29.16

Object

Representation ID: 2717

Received: 05/03/2023

Respondent: Ms Joanne Norris

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

The size of the area is larger than National Policy A7 and the location of the site would destroy the visual beauty of the rolling hill landscape. It also does not meet Objective 3 - Protect the character of villages and their settings.

Object

Representation ID: 2736

Received: 05/03/2023

Respondent: mr johnny fincham

Legally compliant? No

Sound? Yes

Duty to co-operate? Yes

21 houses already built opposite the site and only finished 2 years ago. The village boundary would be breached and there is no other area in the line of houses which stretch for over a mile where there are open views of the river valley. This would be destroyed by the current plan. Eel Catcher close would be enclosed by houses on three sides and a busy road on the other side. No consideration has been given to the impact on the wildlife, heritage, convenants on the land, nor the flood plain issues where run off flood water.

Object

Representation ID: 2793

Received: 06/03/2023

Respondent: Mr david easto

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Only open view with footpaths and land would vanish for villagers use. The area has been refused planning permission before this as it's protected. There is no precedent for housing in this area. The barn which is an ancient building has a covenant that protects the land behind eel catcher sloe. Any buildings behind eel catcher would mean they were the only buildings in the village with no open access behind them. The run off for heavy rain already floods down the hill into the Yare at the bottom where Rockland Dyke is situated.

Object

Representation ID: 2988

Received: 08/03/2023

Respondent: Rockland St Mary With Hellington Parish Council

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The revised single scheme of 1.47ha is more than the 1ha advised for small and medium villages.