GNLP2019

Coltishall roads have become much busier since the opening of the NDR and crossing the road at the top of Westbourne Road has become even more dangerous, adding 25-30 properties (potentially 50-60 extra cars) would add to this. The local school is already at capacity as is the DRs surgery.

I object based on the volume of traffic that will be coming out onto Rectory Road. This road is already busy with the current traffic in Coltishall and cannot cope with the subsequent traffic that this development will cause. Trying to come out onto North Walsham Road will be unsafe, and will worsen the already poor situation for pedestrians who are trying to cross the roads to access the school. The school cannot cope with more children (7 spaces are currently available, with 4 of these spaces being taken by oversubscribed classes).

Coltishall is already at the breaking point for traffic, school capacity and local medical care. Adding to the local population without first improving infrastructure is a recipe for disaster.

Objections
1 There is no need in the village for this amount of housing
2 The site is on a very busy road with the school and doctor's surgery and additional traffic here will possibly make the bus company consider withdrawing an already reduced service on this road. This will isolate many residents.
3 The school and surgery are already getting near to full capacity. Doctors appointments now have a waiting time. Also I cannot see where they can expand as space is limited.
4 The only public transport is one bus from North Walsham to Norwich,nothing else.

CPRE Norfolk objects to the allocation of this site. It would lead to an unacceptable encroachment into the countryside beyond the current settlement limit. Access to the site would be congested by going through the allocated site to the west, and would lead to an unacceptable increase in traffic on Rectory Road, along with associated safety concerns. If, against these concerns the site is allocated, it should be kept back on a reserve list of sites for Broadland, to ensure that the more suitable allocated sites in the JCS are developed before any of the less-suitable new GNLP sites.

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.

1. The safety issues and chaos this will cause on Rectory Road due to increased traffic
2. No plans to develop or further fund our school or health practice, despite their existing full capacity which will struggle with a large rise in residents.
3. The huge alterations to the streetscape damaging the feel of this designated conservation area.
4. Misconceptions of our transport links which are not good
5. Outstanding climate assessments
6. Questions regards Crocus Homes prior knowledge of your plans
7. Concerns the Chair of GNLP has a conflict of interest as a developer

Why was I unable to view the plans on Fri 13th March? Like other coronavirus affected events (?) this should be POST PONED - and THEREFORE SO SHOULD THE DEADLINE FOR COMMENTS.
Traffic through Coltishall is already at dangerous levels; Rectory Road as the 'main' road through the village, with the majority of village services on it (school, village hall, preschool, surgery, church rooms, chapel, Football grounds, bus-routes - public and school) is already a dangerously over-used zone. Walking to school daily I can verify the amount of traffic poses a substantial risk, particularly for children using the above facilities. Accessing the B1150 either via Westbourne Road or at the top end of Rectory Road is extremely risky; visibility is poor; traffic enters the village from a 60mph zone and is often still fast. The road crossing for families in Ling Way area is therefore risky. This proposal will exacerbate the dangers and add to the problem.
Also why are we looking at losing more greenfield land? The area includes a footpath well used by many parishioners already for 'recreational' purposes. Wildlife and trees will be further impacted and negatively affected. Village green spaces should be protected. Coltishall is meant to be a tourist attraction as a 'Broads Village'! Traffic and over-development spoil its character.
Finally, the school is already functioning at or close to capacity, as is the surgery.

