GNLP2019

Showing comments and forms 1 to 30 of 31

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 16859

Received: 31/10/2018

Respondent: Miss Sarah Smith

Representation:

I completely object to this development. The detrimental affect on Coltishall since the NDR opened & inclusion of sites in North Walsham etc, drawing a catastrophic increase in traffic through all areas of the village, is already felt (some 30% increase).The B1150 in particular is awful & the roads through the village are unable to cope.I have witnessed daily horrific incidents where huge lorries are basically stuck, walls hit, mounting tiny pavements etc.etc. Coltishall is fast losing it's 'gateway to the broads' appeal. This has to stop before no-one wants to visit what is supposed to be a country village.-

Full text:

I completely object to this development. The detrimental affect on Coltishall since the NDR opened & inclusion of sites in North Walsham etc, drawing a catastrophic increase in traffic through all areas of the village, is already felt (some 30% increase).The B1150 in particular is awful & the roads through the village are unable to cope.I have witnessed daily horrific incidents where huge lorries are basically stuck, walls hit, mounting tiny pavements etc.etc. Coltishall is fast losing it's 'gateway to the broads' appeal. This has to stop before no-one wants to visit what is supposed to be a country village.-

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 16944

Received: 05/11/2018

Respondent: Mrs Elly Miller

Representation:

Having children attend the school I've experienced first hand the traffic congestion where barely two cars can pass the road at the the same time. Let alone adding another circa 50 plus cars to the area, this would be extremely dangerous. It is already too built up with enough housing, cars and people compared space.

Why you would accept a large housing plans in small infill spaces. This would completely change the look and feel of the village. If housing targets need to be achieved in the area there are many more suitable sites on the outskirts of the village.

Full text:

Having children attend the school I've experienced first hand the traffic congestion where barely two cars can pass the road at the the same time. Let alone adding another circa 50 plus cars to the area, this would be extremely dangerous. It is already too built up with enough housing, cars and people compared space.

Why you would accept a large housing plans in small infill spaces. This would completely change the look and feel of the village. If housing targets need to be achieved in the area there are many more suitable sites on the outskirts of the village.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 16955

Received: 06/11/2018

Respondent: Mrs Alison Haynes

Representation:

This site goes against the GNLP mission statement of protecting and enhancing the environment.
This proposal ruins the 'Norfolk Broads National Park' village feel of Coltishall.
The infrastructure is not in place for further development at this site.
Access is not sustainable as a development site, endangering local children.
Already saturated services can not provide for new families.
Out of current settlement areas, impinging on 'green site' land.
Upgrades required to the whole village mains services to facilitate extra demand from a new development.
Increases to pollution and morbidity effecting quality of life to current local residents.

Full text:

"We aim to produce a plan which will help to meet local housing and economic growth needs, whilst also protecting and enhancing the environment", the GNLP mission statement answers exactly why this site and all previous sites under consultation should not be considered. Coltishall will not be protected nor enhanced with distinct changes visible to the North of the village as well as the ecological and environmental impact that will have sustained repercussions to local wildlife. This proposal is on 'green belt' land and out of current settlement boundarys. To retain the identity of Coltishall is essential.

As the start of the Norfolk Broads national park, Coltishall village has established itself as a popular holiday destination thanks to the 'relaxed broads village' feel that has established tourism to the area. The transient population during the majority of the year through tourism puts overwhelming pressure on an already compromised road network and additional housing will permanently destroy the tranquility of our quintessential village.

The services in Coltishall are saturated. With an over-subscribed school, you need to question 'where will new families educate their children?' While the Doctors surgery is full to capacity and struggling to cope with an increasing elderly population 'where will new families access healthcare?' New housing in Coltishall will impact negatively on those within the village and reduce the current standards of care provided.
(With education in rural settings being documented as failing and schools closing due to unsustainable numbers it would surely be more appropriate to build houses in a village that will benefit from growth to maintain its services such as those with under-subscribed schools which maybe threatened with closure.)

