GNLP2072

Access off Church St would be very dangerous . Trees in area protected . This additional housing alongside the other proposed developments to this village will have bad impact on road ,school and doctors capacities which are already at breaking point

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.-

After considering the recent application for housing off of church street and looking at the impact to the structure of the village I would like to formally object.
The proximity to a grade 2 listed house is troublesome, the removal of some mature trees is also problematic and would change the look of the road significantly.
The proposed position has limited access to church street on a dangerous blind corner that thins at that point and it difficult to navigate at the best of times without the additional traffic this proposal brings.The additional housing will be extra strain on the already busy school and local amenities.

How can I access the full plans for these sites so that they can be considered fully?

Coltishall is also located on the broads estate and as such should receive extra consideration when it comes to significantly changing the shape and look of the village.

I live on Church street and have only become aware of this application through the EDP website so I do not feel I have had sufficient time to consider the application can we ask for extended time to discus with our parish council.

I think this application is absolutely shocking. On reading the report, it states 'none' under section 7f environmental concerns. This is a complete falsehood and a withholding of important information. I live in one of the properties on Church Street - number 11, which backs directly on to the proposed site. We are in a conservation area, and have many mature trees which are all protected by TPOs. The wildlife use this area of the broads village as a sanctuary, and we have bats, owls, birds of prey including buzzards and falcons, and many smaller birds as well as squirrels, foxes and deer. Developing on this site would eliminate an important wildlife habitat completely and goes against the point of having a conservation area or TPOs in the first place. I am beyond shocked that this information is missing from the application. We strongly object. As well as environmental concerns, we feel a development of this scale in the centre of the village would seriously damage the character of the pretty broads village, adding to the already busy road with the additional traffic, as well as the associated noise. Installation of services would also be a concern starting from scratch into old drains and the river with associated environmental impact. The report mentions the Grade 2* listing of our neighbours (not Grade 2 as stated in the report) - our property is also grade 2 listed and the access route is in the curtilage of the listed wall around the site. We are also aware via advice from local historians that the raised site at the top of the hill is of historical importance - as the most raised point in the village, it has always been used by residents as an important lookout over the village and towards Norwich, and in ancient times as a sacred place. The previous owner has found coins of historical interest on the site before. Surely it is better to regenerate the many derelict farm sites and other brown field locations than to develop on untouched green field land? Finally, section 7b typography - the access route is up a significant incline and it has never been used before for vehicles. In fact it is currently TPO mature woodland. 7c, there is asbestos on site. Clearly more factual inaccuracies in the application. Again, I am shocked and strongly object.

I strongly object to this proposal due to its busy access, over-stretched services and constraints including TPO trees, townscape, landscape and ecological impacts. Of particular concern is that there are a number of factual inaccuracies in the application which make it misleading.

* 4a Land uses. Should include that is has been used traditionally as pastureland for grazing.
* 5d states "this site is, currently, unable to offer the Local Area anything", should be followed by [apart from being the highest vantage point for miles around, providing peace, wildlife and contributing greatly to the special character of this beautiful, popular village]
* 7a Access to the site. The access road is busy with few, if any, vehicles adhering to the 20 mph speed limit, which would create a dangerous junction for access/egress.
* 7b Typography. The application states that the "access point has been passed by vehicles for decades". This is untrue. The access route is actually up a significant incline and it has never been used before for vehicles, currently blocked by TPO mature woodland.
* 7c Contamination. There is asbestos on site.
* 7f environmental concerns, stated as "None". This is factually incorrect. Living next to this area I can vouch first hand on a wealth of wildlife in the area. Sitings of bats, barn owls, birds of prey (buzzards, falcons) small birds, squirrels, foxes and deer.
* 7f environmental concerns, the area contains a vast number of mature trees in the vicinity, protected by Tree Protection Orders (TPO's) and is a Conservation area. Development of this land would be to the detriment of the area as a whole and would lose its unique rural, country, quiet feel of this unspoilt, characterful, village which is enjoyed by so many people locally as well as visitors and tourists.
* 7g Listed Buildings. There are a number of Listed buildings which are not mentioned in the application. Such as (Grade 2 or higher) Church Street numbers 7, 9, 11, 15 and 17. The proposed development would inevitably devalue these properties and ruin the unique feel of the village. The proposed access route would require demolition of a wall which is the curtilage of the Grade 2* Listed Old House. We are also aware via advice from local historians that the raised site at the top of the hill is of ancient historical importance - as the most raised point in the village, it has always been used by residents as an important lookout over the village and towards Norwich, and in ancient times as a sacred place. In fact, the owner of the land, Roger Bradbury (an antiques dealer), has stated that antique coins and artifacts have been and are likely to be found this specific site. Again, it is a concern that this has been missed off the application.
* 7i Existing Buildings. The existing sheds are made from asbestos and currently provide housing for owls and bats.
* 8a Utilities. All services would require significant upgrade for any development, in particular re-pressurising the water supply, drainage of grey/brown water, storm drains, electricity, gas, broadband.
* 10 Market interest. There has been market interest in retaining the land as pastureland for sheep or as paddocks for horses.

