GNLP1056

Showing comments and forms 1 to 12 of 12

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 13500

Received: 04/03/2018

Respondent: MR Simon Beck

Representation Summary:

This village cannot take more cars, people and pressure on the services. It is a conservation area and needs to retain its Broadland village status which more development will destroy. more houses is more people on very busy roads which are dangerous already. We moved from London to Coltihsall- London was quieter. Coltishall is too busy already and it's road systems are a hazard to all pedestrians. This village cannot accommodate more houses and more people it is too busy as it is.

Full text:

This village cannot take more cars, people and pressure on the services. It is a conservation area and needs to retain its Broadland village status which more development will destroy. more houses is more people on very busy roads which are dangerous already. We moved from London to Coltihsall- London was quieter. Coltishall is too busy already and it's road systems are a hazard to all pedestrians. This village cannot accommodate more houses and more people it is too busy as it is.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 13508

Received: 04/03/2018

Respondent: MR Simon Beck

Representation Summary:

This village cannot take more cars, people and pressure on the services. It is a conservation area and needs to retain its Broadland village status which more development will destroy. more houses is more people on very busy roads which are dangerous already. We moved from London to Coltihsall- London was quieter. Coltishall is too busy already and it's road systems are a hazard to all pedestrians. This village cannot accommodate more houses and more people it is too busy as it is.

Full text:

This village cannot take more cars, people and pressure on the services. It is a conservation area and needs to retain its Broadland village status which more development will destroy. more houses is more people on very busy roads which are dangerous already. We moved from London to Coltihsall- London was quieter. Coltishall is too busy already and it's road systems are a hazard to all pedestrians. This village cannot accommodate more houses and more people it is too busy as it is.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 13514

Received: 04/03/2018

Respondent: MR Jonathan Brown

Representation Summary:

Coltishall needs no further development. It's already an extremely busy village. It's desirability has obviously become focal to delvelopers that are out to make a quick buck rather than preserve the conservation and history of this extremely pretty village. There are many surrounding villages that could benefit from further population, houses and infrastructure. Coltishall is not one of these, and should not be ear marked for constant development born only from developers greed. Services in the village are maxed and cannot cope or need further residents. Absolutely disgraceful no formal communications about these plans have been sent to existing residents!

Full text:

Coltishall needs no further development. It's already an extremely busy village. It's desirability has obviously become focal to delvelopers that are out to make a quick buck rather than preserve the conservation and history of this extremely pretty village. There are many surrounding villages that could benefit from further population, houses and infrastructure. Coltishall is not one of these, and should not be ear marked for constant development born only from developers greed. Services in the village are maxed and cannot cope or need further residents. Absolutely disgraceful no formal communications about these plans have been sent to existing residents!

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 13936

Received: 13/03/2018

Respondent: Mr Raymond Moore

Representation Summary:

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

Full text:

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

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 13948

Received: 13/03/2018

Respondent: Mrs Dawn Moore

Representation Summary:

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

Full text:

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

Support

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 14264

Received: 17/03/2018

Respondent: Alan Browne

Representation Summary:

This site has everything wide road good visibility in both directions traffic can leave development in two directions less impact on the roads through the village less impact on doctors and school choice of spixworth Buxton and Coltishall also not crammed into the hub of the village like other sites would be.

Full text:

This site has everything wide road good visibility in both directions traffic can leave development in two directions less impact on the roads through the village less impact on doctors and school choice of spixworth Buxton and Coltishall also not crammed into the hub of the village like other sites would be.

Support

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 14328

Received: 18/03/2018

Respondent: Ms Caroline Denson-Smith

Representation Summary:

I drive by this site on an almost daily basis and often wonder why it has not been developed. Nothing has happened on the site which appears to have been abandoned. Surely this site would be far more suitable than the proposed further developments on Rectory Road?
Housing here would not cause congestion with traffic and also there is plenty of straight road to enable safe vehicular access.

Full text:

I drive by this site on an almost daily basis and often wonder why it has not been developed. Nothing has happened on the site which appears to have been abandoned. Surely this site would be far more suitable than the proposed further developments on Rectory Road?
Housing here would not cause congestion with traffic and also there is plenty of straight road to enable safe vehicular access.

Support

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 14534

Received: 19/03/2018

Respondent: Mr Oliver Browne

Representation Summary:

This site has good visibility on suitable size road. Away from any area fo concern. And is close to tithe barn and the church, several shops and garages , pub/ restaurant. Any impact from this site will not impact the villagers near by.

Full text:

This site has good visibility on suitable size road. Away from any area fo concern. And is close to tithe barn and the church, several shops and garages , pub/ restaurant. Any impact from this site will not impact the villagers near by.

