This leads onto the B1150 at one end and Rectory Road at the other (the location of the proposed site). Rectory Road is also narrow with cars parking along one side making access difficult. Rectory Road is the location of a football field, Primary School, park, Cricket ground, Bowls club, Pre-school, Doctors Surgery and village hall.

Westbourne Road and Rectory road is the ONLY SAFE HAVEN left in our village after the NDR opened and the affects of the traffic travelling through from outside our village in order to access it. To add more houses, more car journeys to an already unacceptable situation is just ridiculous. All this will serve to do is suck more traffic up a quiet, safe route used by most people in order to access all the amenities mentioned above. Not to mention the strain on the schools, surgery etcetera. Coltishall used to be a holiday destination. Sadly, signs listing us as the ‘Broads National Park’ doesn’t mask the uncomfortable, polluting, noisy and terrifying amounts of cars and articulated lorries passing through constantly. Not quite a holiday destination any more.

In short, too many cars already, too much strain on local amenities, most importantly removing the last safe haven in our village used by children and others as it is the location of a large amount of amenities.

I am writing to object to the building of further new houses on Rectory Road, Coltishall.

I am emailing regarding the proposed extra housing on Rectory Road, Coltishall.

Firstly, I am concerned about the additional number of cars that would be travelling on Rectory Road. At the top end by the railway bridge it is one way due to the bridge being too narrow for two way traffic and it was also decided that a footpath was needed to keep pedestrians safe (including school children). Due to the one way system it will mean that Westbourne Road will become more conjested and depending on where the entrance to the new housing is will mean more traffic going over the little bridge which will mean a greater flow of traffic going out onto the North Walsham Road by Ling Way. This would increase the number of vehicles going through the village. Also to be noted is the local bus service and local secondary school buses already have difficulties at times getting up Rectory Road, these difficulties will only increase with the added number of vehicles living on the proposed site.

Secondly by increasing the number of houses in the village is going to put a greater strain on both the local primary (which hasn’t really hot(sic) enough room to grow further) and secondary school and also the drs surgery. This will mean the drs surgery will have longer waiting times and people who need to be seen urgently will be less likely to get an appointment on the day.

Let’s not forget whilst the houses are being constructed there will be numerous lorries, I ask are our narrow roads really designed for this? Let’s not forget the safety of the school children, young and old people whilst the lorries are thundering down the narrow roads in Coltishall. Safety should surely be a huge consideration?

A another question... Has anyone thought about having this many new houses could cause considerable damage to the local underground aquifer? I do not need to say that this is a very important factor that needs careful consideration.

I am writing to oppose the proposal of 25 more houses being built in Coltishall.

I understand there is already a proposal in place for 30 houses at the top of Rectory Road (COL1) and the new proposal GNLP2019 is for yet a further 25 houses.

I strongly oppose any of the above proposals.
My reasons are:-

- children will greatly be at risk from construction work and car access on their only route to school.
- the village school is already at capacity and will not be able to support additional children that the development may bring.
- the bus route on Rectory Road is already unsafe and the increase of a further potential 100+ cars will cause vast congestion and is a serious safety issue.
- currently the village is over run and comes to a standstill due to large lorries being unable to navigate the narrow streets, the construction will cause this to double!
- the construction will take away further green fields which is part of our village life.

I would like to keep Coltishall and Horstead a village and not try and create a town!

I am writing to complain about the proposed development of the green field site at the top of Rectory Road in Coltishall. Thete are numerous issues with the location let alone the fact that it is a green field site and as such a valuable resource that we can hardly afford to lose from the food cycle. The particular area is already very congested and due to the location of the school is particularly dangerous to young children.
The local doctors are already taking weeks to see routine appointments and a further 50 plus houses is only going to make this issue worse.
The opening of the NDR has already caused considerable traffic ques on the B1150 and further housing that will add to the traffic volume using the B1150 along with the proposed developments in North Walsham will undoubtedly add to the traffic congestion already suffered in Coltishall.
There are numerous brown field sites in the region that are far more suitable and that would have a smaller impact on residents and the environment. Why are these constantly being over looked?

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the current GNLP2020(Please note: this is believed to be GNLP2019
due to it being in Coltishall) , whilst I will be commenting on one specific site, I would like to take this opportunity to offer general observations:

I write as a resident of Coltishall since 1981 and Hoveton for ten years prior to that and am dismayed at the current damage of Broadland District Council and North Norfolk District Council villages resulting from poor planning decisions and policy.

I do not accept that a “housing crisis” is in any way a justification for the situation we now have. I support sensibly planned development; but feel I must object to the current situation and proposals.

Traffic through Horstead and Coltishall has significantly increased at all times of the day irrespective of season. This directly results from the opening of the Northern Distributor Road. Try safely crossing the High Street in Coltishall in the rush hour or even fighting your way out into the traffic flow; it is much worse since the opening of the NDR a road fundamentally flawed in concept, design and execution, actually restricting traffic flow along Norwich’s arterial roads at peak times. What about emergency services trying to use the A1151 or B1150 at these times?

Any increase in development north of Norwich is madness without first addressing the obvious lack of capacity of the two narrow road bridges crossing the River Bure and in the villages of Hoveton and Wroxham, and Coltishall and Horstead.

