QUESTION 144: Do you support

Object

Representation ID: 21

Received: 07/06/2021

Respondent: Mr Carl Ward

Tivetshall is not suitable for increased traffic; soil is unsuitable, requiring larger foundations and resulting environmental impact; parents/children and horses use the main road through village; impact to local school and GPs; local amenities (shop, etc.) do not exist; bus services are intermittent; environmental and health impacts; affects to wildlife, including protected species; water, sewerage & drainage systems inadequate to support extra housing; flood risk; what green spaces will be incorporated; land is contaminated (South Norfolk Environmental Services already aware)

Object

Representation ID: 32

Received: 07/06/2021

Respondent: Mrs Nicola Boast

Could potentially affect value of my property.

Will affect our privacy.

Could affect my business which is located at the bottom of my garden.

Object

Representation ID: 82

Received: 15/06/2021

Respondent: Mrs Laura Adam

All the houses are bungalows and no other houses have other properties right behind them in the village. I’m happy with mill lane being finished along the road but NOT behind my property its what makes tivetshall so lovely not being over looked. I have small children and don’t want to be over looked

Comment

Representation ID: 1016

Received: 31/07/2021

Respondent: Tivetshall St Margaret & Tivetshall St Mary Parish Council

its impossible to do this

Object

Representation ID: 1787

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Mrs Rosalie Hill

I object to the preferred site SN0319. The number of proposed dwellings is not in keeping with the rural nature of the villages, other newer developments have been much smaller and followed the linear style of building. A development of 25 dwellings would nearly double the number of properties along The Street and the number of cars would significantly increase, making it less safe for pedestrians walking along relatively narrow roads with no footpaths. A development of this size would impact on the bungalows immediately adjacent to the proposed site.
It is well known in the village that properties in The Street suffer from low water pressure, with noticeable dips in pressure each time a property has been built. This would need to be addressed.

Comment

Representation ID: 1984

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Water Management Alliance

See attachment for full response.
SN0319 – Pear Tree Farm, West of The Street, Tivetshall St Margaret
Outside the IDD boundary, within the Waveney, Lower Yare and Lothingland IDB watershed catchment.
Major development - If surface water discharges within the watershed catchment of the Board's IDD, we request that this discharge is facilitated in line with the Non-statutory technical standards for sustainable drainage systems (SuDS).

Comment

Representation ID: 2082

Received: 14/07/2021

Respondent: Norfolk County Council - LLFA

See attachments for full response.
Few or no constraints. Standard information required at a planning stage.
"1.] At risk of surface water flooding?: No
* 3.33% AEP Event [Extent]: No flooding present
* 3.33% AEP Event [Depth]: No flooding present.
* 1.0% AEP Event [Extent]: No flooding present
* 1.0% AEP Event [Depth]: No flooding present.
* 0.1% AEP Event [Extent]: No flooding present
* 0.1% AEP Event [Depth]: No flooding present.
2.] Internal & external flooding?:
* On-site: No
* Within proximity to site (~500.00m): No
3.] Watercourses [Online ordinary watercourses or mains rivers]?:
* On-site: No
* Within proximity to site (~100.00m): No
4.] Surface water sewer systems?:
* On-site: No
* Within proximity to site (~100.00m): No
5.] Source Protection Zone?: Source Protection Zone 3
6.] Internal Drainage Board?: No IDB referenced
7.] The site predominantly has superficial deposits of DIAMICTON. Comments on infiltration potential are dependent on a complete geotechnical investigation, including BRE365 Soakaway Testing. Where possible, surface water infiltration should be utilised."
Assessment: Green

Comment

Representation ID: 2228

Received: 28/09/2021

Respondent: Norfolk County Council - Senior Ecologist

Green no major ecological constraints identified from desk-top search. Surveys, and biodiversity enhancement in accordance with policy required.
rough grassland bounded on two sized by dwellings. Peartree farm on southern boundary. No other priority habitats identified onsite but adjacent too (see MAGIC). Site mostly in amber habitat zones for great crested newts. Site in SSSI IRZ, but residential development doesn't trigger consultation with Natural England. Applications for planning consent should be accompanied by a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal/Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) which, together with the mitigation hierarchy, should inform the design. Consideration should be given to delivering Biodiversity Net Gain.