QUESTION 146: Do you think

Object

Representation ID: 24

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)

Comment

Representation ID: 228

Received: 29/06/2021

Respondent: Mr Magnus Magnusson

My client considers that their ‘rejected’ site (SN3006) should be allocated instead of, or at the very least, in addition to, currently preferred site SN0319. Indeed, it is their view that their site (options A or B) is inherently more suitable (sustainable) than site SN0319 for the reasons outlined within the Supporting Statement that accompanies this submission.

Comment

Representation ID: 413

Received: 14/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Magnus Magnusson

My client does not consider that any site should be considered as an allocation and/or inclusion within the settlement boundary instead of theirs. The selection of their site as a ‘preferred option’ is based on appropriate evidence. See Supporting Statement submitted alongside this response for further details.

Comment

Representation ID: 1014

Received: 31/07/2021

Respondent: Tivetshall St Margaret & Tivetshall St Mary Parish Council

file attached

Comment

Representation ID: 1592

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Durrants

Tivetshall St Margaret – SN2103, Land North of School Road
We believe the site SN2103 should be considered as a preferred site or a settlement limit extension as it is better positioned within the overall settlement of the village for development compared to site SN0318/SN0319. Site SN2103 is located close to the school, village hall and other facilities and is well related to the existing settlement. Landscape mitigation can be put in place to the east.

Comment

Representation ID: 1789

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Mrs Rosalie Hill

My view is that shortlisted sites SN0318 and SN2103 should be allocated instead of site SN0319. These two sites would still meet the allocation for the parish of 25 dwellings, whilst being smaller developments. Having two sites in different parts of the village would result in the extra traffic using varying routes in and out of the village.
The shortlisted site of SN0318 for up to 10 dwellings is more in keeping with the size of previous developments and whilst it does not follow the existing linear pattern of development it would have far less impact on adjacent properties and the volume of traffic.
The shortlisted site SN2103 is in close proximity to the school and would allow easy pedestrian access to the school along paved roads.
I agree with the rejected sites.

Comment

Representation ID: 2093

Received: 14/07/2021

Respondent: Norfolk County Council - LLFA

See attachment for full details
SN2103

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): Yes|Ordinary Watercourse
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: 2104

Received: 14/07/2021

Respondent: Norfolk County Council - LLFA

SN0318
See attachment for full details.
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: 2230

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.
SN3018 - Smaller part of SN0319. 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.


Green no major ecological constraints identified from desk-top search. Surveys, and biodiversity enhancement in accordance with policy required.
SN2103 - Shortlisted for up to 15 dwellings on a site of 0.9 hectares. Site bounded partly by hedges (priority habitats) which would mostly need to be removed for access (Highways comments) - the loss should be minimised and compensated for onsite through creation of new hedges. No other priority habitats identified onsite but adjacent too (see MAGIC). Site in green 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.