In the 1980s a bypass for Wroxham and Hoveton was a Norfolk County Council priority, land and property was purchased, in spite of an unsuitable route being chosen. At that time it was clear that something was needed. Now traffic delays in Wroxham and Hoveton are causing large numbers of drivers to seek the alternative route. At peak times the Wroxham Road in Coltishall is a constant flow of vehicles. Also we have had thirty years of development in North Walsham, Stalham and other villages, the negative effect of the traffic is felt from these. Services under the roads are not reliable with collapsed sewers, burst water mains, leaking gas mains and buried electricity cabling frequently causing issues. This I suspect is partly as a result of age of the infrastructure and then constant road use above. A road closure causes chaos at peak times in the surrounding narrow residential streets with consequent danger to those who live in the village - see attached photo.

So what is the local authority policy to plan a route out of this mess? Well it appears to be only to build more houses including 2150 in North Walsham - it won’t work.

Recently we endured five days of chainsaws and shredders removing trees (yes, Saturday and Sunday included) from dawn to dusk. No doubt a planning application from another “garden grabber” will be lodged in due course as a large area has been cleared, the trees are gone so why not...

It wouldn’t be so bad if what was built was in any way aesthetically pleasing. While I appreciate the subjective nature of appearance, putting large red roofed properties immediately behind and dwarfing a line of modest grey roofed bungalows hardly looks as if any consideration has been given (Westbourne Road).

I really do fear for the section of land on Rectory Road where outline planning permission has been granted for 30 homes (COL1). Will they be as hideous as the development off the Cawston Road at Aylsham; truly an example of a lack of respect for the location, and next to a long distance footpath amenity, and the developer now wants to increase the site to at least fifty-five. I am witnessing the ongoing ruination of what were considered desirable areas to live.

No consideration is given to those who already living in an area who in no way benefit from development, indeed blighted with insensitive schemes which adversely effect their own properties and lives? Little or no investment in infrastructure or services to meet increased need.

And what about the disruption to residents during the progress of these builds? In 2019 we endured days of chainsaws, stump grinders, the mother of all bonfires and then months of vehicular movements, chaotic on street parking and mud. Roofers cutting tiles with angle grinders in from 7,15am on the whole four day Easter weekend. This is what these speculative developments mean to residents - just as well that developer was a member of the Considerate Contractors Scheme - and they only built two houses.

How many existing houses are empty at present? A glance on Rightmove suggests a lot; at all levels of the market. If we suddenly built all necessary to meet the Governments targets for building, the market would collapse into freefall and the economic consequences would be devastating to borrowers, lenders and… developers.

Sadly I have little confidence that anything will change, indeed our new Government wants to get more homes built – laudable - but at what cost? The current policy is completely flawed. A headlong rush to build, build, build is resulting in numerous mistakes – mostly major, a shockingly poor legacy.

I’m writing advise you that I strongly object to the planning of a further housing development in the rectory road area in Coltishall. As a local resident I am already extremely concerned about the high levels of traffic within the village and the risks this poses to our residents in particularly for children. As a mother of two preschool children I already very anxious about the prospect of getting my children to school safely when the time comes with how things are currently with speeding motorists, unsafe crossings and inadequate pavements. The village feels no longer like a village and is becoming spoilt.

More homes means more traffic on this beleaguered road. The traffic in the village has increased hugely since the NDR. The village is a bottleneck and queues form instantly at peak times. Rectory road gets used as a rat run with people avoiding these.
Bus service reduced on Rectory Road due to congestion. No buses come this way on Saturdays because of parked cars on what becomes a single track road. Planning permission for site COL1 should not have been passed if common sense was applied with limited services in village and school and surgery full.

It is my belief that the proposed development at Rectory Road, Coltishall will spoil our beautiful village. The additional houses on the greensite by the railway line will be an eye sore and the traffic those houses create will make the small road towards ling way and the hill very dangerous. The local school is already at capacity and the doctors is over subscribed. The village does not have the infrastructure for these new houses and their residents.

I would like to object to a further 25 houses being built (on top of the already 30 agreed) near the Bure Valley Railway line, Rectory Road, Coltishall.
I am a resident of (*the area*) and already the road is extremely busy and unsafe for pedestrians. Many of the drivers are speeding which is unbelievable considering the amount of parents & children there are in the area and around the school. It’s only a matter of time before someone gets seriously hurt down Rectory Road!

You have caused so much chaos to our village with the NDR. The village simply cannot cope with more traffic,. Schools will also suffer and not be able to cope with the influx new devolpments with bring. The doctors surgery already has long waiting times for appointments. We are a small village and we are capable of adsorbing more of any of the above. You will rip the heart out of our beautiful village by doing so. Don’t build on anymore countryside. We already have the quarry threatening to scar our village and the water tower development as well. Enough . The people of coltishall and Horstead have had enough

Traffic - Rectory Road is a residential street which cannot cope with the volume of traffic already existing. Traffic from this development will be turning onto the B1150 just before an unsafe crossing used by school children, and travelling through the village centre which is constantly congested.
School and Surgery - already at capacity.
The 30 homes already planned for COL1 are over and above the housing need for the village, 25 more are not needed or wanted by local people and will turn our village from a community to a soulless housing estate.

The existing application (20170075) which this proposes to extend already stretches the current infrastructure and local services without adding any further capacity.

The negative impact on traffic will be significant to both directions of Rectory Road. If the existing proposal allows for 60 cars for 30 houses, and an additional 20-25 houses an additional 40-50, then Rectory Road will become unsustainable.

The original application relies on private transport companies running regular bus services to the area, but I would add that in recent years these services have been cancelled or re-routed as Rectory Road has been impassible for larger vehicles.