29.19

Object

Representation ID: 2688

Received: 04/03/2023

Respondent: Mrs Tamlyn Francis

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The site would encroach on the wildlife using the ancient hedges and trees as their thoroughfare.

Object

Representation ID: 2890

Received: 07/03/2023

Respondent: Sheila Axworthy

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

This development would not be visually contained for the residents of School Lane and St Marys Close. The Lane is not a back fill but a histical part of the village leading to the school and the church. All the properties on the Lane many of them part of the village heritage were built onto a field with field views. This would be lost and the plan of the village and the historical relocation of the street would be lost.

Object

Representation ID: 2992

Received: 08/03/2023

Respondent: Rockland St Mary With Hellington Parish Council

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Concerns have been raised regarding the extent of research undertaken to find out the ecological impacts in the event this site is approved for development.
There is a listed traditional Thatched house building on School Lane.

Object

Representation ID: 3015

Received: 08/03/2023

Respondent: mr Christopher Tusting

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The site and its boundaries provide valuable habitats to a number of species. Any development would decrease this biodiversity (conflicts with NPPF 179). The site is situated on the side of a valley with any water runoff due to development draining into Hellington Low Common and beck, an area of even greater biodiversity and a Norfolk Wildlife Trust county wildlife site. I notice the NWT support the proposal (re hedge, boundary and tree protection proposals) but question whether they have considered the site position relative to one of their county wildlife sites.