GNLP0476R

Surface water, over development, increase of traffic.

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.

The Parish Council is pleased to note that, despite being reduced by 5.67 ha to 23.67 ha, it is considered unsuitable. The Parish Council remains opposed to development and in addition to the objections noted in our previous response also due to the following:
- Isolation by geography and use. Any residential development of this site, including possible use for "holiday / staff accommodation for Barnham Broom Golf and Country Club" would be isolated from the rest of the village both by geography and use, and contribute nothing to community cohesion. Its distance and remoteness from Barnham Broom Golf & Country Club would also 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, (which is much shorter than the A47 Bypass) 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.