You would hope that it is possible to develop a web site that is more conducive to public consultation. If you genuinely desire to receive opinions from people you should alter your web site as it is extremely difficult to negotiate!
1.Site was always outside the building envelope, therefore who made the decision and when to change the boundary without seeking Parish support?
2.Most of the existing comments point out how dangerous and busy Rectory Rd is. You cannot ignore these comments and you must amend your support accordingly.
3 A Parish meeting unanimously rejected phase one, now we have phase two and how many more phases?
4 Do the correct thing and refuse this application!
5 Crocus Homes, cancelled public meeting scheduled for Friday 13th March. Before any formal committee discussion takes place the meeting should be reconvened?
6. Interestingly "social homes" are mentioned but no other indication of the type of homes to be built, the number of bed spaces to be provided, the density of houses and if residents will have adequate provision to garage vehicles, store garden equipment and other associated family equipment?
7. To accommodate a development of this quantity it suggests the traffic arrangements will be difficult and subject to abuse ( do you honestly believe car users will drive round to join the North Walsham road?)
8.Perhaps somebody, at some point, will explain to Coltishall residents how this site was identified for development and what was the criteria used against the forty four thousand other homes identified?
9. Can we be assured all the existing agencies and services needed to build and service this site have been identified and agreement reached before this site is being formally considered?

Contradicts Windfall development policy 7.4 - Primary School already at capacity. Traffic esp on B1150 is beyond capacity. Traffic already dramatically increased due to NDR and development in North Walsham.

Danger for pedestrians most of the day and at school times. Already overloaded NHS surgery. Broads National Park wildlife threatened, including bats, owls, wild flowers and fauna. Not good transport links as Sanders Coaches already threatening to stop route nearby due to congestion and no more traffic can be safe. This has not been thought through properly, not the right infastructure available locally. Col 1 is enough here.

As District Councillor for the Coltishall Ward, I vehemently object to site GNLP2019 being included in the emerging Greater Norwich Local Plan for several reasons:
We already have two allocated housing sites which have not yet been developed in the Coltishall & Horstead area (known as ‘Carried Forward Allocation’), being: Land at Jordan’s Scrapyard (Ref: COL2 Approx. 25 homes) and Land at Rectory Road (Ref: COL1 Approx. 30 homes), which give provision for 55 new homes. With the proposed development of an additional 25 homes (GNLP2019) this would total 80 new homes, which is a disproportionate number of new homes for the size of our village cluster which already lacks provision for necessary key services and infrastructure.
The main access for GNLP2019 is through ‘COL1’ onto a one-way single lane section of Rectory Road which has recognisable constraints for traffic, including the narrow road bridge over the Bure Valley Railway & Path, and the access onto the B1150 close to the point the children from the ‘Ling Way’ estate cross the North Walsham road on their supposed ‘safer route to school’.
As a member of ‘Community Speed Watch Team’ along with our local policeman, we have often observed an extremely high number of speeding vehicles and an almost constant stream of traffic on the B1150 just within the 30mph zone, where parents and children attempt to cross the road on their ‘safer’ journey to school, the existing flashing ‘Wig Wag’ beacons offer little effect to counteract the high speed of traffic. If this housing scheme is included in the GNLP, I insist Norfolk Highways gets the developer pay for a new roundabout on the B1150, to counteract the effect of additional traffic on this already dangerous junction, as public safety must be of paramount consideration in this decision.
The two-way section of Rectory Road is a busy residential road and is the main access to services and recreation for both villages, (Doctors Surgery, Primary School, Church Rooms the Village Hall and Recreation Grounds, and Football Club and grounds). Rectory Road is often congested with parked cars and buses have difficultly traversing this route which is an essential transport service for village residents and school children alike.
The Bure Valley Railway and Bure Valley Path which is adjacent to sites COL1 and GNLP2019, is an important part of our Tourism and Green Infrastructure plans in the Broadland District Council area. With the urban fringe of Norwich expanding exponentially in coming years, it will be increasingly important to protect our green spaces which contain a wealth of biodiversity for our residents and visitors to enjoy. I feel the proposed development is too close to the historic railway and outside the village boundary, and more new houses in this location will damage the natural capital of the Coltishall area.

Rectory Road is already heavily used during peak periods due to school and surgery traffic. The High Street and Wroxham Rd have heavy traffic through much of the day, with a large increase since completion of the NDR. There is a poor bus service to Norwich/ N Walsham (roughly 1 per hour, but no evening service) which is also very expensive (£5.20/adult return , family of 4 approx £18). Building on this scale should should not be permitted in Coltishall without significant investment in public transport and local walking and cycling infrastructure to fully mitigate the traffic generated.