Accepting this large housing plan in small infill spaces would be crazy and not safe. The infurstruce of the village isn't able to cope with the additional housing to that level and it has no room for expansion. Traffic in/out of the village is unmanageable at peaks times and throughout the day going over the bridge, let alone adding another circa 30 plus cars to the area, this would be extremely dangerous.

Recognising housing targets need to be met there are more suitable sites on the outskirts I.e GNLP1056 which would divert traffic more evenly in the village.

Again I'm disgusted there are more plans submitted to develop on an already very heavily populated and busy village. This is a conservation area that should not be developed further. It's submission ignores the preservation order on the trees, the fact it's comservation area and again there has been no overt consultation with any of its residents. Request for further building on this village is born out of nothing but pure greed as the village is desirable. This development should be rejected without question as with all of the other plans for further additional houses in coltishall.

Again I'm disgusted there are more plans submitted to develop on an already very heavily populated and busy village. This is a conservation area that should not be developed further. It's submission ignores the preservation order on the trees, the fact it's comservation area and again there has been no overt consultation with any of its residents. Request for further building on this village is born out of nothing but pure greed as the village is desirable. This development should be rejected without question as with all of the other plans for further additional houses in coltishall.

Another plan for new housing in Coltishall goes under the radar as there is no consultation with the existing community and the process to object via this tool is so complicated it instantly excludes lots of the community. This is quite frankly outrageous. The village school, doctors and roads are at bursting point and can't take more people here. Most imprortantly this is a conservation area- numerous new housing schemes are all about financial gain. All housing plans and other housing plans in the village should be rejected. We don't need more cars, more houses and more pressure on services

The proposal states means of access from Church Street has "good visibility". This is untrue. Traffic approaches from right/village centre from a completely blind bend. Vehicles often mount kerb in this area in order to pass each other. Traffic in both directions along Church Street (and B1150, mentioned reference linking to proposed site 0265) dramatically increased in recent years - Church Street is busy thoroughfare, especially at peak-times. Additionally listed adjacent building has mature hedging and border walls which would impair visibility. This proposed access is dangerous.
Additionally I believe trees in this area are protected within Broadland Conservation Area.

I wish to raise a number of objections which are site specific as well as general for all the sites in Coltishall.
1. Access - This is placed as Green on the Suitability Assessment. I presume this assessment was made without a site visit. Access to Church Street would mean the destruction of mature trees which I believe have TPO's in place and are used by nesting birds. It would mean large amount of landscaping to build a service road to the site on a steep hill side currently stabilised by the mature trees whose destruction could destabilise the ground around and lead to soil erosion. Access would meet Church Street close to a bend where the street narrows and there is limited visibility. This would dramatically increase the likelihood of a road traffic accidents. In winter months the road is heavily used by 30 tonnes sugar beet lorries going to and from Cantley making access on and off the site even more dangerous.
2. Biodiversity and Geodiversity - This is a greenfield site of mostly unploughed pasture meadow and mixed woodland. There is an abundance of wildlife on the site including Deer, Fox, varies woodland and garden bird species including apex raptors such as barn owl, common buzzard, kestrel and sparrow hawk. This is an area of diverse biodiversity on the fringe of national park and close to a SSSI. The plan states "Where we have identified Greenfield sites for development, we will base our decision on evidence which will enable us to provide new green spaces, protect valuable sites, and protect our natural resources including minerals and water." There if this proposed greenfield site plan was given permission what new green space would be provided.
3.Objection to all sites in Coltishall. 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.

