New, Revised and Small Sites

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.

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.