OBJECTIONS TO GNLP 2019

No council transport plan or road layout has been presented to allow public comment and debate. As this has been an issue identified as a potential reason not to accept as a development site, it is essential the public sees a road plan before this site is accepted to go forward, so this can be commented on.
The assessments made of unacceptable sites nearby are also applicable to this site.The statement has been made that GNLP 0388 is an unacceptable site as (re Rectory Road) “There is an existing parking issue on the road (Rectory Road) and as such it would not be appropriate to service a development from it. The conflict between development and school traffic/parking would result in a safety concern.” GNLP 2019 is also on Rectory Road, and has very much the same difficulty. The fact that it is further down the road will mean some traffic may leave from Westbourne Road or Rectory Road north, but it is equally probable these cars from all houses, with possibility 2 cars. Crocus homes are intending to build 4,3 2 bedded high end houses which would in most cases mean 2 cars per household, so a total of up to 100 cars could be using onto a road which the G.NLP has already said has parking and access and safety issues. Exiting from the site into the village A. To the left on Rectory Road is the street GNLP has already said is too congested to receive more vehicles (assessment refGNLP0388) B to the right on Rectory Road is a narrow one way road with a hump back bridge with short visibility. C.Westbourne Road is the only other option and leads to a junction with the B1150 which has short visibility due to a bend, and a hump back bridge.
In relation to GNLP 2072 it is stated that it is unacceptable as “The site is located on a bend which restricts forward visibility and there is a safety concern regarding increased stopping and turning movements as the carriageway is constrained” The difficulties described are similar to the difficulties that exist on Rectory Road in relation to GNLP 2019 .
Assessments have been made of the highway difficulties of the other sites which are deemed unacceptable but NO assessment is given in relation to GNLP 2019 as “ Due to highway constraints in the vicinity of Rectory Road, submission of a transport assessment to assess the traffic implications of the proposed development on the surrounding road network demonstrating that the proposed scale of development can be accommodated will be required.” It is entirely unacceptable that the site GNLP 2019 is being presented to the public with lack of information on access as this is the final public consultation. Yet it is without a viable highway and access plan. No logic is given why other sites on Rectory Road have included assessments of access problems and it has been decided they are not acceptable but GNLP 2019 is continuing to be considered and endorsed. There is no indication how the access northwards along a single one way street with a hump bridge, an over parked and school access point lower Rectory Road and a semi blind exit to the B1500 are to be negotiated.
I asked to see the criteria by which the highways and access to sites are evaluated and I was told there is no objective measurement, it is evaluated by discussion. However the discussion is not recorded in the document and neither are any objective measurement of risks to compare sites.
In addition, the developers and the GNLP plan are suggesting Rectory Road can also accommodate a school car park. Again, placing a car park on a road that has already got a problem with traffic makes no sense. There is no room on this one way road at this point to accommodate the additional traffic attracted to a car park. Cars coming out would make there way in all directions and tail back mingling with the pedestrian traffic which comes up Rectory Road to Ling Way. How can it be that at this late stage these highway assessments are not available to the public.
The absence of public consultation on highway access in this, the final consultation document would be an absence which would then only allow comments going forward to consultation 19.
Coltishall public transport does not meet the GNLP criteria in the GNLP consultation document for frequency and time in working hours for it to be considered satisfactory public transport for commuting to work.(the GNLP stated criteria is every 30 minutes and covering both ends of commuting rush times) There is NO local evening transport, so all into evening and shift work journeys will be made by car. This is not in keeping with the aim of new developments being able to use public transport to commute.
This means that cars will be used by workers, potentially 50 workers in addition to the additional cars of the existing scheme with planning permissions. This will result in up to 100 people in all using cars to travel to Norwich or other areas, as there are not jobs in Coltishall for those numbers.This is contrary to the strategy of the transport plan 2018, and the GNLP stated aims to reduce congestion and emissions and build where public transport for commuting is available
