GNLP0475R

High House Farm Rd unsuitable for development,see previous rejection by Planning Inspectorate March 8th 2016.Narrow single track lane to BB Golf Club which is a mile away and has land there more suitable for proposed staff/holiday accomodation.
The proposed site could lead to approx 50 residential houses being built increasing the volume of traffic considerably in this poorly accessible small village.
No school or public transport apart from FlexiBus and 1 bus a week to Norwich
The site is outside the village boundary

Surface water, over development, increase of traffic.

GNLP Regulation 18 Consultation - New, Revised and Small Sites

Thank you for your email of 29 October seeking reaction to the latest stage in the development of the GNLP Plan. I have assumed that I have been approached as a "consultee" following my reaction to the consultation of January and March 2018, and the subsequent alterations outlined in your current report on page 91 - headed Marlingford and Colton.

I wish to confine my comments on this occasion to site GNLP0475R, where the application has been increased by 0.41h to 2.85h. How this increase has been achieved is unclear but it does give me the opportunity to outline again my opposition to this particular proposal. There is a danger that some of my following comments will appear to be a repeat of earlier comments but these are very important significant issues which should benefit from some additions and emphases.

Incidentally, it is heartening to see that some earlier objections re 0475R have been reflected in the present assessment. However, I wish to re-emphasise the special importance of particular matters. The "local road network capacity" is particularly relevant. The whole length of High House Farm Lane is totally inadequate for the additional traffic which would be generated in both directions by a development of GNLP0475R - potentially around 50 residences. Colton is a car-dominated hamlet. There is no public transport except Flexibus and a "once a week" short bus visit to Norwich, so any additional development is likely to generate a very difficult transport problem over and above the present in High House Farm Lane.

Your report also draws attention to "poor access to services" - there are only two in Colton, the public house and the village hall.

I must also re-emphasise the importance of the drainage problems. The several large ponds in the area of Norwich Road/High House Farm Lane are situated at the lowest point in Colton and are the receivers, via land drains, of virtually all of the drainage from the land making up the large area to the south of the hamlet leading up to the watershed overlooking the Yare valley. Development of GNLP0475 is bound to interfere with this important ecological feature.

I have already expressed my concern over the suggestion that "Residential development possibly including retirement and holiday/staff accommodation for Barnham Broom Golf and Country Club" would be possible for GNLP4075. This is a totally impracticable suggestion and appears to be designed to overcome potential criticism of the emergence of a housing estate at this location. It is still not made clear how the inadequate and extremely narrow Church Lane with its section of roadside high banks can be in any way improved and made practical to provide extra resource for a country club with large land resources well outside of the Parish of Colton and the boundaries of the GNLP.

It would be reasonable to expect that the Parish Plan for Marlingford and Colton would have some influence in the final decisions on the GNLP. The present Parish Plan reflects the response to the survey which led to its establishment; there is virtually unanimous opposition to any further development of the two villages for the reasons which have already been clearly identified. Limited infill development and some affordable housing are supported and some of the latter has already been provided. The significance of Grade 2 agricultural land in 0475R is well recognised and there are no obvious objections from parishioners to the expansion of the present horticultural greenhouse activities as this is regarded as reasonable development of the land. A clear contrast to housing.

Finally, a very relevant point. In bullet point No 2 in your email you make passing reference to the possibility of altering settlement boundaries to allow small scale developments to come forward. The boundaries on the south side of Colton are the subject of intense interest in the village. Both my wife and I have served as Chairs of the Parish Council over the forty years we have lived in Colton and we have been made aware in no uncertain terms of the attitudes of parishioners. These boundaries are of long standing historical record, were recently confirmed by South Norfolk District Council, and have been used by them to defeat planning applications and the recent appeal mentioned below. As things stand at the moment GNLP4075 lies outside of the boundary and would not be eligible for development. In considering this point it might be useful for you to re-examine the reaction of the Planning Inspectorate to an appeal re an application for development of a plot adjacent to the (then) Ugly Bug, dated 8 March 2016. I enclosed a copy of the Inspector, Stephen Normington's, report with my earlier comments. You will have noticed that he was very forceful in his support of the present settlement boundary.

Thank you for the opportunity to make these further comments.

Entirely unsuitable sites and unneeded. Norfolk already has much more land allocated for housing than it could possibly need up to 2036 and the most recent ONS statistics on household creation show a reduction of 51,000 households per year (210,000 to 159,000).
It would be irresponsible, therefore, for any local authority to encourage the 'land-banking' which would be the inevitable consequence of adoption of any additional sites, including all those in phase one (600, I believe) and the current phase of this Reg 18 consultation. No further sites should be allocated until the (vast) existing 'bank' has been fully used.