Infrastructure around this site is not amenable to additional pressure from housing. Access in and out of Rectory road/Westbourne road is not robust for an additional 50/100 residents. Buses struggle to navigate these residential roads everyday, hampered by unavoidable on-street parking, having to mount the kerb to avoid on-coming traffic and endangering children walking to school daily. With little regard for adequate off-street parking with modern housing developments this will make the roads near village facilities impassable, and a further danger to our children which is not acceptable.. Not to mention increased pollution, a key factor in increased morbidity for local residents.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 16982

Received: 11/11/2018

Respondent: Ms Michelle Thackham

Representation:

Whilst new housing in the area is unavoidable, it cannot in good sense be sited on Rectory Road. This road is a residential street with cars parked on both sides of the road, and provides access to the school, preschool, park and doctor's surgery; as well as the Village Hall, allotments, Football Club and a chapel. It is the route for school and public buses, and with no crossings or traffic calming is already busy and dangerous. A further 60 vehicles joining this road, from the already proposed 30 houses, is a scary enough thought - please choose another site!

Full text:

Whilst new housing in the area is unavoidable, it cannot in good sense be sited on Rectory Road. This road is a residential street with cars parked on both sides of the road, and provides access to the school, preschool, park and doctor's surgery; as well as the Village Hall, allotments, Football Club and a chapel. It is the route for school and public buses, and with no crossings or traffic calming is already busy and dangerous. A further 60 vehicles joining this road, from the already proposed 30 houses, is a scary enough thought - please choose another site!

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 17074

Received: 15/11/2018

Respondent: Ms Vicky Tovell

Representation:

Adding MORE houses to COL1 via this proposal will be detrimental to village and dangerous. Rectory Road is already too busy. Vehicles, including public and school buses, overtaking parked cars, frequently cause traffic jams and people speeding to 'get through'. Pedestrian crossing so hazardous! And it's already access for the drs,school,preschool,chapel,Church Rooms,football fields and Village Hall! I have witnessed many near accidents. Proposal for departing traffic to 'turn north' will face Bure Valley Bridge plus B1150 and the huge amount of vehicles speeding into village from North-Walsham. Already a very dangerous junction, adding to it makes no sense whatsoever.

Full text:

Adding MORE houses to COL1 via this proposal will be detrimental to village and dangerous. Rectory Road is already too busy. Vehicles, including public and school buses, overtaking parked cars, frequently cause traffic jams and people speeding to 'get through'. Pedestrian crossing so hazardous! And it's already access for the drs,school,preschool,chapel,Church Rooms,football fields and Village Hall! I have witnessed many near accidents. Proposal for departing traffic to 'turn north' will face Bure Valley Bridge plus B1150 and the huge amount of vehicles speeding into village from North-Walsham. Already a very dangerous junction, adding to it makes no sense whatsoever.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 17100

Received: 16/11/2018

Respondent: Mr Richard Bell

Representation:

Planning permission has already been granted for approx 50 new dwellings in Coltishall one on a brown field site and one a a green field site. This will already have significant impact on the village without further proposal. The village school is at full capacity, Roads in particular Rectory Road are heavily congested. The bin lorries and buses already find it difficult to navigate the parked cars without further access points to the road constructed.

Full text:

Planning permission has already been granted for approx 50 new dwellings in Coltishall one on a brown field site and one a a green field site. This will already have significant impact on the village without further proposal. The village school is at full capacity, Roads in particular Rectory Road are heavily congested. The bin lorries and buses already find it difficult to navigate the parked cars without further access points to the road constructed.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 17257

Received: 21/11/2018

Respondent: mr Anthony Tovell

Representation:

This site is outside of the permitted development boundary! When was this arrangement changed ? Who made the decision and was the parish council consulted? If they were consulted what were their comments? Access and egress to the whole site is extremely limited and any permission would require road widening and a major change to traffic management. what is the point of a building envelope when planners decide to ignore previous decisions?

Full text:

This site is outside of the permitted development boundary! When was this arrangement changed ? Who made the decision and was the parish council consulted? If they were consulted what were their comments? Access and egress to the whole site is extremely limited and any permission would require road widening and a major change to traffic management. what is the point of a building envelope when planners decide to ignore previous decisions?