Support

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 15002

Received: 21/03/2018

Respondent: Mr Campbell Jones

Representation Summary:

This represents an ideal opportunity to provide very much needed new housing that will hopefully encourage young families to settle in Horstead. At the moment the only housing that becomes available is far too expensive and largely only comes onto the market when the owner either dies! Horstead is gradually become a retirement only village, probably the majority of residents are I the over 60 age group, we need youngsters to settle here and raise families.

Full text:

This represents an ideal opportunity to provide very much needed new housing that will hopefully encourage young families to settle in Horstead. At the moment the only housing that becomes available is far too expensive and largely only comes onto the market when the owner either dies! Horstead is gradually become a retirement only village, probably the majority of residents are I the over 60 age group, we need youngsters to settle here and raise families.

Support

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 15269

Received: 21/03/2018

Respondent: Lanpro Services Ltd

Representation Summary:

The HELAA assessment does not consider the findings of the appeal decision APP/K2610/W/16/3165420 or application 20161100. These confirm that the site is not removed from services and that an access can be provided to HA standards.

Matters associated with Landscape and Townscape impacts can be resolved through a landscape led design solution.

The site is in single ownership with a landowner willing to deliver; it is available and viable.

Full text:

Site Ref: GNLP1056

The GNLP Analysis for the HELAA advised that the site is poorly located with regards to access and accessibility to services.
Part of the site has been considered through a planning application and appeal process. The Planning Inspector on appeal decision APP/K2610/W/16/3165420 states the following:

Para 14
Paragraph 55 of the Framework encourages housing in rural areas where it will maintain or enhance the vitality of rural communities but requires isolated new homes in the countryside to be avoided unless there are special circumstances. The proposed dwellings would be close to the village of Horstead, which benefits from a range of services and facilities and public transport connections to larger settlements. Thus, I do not consider the occupants of the proposed dwellings would be isolated.

The application 20161100 was also referred to the Norfolk County Council Highway Authority who confirmed that the site was capable of providing a vehicular access which would be compliant with their standards. The site would also provide highway benefits by relocating speed limit signs to incorporate the existing dwelling to the west and providing a footpath along the frontage of the site which would also connect the western dwelling to the footpath network.

Taking the above matters into consideration it is concluded that the site is not remote from services or facilities and that the site could be safely accessed, with additional highway connectivity/safety benefits provided by the allocation. Therefore, the negative (amber and red) results which the GNLP Team have concluded on their site assessment for Access, Accessibility to Services, Transport and Roads can now be considered as positive (green) outcomes.

It should be noted that the services and facilities in the settlement can be accessed on foot or by bicycle. Horstead and Coltishall are part of the Norwich Housing Market Area which will inevitably result in some commuting by car to Norwich for employment, services etc. Car journeys to and from the site to access Norwich would not require travelling through the centre of the village, unlike the other sites in Coltishall which have been promoted. The allocation of site GNLP1056 would allow for growth in the settlement without automatically increasing car movements through the settlement centre that are for commuting reasons. The centre of the settlement is constrained by a single car width bridge and none of the sites put forward for allocation would provide a contribution of the scale which would resolve this constraint. Therefore, the location of site GNLP1056 on the western side of the settlement would allow growth to occur and also ensure that there is not an automatic increase in traffic movements through the village centre.

The site has no historic environment issues beyond that which would be associated with archaeology and this could be addressed via normal investigations, therefore the HELAA assessment for that matter should also be green.

The site is not considered to be within a significant landscape area, as confirmed through the appeal decision.

The Planning Inspector raised concerns that the development, by virtue of its linear form, would remove views from the road through to the south and remove a connection with the open countryside. With regards to these matters we consider that by utilising all of the land in the ownership of our client a design could be developed which would provide for visual connections from the roadside through to the south to be maintained. This could be achieved with a significant portion of open space being provided and landscaped in accordance with the character area. A landscape led design solution would also mitigate against any concerns that the proposal would result in negative townscape outcomes.

The site is in one ownership and the landowner has clearly shown intention to deliver dwellings. The site is available, deliverable and viable with no constraints which would cause delays or result in non-completion of the allocation.

It is considered that the site GNLP1056 is suitable for further inclusion/assessment in the GNLP and is the most appropriate location in the settlement to accommodate growth.

Support

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 15699

Received: 22/03/2018

Respondent: Mrs Joanne Copplestone

Representation Summary:

I think this site is suitable for a limited number of houses (3-4 Houses), this land has been derelict, having not been farmed agriculturally for several years and is relatively close to the village.

Full text:

I think this site is suitable for a limited number of houses (3-4 Houses), this land has been derelict, having not been farmed agriculturally for several years and is relatively close to the village.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 19707

Received: 10/12/2018

Respondent: JOHN RATLEDGE

Representation Summary:

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.

Full text:

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.