QUESTION 145: Do you support

Object

Representation ID: 23

Received: 07/06/2021

Respondent: Mr Carl Ward

Same reasons as Q144

Summary: 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)

Support

Representation ID: 83

Received: 15/06/2021

Respondent: Mrs Laura Adam

This plot would finish the road off nicely with properties and wouldn’t over look anyone in the village. I think this would be a nice addition to the street

Support

Representation ID: 412

Received: 14/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Magnus Magnusson

My client agrees with the ‘use’ of site SN3002SL as constituting a settlement boundary extension to potentially facilitate an element of ‘windfall’ development in the future. My client would also be agreeable to the ‘allocation’ of their site within the context of the VCHAP. See Supporting Statement submitted alongside this response for further details.

Comment

Representation ID: 1015

Received: 31/07/2021

Respondent: Tivetshall St Margaret & Tivetshall St Mary Parish Council

Tivetshall Parish Council also supports the building of properties on this site but as above if at all possible they should provide starter homes and affordable housing for local parishioners and be in keeping with the layout of the village. This site is in the midst of two storey dwellings and the Parish Council is in support of similar height buildings on this site.

Support

Representation ID: 1788

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Mrs Rosalie Hill

Question 145 – I support site SN3002SL. This site is a natural continuation of existing development along the western side of The Street and mirrors development on the opposite side of the road.

Comment

Representation ID: 1985

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Water Management Alliance

See attachment for full response.
SN3002SL – Land south of Green Pastures, west of The Street, Tivetshall St Margaret
Outside the IDD boundary, within the Waveney, Lower Yare and Lothingland IDB watershed catchment.
Minor development – no further comments.

Comment

Representation ID: 2058

Received: 21/07/2021

Respondent: Historic England

Please see attachments for full response.
Site: SN3002SL, Land south of Green Pastures, west of The Street, Tivetshall St Margaret
There are no designated heritage assets on the site. There are two grade two listed buildings, Croft House and Croft Cottage to the south east of the site. Therefore, any development of this site has the potential to impact upon the significance of these heritage assets.
A heritage impact assessment of the site should be undertaken to assess the impact of the proposed development on the listed buildings and determine if allocation of this site is appropriate, and if it is what mitigation may be required. The findings of the HIA should inform whether the site is allocated and if it is, the policy criterion including any mitigation and enhancement.
Complete an HIA to inform the allocation of the site including any mitigation, enhancement and policy wording.

Comment

Representation ID: 2142

Received: 14/07/2021

Respondent: Norfolk County Council - LLFA

SN3002SL
See attachment for full comments
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: 2229

Received: 28/09/2021

Respondent: Norfolk County Council - Senior Ecologist

Amber - measures required - priority habitat onsite or proximity to SSSI (recreational impact concerns) and or buffer required
application site within curtilage of dwelling - bounded on three sides by hedge (priority habitat) - loss to be minimised and compensated for if allocated. MAGIC indicates presence of a small orchard onsite - which is a priority habitat - this would need to be verified but aerial images are suggestive of an orchard of maybe 11 trees (part of the vegetable garden). Site within amber zone for great crested newts. Application should demonstrate net biodiversity gain. Applications for planning consent should be accompanied by a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal/Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) (verify orchard against JNCC criteria) which, together with the mitigation hierarchy, should inform the design. Consideration should be given to delivering Biodiversity Net Gain.