GNLP0265

Firstly, I am astounded that these sites are still being considered.
Although I completely appreciate the requirement for additional housing, I cannot believe that shoehorning sites, into an already compromised country village, justified in any way, shape or form.
Coltishall is supposed to be an attractive rural retreat, part of the Norfolk Broads, somewhere holiday makers choose to visit for a relaxing idyllic break. This vision of Coltishall is fast being eroded, not only for the visiting public but also the permanent residence.
I moved here just over a year ago, with the draw of a quiet, safe village where my children were safe to attend the local parks etc. Unfortunately, I feel that the roads are already too busy, and drivers totally disregard the speed limit. This is made all the more dangerous by the very small pavements (often only on one side) particularly along the B1150, where you regularly see fresh red brick dust from new impacts with people's garden walls etc. In fact, I already avoid walking along this pavement into the village as the volume of traffic, thunderous trucks and narrowness of the road in general make it too uncomfortable. I've had a number of near misses in the car, where there's simply not enough room for the large trucks rounding the corner at the island garage and near the turning for Hautbois, forcing you to mount the pavement to avoid a collision or bringing the traffic to a standstill to allow them to pass. I've also had experience of wing mirrors from vehicles nearly clipping you as you walk along the single narrow pavement here. As for sites affecting Rectory Road, I find this incomprehensible! This being the ONLY quiet, supposedly safe-haven for children. Rectory Road includes the Primary School, Preschool, Park, Playing field, Doctor's surgery, football field, cricket ground & Village hall. These sites will suck traffic down Westbourne Road, which is already a daily gauntlet to run, with buses needing to use this road, whilst people park near both ends of it causing numerous hazards both leaving and joining it. Westbourne Road has only one pavement, at points it is too narrow for a bus and a car to pass, this forces you to mount the pavement. Pulling out onto the B1150 is blind & treacherous as people drive far too fast along it. Exiting onto Rectory road is also blind, and you often meet the bus rounding the corner and have to reverse or pull over to allow its passage. Rectory road itself is already used as a 'cut through' with people driving too fast, cars being double parked, due to lack of suitable parking space for the houses along it. I've seen police being called to move vehicles as the buses were unable to pass. With all this in mind at what point is any additional housing justified, when all it will do is draw larger volumes of traffic down streets which were NEVER designed to accommodate them, putting residents at higher risk. A couple of children have already been involved in accidents when alighting the bus in the village. The school and doctors surgery are already oversubscribed, my own children attend Worstead Primary School. There MUST be better site options situated with more modern road systems which are better equipped to deal with the inevitable traffic brought with new housing estates. Once Coltishall loses its identity there will be no return. The only thing that will come from this is an inevitable fatal accident, I certainly do not want to be party to that. I ask anyone considering ANY of these sites, come and spend a week living and using the roads here and it will leave you with NO DOUBT in your mind that this truly is an insane proposal. YOU CANNOT WAVE A MAGIC WAND AND MAKE THE ROADS IN COLTISHALL BIGGER, THEY ARE SIMPLY NOT SUITABLE. The ONLY thing that Coltishall needs is a bypass.
Kind Regards,

Sarah Smith

Whilst accepting the benefits of limited housebuilding in the Coltishall area, the site South of Jordan's Yard and, apparently, with an access onto Rectory Road in Coltishall is wholly unsuitable for a development of up to 25 houses. Access onto the B1150/ Station Road would seem improbable without very substantial changes to that section of road.
When added to existing development plans close by - COL1, COL2 and the site East of St John's Close - not only are local school and GP surgery not currently in a position to cope with such a huge increase in population, but Rectory Road is utterly unsuitable for the substantial increase in road traffic - and pedestrian footfall - that such developments would bring about. Rectory Road is already narrow and the problem exacerbated by parked cars, some of which have been damaged by passing traffic. Parents and children use the pavements to access the school and extra road traffic would increase risks to pedestrians.

As neighbouring landowners, we are very concerned about this for a number of reasons: environmentally, we are in a conservation areas with protected trees. There is much wildlife locally including owls, bats and deer. It is the only green space in the centre of the village for wildlife and forms part of the skyline of the area due to the elevated position. There are also problems with access given narrow roads to both sides at Rectory Road and Station Road. Traffic and road safety is already a problem given the volume of amenities traffic with addition tourist traffic during the spring and summer. RE: services, the school and surgery are already full, and there are problems with parking in the village, In addition the sewerage and drains are very old and would struggle to cope. We are really concerned that the character of the village would be threatened with the scale of the development in such an important and central location.

I have concerns about the increased traffic and burden on our local school and Drs Surgery if this and the other potential sites in Coltishall proceed. Our village is struggling the the amount of traffic which goes through as it is, increased traffic flow has been noticed from developments in North walsham who go through our village to get to Norwich , this impacts on surrounding roads and , as a mother who had a child knocked over by a bus on these roads , I am very concerned about any increase in traffic around our school.

The access roads around the site are already overused, and planning permission has already been granted for about 30 new dwellings on a site off Rectory Road, which will exacerbate the situation. Any new development will increase pressure on the infrastructure, in particular the primary school and medical centre, which are both already over-stretched. The extent of the proposed development is not appropriate for a small village in the Broads Authority National Park.

COltishall is far too busy already and the local schools, doctors cannot cope with extra housing - this is meant to be a conservation area and plans for more housing should not be supported as it is destroying the essence of what makes this village special

I fully object to this proposal. Coltishall is a conservation area and already over populated and too busy as it is. There are many villages that need additional housing and development but Coltishall is not one of them. It has been targeted as the developers can push the price point as its a sort after village and its greed that drives this. This is fundamentally wrong and houses should only be built in areas that need further populous.

This site is inappropriate. Coltishall is the entrance to the Norfolk broads and as noted by the plan it has areas that are environmentally sensitive, and the habitat and water quality must not be compromised. Due to the lack of infrastructure in Coltishall the village is already struggling to maintain its village 'feel' due to ever increasing road use. Further development would destroy the look and feel of village life. The developments in North Walsham and changes to Badersfield have already compromised Coltishall mainly because of a non expanding, contorted roadway and narrow bridge.
This site was previously rejected and now the access for this site has been altered onto Rectory road, an even more narrow roadway which has no scope for alteration as the pathways are minimal and the main thoroughfare for children and older people going to and from the facilities on the road, including a primary school, Preschool, park and surgery, church rooms, football field, Methodist church to name but a few. This is further cramped by a double-decker bus route, residential parking, parking for the church and for overspill when the recreation ground car parks are full to capacity with locals and tourists alike. This change of access still does not make it a viable development. As a tourist area Coltishall also expands in numbers through the summer, and the many businesses on the high st mean that the village is struggling for space to accomodate the current villagers, let alone another 100 cars per day!
The site is adjacent to a contaminated site, an old chalk pit and these may be factors which hinder development of this site which is overlooking a beauty spot ' The Bure Valley'. Potentially this site will be visible as you come into the village as the highest point of Coltishall, therefore changing the face of Coltishall forever.
The addition of new homes here would also require adequate provision of services, this undoubtly would require upgrades which would be costly to the current residents-as the costs will be incurred by increased bills, disruption and noise pollution, and will definitely mean unwanted residential street lighting which will pollute the dark skies surrounding the conservation area of the Norfolk broads.
I'm aware the plan makes no regard towards the provision of healthcare and education however Coltishall is full and this complete disregard is short-sighted and non progressive according to your overall vision. Quality of life is a right!

