QUESTION 128: Do you agree

Comment

Representation ID: 108

Received: 18/06/2021

Respondent: Mr Brian Frith

Comment submitted on behalf of Forncett Parish Council, who at their meeting on 17/06/21 agreed with the extent of the settlement boundary (so far as the parish of Forncett is concerned)

Comment

Representation ID: 570

Received: 22/07/2021

Respondent: Mrs Sarah Manning

Objection: The Form and Character summary of Tacolneston and Forncett End. The 'Post War' secondary development which includes part of the conservation area, is Tacolneston, the school/amenities are here. The main development (dormitory area), is having a detrimental impact on the Conservation area, major traffic/safeguarding concerns , vibration, parking, air quality, habitat, visual, traffic noise.
I object to the two site suggested on the plan, reason- Forncett End:-No pavement/ safe walk to school, Flooding concerns, road safety at school. Tacolneston- Road access, safety/traffic congestion, parking at access point B1113 daily, No pavements, developing green field not previously developed, waste drainage.

Object

Representation ID: 1156

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Magnus Magnusson

No, my client considers that the settlement boundary ought to be extended along the eastern side of the B1113 Norwich Road to encompass their site or part thereof.