The Bure valley railway foot and cycle path surface is deteriorated to the extent it does not allow use as cycle path to the Wroxham transport corridor. The road Coltishall to Wroxham is unsafe for Cyclists to use for access to the train or to access Broadland High School due to plans for straightening the road and improving cyclists safety being discontinued.
It has been suggested in previous documents that walking across the sport ground is a way children can get to Coltishall Primary school.This does not protect the space as a recreational area for other users and causes security issues to the back of the school. The entrance to the School is designed to be via St John’s Close. If this is changing this should be considered separately by a planning application which would be needed anyhow to extend school places.
Please note that elderly and unwell and urgent access is needed to the doctors surgery, where patients visit by foot and car and may occasionally be used by ambulances.
The B1150 is not in a transport corridor which can support developments of this size.The junction with the Northway particularly in the evening commute has 20 minutes northbound waits in peak rush hour. Congestion and idling traffic are a major cause of pollution. Developments north of Broadland will further increase this congestion as will the existing planning permissions next to GNLP2019 that has already been granted.
The Hill (see map) is a well used local recreational (horse, bike, walk ) route and also a walk to transport and to school route. Tourists walk and bike from the river up the lane to the main road. Residents in the lower part of Coltishall walk through the lane to catch the bus. The lane is a most popular circular jogging, dog walking and walkers recreational roadway. It is outside the 30 mile an hour zone, is single track and used by farm vehicles. It is also used by residents of the lane and the area for access to the main road. It is inappropriate for increased use.The effect on the lane by placing a development so near to it has not been assessed or referred to in the GNLP consultation document. It’s nearness to the site will result in cars using it for access to the lower villages amenities and the rail and bus bus links in the transport corridor and increase its use as a 2 way speed run. I can assure you as a non speed restricted narrow one track country lane it is entirely inappropriate to be used as a route to Wroxham, Broadland school, supermarkets and trains, but it will inevitably be used in this way and the most popular village round trip walk will become unfeasible for locals and tourists.
As you walk along The Hill (which in summer particularly has a steady steam of residents and tourists cycling, walking running etc) the houses of this development, GNLP2019 will be visible from the old lane and the rail way walk and view from the Bure Valley railway. The obtained planning permissions for Crocus homes is showing large dominating properties overlooking the rail walk and visible and dominating the popular Lane walk. A green corridor would help so it was not immediately looking onto the natural areas of the rail line walk, but would do nothing to stop houses dominating the view from the lane. It is essential the current hedging to the size is maintained and trees planted to soften the effect of this large development which would certainly diminish the enjoyment of a popular walk in Coltishall.
As the GNLP plan already is, I understand above the capacity it needs, particularly in relation to larger developer led projects, it is unreasonable that this site is considered appropriate of further consideration. In summary, it is a site that is out with the designated transport corridor and where public transport is not meeting GNLP commuting public transport criteria to be being considered viable. Therefore daily movement will be by car to work probably in Norwich, and back, leading to idling around the Northway and city centre congestion. Using the intended exits of the site with existing planning permissions disguises the fact that the roads, Westbourne Road and Rectory Road are totally unsuitable for the extraordinary amount of traffic that will be generated particularly at rush hour at the time when it will cross over pavements used by Ling Way residents and children.The transport plans are not prepared or presented, despite the fact that all other sites judged unacceptable have highway matters discussed in their assessment.The site GNLP 2019 is insufficiently assessed to consult the public on inclusion in the GNLP. If this is the last planned consultation, and it goes forward this means there has been no public consultation on the transport and road arrangements for this development.