You cannot be serious allowing traffic access to church street.
The vision splay towards the village centre is restricted.
Church Close and other traffic/pedestrian points are very close.
The road narrows towards the village centre and there are no traffic speed signs leading into Church Street.
This is already a dangerous piece of road.

There is OPP for 30 new dwellings in the Service Village of Coltishall (COL 1) which already exceeds the 10 - 20 detailed in the Joint Core Strategy to 2026. The village highway infrastructure is presently inadequate for existing traffic which has increased by 30% since the NDR opened. Noise and pollution on small residential roads including Church Street has reached intolerable levels. There is no spare parking capacity for the inevitable overflow from any development. To suggest that this development could be accessed via Church Street is profoundly unsafe. The village is partially situated in a conservation area adjacent to the Broads which provides tourist income, so any development will not enhance the appeal of the environment to visitors and would have a negative economic effect on businesses that rely on tourism. Finally present Service infrastructure i.e. primary school and surgery would also be unable to realistically cope with any increase in load

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!

There are many inaccuracies in this application which I feel need to be considered carefully.
1) This site is not redundant with little use. It is regulary used for grazing and currently there are sheep upon the site now.
2) Huge Environmental concerns: The site has valuable conservation use. We border the area and have had a family of Muntjac deer, Pheasants,Kestrels, Buzzards, Barn Owls, Woodpeckers and Nut Hatches frequent our garden along with the many more common species. Their natural habitat will be taken from them and they will be displaced. These animals need protecting and preserving.
3) More importantly there are bats which liveon the site and are regularly flying over the field. I presume they live in the sheds on the field and these should be protected.
4) Trees. there are many old, mature trees on the site and bordering the area which it appears would need to be removed for development to commence. This is a travesty as I would expect these are/should be protected.
5) The area is elevated. Access would be difficult for building plant and materials. I think there is a serious concern re erosion.
6) Access: the plans propose access onto Church Street. The plans suggest that this would be easy access - this is incorrect. Access would be onto a busy road, very close to a bend and therefore the line of sight is restricted. I consider that this is a very unsafe place for traffic to be joining the road and I fully anticipate that there would be accidents should this plan be passed.
7) Village ammenities. The village is already under strain due to increasing residents. This has put pressure on local servies - the School is at capacity, the Doctors surgery always busy - not to mention sewage and water services.
8) I am concerned that previous planning applications for this site have been refused and there are valid reasons for this. Those circumstances have not changed - development would be damaging to the resident wildlife and detrimental to the village.

This proposed site has restrictive access. It's central location would add to an already congested central hub of Coltishall. The permanently restricted roadways are congested further by a narrow bridge carrying additional traffic from plentiful new housing in North Walsham.
The site overlooks bure valley and should remain a haven for birds and small wildlife, and is a great pollination area for bees which is ecologically important.
The undulations of the area suggests this to be a difficult area to utilise and access. To build here would impact on drainage locally, with worrying long term effects to the surrounding river basin.
The 'look' of Coltishall village will be affected as it is viewed approaching from Norwich, which impacts on the tourism aspect of our village. This Broads village must remain appealing to visitors and a congested village crammed with new housing does not promote the tranquil, riverside village effect that has made it so popular.
Build houses elsewhere, where schools and doctors surgeries are not already full. New housing is not wanted here in Coltishall!

I am very unhappy to read the proposal. The site is of natural beauty for wildlife. There are trees which need to remain for ecological reasons and to protect our local wildlife as it is a wildlife corridor. This area is a national and local asset.

Many locals are very unhappy about this proposal, I have encouraged them to go onto this site however I am concerned that many will not bother as they think the decision has been made. I live locally to this proposed site. The road cannot take anymore traffic.

Coltishall Village is full to capacity, and suffering from developments within its own boundaries as well as those carried out in Norwich and North Walsham. Traffic levels have increased enormously causing additional noise and air pollution. The primary school and GP Practice are also full to capacity. It is not possible to continue building more properties in a village without a large investment in the village infrastructure. The entrance to this proposed site is just beyond the 20mph limit and an extremely narrow piece of road. People visit the Broads for the peaceful environment that it offers, but developing the villages within them will destroy that environment and the tourist economy with it.

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

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.