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 17410

Received: 26/11/2018

Respondent: Mr Bill Musson

Representation:

Destruction of Greenfield Site does not enhance environment
Unsustainable load on all infrastructure especially highways/parking & primary school
Unsafe
Number of dwellings exceeds Joint Core Strategy policy vis a vis totals for a Service Village
Increase noise and pollution
Proposal widely unpopular in Village
Type of dwellings will not meet local housing needs

Full text:

There is already OPP for 30 dwellings adjacent to this new site. Coltishall is a Service Village and as such according the to Joint Core strategy should only be considered for developments of 10 - 20 dwellings. The village highway infrastructure would be unable to sustain this extra load. It would lead to an unacceptable increase in traffic and noise on a small residential road not to mention the increase risk to pedestrians in an already busy part of the village where the primary school, pre school, playgrounds & fields, surgery, village hall and church rooms are located. Parking is also already an issue in the village due to the narrow roads so there is no way any extra overflow parking from any developments could be accommodated especially on Rectory Road. Coltishall, is a tourist village in a conservation area and so any loss of greenfield sites does not enhance the environment or appeal to tourist on whom we rely. Finally the present Service infrastructure i.e. primary school and surgery would also be unable to realistically cope with any increase in load.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 17490

Received: 29/11/2018

Respondent: Alan Browne

Representation:

Fare to many houses with no free access exsisting payements to narrow at school time a real disaster waiting to happen

Full text:

Fare to many houses with no free access exsisting payements to narrow at school time a real disaster waiting to happen

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 17492

Received: 29/11/2018

Respondent: Alan Browne

Representation:

Rectory road would be engrossed with massive development and would not enhance or benefit the people living there the school and doctors would be put under severe preasure

Full text:

Rectory road would be engrossed with massive development and would not enhance or benefit the people living there the school and doctors would be put under severe preasure

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 17590

Received: 02/12/2018

Respondent: Miss Alison Gardner

Representation:

We live in a special Ecological area which must be preserved and protected for our future generations to enjoy as our previous one have. Farmland species, Turtle Doves here that Natural England consider a priority should be more than enough to prevent any further housing developments. The village cannot sustain any more increase with the current roads so overwhelmed. It is time to pay heed to how special our village environment is and continue to protect its ecological and historic value better.

Full text:

I cannot believe these extra sites have been proposed. We all live in a very ecologically important area. More development equals more people, which means more pollution, cars, waste, human impacting negatively on vitally important species and habitats we have the privilege to live within and around. Not to mention that this proposal is right in the middle of what Natural England is trying to improve through Countryside Stewardship/HLS farmland agreements. Of the ever declining farmland birds, Turtle Dove is deemed a priority species. Natural England deems this area to be a priority habitat for Turtle Dove. Why are we spending our taxes to the government (CAP) who on the one hand is paying farmers to protect priority habitats and species, then in the other proposing housing developments right within those areas. Knowing that they WILL resoundingly have a detrimental impact on those species and habitats. We have semi improved grasslands of good quality, purple moor grass and rush pasture which is all special and we are not considering the impact increasing human inhabitation will have on these special environmental habitats at all.

Then there are the roads. Extra traffic on already ridiculously over used roads! The current housing development for the GNLP is MORE than enough for this very precious ecological environment we have the privilege to exist in. Nobody outside of this area will protect it so we all must have our say in ensuring we do our utmost to protect and keep it this special. NO more sites, no more housing! No more!

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 17973

Received: 06/12/2018

Respondent: Miss Caroline Trinder

Representation:

This is a precious ecological area. The roads cannot take any further traffic. There will be extra risks to villagers, local services such as schools, GP, pharmacy cannot take any further input as overstretched already. We live in an outstanding area of natural beauty which needs protecting. Already too much traffic during spring/summer months due to visitors to the area.