GNLP0424-relating to development on Marlingford Road
It will lead to increased through traffic in Marlingford, particularly on Church Lane and Mill Road/Bow Hill. This means more noise and air pollution and it will make it more dangerous to walk on the road, a big problem as I am blind and there are no pavements to walk on instead. Vehicles frequently exceed the speed limits in Marlingford and a recent community speed watch project failed to reduce this. Cars were frequently recorded driving 60-65mph in a 30mph zone. It is unnecessarily building up a rural area.

The Parish Council notes this site has been increased by 0.41ha to 2.85 ha, although the purpose and justification for this is not clear. M&CPC remains opposed to the proposed development of this site:
- Local road network capacity. The road network in and around Colton is wholly inadequate for such a development, particularly High House Farm Lane. With very limited public transport, the additional traffic generated by around 50 homes would cause enormous problems. In addition, Colton suffers from severe congestion whenever the nearby section of the A47 is blocked due to breakdowns or road traffic collisions. On several occasions there has been total gridlock when large vehicles have met similar coming from the opposite direction, with no possibility of passing on local narrow rural roads.
- Poor access to services. Colton has a pub and a village hall. For anything else, residents are obliged to travel elsewhere.
- Possible Alteration of settlement boundaries. There have been several attempts to alter or ignore Colton's long-established settlement boundaries. The most recent attempt was dismissed by the Planning Inspectorate in March 2016.
- Colton's Parish Plan. Colton's Parish Plan established practically unanimous opposition to any further development of the village for all of the reasons generally related to housing already identified in the Report. Limited infill within the current boundaries and some additional affordable housing (where some has already been provided) is seen as acceptable.
- Isolation by use. The possible use for "holiday / staff accommodation for Barnham Broom Golf and Country Club" would isolate this development from the rest of the village and contribute nothing to community cohesion. Its distance and remoteness from Barnham Broom Golf & Country Club would necessitate many car journeys, adding to the congestion on narrow rural roads.

As a Carer it has become increasingly dangerous to walk with another person the triangle of Mill Road, Church Road and Barford Road in Marlingford. There are no footpaths, (just banks and hedges full of holly, brambles and nettles). These country roads were not designed to take artic lorries and 3.5t vans. I suffer from bronchiectesis and the exhaust fumes polluting the air exacerbate it. The volume of traffic cutting through our village, the noise and greenhouse gases will again increase, whereas I thought we were meant to be reducing the latter.

GNLP0475R (Paragraph 5.52 - Settlement Summary Updates - Marlingford & Colton

The text implies that it is the intention that the site be developed for open market housing and thus 'concludes' it to be unsustainable. You should be aware - and your assessment premised on such - that the proposal is for affordable homes/Golf and Country Club staff accommodation. And only limited market housing should viability dictate. We might also explore opportunities for an Entry Level Exception site (Paragraph 71 of the NPPF).

The site is presently 2.85h but it is not intended that all of this be developed. The site size represents the available land and we are open to discussion about how this could be allocated/developed. It might represent a small/medium site (less than 1 hectare) in accordance with paragraph 68 of the NPPF - together with some land for local open space/recreational use.

Please also note that it to the south of Colton, and not north as indicated in the text.

Please refer to my letters of 27 June 2017, 31 July 2017 and 12 March 2018 attached (not all of which - I note - are included in your database), which clarify this and explain in more detail the potential form of development.

Please avoid generalised assessments based on simply looking at a site plan, without properly reviewing the supporting representations, which explains in more detail the intended form/type of development.

We would nevertheless welcome the opportunity to discuss and elaborate further ahead of the Council/s preparing a Draft Plan.


GNLP0476R (Paragraph 5.52 - Settlement Summary Updates - Marlingford & Colton:

The text implies that it is the intention that the site be developed for open market housing and thus 'concludes' it to be unsustainable. You should be aware - and your assessment premised on such - that the proposal is for retirement/holiday home 'village' physically and functionally related to the established Hotel, Golf and Country Club (G&CC) as well as the existing Holiday Apartment complex, together with its other facilities. And only limited market housing should viability dictate.

Granted, it is not an existing settlement but its comprehensive/related services and utilities (including electricity, water and sewage) already exist there and serve to make this far more sustainable than the cursory assessment implies. Current road network capacity constraint can only be regarded as applying to part of Colton Lane, which would in any event be upgraded, with direct access to Honingham Road and beyond. The topography would preclude risk of flooding.

Please refer to my letters of 27 June 2017, 31 July 2017 and 12 March 2018 (not all of which - I note - are included in your database), which clarify this and explain in more detail the potential form of development.

Please avoid generalised assessments based on simply looking at a site plan, without properly reviewing the supporting representations, which explains in more detail the intended form/type of development.

We would nevertheless welcome the opportunity to discuss and elaborate further ahead of the Council/s preparing a Draft Plan.