QUESTION 143: Do you agree

Support

Representation ID: 22

Received: 07/06/2021

Respondent: Mr Carl Ward

.

Object

Representation ID: 227

Received: 29/06/2021

Respondent: Mr Magnus Magnusson

My client is of the opinion that the settlement boundary ought to be extended to encompass their site, either ‘option A’ or ‘option B’. Either option would constitute a logical extension to the existing settlement boundary. The settlement boundary could be further extended along the eastern site of The Street to accommodate not only my client’s site but existing development (built form) to the south of my client’s site and potentially including the Grade II Listed Croft Cottage.

Support

Representation ID: 411

Received: 14/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Magnus Magnusson

My client agrees with the proposed extension of the settlement boundary to encompass their site SN3002SL (0.18 hectares) for the reasons outlined within the Supporting Statement that accompanies this response. Indeed, site SN3002SL is ‘suitable’, ‘available’ and ‘achievable’ for allocation and/or a settlement boundary extension within the context of the VCHAP.

Furthermore, the selection of my client’s site as a ‘preferred option’ in the consultation draft document is appropriately evidenced within the context of (among other) the HELAA and Interim SA/SEA processes. See Supporting Statement submitted alongside this response for further details.

Comment

Representation ID: 1017

Received: 31/07/2021

Respondent: Tivetshall St Margaret & Tivetshall St Mary Parish Council

we cannot provide a summary in 100 words words please see comments above

Object

Representation ID: 1786

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Mrs Rosalie Hill

I object to the changes proposed to the settlement limit to incorporate SN0319 because it is not in keeping with the linear form of housing within the villages.