Full text:

This is a precious ecological area. The roads cannot take any further traffic. There will be extra risks to villagers, local services such as schools, GP, pharmacy cannot take any further input as overstretched already. We live in an outstanding area of natural beauty which needs protecting. Already too much traffic during spring/summer months due to visitors to the area.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 18120

Received: 08/12/2018

Respondent: Mr Andy Broadbent

Representation:

Crossing the B1150 on foot is not only extremely hazardous, but extremely time consuming as there is rarely a gap in traffic. The Primary School is already at capacity, as is the Doctors surgery. Rectory Road cannot accommodate any more vehicles, and to build more houses here would turn a small residential road into a major highway without the space to achieve the upgrade safely. Access to this proposed site is extremely limited, and to exit it you need to get across the B1150 - see opening statement.

Full text:

Crossing the B1150 on foot is not only extremely hazardous, but extremely time consuming as there is rarely a gap in traffic. The Primary School is already at capacity, as is the Doctors surgery. Rectory Road cannot accommodate any more vehicles, and to build more houses here would turn a small residential road into a major highway without the space to achieve the upgrade safely. Access to this proposed site is extremely limited, and to exit it you need to get across the B1150 - see opening statement.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 18187

Received: 09/12/2018

Respondent: Miss Amanda Holland

Representation:

This area is a vital wildlife corridor and should be protected from development

Full text:

This area is a vital wildlife corridor and should be protected from development

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 18279

Received: 30/10/2018

Respondent: Mrs Barbara Hall

Representation:

Regarding additional proposed sites in Coltishall. The village is a conservation area and important tourist destination. Too much development would ruin the attractiveness of this pretty area and adversely affect tourism. The main road through the village is already very busy and it would not be safe to add to the already high number of vehicles using the road. The proposed site off Church Road would have difficult access onto Church Road and visibility would be very limited making it potentially dangerous. The 20mph speed limit through Coltishall is often ignored and crossing the road is difficult, especially at rush hour periods. The proposed site off Rectory Road, adding onto the existing site which already has planning permission for 30 houses would create massive overdevelopment in that area. Rectory Road is a busy narrow road used by families going to the primary school, doctors surgery, playground and village halls. Additional traffic on the road would be dangerous. Infrastructure in Coltishall is not adequate for additional development. The school is already oversubscribed and doctors surgery appointments are difficult to access.

Full text:

Regarding additional proposed sites in Coltishall. The village is a conservation area and important tourist destination. Too much development would ruin the attractiveness of this pretty area and adversely affect tourism. The main road through the village is already very busy and it would not be safe to add to the already high number of vehicles using the road. The proposed site off Church Road would have difficult access onto Church Road and visibility would be very limited making it potentially dangerous. The 20mph speed limit through Coltishall is often ignored and crossing the road is difficult, especially at rush hour periods. The proposed site off Rectory Road, adding onto the existing site which already has planning permission for 30 houses would create massive overdevelopment in that area. Rectory Road is a busy narrow road used by families going to the primary school, doctors surgery, playground and village halls. Additional traffic on the road would be dangerous. Infrastructure in Coltishall is not adequate for additional development. The school is already oversubscribed and doctors surgery appointments are difficult to access.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 18390

Received: 10/12/2018

Respondent: Mrs Karen Parkerson

Representation:

The original development of 30 houses didn't allow enough parking so would mean additional on road parking. Rectory Road is extremely busy being the main route to the primary school and Doctors surgery. It is also a bus route. In the time my children were had Coltishall primary the school numbers doubled and reached maximum capacity. The number of vehicles taking children to school increased and I witnessed several near misses. Surgery, school already stretched, the road cannot cope with more traffic resulting from development 1 let alone this additional proposal.

Full text:

The original development of 30 houses didn't allow enough parking so would mean additional on road parking. Rectory Road is extremely busy being the main route to the primary school and Doctors surgery. It is also a bus route. In the time my children were had Coltishall primary the school numbers doubled and reached maximum capacity. The number of vehicles taking children to school increased and I witnessed several near misses. Surgery, school already stretched, the road cannot cope with more traffic resulting from development 1 let alone this additional proposal.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 18411

Received: 10/12/2018

Respondent: Miss Lisa Thacker

Representation:

Concerns regarding increase of demand on local services GP/School which are already over subscribed. Increase in traffic also of concern

Full text:

Concerns regarding increase of demand on local services GP/School which are already over subscribed. Increase in traffic also of concern

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 18836

Received: 13/12/2018

Respondent: Mr Ian Clark

Representation:

I don't think the infrastructure (schools, doctors, roads etc) can cope with expansion. for example, the school is already at capacity and has been for a number of years.