There are already 2 sites with allocations from the last plan COL1 and COL2. COL1 has outline planning permission for 30 houses. The Parish Council and residents fought against this site due to safety of the roads, capacity of the drains and sewers and visual impact. The proposed development is by a private developer and for large family houses, not first-time homes and social housing that is required.

COL2 is yet to sought planning permission.

Both GNLP0265 and GNLP0388 were rejected from the last adopted plan.

Coltishall is a Broads Village, from the 2011 census data its population is already 2687 - at the top end of the population noted for a village. The two sites currently adopted and the two proposed would lead to a potential of 125 additional dwellings, as a minimum assuming 2 occupants per dwelling that is an additional 250 residents. I have grave concerns that this is highly problematic for the village on the following grounds.

Infrastructure capacity - Rectory and Station Roads are narrow roads and cannot and should not be widened. There is already issues with pavement parking, congestion, speeding and going the wrong way down the one -ay section. The bus routes have already been affected, with the bus route being cancelled for a number of months due to the struggle to get down Rectory Road. The effects of other town and village developments, specifically at North Walsham have increased traffic through the village. The route though Coltishall is narrow and has blind corners and small bridges. Regularly at peak times traffic backs up.
Safety - there are weekly near misses with children going to school, Ling Way, Rectory Road and St Johns Close. Access to proposed estate would increase volume of traffic further estimated 400 additional car journeys down Rectory Rd per day.
The capacity of the sewers and drains are at maximum.
Services at capacity - Schools, Surgery and pre-school, set up to service a village.
Environmental impacts - the 2 sites adopted and 2 proposed are green field sites within a Broads village. COL2 is noted as being a brownfield site, however it is not, it is a contaminated site of great environmental and historical significance, with an escarpment, trees, buzzards nesting and of great importance to the history of the village with its lime pit and brick making past. All true brownfield sites should be exhausted prior to proposing green field sites.
Character of the village, has already been (Queens Road, St Johns Close developments) and will be diluted. Coltishall is tourist attraction because of its character. People choose to live here because it is a Broads village, quality of life will continue to diminish. We do not want to go from a Broads village to a Norwich suburb. The new developments are generic house types with no relation to the individual place, the developments look the same, brick and tile choice do not match the local palette and the mass is out of scale.
Coltishall is a tourist attraction, this means traffic volumes increase at peak season - which should be considered before developing the village further. Tourists have already noted that they are surprised at how much traffic goes through the village.
I accept the need for housing, but development is led by profit and not by need. Norfolk has an aging population, has it been considered that over the period to 2036 population have decrease due to the high percentage of people over the age of 70?
Although the proposed sites are outside the conversation area, they have a visual and environmental impact on it.
I have a few further specific comments of each of the sites:

GNLP0265 - South of Jordan Scrap Yard, adjacent to COL2, would have to have access either off Station Road, and at the location of the sites, there is poor visibility. If the two sites share access onto Rectory Road, all the development sites would be access Rectory Road, it cannot cope with this additional volume of traffic, so close to the village hall, school, surgery on a village road which is already at capacity.

This proposal adds traffic to an already overloaded Rectory Road, patients to an already overloaded doctors surgery and children to an already overloaded school.

This proposal adds traffic to an already overloaded Rectory Road, patients to an already overloaded doctors surgery and children to an already overloaded school.

Object on the ground of road safety, this site entrance will be on Rectory Road which already has a significant amount of traffic going to and from, school, doctors surgery, social club, village hall.
Loss of character and identity of Broadland village, Coltishall is a conservation village, just because you are proposing to build outside the conservation area in the village does not make the impact any less.
Loss of open space and wildlife habitat a rare commodity these days, these are the things that give Coltishall its current character and should be safeguarded for future generations.
With all the building and expansion of towns like North Walsham north of Coltishall there is going to be a significant increase in commercial traffic and cars on the B1150 through the village this will undoubtedly mean increased queues at the bridge backing up through the village, heavy goods vehicles need both sides of the road to negotiate the bends and bridge. Add to this an additional 120 - 250 plus cars all trying to exit the village can only result in one thing, gridlock!

There are already 2 sites with allocations from the last plan COL1 and COL2. COL1 has outline planning permission for 30 houses. The Parish Council and residents fought against this site due to safety of the roads, capacity of the drains and sewers and visual impact. The proposed development is by a private developer and for large family houses, not first-time homes and social housing that is required.

COL2 is yet to sought planning permission.

Both GNLP0265 and GNLP0388 were rejected from the last adopted plan.

Coltishall is a Broads Village, from the 2011 census data its population is already 2687 - at the top end of the population noted for a village. The two sites currently adopted and the two proposed would lead to a potential of 125 additional dwellings, as a minimum assuming 2 occupants per dwelling that is an additional 250 residents. I have grave concerns that this is highly problematic for the village on the following grounds.

Infrastructure capacity - Rectory and Station Roads are narrow roads and cannot and should not be widened. There is already issues with pavement parking, congestion, speeding and going the wrong way down the one -ay section. The bus routes have already been affected, with the bus route being cancelled for a number of months due to the struggle to get down Rectory Road. The effects of other town and village developments, specifically at North Walsham have increased traffic through the village. The route though Coltishall is narrow and has blind corners and small bridges. Regularly at peak times traffic backs up.
Safety - there are weekly near misses with children going to school, Ling Way, Rectory Road and St Johns Close. Access to proposed estate would increase volume of traffic further estimated 400 additional car journeys down Rectory Rd per day.
The capacity of the sewers and drains are at maximum.
Services at capacity - Schools, Surgery and pre-school, set up to service a village.
Environmental impacts - the 2 sites adopted and 2 proposed are green field sites within a Broads village. COL2 is noted as being a brownfield site, however it is not, it is a contaminated site of great environmental and historical significance, with an escarpment, trees, buzzards nesting and of great importance to the history of the village with its lime pit and brick making past. All true brownfield sites should be exhausted prior to proposing green field sites.
Character of the village, has already been (Queens Road, St Johns Close developments) and will be diluted. Coltishall is tourist attraction because of its character. People choose to live here because it is a Broads village, quality of life will continue to diminish. We do not want to go from a Broads village to a Norwich suburb. The new developments are generic house types with no relation to the individual place, the developments look the same, brick and tile choice do not match the local palette and the mass is out of scale.
Coltishall is a tourist attraction, this means traffic volumes increase at peak season - which should be considered before developing the village further. Tourists have already noted that they are surprised at how much traffic goes through the village.
I accept the need for housing, but development is led by profit and not by need. Norfolk has an aging population, has it been considered that over the period to 2036 population have decrease due to the high percentage of people over the age of 70?
Although the proposed sites are outside the conversation area, they have a visual and environmental impact on it.
I have a few further specific comments of each of the sites:

GNLP0265 - South of Jordan Scrap Yard, adjacent to COL2, would have to have access either off Station Road, and at the location of the sites, there is poor visibility. If the two sites share access onto Rectory Road, all the development sites would be access Rectory Road, it cannot cope with this additional volume of traffic, so close to the village hall, school, surgery on a village road which is already at capacity.

