Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy

Re: POLICY GNLP2019, Land at Rectory Road and south of the Bure Valley Railway, Coltishall (approx. 1.43 ha) is allocated for residential development.
We object strongly to the Proposal to bring Greenfield site GNLP2019 as the preferred option for a housing estate.
We question the accuracy and validity of the GNLP background documents concerning Coltishall as they hold many misconceptions. Firstly, we do not have good transport links as stated. We have a skeleton bus service of one-hour intervals between North Walsham and Norwich only. This service ends just after 6pm from Norwich and is rarely used by commuters due to practical considerations. We have no public transport provision to our nearest Town, Supermarket and Rail Station in Hoveton and Wroxham. Recently a parishioner enquired about a hop on bus service but this does not exist. Our School has reached its capacity intake, a similar situation applies to the Health Practice, both will struggle with a large rise in residents as no plans have been developed to further fund these institutions.
The proposed sites as you have mentioned yourselves will cause chaos in Rectory Road. This is a small residential road which is already problematic at peak time due to vehicles attending the School and Health Practice. We fail to see how this can be addressed without a huge alteration to the streetscape damaging the feel and safety aspect of the village in this designated conservation area.
We have questions too about how Crocus Homes seemed to have prior knowledge of your intentions regarding showing The Parish Council detailed drawings of development on this site. We can see that without Crocus Homes cooperation the proposed site would be landlocked.
On a wider Issue, in the light of the landmark ruling regarding Heathrow Airport expansion, ruling it illegal as it failed to consider Climate changing issues and adherence to CO2 emission as agreed in the Paris agreement, this has thus been proved a legally binding commitment. No such assessment has been made for the Village Clusters and until this is drawn up and considered against sites nearer employment and public transport, we call for these proposals to be dropped.
Our final question at this stage; numerous letters of complaint have been sent to the Monitoring Officer at Broadlands District Council demanding the Chair of the Greater Norwich Development Partnership Board (consultants for the GNLP), Cllr Shaun Vincent, step down immediately given his conflict of interests as a developer himself and having his own consultancy company advising on planning matters. I have read S28 and 29 of the Localism Act 2011 and my understanding is that Cllr Vincent should have no involvement in the selection process. How is this situation being managed and does it not now put a question mark on why certain sites have been preferred over others and more widely the validity of the whole GNLP.

Re: POLICY GNLP2019, Land at Rectory Road and south of the Bure Valley Railway, Coltishall (approx. 1.43 ha) is allocated for residential development.
We object strongly to the Proposal to bring Greenfield site GNLP2019 as the preferred option for a housing estate.
We question the accuracy and validity of the GNLP background documents concerning Coltishall as they hold many misconceptions. Firstly, we do not have good transport links as stated. We have a skeleton bus service of one-hour intervals between North Walsham and Norwich only. This service ends just after 6pm from Norwich and is rarely used by commuters due to practical considerations. We have no public transport provision to our nearest Town, Supermarket and Rail Station in Hoveton and Wroxham. Recently a parishioner enquired about a hop on bus service but this does not exist. Our School has reached its capacity intake, a similar situation applies to the Health Practice, both will struggle with a large rise in residents as no plans have been developed to further fund these institutions.
The proposed sites as you have mentioned yourselves will cause chaos in Rectory Road. This is a small residential road which is already problematic at peak time due to vehicles attending the School and Health Practice. We fail to see how this can be addressed without a huge alteration to the streetscape damaging the feel and safety aspect of the village in this designated conservation area.
We have questions too about how Crocus Homes seemed to have prior knowledge of your intentions regarding showing The Parish Council detailed drawings of development on this site. We can see that without Crocus Homes cooperation the proposed site would be landlocked.
On a wider Issue, in the light of the landmark ruling regarding Heathrow Airport expansion, ruling it illegal as it failed to consider Climate changing issues and adherence to CO2 emission as agreed in the Paris agreement, this has thus been proved a legally binding commitment. No such assessment has been made for the Village Clusters and until this is drawn up and considered against sites nearer employment and public transport, we call for these proposals to be dropped.
Our final question at this stage; numerous letters of complaint have been sent to the Monitoring Officer at Broadlands District Council demanding the Chair of the Greater Norwich Development Partnership Board (consultants for the GNLP), Cllr Shaun Vincent, step down immediately given his conflict of interests as a developer himself and having his own consultancy company advising on planning matters. I have read S28 and 29 of the Localism Act 2011 and my understanding is that Cllr Vincent should have no involvement in the selection process. How is this situation being managed and does it not now put a question mark on why certain sites have been preferred over others and more widely the validity of the whole GNLP.