Rectory Road is also a bus route, the bus turns with difficulty out of and into Westbourne Road and Rectory Road.
I note that Crocus homes have had chats with the highway department that they find encouraging. Why are the intentions for access provision not available for public scrutiny but are taking place in private discussion?

In summary Rectory Road is a residential street, it is not a main road. It is recognised by GNLP in assessments of other sites to be unsuitable to carry development (There is an existing parking issue on the road and as such it would not be appropriate to service a development from it. The conflict between development and school traffic/parking would result in a safety concern.)
-. Without a plan the additional vehicles, (which as crocus homes intends to build 4,3, and some 2 bedded homes could be 80-100) will use old village roads already unsuited to the amount of traffic.
The landowners and developers have not suggested a viable transport arrangement.


In summary Rectory Road is a residential street, it is not a main road. It is recognised by GNLP in assessments of other sites to be unsuitable to carry development (There is an existing parking issue on the road and as such it would not be appropriate to service a development from it. The conflict between development and school traffic/parking would result in a safety concern.)
-. Without a plan the additional vehicles, (which as crocus homes intends to build 4,3, and some 2 bedded homes could be 80-100) will use old village roads already unsuited to the amount of traffic.
The landowners and developers have not suggested a viable transport arrangement.
If the site is nevertheless adopted by GNLP despite the aboveI I suggest that the landowners and developers are required to mitigate against these catastrophic road arrangements by
a) subsidising public buses to bring bus service to the criteria in the GNLP for commuting.
b) subsidising evening buses for the social transport of the additional residents, to reduce cars.
c) update the Bure valley cycle path for access to Wroxham and access to transport corridor.
d) contribute to the improvements to the junctions of the B1150 and the Northway which currently has waits of 20 minutes in rush hour. The transport policy is aimed at reducing congestion, this contributes to it.
e) run commuter trains on the Bure valley miniature railway, for access to trains, and the travel corridors in Wroxham or Aylsham, and to Broadland high school.
f) protect the recreational use of the playing field.
g) protect ‘The Lane’ as a recreational resource for Coltishall and visitors and prevent its use for fast travelling vehicles.
h )Provisions for access ,noise and dust. how are vehicles used in construction going to navigate these already busy streets. The noise and dust from construction over no doubt a lengthy period will be in the school, and the school playground, and the recreational area. How will the school be protected?

I object strongly to the inclusion of the site as ‘preferred’ its inclusion is based on flawed documents and reasoning.
Coltishall does not have good transport links as stated
The site entrance is on a ‘c’ class one way road with a narrow hump back bridge. No ‘informal agreement with Highways has been obtained as stated, only a requirement for a full transport survey which has not been carried out.
No climate impact assessment has been carried out, a development in an isolated conservation villages will have a considerable greater carbon foot print compared to more urban developments

Unlike other allocation policies there is no reference to water efficiency forming part of the design

Please also see comments relating to Policy 2 of the Sustainable Communities of the Strategy document.

I object to the siting of
60 houses in Coltishall off Rectory Road, as the
increased volume of traffic would not be sustainable.
The environment would be diminished and Coltishall

Whilst you have requested that no feedback be given on your proposal for the initial 30 properties; it would have been useful to have sight of your definitive proposed site layout for these 30 properties. Crocus Homes have previously mentioned a proposal to widen Rectory road and seek 2 way traffic from Westbourne road to the railway bridge.
It is difficult to appreciate how the disruption of achieving such a proposal might be of any
benefit to either the existing residents or to the residents of a further 30 new properties.
Perhaps you might explain your thinking behind such a scheme? And whether this still forms part of your plans. We find it difficult to appreciate how having 2 way traffic might be of any benefit to either the existing residents or to the new residents as the bridge would surely require traffic control measures (traffic lights) due to its narrow width. We could not support such a scheme.
Without doubt any proposal for yet a further 25 dwellings in addition to the 30 dwellings would place further pressure on the existing infra structure, such that we certainly couldn’t support it.
There has been mention of the possibility of providing a disabled access to the Bure valley railway path from within the area of the original site. What are your current proposals, if any, in this respect?

