GNLP2072

I cannot believe that this is a serious planning proposal. The proposed access point on Church Road is an incredibly dangerous piece of road and already callenging to cross for a pedestrian at a canter.It would instantly become an accident hot spot with the speed at which drivers heading to Wroxham round the bend just before Church Close.
On top of that, this is also a site with many mature trees and a haven for bats and owls.These are not the types of sites we should be destroying, but protecting.

Granting permission to construct 15 dwellings on this site would spoil the area and irrecoverably change the dynamic of the village for the worse. It would introduce extra traffic and put additional strains on local services such as the village school (already oversubscribed) and the health centre.

There is insufficient infrastructure in the village at the moment without adding to the problem.

I object on the grounds of access and infrastructure. The proposed access point is on a narrow bend (large vehicles often have to come to a complete standstill here when faced with a vehicle, even a car, coming in the other direction). This is therefore not a safe place for an access road. The village school is at capacity, the doctors surgery is over-subscribed, despite having recently been extended. There is usually a wait of at least 4 weeks for a non-urgent appointment with a GP.

See attached document

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.

Village infrastructure makes the village unsuitable for further development. The school and medical practice already operate at full capacity and with future development already planned in the village this problem will only become worse.

I am disconcerted to read that access to this site is regarded as having good road visibility. The site is located very close to a narrow stretch of road where LGVs and HGVs must travel down the middle of the road and is already a site of many near misses for traffic collisions. Adding an additional junction to this area will exacerbate the existing problems.

The proposal of this site is clearly to create additional access to the other sites already proposed. This large scale development of the village will seriously adversely impact the character of a Broads village and place an enormous strain on the infrastructure.

I feel these proposed plans will destroy an important wild life area and corridor and the interconnected sites should also not the built, but left as a 'green space' for the benefit of local residents and tourists.
Without prior plans to improve infrastructure, schools, roads and doctors, granting any form of outline planning permission would be irresponsible.
This particular site would also impair the visual amenity of a Grade two listed building.

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

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.

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.

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.

GNLP2019, 0388, 0265, 2072

I object to the above planning applications because :
Permission to build on these sites on top of the sites already given permission, would result in real problems with ROADS, INFRASTRUCTURE, SERVICES, none of which could support such a large increase in demand.
Rectory Road and the river bridge are of particular concern.
Also the character of the village would be totally changed and from being an attractive Broadland village it would become a busy suburb of Norwich.
I hope you will take these points into consideration.