This site is unsuitable for development. The access proposed is extremely dangerous on a bend and near to a junction. The pavement is already narrow on the bend and I have witnessed bigger vehicles mounting the pavement to pass each other and you have to be cautious as a pedestrian not to be clipped (this has happened) The village resources school, doctors are already stretched and the small village roads cannot cope with additional traffic in this bottleneck. Ecologically and for local wildlife totally detrimental, this area should be protected not destroyed.

Concern regarding increased demand on local services impacting on current residents. Increase in traffic/pollution.

I object to the planned development in Coltishall. The land is an important haven for wildlife which I feel should be preserved and nurtured. Since the NDR opened, the traffic through this village has worsened, the number of lorries and HGVs rumbling through the village has increased, turning right into the North Walsham Road is very slow as lorries get clogged up through the village as there is no room for them to pass each other, this is worse during harvest season. Extra construction vehicles would clog the village up completely. The school is full and the doctors surgery overflowing.

I object to this site being identified for future development for the following reasons:
1. Location of access point from Church Street is dangerous. This very narrow stretch of road is already dangerous for drivers, cyclist and pedestrians and increased turning traffic will make it worse. There is also a blind bend close by which will lead to accidents from traffic pulling out onto Church street. The path is very narrow and development will further endanger pedestrians.
2. The land currently supports a large and diverse ecosystem. There is a thriving owl and bat population on this land which would be destroyed if development were to proceed.
3. This land would be ideal as a community woodland/green space.

1.This development can not be allowed because of the poor access visibility.
2.The road is very dangerous as it is, without further complications.

Object on the grounds that another environmentally sensitive area will be destroyed on the edge of the Broads National Park. Access on and on and off the proposed site via Church Street would be perilous at any time as traffic regularly exceeds the 30mph limit, notwithstanding the 20mph limit applied to the width restricted bend just a few yards away. Another junction onto the already busy road would be a recipe for numerous accidents and near misses. There is very limited space for construction of a safe access on and off the proposed site whereby sight splays of dimensions found at the Kings Road junction would be required.

The Greater Norwich Plan seems to be hell bent on encouraging people to commute to their workplace as there is minimal work in the village. This proposal flies in the face of any environmental planning and the minimisation of green house gases now seriously threatening the world as a whole. Coltishall is small rural village note a satellite settlement for Norwich and should stay as such.

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.

The access to new site is on a dangerous stretch of road (narrow and blind bends). The proposals would make situation worse and increase risk of accidents with car users, pedestrians and cyclists.
Also the proposed site is supports a wide range of wildlife habitats, including very old trees, bats, owls and much more.

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.

Dear Sir or Madam,
Regarding plot GNLP2072 and its integral connection to GNLP 0264; this is an important green corridor through the village to the river Bure. It supports abundant wildlife including Bats, Buzzards and owls.
I represent an informal group of village conservationist, our posts about this development reached 2,757 people https://www.facebook.com/coltishallconservation/ The aerial views on this site really brings home what a huge change these developments will make to centuries of unique wild life establishment and a serious loss of visual amenity.
A view is developing that Jordan's Vehicle Yard was mistakenly described as 'brownfield' and then wrongly given outline planning for housing, this needs to be reversed (or prohibitively restricted) however difficult and properly seen as an important historical area of marl and clay excavations where virtually undisturbed for centuries, unique flora and fauna has evolved. If successful this area too should be included in the following village proposal.
Much is made in the GNLA of improving natural environment and green spaces. So I would like to propose a real opportunity for that. Efforts should be made to acquire these newly added sites as Public Amenity Land, rather than the proposed house building, their proximity and boundaries with the Village Community Centre field and school are ideal. Included; could be walks, a nature reserve a Broads Visitor Centre and car parking (4/5 minutes from the school and doctors thus avoiding the often congested Rectory Road at peak times)
It needs to be understood that as on private land with no road or footpath access, both these sites have rarely been visited even by villagers and are thus more in need of national planning protection. Site 2072 to the west is at the top of a glacial cliff with wonderful views over the High Street and the Bure Valley. Any planner making comment on these sites needs to visit in person with geological and wildlife surveys made prior to any decision making. A desktop report only, would be a travesty and let down the County.
Please consider this bold plan that enhances the strength of Coltishall, designed to attract more tourists and nature conservationists while bringing much needed cash flow to the County. Rather than this current proposal that destroys parts of our history, breaks conservation covenants and exposes our weakness of becoming a sleepy but dead dormitory village.
James R Matthews MSc Arch