This would spoil a beautiful part of the village and the road could not handle th3 extra traffic.

I know Coltishall very well and find it ridiculous that there should be a proposal for more housing development on Rectory Road. Surely this road can not cope with any more development? Already I find that the bridge is a bottleneck frequently resulting in me being late for work!

I am writing with reference to the site proposals for GNLP0265 (and GNLP 0388) although I see I have to fill in two separate sections on this site.

This site is in addition to a greenfield site already granted outline planning permission for 30 dwellings at the North Walsham end of Rectory Road (COL1). Why are further greenfield sites in the Broads National Park area being targeted for development?

I have great concerns about (all) the proposal(s) 0265 on several counts. It will have access roads onto Station Road and Rectory Road - both of which are heavily over-used, narrow, impeded by obstacles, generally sped along by drivers and overall hazardous. To introduce more traffic to these routes seems irresponsible.

As a resident of the village for 12 years I have seen traffic increase considerably. The NDR has not alleviated any traffic flow through the village on the North Walsham/Station Road and as development increases in North Walsham even MORE people are travelling south and to the city via Coltishall Village Centre.

I have also seen numbers at the Primary School swell. As a parent who walks a child to school every day the combination of the two points above has I believe resulted in a real threat to road-user and pedestrian safety. Exacerbating the problem, many cars park on the road in Rectory Road, either those belonging to its residents or those belonging to parents who are 'dropping off'. The result is a chicane effect, with many blind spots created and many drivers taking unnecessary and dangerous risks in order to get through. Crossing the road on foot is difficult and dangerous. Due to extremely narrow footpaths at the Church end of the street many people have to cross the road twice in order to get to the school.

Furthermore as I am sure you are aware, Rectory Road is also a main bus route - for school and public buses - and at times traffic jams and tailbacks are caused as buses can not negotiate the traffic and obstacles.

Additionally as I am sure you are aware the doctors' surgery, village hall and pre-school and community church rooms are all located in the same area of Rectory Road/St John's Close. To introduce a further access road into this area - as shown on 0265 would be dangerous. Rectory Road is already over-used.

I also object to the proposal on the grounds that Coltishall is a Broadland village and a tourist attraction as an area of natural beauty with conservation zones. It has a rich and diverse history as a village. The existing businesses and infrastructure support the village community. I believe the planned housing will put unsustainable pressure on the infrastructure - stretching an already overstretched surgery and school beyond their physical limits.

Very poor access on a busy village road, which will cause traffic to jam at busy times ,of the day, The site will be seen from all boat traveling up the river bure , from Wroxham to coltishall , which will change the view as you approach coltishall. From green the rooftops and guttering. This will be a shame . The bridge at coltishall petrol station has and will be impacted from the site in north Waltham, as from two more on rectory road.

GREATER NORWICH LOCAL PLAN REGULATION 18 CONSULTATION

SITE PROPOSAL OPTIONS -COLTISHALL & HORSTEAD

SITES GNLP0265 AND GNPL0388 -OBJECTIONS



1. I wish to formally register my objection to the two proposed residential development sites allocated reference numbers GNLP0265 and GNLP0388 in the parish of Coltishall for the following reasons:

2. The current Greater Norwich Local Plan ("GNLP") Growth Options Regulation 18 Consultation Document ("GO Document") does not specifically identify Coltishall as a center for future housing growth and there is already an existing housing allocation (COL1 and COL2) which is more than sufficient to meet any new demand for housing within Coltishall during the plan period. There is therefore no need or demand for any further allocations as proposed under GNLP0265 and GNLP0388;

3. The existing highway network serving the proposed sites GNLP0265 and GNLP0388 is not sufficient to meet the needs that would be generated by an additional 30-65 dwellings and neither is there sufficient land available within Rectory Road to accommodate any increase in the capacity of the highway to facilitate the additional traffic use to and from sites GNLP0265 and GNLP0388 were these sites to be allocated for residential development;

4. Whilst Coltishall has been classified as a Service Village within the Settlement Hierarchy of the GO Document the existing services such as the local primary school and doctors surgery are already operating at capacity and would therefore not be able to cope with any future demands generated by the additional residents of sites GNLP0265 and GNLP0388 if such sites were to be allocated for residential development;

5. Sites GNLP0265 and GNLP0388 are I understand greenfield sites. Paragraph 4.49 of the GO Document states that "To meet national policy requirements to make the most efficient use of land, it is critical that the best possible use is made of brownfield land ( my emphasis), which is mainly within Norwich and the urban fringe" Clearly these two sites do not meet this test and as there is an already an existing allocation sufficient to meet the future demands of Coltishall without having to resort to these two sites there is no justification for the use of these greenfield sites as an addition to the existing available or proposed brownfield sites within Norwich and the urban fringe to meet the estimated housing needs arising during the plan period for Norwich and the urban fringe.

6. Finally, at the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework ("NPPF") is the presumption of sustainable development. The allocation of sites GNLP0265 and GNLP0388 for residential development would be contrary to this golden principle in that the adverse impacts arising form such an allocation would far outweigh the benefits of allocating the sites for residential development when assessed against the polices "taken as a whole" in the NPPF.

7. For the above reasons I would strongly urge you to not to allocate sites GNLP0265 and GNLP0388 for residential development

As a resident of Rectory Road, I find it staggering to believe a proposal to put more traffic on to Rectory Road would be considered. There are already numerous problems of traffic jams at school pick up and drop off, issues with unsuitable parking and damage being caused to vehicles through traffic on a narrow road travelling with excessive speed. The infrastructure is completely unsuitable and there is no scope for improvement due to the existing development.

Additionally the proposal for a development of this scale will put too much strain on other services including electricity, sewerage, school and doctors.

