GNLP0388

I strongly object to the development of housing in this location, which is already particularly busy and congested at peak times due to the Primary School and Surgery, both of which are oversubscribed and would not be able to cope with such an influx - particularly as new homes further down Rectory Rd have already been confirmed. Our village is in danger not only of losing its aesthetic appeal and "village" feel, but the addition of yet more housing in this location would also add to existing traffic safety concerns, drainage problems, and put further strain on all local resources.

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.

Whilst accepting the benefits of limited housebuilding in the Coltishall area, the site at the end of St John's Close, off Rectory Road in Coltishall is wholly unsuitable for a development of up to 35 houses.
When added to existing development plans close by - COL1 and COL2 - 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 a resident of Church Street I strongly object to this proposed site. The access road at Rectory Road is too narrow to allow for the resulting additional traffic, to the extent that it puts the safety of residents and tourists using the village at risk. Such development within a broads village will threaten the character of Coltishall and the resultant traffic gridlock will dissuade our tourists from visiting - and make life very unpleasant for current residents. Additional problems include the environmental impact - it is a greenfield site. The current drainage etc will struggle to cope - as will the school and surgery.

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.

rectory road is already very busy and dangerous with all the buses and cars. This road and village cannot take extra traffic . This village is too busy already, this road is dangerous and more green spaces shouldn't be built on - the village is in a conservation area..the local services cannot cope already. More traffic will make a dangerous road even more dangerous for walking and using. This village is far too busy with tourists, people that use it as a cut through and the road systems are dangerous and cannot support more cars. This plan should be rejected

Rectory road needs no further traffic or population. It's already extremely busy and cars and busses are often having to pull onto pavements to avoid hitting each other. An existing development has already been approved meaning further chaos and threat to life will ensue. Furthermore Coltishall is already an overpopulated village and it's desirability has encouraged greed from developers and council knowing they can ask higher prices than neighbouring less populated villages that need more houses. It's a disgrace no formal communication to existing residents has been issued and that you are trying to ruin a conservation area.

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:

GNLP0388 - Land end of St Johns Close. As aforementioned safety and loss of character is of concern. If this site is to be developed it should be reserved for future expansion of the school and surgery not for residential development.

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.

I am writing with reference to the site proposals for GNLP0388 (and GNLP 0265) although I see I have to fill in two separate sections on this site.

This GREENFIELD 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) 0388 on several counts. As a resident of the village for 12 years I have seen traffic flow increase considerably. 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. From a pavement user's perspective it can be scary.
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 0388 would be foolish and 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. The character of the village will I feel be irretrievably harmed. Our green field sites should be protected as areas of conservation and for the community and visitors to the area to use.

I see the vision for Greater Norwich is "to grow vibrant, healthy communities supported by a strong economy and the delivery of homes, jobs, infrastructure and an enhanced environment." With reference GNLP0388 I feel only the word 'grow'can truthfully apply. Whilst I acknowledge that new homes would be delivered, the process would negatively impact upon the community of Coltishall in numerous ways so as to be overly detrimental.

Object on the ground of road safety, site entrance will be on Rectory Road which already has a significant amount of traffic going to and from school, doctor's surgery, social club, village hall.
This is a green field site and totally inappropriate in a broadband conservation village, it will not only change the character of the village but open the flood gates to build on more green field sites. Just because proposed site is outside the conservation area in the village does not make the impact any less.
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 130 - 250 plus cars all trying to exit the village can only result in one thing, gridlock!

This green field site should not be developed, for it is designated as 'greenfield' to protect an attractive 'broads village' and new houses are not appropriate. An addition of 30+ homes here would deface our village and change the feel of a village community that relies on tourism. The infrastructure is currently challenged because of heavy building quotas on the two main thoroughfares, North Walsham and hoveton causing traffic flow problems within the village. Access to this site onto rectory road and St. John's close are both already narrow and pressured by traffic using the school and many facilities situated here. The quantity and size of traffic already using this road compromises safety to the residents particularly Preschool and school children of Coltishall any more cars associated with new homes would lead to gridlock. Is that the look Coltishall wants to promote? The development would also overload the services, sewage, gas, electricity and water which would undoubtedly require upgrading at an additional cost and inconvenience to the community. It risks polluting the river and allotment sites which are protected by the broads authority and conservation areas of Coltishall. Pollution is a concern in a Norfolk broads beauty spot too, particularly light pollution as new housing schemes require street lights, something not wanted in our local countryside.

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:

GNLP0388 - Land end of St Johns Close. As aforementioned safety and loss of character is of concern. If this site is to be developed it should be reserved for future expansion of the school and surgery not for residential development.

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:

GNLP0388 - Land end of St Johns Close. As aforementioned safety and loss of character is of concern. If this site is to be developed it should be reserved for future expansion of the school and surgery not for residential development.

No way in the world could Rectory road coupe with the volume of traffic this development would bring

Rectory Road can not cope with any more development. It so difficult to get to the GP Surgery as it is. I have frequently been made late for appointments when taking my Father to the Doctor.

This site has a narrow entrust, on to a busy tight village street. This site would not allow the school and doctors expand it future..

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. The inadequacies of the road structure both in Rectory road and St Johns Close can be demonstrated by the fact that Sanders coaches withdrew services along Rectory road for a period of time due to the inadequacy of the road. In addition on a daily basis the school traffic leads to a dangerous overloading of Saint Johns Close so that egress on to the road from the properties it serves is potentially a serious danger to the children attending the school and a real hazard to the owners of the properties. During the day the Doctors surgery car park is inadequate to cope with patients attending the surgery. This leads to on street parking on St Johns close which simply cannot cope with the volume that it now has to take

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

St John's Close is very busy with traffic to and from school and surgery as well as current housing. Additional traffic caused by the proposed development would pose a threat to the safety of children around the school and elderly people using the surgery.

As a resident of Rectory Road, I find it staggering to believe a proposal to put more traffic on to Rectory Road and St Johns Close 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 for this type of 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 is onto St John's Close and then through Rectory Road, which is a fairly narrow road in a residential area and the main access route to the local school.

Regarding site identified at the rear of St Johns Close Coltishall:
Coltishall is a Broadland village that is important for the tourist area of the Norfolk Broads. The character of the village would be spoilt by a further housing development and this is likely to deter the important tourist trade. Access to the site is through an already congested road used by parents with young children and people with mobility problems using the school and doctors surgery. Rectory Road is a busy, often congested road with a village hall, preschool and play area. There is already concern about the high level of traffic through Coltishall which has led to several near misses. Traffic feeds down from North Walsham which has been expanded in recent times. The doctors surgery already covers Spixworth which has also expanded and it is now very difficult to get an appointment within a reasonable time. The primary school in St Johns Close is also over-subscribed. Please consider the detrimental impact that further housing develpment would have on this special Broadland village which contains conservation area and areas of special importance.

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

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.