GNLP0424

Permission was given for the Parish to have 4 house of 'affordable' homes outside the Development Envelope. Any further development would be contrary to this agreement - development within Colton should remain within the Settlement boundary

The Parish Council is unanimously opposed to the proposed new development. At a well-attended public meeting, called by the Council on February 19th 2018 in Colton Village Hall, there was no support for the proposed development. The residents of Marlingford and Colton Parish value their environment as it is. This was clearly established in the Parish Plan for Marlingford and Colton in 2006 (available at marlingfordandcoltonpc@norfolkparishes.gov.uk). As indicated in the Parish Plan, they value the quiet, friendly and rural nature of where they live, with a very strong appreciation of the local landscape and wildlife. Nothing has happened since then, including various public and parish council meetings, to suggest that those views have changed.

The Council's objections are:

Colton is classified as an Other Village with a defined development boundary: the proposed site is outside that boundary. The proposal is for residential development of approx. 16 dwellings, and open space, with an area of 0.41 hectares.

The site wraps around the existing four dwellings, which are affordable (social rented) housing that was developed by the Saffron Housing Trust; the dwellings are located on a rural exception site, area 0.15 hectares, that was made available thanks to the cooperation of a local landowner. The decision to proceed with the development was taken following a comprehensive housing needs survey, in part sponsored by the Parish Council, and in part by the Housing Trust. The survey involved the Trust sending a questionnaire to all households in the parish; there was also an exhibition for residents of the parish in Colton Village Hall. Given that the existing housing is on an exception site, there is no reason to believe that any further development such as that proposed would be permitted unless it were to be for affordable housing. There may be a need for a small additional amount of affordable housing, but that would only be established after another comprehensive survey; in recent years, no approaches have been made to the Council in relation to this possibility.

The proposed housing density, about 40 per hectare, is significantly in excess of that for the existing four dwellings, where the density is about 27 per hectare. A density of about 40 per hectare seems inappropriate for a rural setting.

The Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment indicates that initial highway evidence has highlighted concerns that the possibility of creating suitable access to the site is severely constrained and that the local road network is unsuitable. Marlingford Road, on the northern side of the site, is single-track with a limited number of passing places, as is the Barford Road on the western side of the site. There is poor access to services and it is likely that the sewerage network, water supply, and possibly the electricity supply would need to be upgraded. A small part of the site is in the designated river valley, the Yare Rural River Valley. The river valley is protected from development under the South Norfolk Local Plan; such protection is reiterated in the Consultation documents.

We are a village I moved here a couple of years ago and I moved to a small village, I do now want any more houses or food hubs.

I chose to live here because of the tranquility and natural beauty of the area. Aready this is being spoiled by the future development of the food hub. I strongly object to any more development in this area.

Our community is set in a rural location with an abundance of wildlife
including many red-status birds, newts, deer, badgers, bats and hare (which
mainly live on high ground) which will all be threatened. At present we
have no street lighting and so have no light pollution which will also be
threatened. There simply is not the infrastructure here to accommodate such
a project, new roads would encourage more traffic and completely destroy
the identity of our village. I would hope that these points would be
considered, they were ignored because of the LocalDevelopmentOrder during
the consultation of the FoodHub/Zone/Park.

I am strongly opposed to building on the beautiful Marlingford Road, prime green-belt agricultural land. This area is not only a absolutely vital agricultural asset, providing local-grown food for this region and beyond. But it is also a beautiful natural landscape. Being so close to Norwich, and many smaller towns and villages, it provides wonderful countryside walks for many people. I moved to this area to enjoy the peace and tranquility that a small Norfolk village offers. To build so many additional housing - in addition to the unfortunately proposed Food-Hub - would be an absolute disaster for this beautiful & tranquil agricultural area.

Also, the importance to the nation as a whole is blindingly obvious surely? After all, every acre of prime agricultural land is a precious local & national resource and once it has been built on it is effectively lost forever, thereby increasing our dependency on imported food, eroding our national independence and pointlessly increasing our carbon-footprint for all time! These proposed housing developments are quite literally mis-conceived and I urge you NOT to allow it to happen. After all, once it's gone it IS GONE - FOREVER!

Marfingford and Colton
The following comments relate to the Suitability Assessments made for the HELAA Capacity Assessment. They relate to Site GNLP0424 {page 693) and Site GNLP 0475 {page 699). Others in Marlingford and Colton will be considered separately.
0424
Although promoted as being appropriate around a present small development this latter group must be recognised as quite exceptional having been accepted as affordable housing. Without this dispensation from the District Council there would certainly have been no development in Marlingford Road and there is no justification for development now as the reservations in the assessment dearly suggest.
0475
This present response concentrates on site 0475, to the south side the Ugly Bug Public House (now the Norfolk Lurcher). If developed according to District Council guidelines the site could accommodate around 50 houses.
The "Suitability Assessment" considers this site suitable for development but lists a number of significant problems and disadvantages. It is important to emphasise these and draw attention to the Inspectors Report of 8 March 2016 from the Planning Inspectorate, (copy attached) responding to an appeal over a planning application for a site on the north side of the public house. This can be regarded as a mirror of the present proposal for the south side. In particular, the Inspector in his report (para. 7) drew attention to the Jack of public resources in this area, the extent of which would not provide a sustainable location for any significant new developments ..
He also drew attention, in paras. 10 and 11, to the difficulty of access via the very narrow High House Farm Lane which is not just "constrained" but is totally inappropriate for extra traffic. Any additional traffic will present an unacceptable hazard - traffic of large vehicles to Viking Nurseries already causes difficulties. It is significant that the Assessment itself notes that "the local road network is unsuitable".
The Inspector emphasised the importance of the Colton Development Boundary where 0475 clearly stands outside. The present proposal rides rough shod over a feature strongly supported in the Local Parish Plan and confirmed in South Norfolk District Council's Plans. The boundary has been in place since at least the early 1980's and was obviously an important consideration in the Inspector's report. It is important note that the limited commercial developments which have recently occurred on the western edge of Colton outside of the boundary have been entirely based on the re-use of derelict buildings and land which originally made up High House Farm, west of High House Farm Road.
There are other issues mentioned in the "Suitability Assessment" which require detailed consideration. The sewerage network which would be required is particularly important. As it stands the public sewerage in Colton does not extend beyond the Ugly Bug and anything less than a comprehensive extension would be essential; nothing less than main drainage should be permitted. Any disposal system based upon e.g. digesters, subsoil drainage etc., would result in the large land drainage system in this particular Grade 2 land becoming the origin of a major environmental problem. The system, a component of the original fruit farm, drains directly into Colton Horse Pond and then under Norwich Road to the River Tud. The "low risk of flooding" quoted for this site is certainly related to the extensive land drain system and this should not be compromised.
At the same time it must be questioned whether the pumping station at Honingham Thorpe Farm would have the capacity to pump an additional major sewerage load away from Colton to Barford, as is currently the practice.
Finally, it is suggested that 0475 could be used "for residential development, holiday accommodation and/or accommodation related to the expanding Barnham Broom Golf and Country Club". This is unrealistic. An expanding club should be able to provide space on its present site and the present access to the club from Colton is ridiculously inadequate - an extremely narrow lane with high banks making even the present limited traffic very dangerous. 0475 is clearly intended for residential development in a position involving "back planning'', always considered undesirable, immediately behind seven properties facing Norwich Road.
Taking all of these considerations into account it is difficult to see any case for development of this site.