Full text:

I don't think the infrastructure (schools, doctors, roads etc) can cope with expansion. for example, the school is already at capacity and has been for a number of years.

Comment

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 18923

Received: 10/12/2018

Respondent: JOHN RATLEDGE

Representation:

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.

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.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 19082

Received: 13/12/2018

Respondent: Mr Stewart Life

Representation:

This development can be nothing but detremental to the village.
Traffic along rectory road will cause increased dangers to children walking to school. The school is already at capacity with no room for expansion - where will children of new residents be educated?

Full text:

This development can be nothing but detremental to the village.
Traffic along rectory road will cause increased dangers to children walking to school. The school is already at capacity with no room for expansion - where will children of new residents be educated?

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 19083

Received: 13/12/2018

Respondent: Coltishall Primary School

Representation:

Access is dangerous. Overloads Coltishall - services and infrastructure cannot cope. Will generate huge congestion. Cuts safe route to school placing children at risk

Full text:

Access is dangerous. Overloads Coltishall - services and infrastructure cannot cope. Will generate huge congestion. Cuts safe route to school placing children at risk

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 19096

Received: 13/12/2018

Respondent: MR NICHOLAS DICKETY

Representation:

Granting permission to allow up to 25 dwellings on this site would spoil the area and irrecoverably change the dynamic of the village for the worse. It would introduce extra traffic (Rectory Road is already traffic choked at school pick-up and drop off times) and put additional strains on local services, especially the village school (which is currently outstanding but oversubscribed) and the doctors and health centre.

Full text:

Granting permission to allow up to 25 dwellings on this site would spoil the area and irrecoverably change the dynamic of the village for the worse. It would introduce extra traffic (Rectory Road is already traffic choked at school pick-up and drop off times) and put additional strains on local services, especially the village school (which is currently outstanding but oversubscribed) and the doctors and health centre.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 19105

Received: 13/12/2018

Respondent: Mr Andrew Stephenson

Representation:

The villages infrastructure is already busting at the seams. The school and the Dr's are fully subscribed and let's not forget the roads, cars fly around the village at will, there's insufficient pavements for safe passage at the moment let alone with more occupants.

Full text:

The villages infrastructure is already busting at the seams. The school and the Dr's are fully subscribed and let's not forget the roads, cars fly around the village at will, there's insufficient pavements for safe passage at the moment let alone with more occupants.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 19124

Received: 13/12/2018

Respondent: Dr Harriet Foster

Representation:

I am objecting to this proposal on the grounds of lack of infrastructure, access and the scale of the development which would be too large for this location.
Rectory Road provides access to the village hall and playing fields, park, Pre-school, Primary School, Doctors surgery and additional playing fields at the top of the road. This road is narrow, on a bus route and often very busy with traffic at those times of the day when children are being dropped off or picked up from school. The school is at capacity with no external space to extend.

Full text:

I am objecting to this proposal on the grounds of lack of infrastructure, access and the scale of the development which would be too large for this location.
Rectory Road provides access to the village hall and playing fields, park, Pre-school, Primary School, Doctors surgery and additional playing fields at the top of the road. This road is narrow, on a bus route and often very busy with traffic at those times of the day when children are being dropped off or picked up from school. The school is at capacity with no external space to extend.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 19235

Received: 14/12/2018

Respondent: Ms Anita Yeomans

Representation:

As a regular visitor to the area with family and friends living locally, I see this from the tourist point of view. Please do not compromise this beautiful Broads destination with MORE building and MORE traffic to the area! Traffic has got so much worse over the past ten years. It will lose its appeal and unique character as a Broads village. Protect it. I also wonder if the older generation can contribute to this discussion online - my elderly grandparents could not navigate this web-site. How can you be sure everyone's voices have been heard?

