GNLP0601

This is too hemmed in on awkward parts of the road and would not be a suitable addition and it would be overcrowded unless major layout changes to the roads were financed.

Building here would adversely affect the rural character of the village where multiple specimen trees exist. Roads and junctions are insufficient to support more traffic and there are no footpaths down a blind and dangerous road to the village facilities. The local school is over-subscribed. The field acts as a soak and reduces the risk of flooding to neighbouring properties which lie below it - both on the other side of Coltishall Road and down at the brook.

Poor infrastructure in Buxton to cope with larger residential developments. Not enough pavements. Street lighting and school too small.

At the PC meeting held on Monday 12th March 2018, it was agreed by the PC to officially respond to the Greater Norwich Local Plan consultation with two resolutions:
1) That Buxton with Lamas PC opposes all the sites identified under the call for sites
2) That Buxton with Lamas PC wants to keep the settlement boundary of the parish as it is

Along with the Back Lane site, I'm deeply concerned by additional hard surfaces built on this Coltishall Road site, adding to an already existing problem of rainwater running down Back Lane and Coltishall Road which then combines with rain coming down Aylsham Road and Mill Street creating mini floods in front of our property. As this is a main run between Coltishall and Aylsham there's plenty of traffic, which doesn't bother to slow down, so the front of our house regularly gets drenched. We have had backwash coming into our living room too, under our front door. Please don't allow the building of any more hard surface areas higher than us, which will exacerbate this flooding issue.

I strongly object to the proposed residential development of this area of Buxton, this is not suitable due to poor infrastructure and the resulting negative impact of this pretty area of Buxton.

This land is on a busy road, access would be very difficult. Additional traffic would be dangerous.
Buxton school is already full, GP services are in neighbouring villages and are already stretched.
We value our green space, this would ruin it.

I feel that this proposal would cause increased flooding problems for the local residents. The roads in this area are narrow and there is already a danger to pedestrians, particularly as there are no footpaths and drivers often do not take into account the road conditions. This proposal would destroy a particularly beautiful area of the rural community.

Busy road, flooding risks, loss of farmland, no primary school places and no pre-school places - soon to be no secondary places either given the scale of the building in Aylsham. Families couldn't, and wouldn't chose here! It's a small village, the development of Mead Close is enough, we don't have the space or services for more and environmental effects should make it a non starter.

The village boundary should not be changed as it will rapidly cease to be a village. Run off from this land would exacerbate existing flooding. The roads in the area would become increasingly unsafe with more traffic. Local school full and GP/dentists.

I feel that this proposal would cause increased traffic problems for the local residents. The roads in this area are narrow and there is already a danger to pedestrians, particularly as there are no footpaths. This proposal would be likely to add to flooding problems in the area.

1) Land off Mead Close [Buxton - adopted local plan allocation BUX1] - Owner (Mr Waller) is ill but wants to sell the option to a developer. £1500000 is too much and is not raising interest.
2) GNLP0297 - Mr Granes [?] owns the land - he offered it for building about 9 years ago. He took umbrage because he was not shown the plans before the Parish council. He hasn't relented. Mark Little from Savills will have a job to change Mr Crane's mind.
3) GNLP0601. Ideal - near road, amenities, etc.
4) GNLP0387. If this is Glebe land I am sure the Diocese will sell.
5) GNLP0294 - Ideal again - but the Heritage of Coltishall want so much to be kept for historical reasons. Will cost much to redevelop old buildings - shortage of brickies, carpenters and bricks.