I am the District Councillor for the Coltishall & Horstead ward and I strongly object to this site as the access primarily is onto Rectory Road, which is a fairly narrow road in a residential area and the main access route to the local school. I think if this development is included is the GNLP a alternative access route would be required

I am writing with regard to the proposed GNLP for housing in Coltishall, and comment on the COL1 and COL2 BLP sites.

I am very concerned regarding the impact the proposed sites would have on the road networks and infrastructures of the village of Coltishall. I emphasis the word village regarding the lovely, relatively unspoilt, area of Coltishall, and its neighbour Horstead.

I believe the new sites listed of GNLP0265, and GNLP0388 would cause major problems for Coltishall, and its neighbour Horstead, by the increased traffic flow. I use the word flow loosely, as that may well be the first problem, in that the traffic doesn't flow, and it would bring chaos to the tiny roads through the village. Access to the proposed sites would greatly add to the traffic problems already here in Coltishall. Sixty homes would probably mean at least 60 cars and more, with family ownership. That is not even including the service vehicles going to and from these two sites. Such as delivery vans and lorries, trades vans, and numerous other vehicles at various times, including the emergency service vehicles, if needs be. Any access on station Road, Coltishall, would be a nightmare, as the road is narrow, and any more disruption to traffic flow, such as turning into an access road against the flow of traffic, (for example), would clog up the already busy road, leading to build up of traffic, and tail backs through the village.

It is not a pleasant experience when needing to walk along the footpath along Station Road, as it is intimidating enough already, with the big lorries and other vehicles driving so close to pedestrians along parts of the footpath. The dangers would only be increased with even more traffic needing access to these proposed sites. Any other access for these sites onto the High Street would also be a total disaster for the reasons already mentioned, and from an aesthetic point of view, in destroying the village life that exists today.

To think of putting housing in such a cramped setting is not helping the village what so ever. From a infrastructure point of view, it begs the question of how these increased homes will impact on Coltishall, if they were to be built. I believe that he St John's Close school is already operating at full capacity. I would imagine these proposals would add greatly to the Doctors Surgery lists, in St John's Close also. Is it also proposed to build new infrastructure for the needs as mentioned? Any access for the site proposals onto Rectory Road would just caused such chaos, such as mentioned for Station Road. Added to which there is the serious issue of there being the school and doctors surgery to consider, with the impact more traffic would add to the dangers for children and parents going to and from school, and to patients and surgery staff attending the doctors surgery. The St John's Close and Rectory Road areas are already overcrowded at school times. any housing access into this area would overload an already busy road, and Close.

Thus far, my email is relating to the two GNLP sites. That is without the extra burden being imposed on Rectory Road with the COL1 outline planning permission for 30 houses, and the possible addition of COL2, with a further 25-30 houses. Rectory Road is overloaded now, so many more housing and thus traffic, would be detrimental to the health and safety of the people of Coltishall, and the structure of the village itself.

Additionally, and just as importantly, all these proposals in themselves would create additional dangers to the villagers crossing at the crossroads of Ling Way, Nth Walsham Road, and Rectory Road. We have already had a near fatal accident recently with children running into the main road, and a mother trying to save them. Partly because of the lack of a safe crossing area there. Speeding is another issue at this area. More signage should be in place to warn drivers to keep to the 30mph speed limit. Such as a flashing speed warning sign for drivers coming over the bridge towards the Ling Way crossroads. They often accelerate after the bridge to well above 30mph, when they are still in that 30mph zone for at least 50 yards past the crossroads. something needs to be done there urgently, before someone is killed. The flashing speed sign for drivers coming over the bridge towards the crossroads could be attached to the back of the post showing the light up 30mph limit sign, for drivers approaching from Nth Walsham. (For Example.)

All the traffic which will result in the housing proposals will undoubtedly make Ling Way estate crossroads even more dangerous for pedestrians, and road users also. None of the Rectory Road housing with outline planning permission should be built until the Ling Way, Nth Walsham Road crossroads, is made much safer. The traffic increase using the one way system over the old railway bridge on Rectory Road will put that crossroads under immense strain, and would be an accident waiting to happen.

I am very concerned regarding the impact the proposed sites would have on the road networks and infrastructures of the village of Coltishall. I emphasis the word village regarding the lovely, relatively unspoilt, area of Coltishall, and its neighbour Horstead.

I believe the new sites listed of GNLP0265, and GNLP0388 would cause major problems for Coltishall, and its neighbour Horstead, by the increased traffic flow. I use the word flow loosely, as that may well be the first problem, in that the traffic doesn't flow, and it would bring chaos to the tiny roads through the village. Access to the proposed sites would greatly add to the traffic problems already here in Coltishall. Sixty homes would probably mean at least 60 cars and more, with family ownership. That is not even including the service vehicles going to and from these two sites. Such as delivery vans and lorries, trades vans, and numerous other vehicles at various times, including the emergency service vehicles, if needs be. Any access on station Road, Coltishall, would be a nightmare, as the road is narrow, and any more disruption to traffic flow, such as turning into an access road against the flow of traffic, (for example), would clog up the already busy road, leading to build up of traffic, and tail backs through the village.

It is not a pleasant experience when needing to walk along the footpath along Station Road, as it is intimidating enough already, with the big lorries and other vehicles driving so close to pedestrians along parts of the footpath. The dangers would only be increased with even more traffic needing access to these proposed sites. Any other access for these sites onto the High Street would also be a total disaster for the reasons already mentioned, and from an aesthetic point of view, in destroying the village life that exists today.

To think of putting housing in such a cramped setting is not helping the village what so ever. From a infrastructure point of view, it begs the question of how these increased homes will impact on Coltishall, if they were to be built. I believe that he St John's Close school is already operating at full capacity. I would imagine these proposals would add greatly to the Doctors Surgery lists, in St John's Close also. Is it also proposed to build new infrastructure for the needs as mentioned? Any access for the site proposals onto Rectory Road would just cause such chaos, such as mentioned for Station Road. Added to which there is the serious issue of there being the school and doctors surgery to consider, with the impact more traffic would add to the dangers for children and parents going to and from school, and to patients and surgery staff attending the doctors' surgery. The St John's Close and Rectory Road areas are already overcrowded at school times. Any housing access into this area would overload an already busy road, and Close.

Thus far, my email is relating to the two GNLP sites. That is without the extra burden being imposed on Rectory Road with the COL1 outline planning permission for 30 houses, and the possible addition of COL2, with a further 25-30 houses. Rectory Road is overloaded now, so many more housing and thus traffic, would be detrimental to the health and safety of the people of Coltishall, and the structure of the village itself.

