We seek that the refusal for our application is overturned because the decision is unreasonable and the South Norfolk Village Housing Allocations Plan is UNSOUND

REF: SN5000SL
We would like to register our disappointment for our application of May 2021 being refused and, because our site has not been included, we consider the Village Housing Allocation Plan to be UNSOUND:
1) – "whilst the site has few immediate impacts, it proposes a Settlement Limit extension at a location where no Limit exists and there are currently no plans to designate one" and
2 ) "unsustainable because of the distance to local resources" (a mile away!)

We are an elderly couple "trapped" in a large house that could otherwise be released for a family. Suitable bungalows rarely come up for sale in our area. We cannot understand why this has been refused.
We plan a very small-scale, self-build, single development in a garden plot, well inside the exiting settlement limit, which already has services and is situated alongside a track (Rectory Loke) where there already is a precedent for residential dwellings - namely a large detached house and a bungalow built in an adjacent garden.
Our development would be highly-sustainable and built to good standards of insulation.
It would be unobtrusive in the landscape and the assessment made by South Norfolk Council of our application against criteria merits only "greens" and "ambers". All of the "ambers" can easily be met.
Furthermore we cannot fathom the planning system which grants permissions for, for example, a giant blot on the landscape - that of the massive, hideous-looking battery complex in Swardeston as part of the Hornsea windfarm project; awful office conversions in Norwich to residential, which have not required any planning permission. We also have recent examples of local residential buildings being granted planning which also do not meet the Settlement Limit criteria and distance to local resources.
Furthermore the Ketteringham Depot has been proposed as a potential Traveller's Site which is much further away from local services than East Carleton.
Regarding 2) the distance to local resources, clearly over a hundred households in East Carleton, including two large care homes, are already living with this constraint, (whatever difference it makes since almost, if not all, households own cars).
East Carleton also enjoys the benefit of a Flex Bus, supported by the local authority to help us access these local resources such as they are.
We seek that the refusal for our application is overturned because the decision is unreasonable and the South Norfolk Village Housing Allocations Plan is UNSOUND.