GNLP0475

Planning Permission has been refused on this site in the past. There is no mains drainage, sewage issues are reaching a peak in Colton and there is no capacity for increased use. There are increased risks of flooding. High House Farm Lane and other roads do not have the capacity or width to meet the demand of increased traffic. It is outside the Development Envelope of the village - what is the point of such a piece of planning legislation if it is not respected?

This is a vast proposed area and would be a new settlement altogether fundamentally altering the landscape of the area. It boundaries Barnham Broom and Barford- so the fact it is only visible on the Marlingford and Colton villages is a cause for concern. This site needs to be visible for both Barnham Broom and Barford feedback.The open fields and landscape characterize the area- buidling a settlement on it for over 3000 properties would destroy the nature of the area. It would turn adjascent villages- Barnham Broom, Barford and Marlingford into over used traffic corridors- and we already have enormous problems with the roads as it is. I object in the strongest possible terms

High House Farm Lane is inappropriate for development as per the planning inspectorate report of 8th March 2016 quoting lack of resources in the area. The lane is too narrow and inaccessible for further traffic.

No transport or school in Colton. Nearest school is Barford. There is no footpath from Colton to Barford for children to access the school safely.

Inadequate infrastructure, sewage, drainage and roads. Threat to wildlife and birds.

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, holiday accommodation and/or staff accommodation related to Barnham Broom Golf and Country Club.
If used for residential development, the site, area 2.44 hectares, might, at a density of 20 per hectare, have up to 50 dwellings: this would be a 60% increase in the number of dwellings in Colton. Colton does not have an accessible primary school, as defined in the Growth Options document: a school within two miles from the centre of the settlement and accessible the whole way from the outskirts of the settlement via a pavement. Further, primary schools in adjacent villages are likely to have capacity constraints. The site is not well related to existing housing in the village. A site immediately adjacent, on the north side, to the Ugly Bug pub (now the Norfolk Lurcher) was the subject of a planning application, 2015/1148, South Norfolk Council, for a time share swimming pool and associated residential accommodation: separation from the rest of the village was one factor in the planning inspector's refusal of an appeal in relation to the application. Parts of the site are known to have an old drainage system. The Colton sewerage system stops at the Norfolk Lurcher. All the sewage in Colton flows by gravity to a pumping station on the north side of the Norwich Road, from there it is pumped south to Barford, and then Whitlingham; for such a relatively large development, there could be a capacity constraint. There could also be capacity constraints with regard to electricity and water supply. In its responses to the consultations for the South Norfolk Local Plan, the Council was opposed to the use of this site for housing; the site was not allocated for development. The site is located on grade 2 agricultural land.
If used for holiday accommodation and/or staff accommodation, the occupants seem unlikely to be involved in the life of the village, both because of the separation from the main part of the village and because the focus of the occupants would be on the Golf and Country Club. It seems likely that most trips between the site and the Golf and Country Club would be by car, which seems inconsistent with the objective in the Norfolk Local Transport Plan of reducing the need to travel.
As indicated in the Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment, the local road network is unsuitable: High House Farm Lane is single-track with two right-angle bends and considerable HGV traffic that has been growing in recent years because of the expanding business of Viking Nurseries; the doubling of their glasshouse capacity is nearing completion. High House Farm Lane is linked to the Golf and Country Club by Church Lane, which is single-track with few passing places; Bickerston Hill, in particular, is quite steep with a blind bend, and very steep sides to the carriageway, with no passing place. The part of Church Lane nearest to the Golf Course is frequently flooded.

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.

As with GNLP 474 and 476 - an inappropriate site - the three of them together would be HUGE and urbanise this wonderful part of the Yare valley.

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.

Site Proposals Document
Further to our recent email correspondence, I have amended our previously submitted Indicative Masterplan [see attachment] to rectify the discrepancy in land put forward. I can therefore confirm that - as amended - the entirety of the sites are integral to the plans for the development and expansion of BBG&CC. BBG&CC has an informal understanding with the underlying landowners to approach any resulting development on a joint venture basis, to ensure its deliverability.

Suitability Assessment
Site GNLP0475 (Land South of Colton)
It is noted that the published Site Suitability Conclusions infer that the site is intended for general market housing, when in fact it is intended as mix of affordable housing, staff accommodation for the G&CC, and market housing. We contend that the constraints and impact analyses ought therefore to reflect this, and that the overall site suitability should he more favourable in terms of the sustainability appraisal, and thereby suitability of the proposed allocation/development (see above).

Site GNLP0476 {Barnham Broom G&CC}
It is noted that the published Site Suitability Conclusions infer that the site is intended for 'housing', when in fact the proposal is to see the site developed for a more nuanced form of development to meet specific needs through a combination of:
* Independent/active/keep healthy, retirement living for the Over 55s (to 80s) market, providing on and off site support: i.e. housekeeping, security, gardening, maintenance, repairs, laundry services, golf, sports, health, fitness and wellbeing facilities, transport arrangements, shopping service, visitors' (friends and family) accommodation, a new local shop, domiciliary care support where needs develop, etc., as well as a 'residents' social club' to offer a range of additional activities and facilities which would be extended to others who live in the parishes of Barnham. Broom and Colton, combined with;
* second/holiday home ownership (i.e. offering all of the above, plus lettings, a range of ownership options, families and friends visiting the retirees, together with holiday bookings and guest management/services, etc.), and;
* Limited general market housing, where viability dictates.

We contend that the constraints and impact analyses ought therefore to reflect this, and that the overall site suitability should be more favourable in terms of the sustainability appraisal/suitability assessment, and thereby suitability of the proposed allocation/development (see above).

I realise that no consultation procedures are yet in place about the sites submitted for future housing development under the above plan but it might be appropriate to. draw your attention .to a particular point regarding the submissions for the Parish of Marlingford and Colton.
Site No GNLP 0475 off High House Farm Lane, Colton is compromised by the extraordinary difficulty of access from a very narrow lane but more particularly by the fact that it is outside of the agreed development boundary for Colton village defined by SNDC. During my long time as Chairman of the Parish Council applications for development outside of this boundary were always very actively opposed by residents and I expect that this would apply in this case in the event that this plot is eventually regarded as appropriate for development.
I hope that this comment is not out of place and can maybe be borne in mind in your forthcoming discussions about the next steps for this plan.