Additionally, and just as importantly, all these proposals in themselves would create additional dangers to the villagers crossing at the crossroads of Ling Way, Nth Walsham Road, and Rectory Road. We have already had a near fatal accident recently with children running into the main road, and a mother trying to save them. Partly because of the lack of a safe crossing area there. Speeding is another issue at this area. More signage should be in place to warn drivers to keep to the 30mph speed limit. Such as a flashing speed warning sign for drivers coming over the bridge towards the Ling Way crossroads. They often accelerate after the bridge to well above 30mph, when they are still in that 30mph zone for at least 50 yards past the crossroads. Something needs to be done there urgently, before someone is killed. The flashing speed sign for drivers coming over the bridge towards the crossroads could be attached to the back of the post showing the light up 30mph limit sign, for drivers approaching from Nth Walsham. (For Example.)

All the traffic which will result in the housing proposals will undoubtedly make Ling Way estate crossroads even more dangerous for pedestrians, and road users also. None of the Rectory Road housing with outline planning permission should be built until the Ling Way, Nth Walsham Road crossroads, is made much safer. The traffic increase using the one way system over the old railway bridge on Rectory Road will put that crossroads under immense strain, and would be an accident waiting to happen.

I am concerned about the safety for anyone trying to cross the road at Ling Way onto the North Walsham Road already, let alone when more housing is built on these sites (GNLP0265 and GNLP0388 and BDLP COL1 & COL2). We need (at least) a crossing, plus the roads are not suitable for this much expansion around here.

On behalf of the Governing Board of Coltishall Primary School, we are writing to express grave concern about the possibility of further greenfield housing development (GNLP0265 and GNLP0388) on or near Rectory Road, Coltishall. School concerns centre primarily on two issues: safety and capacity.
Safety
Our school community already faces a series of safety and access challenges. We are situated in a cul-de-sac adjacent to the village medical practice. The amount of manoeuvring traffic is therefore already of concern. Rectory Road itself is a designated Speedwatch site and bus route and suffers from alternating congestion and speeding through the day. It is not uncommon for cars to mount the pavement to avoid or get around buses and bin lorries. Our 'safe route to school' from the Ling Way estate crosses a dangerous road, made ever more dangerous by the development of housing in North Walsham for people commuting (often at illegal speed) through our village to Norwich. It is already the subject of a bid to the Parish Partnership Scheme to introduce safer crossing and has recently attracted unwelcome media attention through dashcam footage of a 'near miss'.
The school has previously expressed concern about the proposed development of thirty houses at the north end of Rectory Road. This concern was ignored in granting the site outline planning permission last year. The consequences of that decision are yet to be realised, but our expectation is that Rectory Road will become even more dangerous for our children than it already is.
It is in this context that we read the following text of the site suitability appraisal for site GNLP0388 (and similar wording appears in relation to GNLP0265):
"Initial highway evidence has indicated that an acceptable vehicular access is likely from St John's Close. Also it is believed that, subject to suitable footpath provision, any potential impact on the functioning of local roads could be reasonably mitigated."
The Governing Board finds this to be both inexplicable and, frankly, complacent of the safety of our children.


Capacity
Coltishall Primary School is a one-form entry school, which currently educates around 205-210 students, depending on in-year movement and appeals. Our site contains two large mobile buildings already, one of which is used as a classroom and one as a staffroom and library. This accommodation is far from ideal as we suffer from regular heating issues. The staffroom was flooded during recent bad weather as an internal pipe fractured leaving 10cm of water across the whole floor space.
The additional 30 houses already planned for Rectory Road will place a significant additional burden on the school, which will either mean that we have to find ways of expanding accommodation, once more at the cost of the children's play and leisure areas or we will have to disappoint families from our extensive rural catchment to Horstead and Belaugh who have always sent their children to our school. The fact is that they will live further away from the school than the new development, which will stand some 300 metres away.
These are issues that the school will simply have to address as the decision to develop, for better or worse, has been made. Naturally, the Governing Board and staff will do everything to ensure that the outstanding quality of education at the school is maintained notwithstanding any loss of facilities due to buildings expansion.
However, we can only express our dismay and disbelief at the prospect of further housing development on or near Rectory Road even being considered at this time.
Conclusion
We are aware that Coltishall Parish Council will be writing to you on behalf of parishioners to object to any further housing development in the vicinity of Rectory Road. We have therefore chosen not to raise wider issues in relation to this development in any detail. However, we would wish to point out on behalf of our children that they have a reasonable expectation of living in a Broads village and attending a rural community school. That expectation is being eroded by the actual and proposed development of greenfield sites and the associated congestion it brings to our constrained infrastructure. We would ask you to think very carefully about changing the character of our community and our school in the face of widespread local opposition.

Yours sincerely


Mr Dan Mckeown
Headteacher Bob Grindrod
Chairman, on behalf of the Governing Board

General comments:
All allocations need to be considered in relation to the Greater Norwich GI Strategy and the emerging Norfolk GI maps, in relation to both opportunities and constraints.
As for previous consultations, our comments on site allocations relate to information that we hold. This relates mainly to impacts on CWS. These comments are in addition to previous pre-consultation comments on potential allocations. However, we are not aware of all impacts on priority habitats and species, or on protected species and further constraints may be present on some proposed allocations. Similarly, we have flagged up impacts on GI corridors where this is related to CWS but there should be an assessment of all proposed allocations against the emerging GI maps for Norfolk, which should consider both locations where allocations may fragment GI and areas within allocations that could enhance GI network. As a result, lack of comment on sites does not necessarily mean that these are supported by NWT and we may object to applications on allocated sites, if biodiversity impacts are shown to be present?

We are aware that the GNLP process will be taking place at the same time as Natural England work on licensing with regard to impacts of development on great-crested newt. This work will include establishment of zones where development is more or less likely to impact on great-crested newt. We advise that this ongoing work is considered as part of the evidence base of the GNLP, if practicable to do so in the time scale.

Broadland
Coltishall:
0265 There is a substantial block of mature trees within this proposed allocation which we understand provides nesting site for common buzzard and is part of wooded ridge. Although not protected under schedule 1 of the Wildlife & Countryside Act, in our view this should be seen as a constraint on development and wooded ridge should be protected.

Drayton
0290: In our view development within the Drayton Woods CWS is not acceptable and this site should not be allocated.
We agree with constraints due to proximity to CWS that are assessed for other proposed allocations in Drayton

Frettenham:
0492 we are pleased to see that impact on CWS is recognised as a major constraint and the need for area within CWS to be recognised as GI, if there is any smaller development outside of CWS

Hevingham:
Adjacent CWS represents a potential constraint as has been recognised.

Honingham:
We note that the presence of CWS and river valley are recognised as constraints, although assessment is that impacts on these areas can be avoided by becoming green space in a larger development. If taken forward, plans would need to include a buffer to all CWS and assessment of biodiversity value of each CWS to establish whether they have particular sensitivity. At this stage, NWT take view that 0415 should not be allocated, even if part of a large development.

