Letter & Papers enclosed just to let you see relevance to proposed development site GNLP0512 and GNLP0512 and to back everything up I have put in my letter of which we greatly oppose.

Dear Sir
Firstly I am astonished at the lack of communications given to the good people of hainford in regard to proposed plans for property development in Lady Lane it is our human right that every home in our village should have been issued a letter and given the chance to have there say in this matter. This makes me wonder if this was deliberate so less people get to air there views. We are a very close-knit community. 1. the water table is very high and a building site covering a large area in concrete could and would have dramatic affect ie flooding even contamination. 2.Lady Lane is outside the settlement limits policy ROU9. 3.we have crested newts, adders, that are protected also muntjac deer that roam across to this land so they will be affected. 4.The large oak trees that canopy the road at Lady Lane are protected by T.P.O. order. So no digging permitted because of root disturbance canopy of trees determine distance of protected area which would be considerate area. 5.Drainage or lack of it along the road. Again T.P.O. would stop installation of deep drainage pipes. 6.Infrastrticture there in very few and would not sustain this huge increase of population ie tiny school no shops. 7.HOU9 states land can only be built on for farmworkers to live in when tending there land. 8. ENV2 policy states that consideration should be given to the appearance and treatment of spaces between and around building and the wider setting of development taking in the existing character of the surrounding policy GS3 also requires that the privacy and amenities of neighbours are adequately safeguarded. Policy ENVS protection of semi rurel features such as trees hedges were appropriate ie T.P.O. flanking Lady Lane and neighbouring property. we were told by Broadland District Council the land to our left would never be built on when we rebuilt trees (footings had gone) we were only allowed like for like governed roof height and floor area only one replacement property even though plot is an acre in size so would this mean the same would apply to these two large plots of land? a low small chaletbungalow per acre I some how dont think so you can not have one rule for us and another for large development sites traffic would be horrendous would never get out of our driveway refuge bins along the road hazardous no pathways accident waiting to happen the delicate balance of the village environment severely compromised. I believe there are pockets of land already earmarked ie Waterloo Road are for development of sustainable amount in place without destroying our farm land needed to feed our community we strongly object to this development and will all pull together to stop it.