Full text:

As a regular visitor to the area with family and friends living locally, I see this from the tourist point of view. Please do not compromise this beautiful Broads destination with MORE building and MORE traffic to the area! Traffic has got so much worse over the past ten years. It will lose its appeal and unique character as a Broads village. Protect it. I also wonder if the older generation can contribute to this discussion online - my elderly grandparents could not navigate this web-site. How can you be sure everyone's voices have been heard?

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 19408

Received: 14/12/2018

Respondent: Mr Colin Dean

Representation:

There is insufficient infrastructure to support development at this site. Road infrastructure is a particular issue with only one way access that leads to a dangerous exit on to the B1150. There is also the issue of infrastructure more widely across the village with the capacity at the school and medical practice a particular concern. The impact of the existing planning for the adjacent area is yet to be realised and this will place an additional burden on the overstretched infrastructure.

Full text:

There is insufficient infrastructure to support development at this site. Road infrastructure is a particular issue with only one way access that leads to a dangerous exit on to the B1150. There is also the issue of infrastructure more widely across the village with the capacity at the school and medical practice a particular concern. The impact of the existing planning for the adjacent area is yet to be realised and this will place an additional burden on the overstretched infrastructure.

Comment

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 19490

Received: 13/12/2018

Respondent: Horstead with Stanninghall Parish Council

Representation:

Although not directly affected by the GNLP, the Parish of Horstead with Stanninghall feels strongly about the proposals put forward for future developments in the neighbouring Parish of Coltishall. Developments of the sizes proposed in Coltishall will impact on the local services Horstead currently accesses, as well as an increase the amount of traffic passing through the Parish on the B1150.

Horstead with Stanninghall Parish Council are not in favour of any of the sites in Coltishall but it does support a development at GNLP1056 in Horstead.

With GNLP2019 the Parish Council feels that it is in the totally wring place as it will be connected to the existing Highways Network at a point that is a narrow, one way 'C' class road. A road that joins an already quite congested route especially at peak times during school terms when parents are trying to drop off their children and, at the same time, as public transport going through the village.

See attachment for full details of submission.

Full text:

Although not directly affected by the GNLP the Parish of Horstead with Stanninghall feels strongly about the proposals put forward for future developments in the neighbouring Parish of Coltishall. Developments of the sizes proposed in Coltishall will impact on the local services Horstead currently accesses, as well as an increase in the amount of traffic passing through the Parish on the B1150.

See Attachment for full details

Attachments:

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 19493

Received: 13/12/2018

Respondent: Coltishall Parish Council

Representation:

This site is outside the settlement area for Coltishall. It abuts a site that has been granted Outline Planning Permission despite consistent opposition from Coltishall Parish Council and the evidenced objections of many villagers over an extended period. The Parish Council is on public record as believing that this site will create an ongoing and significant risk of serious traffic and pedestrian accidents as well as unsustainable congestion.

In summary, Coltishall Parish Council objects to this development because:
i) It is outside the settlement limit. That limit has been over-ridden once in the face of widespread local opposition to build far more houses than were indicated by Broadland District Council. To do this again would be an affront to local democracy.
ii) We believe that traffic from the planned 30-house development represents a danger to the people of Coltishall, especially the young and the old. This site would multiply that risk considerably.
iii) We believe this site would lead to additional congestion on a road already over-burdened by traffic. Additional traffic and congestion would represent a real risk to the bus route that services the school and surgery.
iv) We believe that village services will be overwhelmed by a further increase in population. This will affect not only the people of Coltishall but also people further afield whose children currently live in the school catchment but will be unable to find a place.
v) We believe that the local councils are placing a grossly unfair burden on a group of elderly and retired villagers through planning decisions made in ignorance of (or neglect of) their rights to quiet enjoyment of their properties in their remaining years.
vi) We continue to believe that our local councils are failing in their duty to provide housing that is needed as opposed to housing that makes a quick profit for landowners and developers.

See full submission for further detail.