Horstead with Stanninghall Parish Council are not in favour of site GNLP2019 in Coltishall but it does support a development at GNLP1056 in Horstead.
Development in Coltishall will impact on the local services Horstead currently accesses, as well as an increasing the amount of traffic passing through the Parish on the B1150. Coltishall has two sites that have already been designated for housing development. The first is at Rectory Road and has outline planning permission for 30 houses. The second is at Jordan’s Yard. No proposal has yet been made for that site.
Horstead, as does Coltishall, sits on top of two road networks, the B1150 and the B1354 that Norfolk County Council designates as a 3A2, Main Distributer Route (Other) in their Highways Route hierarchy.
According to data collected by the SAM 2 there has been an increase in vehicular traffic greater than 30% since the NDR opened and with large scale developments coming on stream in North Walsham this is only going to get worse.
There is concern amongst the residents that future generations may not have access to the Primary School in Coltishall, Horstead lost its very good school many years ago when the decision was taken to move everything onto one site on Rectory Road at Coltishall. Who can guarantee there will be places available in the future, if these developments proceed, for children living in the Parish? Currently schools in other neighbouring Parishes are already full.
The Parish currently has access to a recently expanded and very good General Practitioners surgery in Coltishall. There isn’t one in Horstead and talking to residents on the doorstep many feel that the Practice would be put under even more increasing pressure. Yes, the Doctors from Coltishall Surgery also work from Spixworth Surgery, but many of our residents are elderly, do not have their own transport and some are housebound which requires GP’s to make home visits. There is a growing perception amongst residents that they may be forced to find a different medical practice.

Whilst there is a requirement for new homes in the broader community so that existing children and the future generations of residents have a slim chance of being able to stay or even return and settle in the community the overall feeling by residents is that the mix of builds wont favour their wishes. Undoubtedly the developers will seek to gain maximum profit for as little capital outlay as possible so we could end up with developments comprising of homes with three, four or more bedrooms as opposed to a requirement for one or two bed affordable starter homes! Even less likely would be the feeling by developers for the need for retirement bungalows.
With GNLP2019 the Parish Council feels that it is in the totally wrong place as it will be connected to the existing Highways Network at a point that is a narrow, one way ‘C’ class road. A road that joins an already quite congested route especially at peak times during school terms when parents are trying to drop off their children and, at the same time, as public transport going through the village.
In favour of GNLP1065 the Horstead with Stanninghall Neighbourhood Plan, which is shortly to be published, comments that “Whilst it is a fact that none of the major landowners in the parish have expressed any intention of making land available for development, there are some opportunities in and around the village of Horstead and across the parish as a whole. Small parcels of land immediately adjacent to the settlement limit of the village are available…….” The Parish Council feels that GNLP1065 would meet these requirements.

As the Chair of Governors (and on behalf of the governors) for Coltishall Primary School I would like to submit the following response to the draft GNLP in regard to the sites in Coltishall.

We support the decision that the majority of the sites put forward in Coltishall and Horstead have been assessed to be unreasonable as we had significant concerns about the impact of capacity within the school and traffic in the vicinity of the school. We also acknowledge that the impact of traffic has been a deciding factor for some of these sites.

We are disappointed to see that there is a plan to include additional housing to the site at the end of Rectory Road. The governors are currently very concerned about capacity at the school. The school is typically oversubscribed and we are approaching levels where children who are resident within the catchment area will be unable to be accepted into the school. This is before any further development has been completed, so proposing to extend this development could result in a significant problem for the school. In addition to capacity, we also have significant concerns regarding traffic on Rectory Road. During school drop off and pick up times, Rectory Road is severely congested and already hazardous for children. Putting more development at the end of the road is only going to result in increased traffic and more difficulties on a narrow, unsuitable road.

As well as the site specific development, there is a general reference to there being sufficient land to expand the school. The governors do not support this position and are strongly opposed to any expansion of the school. There are no acceptable ways to expand the school on a small scale to support the size of developments proposed. Additionally, large scale development would be detrimental to the school ethos and environment, and not in the interests of the children meaning that governors would not support any such proposal.

For full representation, please refer to the attached documents