Horsford:
0469 and 0251 should be recognised as having CWS or priority habitat constraint. There should be no development on CWS and should be a buffer to CWS.

Postwick:
0571 This would be a new settlement and we are pleased to see that a biodiversity constraint is recognised. However, Witton Run is a key GI corridor linking to Broads National Park. It is essential that impacts on GI corridors, such as Witton Run, are recognised even when not made up of designated sites, if the Greater Norwich GI strategy is to have any value.

Reepham:
1007: This is STW expansion. If expansion is necessary at this STW, there will need to be mitigation and/or compensation with regard to impacts on CWS
1006: There are potential impacts on CWS 1365, which need to be considered

Sprowston:
0132 We are pleased to see that GI constraints and opportunities are recognised. However, need to ensure that allocation allows for protection and enhancement of GI corridor.

Taverham:
0563: Recognition of impact on CWS is recognised but need to ensure no development within CWS, plus buffer to the CWS, if this is taken forward.
0337: Buffer to Marriott's Way CWS needs to be recognised

Thorpe St Andrew:
0228 and 0442: Pleased to see that the impact on CWS 2041 and GI corridor seen as a major constraint and that all sites proposed will have an adverse impact. These sites should not be allocated.

Norwich:
Deal ground 0360: Previous permissions allow for protection and enhancement of Carrow Abbey Marsh CWS. There is great potential for restoration of this CWS as a new nature reserve, associated with the development and a key area of GI linking the city with Whitlingham Park. This aim should be retained in any renewal of the allocation and new permissions

0068: Development should not reach up to riverside but allow for creation of narrow area of natural bankside semi-natural vegetation to link with similar between adjacent river and Playhouse. This will help to deliver the (Norwich) River Wensum Environment Strategy

South Norfolk

Barford:
0416: We are pleased to see that biodiversity constraints are recognised but there is a need to mitigate for impacts on adjacent CWS 2216 though provision of buffer.
1013: There are potential biodiversity constraints, with regard to semi-natural habitats
 
Berghapton:
0210: We are pleased to see that impacts on CWS, existing woodland and protected species seen as major constraint.

Bixley:
1032: There may be biodiversity constraint in relation to habitats on site

Bracon Ash:
New settlement 1055: We are pleased to see that affects CWS and priority habitats are recognised. There is potential for significant additional impact on Ashwellthorpe Wood SSSI. This site is open to the public but is sensitive and not suitable for increased recreational impacts, owing to the wet nature of the soils and the presence of rare plants, which are sensitive to trampling. We are also concerned about increased recreational impacts on of a new settlement on Lizard and Silfield CWS and on Oxford Common. These sites are already under heavy pressure owing to new housing in South Wymondham. Unless impacts can be fully mitigated we are likely to object to this allocation if carried forward to the next stage of consultation.

Broome:
0346: We are pleased to see recognition of constraints relating to adjacent Broome Heath CWS

Caistor
0485: see Poringland

Chedgrave:
1014: There may be biodiversity constraints with regard to adjacent stream habitats

Colney
0253: Constraints relating impacts on existing CWS 235 and impacts on floodplain may be significant and should also be recognised as factors potentially making this allocation unsuitable for the proposed development

Costessey
0238: We are pleased to see constraints in relation to CWS and flood risk are recognised.
0266: We are pleased to see constraints recognised. The value of parts of this porposed allocation as a GI corridor need to be considered.
0489: We are pleased to see that constraints relating to river valley CWS recognised. This site should not be allocated

Cringleford
0461: The whole of 0461 consists of semi-natural habitat, woodland and grazed meadow and should not be allocated for development. In addition adjacent land in the valley bottom is highly likely to be of CWS value and should be considered as such when considering constraints
0244: This site is currently plantation woodland and part of the Yare Valley GI corridor. It should not be allocated, for this reason

Diss:
We support the recognition that constraints regarding to biodiversity need to be addressed. Contributions to GI enhancement should be considered. 1004, 1044 & 1045 may cause recreational impact on CWS 2286 (Frenze Brook) and mitigation will be required.

Hethersett
0177: We are concerned that constraints with regard to impacts on CWS 2132 and 233 are not recognised. These two CWS require continued grazing management in order to retain their value and incorporation as green space within amenity green space is not likely to provide this. Development of the large area of 0177 to the south of the Norwich Road would provide an opportunity for habitat creation and restoration

Marlingford:
0415: We are concerned with the biodiversity impacts of development along Yare Valley and on CWS and habitats on the valley slopes (including CWS in Barford parish). If this area is allocated it should only be as a semi-natural green space that is managed as semi-natural habitat

Poringland:
0485: We are pleased to see recognition of constraints relating to CWS. Any country park development should ensure continued management and protection of

Roydon
0526: There is potential for recreational impacts on Roydon Fen CWS. This impact needs to be considered for all proposed allocations in Roydon and if taken forward mitigation measures may be required. We are also concerned about water quality issues arising from surface water run-off to the Fen from adjacent housing allocations and these allocations should only be taken forward if it is certain that mitigation measures can be put in place. Roydon Fen is a Suffolk Wildlife Trust nature reserve and SWT may make more detailed comments, with regard to impacts.
Although appearing to consist mainly of arable fields this 3-part allocation contains areas of woodland and scrub, which may be home to protected species. These areas should be retained if this area is allocated and so will represent a constraint on housing numbers.

Toft Monks:
0103: We are pleased to see that a TPO constraint recognised and value as grassland habitat associated with trees should be considered.

Woodton
0150: Buffer to CWS could be provided by GI within development if this allocation is taken forward.
1009: Impacts on CWS 94 may require mitigation.

Wymondham:
Current allocations in Wymondham have already led to adverse impacts on CWS around the town, through increased recreational pressure. Although proposals for mitigation are being considered via Wymondham GI group, further development south of town is not possible without significant GI provision. This applies particularly to 0402. Similarly, there is very limited accessible green space to the north of the town and any development will require significant new GI. 0354 to north of town includes CWS 215, which needs to be protected and buffered from development impacts and CWS 205 needs to be protected if 0525 is allocated.

Parishioners' concerns about Suitability Assessments

It is acknowledged that these are desk-based exercises. However, the published conclusions have generated considerable confusion and concern.

GNLP0265

Based on the information presented, this site will decant onto Rectory Road immediately next to the Village Hall/Pre-school car park and metres away from the entrance to St. John's Close where the school and surgery are situated. The statement that "any potential impact on the functioning of local roads could be reasonably mitigated" appears unsupported by any evidence. Rectory Road cannot be made any wider and services cannot rationally be moved. In any event, no mention is made of the impact on the many nearby services and the bus route which are in regular use by parishioners and visitors, much less the known congestion, speeding and parking issues.