Full text:

Proposed Greater Norwich Local Plan sites 2019 and 2072 in Coltishall

This response should be read in conjunction with our consultation response of 20th March 2018, which sets out the extensive concerns of villagers about further housing development in Coltishall and our letter of 12th December 2018 that challenges the validity of a consultation process that systematically excludes large parts of the population of both Coltishall and the wider GNLP area.

GNLP2019

This site is outside the settlement area for Coltishall. It abuts a site that has been granted Outline Planning Permission despite consistent opposition from Coltishall Parish Council and the evidenced objections of many villagers over an extended period. The Parish Council is on public record as believing that this site will create an ongoing and significant risk of serious traffic and pedestrian accidents as well as unsustainable congestion.

The Parish Council notes the previous undertakings given by Broadland District Council at its May 2012 meeting:

"The Local Plan expired in 2011, and the new plan could include the Rectory Road site although the Plan could take up to three years to complete. Mr Walchester said that Broadland DC had never planned for more than 10-20 dwellings in Coltishall, but clearly any development would have to be economically viable and take account of implications for local services. It was agreed that XXXXX would produce a proposal for the site, to be presented to the parish for consultation. Mr Walchester stressed that a consultation was the parishioners' opportunity to express their views, and that benefits to the community are prime considerations."

In light of this and the granting of Outline Planning Permission for double the stated new dwellings in Coltishall, it would be extraordinary if further housing development were to be considered on a site outside the settlement limit and in the face of significant local opposition. While the systematic ignoring of local service issues over several years is noted, we reiterate that the school, the surgery, the roads and the pavements are buckling under the demand being placed upon them.

We note with some disquiet that Norfolk Highways have "raised concern about forming an acceptable site access". Given that this was a significant reason for our objection to the initial 30-house development, and the access point will be the same as that planned for that tranche of housing, that requires further explanation. We also note that Transport and Roads are rated as 'green', despite the fact that access will be one-way and require extensive use of roads not designed for the level of traffic that will now use them. We would be grateful for a copy of traffic analysis that accounts for the huge increase in traffic along the North Walsham Road following the opening of the Northern Distributor Route and the building of houses in North Walsham for Norwich commuters.

We are also specifically concerned for those retired residents who live on the one-way section of Rectory Road. They have already suffered from the contentious decision to make the road one-way and from planning permission being given for building behind their properties. They will face further disruption as the 30-house development is built. Additional building on this site would mean ongoing turmoil for several years for people who are already in their 80s. It grieves us that their rights appear not to count in relation to such planning decisions.

Finally, we have previously made local councils aware that the need for housing in Coltishall relates to young people who wish to move out of the parental home without leaving the area and elderly people who wish to downsize into retirement bungalows, leaving larger houses to be marketed for families. The continuing process of releasing housing development land for the building of semi-detached and detached houses in a price range well beyond local means is unwelcome.

In summary, Coltishall Parish Council objects to this development because:
i) It is outside the settlement limit. That limit has been over-ridden once in the face of widespread local opposition to build far more houses than were indicated by Broadland District Council. To do this again would be an affront to local democracy.
ii) We believe that traffic from the planned 30-house development represents a danger to the people of Coltishall, especially the young and the old. This site would multiply that risk considerably.
iii) We believe this site would lead to additional congestion on a road already over-burdened by traffic. Additional traffic and congestion would represent a real risk to the bus route that services the school and surgery.
iv) We believe that village services will be overwhelmed by a further increase in population. This will affect not only the people of Coltishall but also people further afield whose children currently live in the school catchment but will be unable to find a place.
v) We believe that the local councils are placing a grossly unfair burden on a group of elderly and retired villagers through planning decisions made in ignorance of (or neglect of) their rights to quiet enjoyment of their properties in their remaining years.
vi) We continue to believe that our local councils are failing in their duty to provide housing that is needed as opposed to housing that makes a quick profit for landowners and developers.

GNLP2072

This site is to be accessed from Church Street. Its entrance is adjacent to a bend that represents one of the most dangerous places in Coltishall. There have been hit-and-run accidents causing damage to people and property at or very near this location even in the last 12 months. Frankly, it defies belief that this access could be rated as 'green'.

All of the points raised above in relation to pressure on village services also apply to this site. In addition, we would have grave concerns about development out of keeping with the conservation area and about any impact on trees in the village centre.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 19517

Received: 13/12/2018

Respondent: Colin Dean

Representation:

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 on or near Rectory Road, Coltishall. We previously provided reasons against developing GNLP0265 and GNLP0388 and it is disappointing to see that sites GNLP2072 and GNLP2019 have now also been proposed. School concerns remain centred on two primary issues: safety and capacity.

See full submission for more detail.

Full text:

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 on or near Rectory Road, Coltishall. We previously provided reasons against developing GNLP0265 and GNLP0388 and it is disappointing to see that sites GNLP2072 and GNLP2019 have now also been proposed. School concerns remain centred on two primary 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.

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. Expansion of this site as proposed under GNLP2019 can only exacerbate this situation and puts our children at even greater risk.

It is in this context that we read the following text of the site suitability appraisal for site GNLP2019: "In 2013 an informal agreement was reached with a Norfolk County Council Highway Officer that, subject to these highway improvements, the site access strategy was suitable for up to 50 dwelling" The Governing Board finds this to be an inexplicable statement that disregards the safety of our children.

Capacity

Coltishall Primary School is a one-form entry school with capacity for 30 students per year with 210 students in total. Our site contains two large mobile buildings already, one of which is used as a classroom and one as a staff room and library. This accommodation is far from ideal as we suffer from regular heating issues. The staff room was flooded earlier in the year as a result of bad weather causing an internal pipe fracture which left 10cm of water across the whole floor space.
Coltishall Primary School is a popular primary school and is significantly overscribed for Reception intake. For the 2018-19 year, Coltishall Primary School was listed as a preference for 56 students to fill the 30 places on offer. With the 30 houses already planned for Rectory Road, another site designated for development on Station Road and other small scale developments we are at risk of preventing young children from attending their local primary school even though they live within our extensive rural catchment area including Horstead and Belaugh. The fact is that they will live further away from the school than the new development, which will stand some 300 metres away.

The Governing Body believes there is no realistic opportunity for school expansion without extensive construction, which would be detrimental to the school environment, values and learning conditions. This will be a similar situation for any of the proposed developments (GNLP2072, GNLP2019 and previously consulted on GNLP0265 and GNLP0388). If the decision to develop, for better or worse, is made then these are issues that the school will simply have to address. 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 even being considered at this time.

Conclusion

We are aware that other Coltishall institutions will be writing to you to object to any further housing development in the vicinity of Rectory Road and the wider area. 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.

Object

New, Revised and Small Sites

Representation ID: 19592

Received: 17/12/2018

Respondent: D.E.J Sayer

Representation:

I write concerning the impact of further housing development on COLTISHALL, in particular, GNLP2019, which is behind the 30 housing site already designated and GNLP0388 all along Rectory Road. Rectory Road simply will not be able to cope with the large increase in volume of traffic.

This is in addition to the noise, congestion, capacity of the roads to handle increased parking and the various services along Rectory Road, including schooling.

The current infrastructure of COLTISHALL will also not be able to handle the other sites under consideration: GNLP0265, GNLP2072, GNLP1056.

Overdevelopment will be bad for the 'country' tranquillity of COLTISHALL and have an effect on its tourist attractions.

I appreciate the council has to find sites for necessary housing but I believe the development must be strictly limited to take into account the fears of the residents.

Full text:

I write concerning the impact of further housing development on COLTISHALL, in particular, GNLP2019, which is behind the 30 housing site already designated and GNLP0388 all along Rectory Road. Rectory Road simply will not be able to cope with the large increase in volume of traffic.

This is in addition to the noise, congestion, capacity of the roads to handle increased parking and the various services along Rectory Road, including schooling.

The current infrastructure of COLTISHALL will also not be able to handle the other sites under consideration: GNLP0265, GNLP2072, GNLP1056.

Overdevelopment will be bad for the 'country' tranquillity of COLTISHALL and have an effect on its tourist attractions.

I appreciate the council has to find sites for necessary housing but I believe the development must be strictly limited to take into account the fears of the residents.