Consideration of alternative road access onto Station Road is similarly fraught with difficulty. The road is narrow, visibility is poor due to bends and there is no footpath by the road. Speeding is commonplace. Even the footpath on the other side of the road is regarded as dangerous given the speed of traffic and the size of HGVs, which often either mount the pavement or drive so close that their wing mirrors become a hazard to pedestrians.

A green score for 'Accessibility to services' appears to relate to geographical proximity. The fact that they have no spare capacity is ignored. Utilities are rated 'green' and yet the text makes clear that significant upgrade is required. The development of a modern housing estate behind the conservation area landscape will continue the erosion of heritage character begun by over-development of the village centre with flats unsupported by sufficient parking spaces.

It has been commented that a conclusion that "constraints have been identified but subject to these being able to be overcome ..." could relate to colonising Mars as much as to developing Coltishall.

GNLP0388

It is unclear whether access to this site is intended via St. John's Close or via the indicated way alongside Coltishall allotments. Either access is fraught with difficulty. The assessment text implies access via St. John's Close, which contains a school and a surgery. Local opinion is unanimous that 'transport and roads' should be 'red' not 'amber' as access via St. John's Close would be highly dangerous. St. John's Close is already a source of widespread concern without any additional traffic. Access via the marked path to Rectory Road would also be dangerous as it decants straight onto Rectory Road itself, which is beset by visibility issues as well as the other problems listed above. It would also hem in the statutory allotments in Coltishall, which have been part of village life for over 100 years.

Not unreasonably, the repeated text "constraints have been identified but subject to these being able to be overcome ..." is being taken to mean that these sites are suitable if you say they are suitable, which is neither democratic nor reassuring to parishioners.

The issues with the GNLP Consultation itself and the wording of the Suitability Assessments have contributed to a widely expressed belief that there is no point in responding to the consultation as the Councils will do whatever they like anyway. We hope that is not true but the perceived shortcomings in the consultation process are making it harder to argue that there is continued value in democratic participation.

B. Parish Council response to GNLP0265 and GNLP0388

The character of Coltishall
"Our historic environment - buildings, landscapes, towns and villages - can better be cherished if their spirit of place thrives, rather than withers." NPPF, p. i.

Coltishall Parish Council is gravely concerned that piecemeal planning decisions, considering individual characteristics of specific sites, will lead to the eventual erosion of the character of Coltishall as a historic Broads village and tourist attraction. Its spirit of place is being put at serious risk through often opportunistic over-development. Continued focus on achieving housing targets risks destroying the 'spirit of Coltishall' that has taken centuries to achieve.

Coltishall is an ancient Norfolk village with a rich economic and residential heritage. Much of it is a conservation area and much of it falls within the Broads Authority national park. Indeed, Coltishall is known as 'the gateway to the Norfolk Broads' and has been described as 'the most picturesque waterside village in Broadland'. A significant number of people here rely on tourism for their living. In addition to significant river traffic, the village is on the Bure Valley Railway line. It supports several highly regarded pubs and tearooms. In addition to the Norfolk Mead hotel, there is also a range of B&B options. The High Street is populated with a range of independent and high-quality shops, with a strong artistic presence. It is a place that people come to relax and enjoy their leisure time.

The rural idyllic nature of Coltishall is already under significant pressure from housing development. The building of multiple flats with one parking space each in the village centre has caused residential parking to spill over significantly into shopping spaces. This is having a visible and negative impact on local trade. The already planned development of 30 new houses at the village edge on Rectory Road on a greenfield site will bring an additional 400+ daily car journeys to the village. The Parish Council receives and usually resists regular planning requests for changes of use or 'developments with architectural merit' that challenge existing settlement limits. It should also be noted that Coltishall is largely a 'dark sky' village, and many parishioners are committed to this essential characteristic of village life. The idea of further greenfield development on sites neighbouring Rectory Road being entertained in the GNLP has therefore been met with widespread shock and disbelief.

The development of hundreds of new homes in North Walsham is having a serious impact on the village through a huge increase in both heavy and commuter traffic to Norwich passing through the centre of the village. Unplanned diversion of traffic from northern villages to access the NDR via Coltishall is making things worse. This may become an unmitigated disaster if hundreds of new homes are considered near Buxton/Badersfield. Traffic and congestion is already deterring tourists and significantly affecting the quality of life in the village. Several tourists have indicated to B&B and teashop owners that they have been shocked at the constant noise and traffic on our High Street. Speeding through the village is commonplace (though not by residents according to Speedwatch data), and evidence from SAM2 about average speeds in the 30mph zone is alarming. No planning consideration appears to have been given to the impact on villages like Coltishall that sit on the road between the 'affordable' housing in North Walsham, planned housing in Buxton and the main source of local jobs in Norwich.

General Considerations (Broadland Policies GC1-GC5)
"Local planning authorities should create a shared vision with communities of the residential environment and facilities they wish to see."
"Planning ... [should] be genuinely plan-led, empowering local people to shape their surroundings."
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF, para 69)

A shared vision requires participation. CPC is concerned that:

- the timing (winter)
- accessibility (online with roadshows mainly requiring car access)
- documentation (online only - not available for people to read in print)
- difficulty in responding (online only; no physical address provided)
- difficulty in submitting feedback (several parishioners have tried and failed to use the online system, finding it impossible to navigate)
- and lack of outreach (one 5-minute presentation with no questions to Town and Parish councils in Broadland)

associated with the GNLP consultation has undermined its democratic accountability. The difference in response rate from Coltishall parishioners before and after provision of village-centric information by CPC should be salutary to the consulting councils, as should their widely expressed belief that there is no point in responding to the consultation.

CPC has deliberately chosen to invite parishioners and local institutions to respond by petition to the GNLP process because its previous protestations about the lack of sustainability or suitability of development of Rectory Road were systematically ignored over a number of years of the previous Local Plan process, leading to outline planning permission for 30 houses being granted.

Policy GC1 provides a presumption in favour of 'sustainable development' - 'change for the better ... ensuring that better lives for ourselves don't mean worse lives for future generations' [NPPF] unless adverse impacts outweigh the benefits or other framework policies restrict it.

No reference is made in GNLP documentation to the outline planning permission already granted for 30 new houses on Rectory Road, Coltishall (COL1, BDC 20170075, decision 17th May 2017, decision letter 6th November 2017), and so the impact of this development appears not to have been accounted for in the suitability assessments. This appears to significantly undermine their credibility. Any analysis of sustainable development must surely take account of what is already planned.

Policy GC2 provides that new development will be accommodated within the settlement limit.

We note that the settlement limit was previously moved against local wishes to accommodate the greenfield site COL1 on Rectory Road. Both proposed greenfield sites are outside the current settlement limit. Given the excess of housing land that has been put forward for the GNLP, we would question any further settlement limit change in order to use greenfield land in a Broads tourist village such as Coltishall to meet housing development targets.

Policy GC4 sets out a range of design criteria for development.

We note particularly the requirements to respect:
- the environment, character and appearance of an area,
- the amenity needs of current and future residents;
- the need for safety;
- the need for appropriate infrastructure.

Rectory Road is the only access to many of the community facilities in Coltishall, including:
- the Primary School
- the General Practice
- the Pre-School
- the Village Hall
- the Church Rooms (hall hire venue)
- the village playground
- both village sports fields (football and cricket)
- Bure Valley FC clubhouse
- the Multi-Use Games Area
- the Allotments
- the Bowls Club

Despite the presence of these services, Rectory Road is a narrow, residential road with significant pressure on on-road parking space. Rectory Road is on the 2-way bus route through the village, albeit that two buses could only pass each other on many parts of the road by mounting the pavement. On a regular basis, CPC receives complaints about the volume and speed of traffic on Rectory Road; cars mounting pavements to drive around buses and bin lorries; the risk of poor parental driving and parking during school drop-off and pick-up; casual parking across driveways or at bus stops; delays as buses try to slalom between inconsiderately parked cars and, more recently, persistent 'blocking in' by parking across people's drives. All of these problems will be exacerbated by the now permitted development of site COL1. We find it impossible to see how the further decanting of vehicles from sites GNLP0265 or GNLP0388 could be considered sustainable. We would characterise it as 'highly dangerous'.

Environmental Policies (Broadland Policies EN1-EN4)

"Planning should contribute to conserving and enhancing the natural environment and reducing pollution ... and encourage the effective use of land by reusing land that has been previously developed (brownfield land)" [NPPF, p.5.]

EN1/EN3 provide for protection of biodiversity and the co-ordination of green infrastructure to support habitats. The fundamental character of Coltishall as a Broads village is based upon its rurality. Green space at the edge of the village joins a network of green spaces through the village to the commons to provide habitats and corridors for a huge range of flora and fauna. These two greenfield sites (and the now to be developed greenfield site at COL1) are main green arteries through the village connecting out to open countryside or to woodland. Building houses on either of them would risk destroying an important Broadland habitat.

EN2 provides protection for valuable landscape. Coltishall is a blended patchwork of Broads Authority national park, conservation area, heritage sites and characteristic housing. There is already concern that a modern housing estate is to be placed incongruously at the edge of the village on Rectory Road. Modern estate housing development that effectively 'fills in' the green spaces shared by residents of Rectory Road would be entirely out of keeping with the current character of the area and would significantly detract from both resident and visitor amenity.

EN4 discourages pollution. Vehicle emissions form a major source of pollution in Coltishall, especially on Rectory Road, Wroxham Road, High Street and Station Road. Rectory Road is already a residential road being used as a main thoroughfare because of the location of village services and the need for public transport access to them. It already suffers from alternating congestion and speeding.

Employment Policies (E1-E3)

There is no expectation of significant new employment opportunities in Coltishall. In fact, we have noted a significant increase in traffic through the village in recent months as housing in North Walsham has become available. It seems clear that many people are buying houses in North Walsham and then commuting to Norwich through Coltishall. There is also a noticeable increase in heavy goods traffic travelling through the village. We have had no control over, or say in, planning policies that have in practice provided placement of housing and jobs that require people to commute through Coltishall.

We have, however, noticed a range of symptoms that are damaging our own economy, which is based significantly on tourism in the broadest sense. Visitors come by river, (tourist) railway and road to visit our highly regarded pub/restaurants, hotel, B&Bs and teashops and browse in our independent shops and art gallery. Even in winter they struggle to park as public parking spaces have been colonised by residential overspill parking from two-car families living in one-space flats in the village centre. They look visibly shocked by the extent of traffic and congestion on the High Street and, like our residents, struggle to get across it. Many of our hospitality providers have heard people say they will be less likely to return. In a tourist village like ours, it is imperative that character is not lost as jobs will be lost too. Our village has reached a point of housing and, equally importantly, vehicle saturation that is putting its unique character and therefore its economy at increasing risk.

Transport and Safety Policies (TS1-TS4)

We would expect that any further development in the vicinity of Rectory Road will be supported by a detailed Transport Assessment and Travel Plan. It is of great concern to us that repeated warnings about the road infrastructure in Coltishall, the extent of alternating speeding and congestion and the ongoing dangers to pedestrians appear not to have been heeded in making development decisions.

C. Summary

1. Rectory Road, Coltishall is already struggling to cope with the demand placed upon it by access to multiple services, being on a bus route, accommodating a burgeoning number of cars and ongoing unplanned development in green spaces behind the houses that front the road.
2. New development of 30 houses at site COL1 will exacerbate these problems but is not accounted for in GNLP assessments.
3. Planning decisions elsewhere - housing in North Walsham and the opening of the NDR - have caused a major increase in traffic through the village in the last 12-18 months.
4. Possible developments such as GNLP0265 and GNLP0388 either in or close to Coltishall will exacerbate these problems significantly.
5. New housing and new traffic flows risk materially undermining the character of Coltishall as a historical Broads village.
6. Any impact on the character of Coltishall will also damage the economy of Coltishall as many businesses rely on tourists seeking rural peace and quiet and access to shops and tearooms. They will not return if they find ever-increasing traffic, congestion and noise.
7. Many services in Coltishall - school, pre-school, surgery - are already under considerable demand pressure and some are fearful about coping with additional demand as they have no obvious way to expand.
8. For these reasons, the parishioners of Coltishall believe that further development would be detrimental to quality of life, contrary to the principles set out in National and Local Planning Policies and quite simply not sustainable.

1056 buxton road would be a bad idea as it would spread the village away from the services and outside the purple line. it's a long way for people to walk from there to the villages so they would drive. also not so easy for them to get onto the north walsham road bus route and so would encourage car journeys.

2072 is my favourite as it is infill and access is from a decent bit of main road and it is in the heart of the village on a patch of land i had no idea existed and is of no agricultural value. people would definitely walk from there to buses and village services.

2019 would be bad as Rectory Road is the main access and is already a very difficult road to navigate due to width and parked cars all day long and especially 8-9am and 3-4pm. the existing permission for the neighbouring site is already too much in my view for the small local roads to take.

0388 would have the same problems as 2019 in my view.

0265 would have the same problem in terms of access onto a fiendish short stretch of the north walsham road and there is a lot of wildlife and habital in this area that would be lost.

GNLP2019, 0388, 0265, 2072

I object to the above planning applications because :
Permission to build on these sites on top of the sites already given permission, would result in real problems with ROADS, INFRASTRUCTURE, SERVICES, none of which could support such a large increase in demand.
Rectory Road and the river bridge are of particular concern.
Also the character of the village would be totally changed and from being an attractive Broadland village it would become a busy suburb of Norwich.
I hope you will take these points into consideration.